 EvilPoet says: Gee - that sounds familiar. You fundies can try and catapult the propaganda all you like. The fact of the matter is America is not a Christian Nation. Deal with it. If you say so. Is the US a Chritian nation? No it isn't. But people can use their religion when deciding how to vote. Even a politician says, "God bless you". US will stay christian country until it sounds strange, imo. I believe our national government was built on Biblical principles and that the majority of those who fashioned it were believers in the Judeo-Christian God. That being said, the foundations have been corrupted and shifted towards a secular and atheist worldview. So, no, I do not view America as a Christian Nation. However, Christians can still have a positive influence and impact on it's government; as is their Biblical mandate. That being said, the foundations have been corrupted and shifted towards a secular and atheist worldview.So if people don't see it your way then they are corrupt. And what is wrong with securalism. In a secular world you can practice any religion without worry of goverment intervention or outside imposition. I would think that many churches would embrace that, and in fact many have. In a secular world you can practice any religion without worry of goverment intervention or outside imposition.Wrong ! In a secular nation, you have one that is opposed to religion, although perhaps tolerant. In America we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. We have separation of Church and State, not domination of Chruch by the State. Anyone neutral in this view would accept the status quo in America where secularists and those of faith are free to believe what they want without any interference from the state whatsoever. A secular government would by definition interfere. For example, it could tax, regulate, establish laws with respect to religion, and... For example, it could tax, regulate, establish laws with respect to religion, and...All governments can do that, especially religious governments that seek to protect the state franchise. I think that your confusing a scientific socialist government, one that would ban religion outright (and fail miserably). Simply put a secular government draws its power from temporal sources, in the case of a democracy from the will of the people, and does not infer power or authority from a higher power. The fact is that the U.S. government is a secular government, because it's authority is based on "We the People" (most of the people anyway) and not a higher power. By definition, l... Main Entry: sec·u·lar·ismDo you have any idea what indifference means. If our government were indifferent, we would not have the 1st amendment, nor would it have been THE FIRST AMENDMENT. It appears you need to look up the definitions of words in the definitions. You made my point without realizing it. Thanks. The height of your refusal of reason and facts is troubling. There is no discourse to be had with people like you. I think back to the wasted days of when I thought I knew it all and realize reason as futile, as it was with me in my ignorant haze of youth. You mean this definition? Main Entry: in·dif·fer·ent Pronunciation: in-'di-f&rnt, -f(&  r&ntFunction: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin indifferent-, indifferens, from in- + different-, differens, present participle of differre to be different -- more at DIFFER 1 : marked by impartiality : UNBIASED 2 a : that does not matter one way or the other b : of no importance or value one way or the other 3 a : marked by no special liking for or dislike of something <indifferent about which task he was given> b : marked by a lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern for something : APATHETIC <indifferent to suffering and poverty> 4 : being neith... In fact the Constitution rejects religious considerations when it comes to who holds office: "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Thus the Constitution rejects religion as a marker to hold higher office, and rejects the role of government to regulate religion thus: Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grie... Yes - that definition. However, your inability to grasp the concept is a different matter entirely. It appears you are entirely incapable. You keep making my point without realizing it. It appears you do not understand the argument. Nor can you comprehend the definition you pasted. Is english your primary language? In a secular nation, you have one that is opposed to religion, although perhaps tolerant. In America we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. We have separation of Church and State, not domination of Chruch by the State. Anyone neutral in this view would accept the status quo in America where secularists and those of faith are free to believe what they want without any interference from the state whatsoever. A secular government would by definition interfere. For example, it could tax, regulate, establish laws with respect to religion, and impose thought. If our government were indifferent, we would not have the 1st amendment, nor would it have been THE FIRST AMENDMENT. If ... Oh I see my inability to accept your take on the argument makes me ignorant somehow, and you ask me for a definition I have you a definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, I could pull the Oxford dictionary out if you want me to. Your argument is that a secular government would be, by definition, be hostile to religion, to which I countered that it need not be so and that historically, governments that have embraced religion (a particular form of religion) are more likely to be hostile to religion. As for the First Amendment, it was written in consideration of the people's right to express religion, while keeping the government out of religious matters. Do not confuse neutrality wi... Also, do yourself a favor and read the original clip, I am merely putting facts behind the above statements made by that author. And you have plenty of secular governments out there (half of Europe is secular , the other have half have distinct