toldailytopic: Christian nation. Did America's founding fathers intend for the USA to

[serpentdove]

The founding fathers

Yes.

Samuel Adams: “The religion and public liberty of a people are intimately connected; their interest are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together.”

James Madison: “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”

Alexander Hamilton: “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interest.”

Benjamin Franklin: “All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.”

Charles Pinckney: “When the great work was done and published, I was struck with amazement. Nothing less than the superintending Hand of Providence, that so miraculously carried us through the war … could have brought it about so complete, upon the whole.”

George Washington: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

Full Samuel Adams quote: "Is it not high time for the people of this country explicitly to declare, whether they will be freemen or slaves? It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns us more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in the event. For wherever tyranny is establish’d, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent. It is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice. For they cannot live in any country where virtue and knowledge prevail. The religion and public liberty of a people are intimately connected; their interest are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together. For this reason, it is always observable, that those who are combined to destroy the people’s liberties, practice every art to poison their morals. How greatly then does it concern us, at all events, to put a stop to the progress of tyranny.”
One generation shall praise Your works to another, And shall declare Your mighty acts (Ps. 145:4, NASB).

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, The people He has ichosen as His own inheritance (Ps 33:12, NKJV).

The Declaration of Independence has many references to God. All signers of it were Christian in some from. The Constitution (our governing document) supports it (Mark Levine).

"Separation of church and state" is not in The Constitution. It was written in a letter from Thomas Jefferson.

"American Christianity has never been like European Christianity in its attitude toward Jews and Judaism. Jews have been equals and honored as such from even before the creation of the United States. Many of the founders studied Hebrew; Thomas Jefferson wanted the Seal of the United States to depict the Jews' exodus from Egypt; Yale University's insignia is in Hebrew; a verse from the Torah (Leviticus) is inscribed on the Liberty Bell; a rabbi attended George Washington's inauguration -- the list of pro-Jewish expressions in U.S. history is endless. But perhaps most telling is the fact that although there have been any number of Christian countries and there are many secular ones today, it is the U.S. that calls itself Judeo-Christian..." full text: Born-Again President -- White House Hanukkah by Dennis Prager http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/19/opinion/op-whitehouse19

"...[T]he Founders regarded America as a Second Israel, in Abraham Lincoln's words, the "Almost Chosen" People. This self-identification was so deep that Thomas Jefferson, today often described as not even a Christian, wanted the seal of the United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt at the splitting of the sea. Just as the Jews left Egypt, Americans left Europe..." America Founded To Be Free, Not Secular by Dennis Prager http://www.creators.com/opinion/dennis-prager/america-founded-to-be-free-not-secular.html

 

[Sonrise]

I confessed before, that I am not a historian. Should of listened in school, but something else had my attention.

This is what I thought was brought about by our beginnings, but was actually the result of the Civil War.

History of 'In God We Trust'
The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:
Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.
You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:
I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.
The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." Under the Act, the motto was placed on the gold double-eagle coin, the gold eagle coin, and the gold half-eagle coin. It was also placed on the silver dollar coin, the half-dollar coin and the quarter-dollar coin, and on the nickel three-cent coin beginning in 1866. Later, Congress passed the Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto."

The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription. Later, the motto was found missing from the new design of the double-eagle gold coin and the eagle gold coin shortly after they appeared in 1907. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the Act of May 18, 1908, made it mandatory on all coins upon which it had previously appeared. IN GOD WE TRUST was not mandatory on the one-cent coin and five-cent coin. It could be placed on them by the Secretary or the Mint Director with the Secretary's approval.

The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.

As a part of a comprehensive modernization program the BEP successfully developed and installed new high-speed rotary intaglio printing presses in 1957. These allowed BEP to print currency by the dry intaglio process, 32 notes to the sheet. One-dollar silver certificates were the first denomination printed on the new high-speed presses. They included IN GOD WE TRUST as part of the reverse design as BEP adopted new dies according to the law. The motto also appeared on one-dollar silver certificates of the 1957-A and 1957-B series.

BEP prints United States paper currency by an intaglio process from engraved plates. It was necessary, therefore, to engrave the motto into the printing plates as a part of the basic engraved design to give it the prominence it deserved.

One-dollar silver certificates series 1935, 1935-A, 1935-B, 1935-C, 1935-D, 1935-E, 1935-F, 1935-G, and 1935-H were all printed on the older flat-bed presses by the wet intaglio process. P.L. 84-140 recognized that an enormous expense would be associated with immediately replacing the costly printing plates. The law allowed BEP to gradually convert to the inclusion of IN GOD WE TRUST on the currency. Accordingly, the motto is not found on series 1935-E and 1935-F one-dollar notes. By September 1961, IN GOD WE TRUST had been added to the back design of the Series 1935-G notes. Some early printings of this series do not bear the motto. IN GOD WE TRUST appears on all series 1935-H one-dollar silver certificates.

Below is a listing by denomination of the first production and delivery dates for currency bearing IN GOD WE TRUST:

DENOMINATION PRODUCTION DELIVERY
$1 Federal Reserve Note February 12, 1964 March 11, 1964
$5 United States Note January 23, 1964 March 2, 1964
$5 Federal Reserve Note July 31, 1964 September 16, 1964
$10 Federal Reserve Note February 24, 1964 April 24, 1964
$20 Federal Reserve Note October 7, 1964 October 7, 1964
$50 Federal Reserve Note August 24, 1966 September 28, 1966
$100 Federal Reserve Note August 18, 1966 September 27, 1966

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Currency & Coins

History of "In God We Trust"

History of the Lincoln Cent

Indian Head Cent

Manufacturing Process for U.S. Coins

Mint and Other Coin Production Facilities

Preparation of Working Dies from Original Coin Designs


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See Also
FAQs about Currency

FAQs about Coins

FAQs about Tours of Treasury Facilities

 

[Sonrise]

am still looking for an amendment about traitors.