religious aspects). You should bone up on European history and how it impacted the thinking of the Founding Fathers. The Thirty Years War would be a good place to start. for a definition I have you a definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary,I happen to agree with the definition as it supports my argument. That was not the point and once again you fail to connect with reason. ignorant - your word and once again proof you do not deal with facts, only perceptions - not ideas, but feelings. My guess is that is you have a problem with logic, you state that a secular government would be both tolerant and hostile? That makes no sense, it would be one or the other, but not both. My argument is that it would NOT be hostile, because it is tolerant and does not show a particular biased. At best number 3 would be closets to your position, but the other definitions clearly show that most people thing of indifference as simply not caring. Again there is a marked difference between what rights are protected and the power, means and goals of a government. The government of the United States of America does not object to or condone a religion and expressly is prohibited from doing so, th... Show me the fact, sir, so that we may examine them together. Besides, are you saying that in the United States, as you say "we do not have freedom from religion" thus Americans are obligated to worship? Do you have to sit on a pew every Sunday or kneel six times a day or fast and do nothing from Friday afternoon to Midnight on Sunday? My good fellow, please do not accuse me of ignorance when it appears that it is you who grows red in the face when challenged. My guess is that is you have a problem with logic, you state that a secular government would be both tolerant and hostile?I do not remember using the word hostile. If I did, that indeed is incorrect. secular and separated are however opposed. There can be no true freedom of religion in a secular state. As you pointed out earlier a secular state is indifferent, Therefore, not interested in the protection of religion. It places secularism above religion. If the state and secularism are above religion, they are not separated. Religion would be subject to the state. However, I am spinning my wheels. I think there is enough here for us both to think about. Good discussion, sorry if I offended you. My good fellow, please do not accuse me of ignorance when it appears that it is you who grows red in the face when challenged.very telling, indeed. Besides, are you saying that in the United States, as you say "we doI have said nothing of the sort. Perhaps your position is more sad than I suspected. You did say "we do not have freedom from religion". Here is the exact quote: In America we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religionSo if I am not free from religion, am I obligated to worship? So if I am not free from religion, am I obligated to worship?If you were obligated to worship you would not have freedom of religion. simple facts, logic, and semantics ratilfar. You have to reconcile them for yourself. You keep attempting to parse and confuse. This is an enemy of debate. I recognize you are smart enough to know that. In a secular world you can practice any religion without worry ofThis is the topic. The Soviet Union was secular. The Soviet Union was a socialist state, which was built on the foundations of scientific socialism by a two men Engels and Marx who where hostile to religion thus they and their ideological descendants tried and failed to substitute their seemly well meaning but flawed philosophy with the place within society once occupied by religion. Today's Russia is very much a secular state, and the Church has seen a reawakening. Japan in a secular state (the divinity of the Emperor was reject by the post-World War Constitution), France is a secular state, and while current governments have interpreted that as license to pressure religious groups, I see this an aberration rather than a natural outflow o... Wilhelm, you sound confused. You state that "freedom of religion" does not mean freedom from religion" But then you state that if one was obligated to worship then they would not have freedom of religion. This is not true. If one were obligated to worship then the truth of the matter is that they would not have freedom FROM religion. Njoelhickson, You are the on confused. I stated: "freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion" and it is true that " if one was obligated to worship then they would not have freedom of religion". That is so obvious as to not even require explanation. Then you stated that: If one were obligated to worship then the truth of the matter is that they would not have freedom FROM religion.which I agree with and supports my point. The United States has always had at it's very basis the freedom to worship anyway an individual so chose. For that very purpose the first settlers left Europe and came here. Witches, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormon's, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews have always had the protected privilege of freely practicing the religion (or lack thereof) of their choice *without* government interference. Religious tolerance has been a hallmark of the United States. Within the last 60 yrs., that has begun to change. Tell that to the Mormons, and the Native Americans. True that for the most part religious tolerance has been a part of American culture, but why do you say that its has change in the last 60 years? What has changed? What has changed?The fact we even have to debate the fact that America is not a secular nation for one thing. Intolerance has many forms. Excuse me? So the fact that we are discussing something makes it so? And have I shown intolerance? I really don't care for any particular religion, as a Catholic I am a live and let live kind of guy and the last thing I want is religion institutions meddling in governmental affairs or government favoring one religion or sect over another. So the fact that we are discussing something makes it so?Yes, the idea the US is a secular nation is pure idiocy. I doubt the question would even be considered sane 10-15 years ago. There has been a stark and vitriolic attack against religion in recent years. To have to have this discussion is indicative of the ignorace that has been thrust on society. There lies your folly. You question the debate, I invite it. Because people thought that the question irrelevant at some point in the past does not make it so today. Furthermore, this discussion may yet serve to enlighten all and guide further discussion about the role of religion(s) in American society. Nothing to do with "vitriolic attack against religion" and everything to do with the nature and shape of religious participation. And I am sure I could probably dig up threads of this discussion going back all the way to the foundation of the Republic, but i have neither the space of the time here to indulge in such exploration. You Sir, find your position challenged and in doing so lash ou... We could debate that separation of Church and State held that Church was above the State in that case. You are trying so hard. Isn't it cute. We can debate all sorts of things that does not speak to their legitimacy or necessity. I have yet to be challenged. You are not capable. You have shown over and over you are not interested in debating the issue. You keep veering off and making illogical assumptions and points that bring nothing to the issue. I am happy to debate the idea of secularism or religion, but you have shown here and elsewhere that you do not even grasp the basic concepts. I welcome challenge. Please read my profile ( I LOVE CHALLENGE). However, I hate ignorance. I have ma... the idea the US is a secular nation is pure idiocy.It's not idiocy. To quote Ecclesiastes 1:9: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Why we are concerned about the Religious Right By Rev. David Heckenlively Freedom Writer 1994
You could not be more wrong, evilpoet. Everything you stated has been refuted in tis thread . Did you read the thread? Just repeating false understanding does not make it eventually become true. There is a basic premise that should be determined among all the muck I had to chase ratilfar through. That is the concept of Church and State Separation and The US as a Secular Nation. My argument is sound. If you can find it through the haze. You know what willhelm? You're boring. Do you know why you are boring? Because the rhetoric you're spewing is old and has been repeated over and over again ad nauseam . Me wrong? That remains to be seen. When all is said and done - history will be the voice of authority. I keep expecting someone to be able to have an intelligen conversation. I don't know why. I'll just conclude that you cannot make an argument either, much less read the thread so others do not have to spin their wheels because you're too lazy to understand someone else's view. Your intellectual starting point, your opinion, and your resources are all dependent on one another. That shows a lack of wisdom, open-mindedness, understanding, and peace. First wilhelm you are confusing the state with the people, the state might be secular, that does not bind the people to that. Second, again and again you challenge my and other ability to understand you but you state "facts" not in evidence and when shown links, facts and examples you simply decry them as circular. Yet, at no point have you backed anything you said with your own facts. The original clip question the idea of the government of the United States as a Christian government, and does make the distiction that the people of the United States are largelt Christian, that does not directly translate to the government as a Christian institution. Furthermore when shown that... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.The current president of the United States told friends that God wanted him to run for president, God wanted him in the white house, and God wanted him to invade Iraq. Bush opened a office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in the White House and handed out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants--known in Washington as "pork for preachers." Almost all of it has gone directly to conservative Christian churches. Bush signed an executive order allowing churches that receive federal funds for so-called faith-based programs to practice religious discrimination: h... oh boys, stop arguing. just respect what the other has to say and believes in. leave each other be. now that's freedom of religion, freedom to believe in anything. you should be thankful your constitution allows it. no one is forcing you to believe otherwise. now, is america a "christian" nation? who cares. most likely we have different ideas of what "christian" means anyway. Ratilfar, You are just proving you are an idiot over and over again, SECULAR DOES NOT EQUAL NEUTRAL. The Soviet Union was secular and they were NOT neutral. The Government IS NOT christian. The country and our values, including separation of Church and State ARE. You still DO NOT display an understanding of the meaning of separation. I'm willing to give that (separation) to you, even though it is not constitutional and was not intended by any founder. I've never argued against it, in fact I've argued for it because it is a CHRISTIAN principle. In fact luminaeris is the first person to show the actual intent of government. Debbyski, I don't even know why you had to comment as you offer not... Yet, at no point have you backed anything you said with your own facts.My entire argument is fact. You justr choose to parse the facts and believe what you want to believe. You obviously have no training in law, debate, philosophy, ethics, or civics. Your rantings are juvenile and ignorant. MY ARGUMENT: FACT 1 : Separation is a Christian concept, not a government concept. You find it nowhere in the constitution.( ie a christian value.). In fact it did not exist as a government principle until 1947. It seems before that none of the founders or early leaders suggested secular beliefs. FACT 2: Secularism and Separation are opposing values. They do not mean the same thing. The... I obviously meant 1st amendment in FACT 3 FACT 6: Northwest Ordinance passed by the same congress that enacted the first amendment states this in Article III: "Religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government and shall forever be encouraged." This is pretty clear-cut. I think they would know better than YOU. FACT 6: ALL, but 3 states, invoke the name of God in their Preambles to their constitutions. This does not sound secular to me. get it....666. FACT 9: My argument consists of actual ideas , yours of illusions and rhetoric, and materialism. Not actual American values or law. YOU have made NO argument PERIOD, except obstinate disagreement with my FACTS. FACT 10: The SUPREME COURT ( YES the SUPREME court) opens each session with prayer. Not very secular here either. hmmm. FACT 11: The US recognizes religious holidays, but not the religious holidays of every religion. I guess our government is a bit biased. Also - not secular. Is there anything in the Constitution that gives special treatment or preference to Christianity?My whole comment was directed toward that issue and how the issue has now changed within government. I am merely pointing out what Jefferson and James Maison had in mind and how the actions of this administration undermine and contradict everything the Founding Fathers stood for by putting goverment on the side of Christianity and Christianity uniquely and squarely on the side of President Bush, conservative politcial and religious leaders are, in effect, telling Jefferson and Madison: You're histroy. And you're wrong. We know better than you what's good for America. telling Jefferson and Madison: You're histroy. And you're wrong. We know better than you what's good for America.No , in fact. You are the one doing that. How so? See facts 1 thru 11. For someone that accused me of Clinton bashing ( which I have NEVER done). You sure find it fun to bash Bush with ridiculous charges. Those are facts about the administration and it's all the more significant to the issue that our Founding Fathers went far out of their way not to create a Christian nation, due to the religious persecutions and chaos that has swept across Europe since the Protestant Reformation. They never said the President was expected to be the moral leader of the nation and they founded the nation on a secular document. Debbyski, Have you read this thread? You show absolutely no understanding of the meaning of secular. Please read the thread and get back to me. If your choice is not to be educated, I cannot help you there. How can a secular document say "all men are "created" equal. Also, how can a secular document establish the separate recognition of the Church? A secular document would not protect. It would show indifference, or worse. The Constitution--which begins, significantly, with the words 'We the People--contains no mention of the words "God" or Christianity." Any mention of the divinity was deliberately omitted by its authors and that sends a powerful message. FACT 12: The constitution states: " no religious test shall be required," which means we have freedom of religion, not secularism. Secularism would hold no religious test to be applied. And by the way. You admit in your statement, without knowing it, that we are not a secular nation. Unlike European countries, where political power was considered a matter of "divine right" and/or "heavenly authority" our Founders held that power in America came directly from the people--and their natural rights. Our government's authority, in other words, come not directly from God, but directly from the people. That is what America is all about. I believe we are a secular nation, Willhelm, with no official stamp of religion. But that does not mean we are a nation without values. Just the opposite. We are a nation and a people of deep moral values--beginning with the right to be free--but those values are rooted in the intrinsic rights of each individual, and not in some prescribed official religion. At the same time we are also the most religious nation on earth. But here's what should also be obvious: the fact that we are at once the most free and most religious nation on earth didn't happen by accident. Nor did it happen because we are God's chosen people or because he loves us more than citizens of any other county on eart... I believe we are a secular nationWell, it is your right to be wrong. If you choose to ignore facts, that is pretty pathetic display of intellect. You're choice of the words "I believe" state pretty clearly that your opinion, resources, and intellectual starting point are all dependent on one another and you have no interest in dealing with facts The greatness of America happened precisely because our FoundingFACT 13 - Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sw... Debbyski said" the fact that we are at once the most free and most religious nation on earth didn't happen by accident.You are right. It happened because we ARE NOT a secular nation. This would not happen in a secular nation like USSR or China. Do you want to disagree to disagree, or do you have an agrument to make? Yes, the signers of the Mayflower Compact in 1620 said they were founding a new colony "for the glory of God and advancement of Christian religions." But that document bears no relation to the new nation conceived at Philadelphia in 1787. Yes, many of the first settlers came to the New World for religious freedom--but only for themselves. Once here--early Americans practiced their own brand of intolerance. Citizens paid a tax to support religion, only church members could hold public office, and the strict Sabbath duty was enforced. Dissenters or nonbelievers were banished from the colony. Those are the very abuses the framers of the constitution wanted to put an end to in the new nati... They didn't trust ChristianityWrong. They didn't trust PEOPLE. Hence, No secularism and the 1st Amendment.. Besides, who said anything about the Mayflower compact? So they founded the nation on a secular document. Ad nauseum.... Agian do you know what secular means? Do you know what separation means. You keep arguing, but your argument shows no understanding of the concepts. SEE FACTS 1 thru 11. We finally get some facts (while I sleep). In the United States, the State is above the church, as it can legalize certain practices drug use, taxation (you can loose your tax exempt status) and marriage among other things. No religious authority can dictate to the government but certainly the government does dictate to the churches. The Supreme Court may choose to start the session with hookers and pole dancing if they want to, if they feel that tradition dictates that a prayer, so be it, they can not force prayer on others nor do they have to pray. The reason why the religious text clause existed was because the government of England, a Protestant/Anglican government insisted on them ... A few quotes from the primary authour of the Constitution: Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782 "materialisms" (which is strange since a capitalist nation like the U.S. is all about materialism,Excuse me as I get off the floor from laughing so hard. Man, are you ignorant. Now , you do not klnow what materialist ideoolgy is. You are simply a neophyte. Most all of the facts I stated were stated earlier. Pitiful. You have no case to but to simply regurgitate ad nauseum your idiocy. I will assume you have the same understanding of secularism as you have of materialism. The constitution does not contain the words God, Christianity, Jesus Christ, or Judeo-Christianity. The only reference to religion serve to exclude it from government. The framers intended political power to flow upward from the people, rather than downward from the heavens or those who claim to represent the heavens. The constitution does not contain the words God, Christianity, Jesus Christ, or Judeo-Christianity.Exactly, because to do so could be used to establish religious authority over the State. Hence, the second amendment. The only reference to religion serve to exclude it from government.Exactly how does the 1st amendment exclude religion from government. It excludes government from religion. It restricts government , not religion. Once again, Debbyski, you argue out of sheer ideology and no truth. I implore you to separate your ideology, your resources, and your intellectual starting point and deal with the truth. FACT 14: To restrict religion would be to restrict freedom of religion. This is unconstitutional. FACT 15: The secularists love to quote Jefferson when they can isconstue his meanings. However, not so much when they cannot. "the power to prescribe religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." Jefferson's later letter to Samual miller in 1808. (After the Danbury letter !) Debbyski says The framers intended political power to flow upward from the peopleFact 16: The framers intended political power to flow upward from the people. Given that 95% of the people believe in God, how can it be the government ( people) are secular. Your point illustrates how secular belief would not put faith in people, rather the State. So if the ratio changes, let say that 45% of the people or 55% or 65% where to be from another religion, or atheist, would that then change the country and it would no longer be a "Christian Nation?" I think you have it wrong, the Nation-State that is the United States is secular because it does not puts preponderance of one religion or sect above others. Religious Nation-States like Spain and England have an official religion/sect such as Anglicanism or Catholicism a sect or religion and historically, after the Revolution, states have not picked religion, (except for Utah, which was founded as a Mormon state). In fact part of the problem that the Mormons had was that their neighbors feared... So if the ratio changes, let say that 45% of the people or 55% or 65%Fact 17: Secularists attack Christians instead of Separation to try to make their point. This is evidence of the real issue with secularists. We are not a Christian Nation. Nor, have I said we are. We are founded on Christian ideals ( separation being one of them, and the freedom of individuals not to be subjects of the state being another, ex. free will) . I think you have it wrong, the Nation-State that is the United States So your a professor now? If its not secular what is it? You have not given a true definition, only to say that you know for a fact (inreductible and inrrefutable fact) that the U.S. not a secular nation, can not be because its people follow different sects and etc. Again, if it not secular, then what is it? What is the answer to the clippers original question? Please answer in 100 words or less. if it not secular, then what is it? Please answer in 100 words or less.I'll answer in 1 word. Free! What does freedom have to do with religion/secularism? If you mean liberty of expression, faith and belief, then that occur in both systems (it actually does, England provides for religious freedom, albeit now under assault, and so does France). Freedom has nothing to do with religion or secularism except that they are in opposition. That is why the US is not Secular and it is not Theocratic. They are both opposed to freedom. Also interesting you bring up the word liberty. Another word I am sure you struggle with. America can be founded on Christian principles without being a "Christian nation". I think Christ would have appreciated the Christians' treating all makind as their brothers, without requiring them to be Christians to be so treated. I agree completely. Judeo-Christian tradition is part of the European social and political tradition as are Greco-Roman legal systems, Celtic customs and Germanic languages. They are not mutually exclusive and do not automatically confer the title of "Christian Nation" on any nation that has incorporated them. You are right gzuckier! If you read the thread I never argued we were a Christian Nation. I argued that we were not a Nation founded on secular principles. Ratlifar, glad you finally came around. |
View the Top Clips from February 16, 2007
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