 

[Sonrise]

AHA!!!!

I just found out that the constitution was based on the Frenchman, Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws....you may read about it at this site...and is all about religion, and God....

http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol.txt

 

[UseSomeCommonSense]

Are you an American? bybee

Im a human first, and nothing amends for almost 1 million people killed and all those orphans.

i don't care if I'm american or not

 

[Town Heretic]

Im a human first, and nothing amends for almost 1 million people killed and all those orphans.

i don't care if I'm american or not

Then you shouldn't care about answering the question. You didn't. It's suggestive of your being someone with more than one axe to grind and a cultural bias to boot.

And how did you arrive at the million figure?

Lastly, do you think the point of any U.S. war is to kill Muslims? Muslims serve honorably in the U.S. armed services and lead productive lives as citizens here at home. Do you think we wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan if the country had been run by Mennonites? lain:

 

[UseSomeCommonSense]

Then you shouldn't care about answering the question. You didn't. It's suggestive of your being someone with more than one axe to grind and a cultural bias to boot.

And how did you arrive at the million figure?

Lastly, do you think the point of any U.S. war is to kill Muslims? Muslims serve honorably in the U.S. armed services and lead productive lives as citizens here at home. Do you think we wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan if the country had been run by Mennonites? lain:

First, it's an obvious war on Islam. Second, seeing all the random soldiers who comeback crying saying it's a shame what they are over there doing, and it's pure genocide. I have seen way too many of these people on corners with signs and on their videos explaining the genocide that is happening. Funny how they don't get any airtime to tell their story on any of the major news networks-it's an obvious hush them up attempt. I will take their word for it, verses anyone on here. Third, what does it matter Muslims are in the Army helping kill them? They are there because they get a check like everyone else, that's them running around acting like kuffars killing their own. The Iraqi army has been dismantled, and those people didn't want them there and they definitely don't want them there now. We had no right to invade anyway. Korea shoots a test missile off whenever they get ready, go tackle them. Iran just wants to have their own nuclear reactor, but they hassle them, and let Korea shoot off and have what they want.

It's a war on Islam, plan and simple, just like the media war on Islam, showing all negative stuff. When is the last time the media broadcast stories of the Messianic Jews being terrorized by the other Jews in Israel? As I remember, there are car bombings, church burnings and banning return to Israel for those Jews who have accepted Christianity.


Some of those guys come back just messed up about the things they were told to do: Rolling around with spare weapons so they can put it on the person they shoot if they didn't have any weapons etc.

It's clear what is going on over there.

Find any WMD's over there yet? That was just an excuse to go in there and do what they wanted. North Korea definitely has some mean weapons and test them whenever they want, so if America was so worried, go get the ones who tell you, "we have them, so what, and we are shooting one off for a test tomorrow. But they are making a big fuse about Iran wanting a nuclear reactor.

Thats the last thing I'm saying about that issue.

Life is life, and and there has never been any just cause to go in there an do what they have done. All those lives lost and orphan kids.

When those kids grow up, they will remember, and they will be angry, just like the Afgan movement after the US left them hanging for death after they had got the use they wanted out of them.

Call it cultural bias, ax grinding, or whatever you want. YES, IM GRINDING AN AXE HARD RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT'S PURE GENOCIDE, AND PEOPLE JUST SIT AND TALK TRASH LIKE THEY DESERVE TO BE GETTING MURDERED.

OF COURSE THEY ARE OVER THERE TRYING TO GIVE SOLDIERS, BECAUSE THEY WANT THEM GONE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Save your reply comments to this message, because I will not be replying to anything trying to justify the actions, or say it was Muslims fault that the US is killing all those people.

 

[Tyrathca]

First, it's an obvious war on Islam.

No it is not obvious, first of all the Afghan war is a clear retaliation for its governments role and support of the 9/11 attacks. Second of all Iraq would not be the first target if this war were against Islam, rather the target would be Iran first the Saudi Arabia as Saddam was not well known for strong links to Islam.

Second, seeing all the random soldiers who comeback crying saying it's a shame what they are over there doing, and it's pure genocide. I have seen way too many of these people on corners with signs and on their videos explaining the genocide that is happening. Funny how they don't get any airtime to tell their story on any of the major news networks-it's an obvious hush them up attempt.

Ooooooohhhhh CONSPIRACY THEORY!!! Shush the government is watching this forum.... The dumb thing about this theory is that it does not explain why other global news outlets aren't running constant stories of genocide, they would get massive ratings and be out of US government influence.

Find any WMD's over there yet? That was just an excuse to go in there and do what they wanted. North Korea definitely has some mean weapons and test them whenever they want, so if America was so worried, go get the ones who tell you, "we have them, so what, and we are shooting one off for a test tomorrow. But they are making a big fuse about Iran wanting a nuclear reactor.

That is because NK has already been completely isolated, the only remaining course of action is war really (unless China decides to lean on them economically/politically) and that would be VERY dangerous. Basically it would be a strategic disaster with large scale destruction across both Koreas.

Call it cultural bias, ax grinding, or whatever you want. YES, IM GRINDING AN AXE HARD RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT'S PURE GENOCIDE, AND PEOPLE JUST SIT AND TALK TRASH LIKE THEY DESERVE TO BE GETTING MURDERED.

Calm down, no one is saying the civilians deserve to die, you're seeing what you want to see in order to reinforce your own prejudices.

 

[Granite]

This meant 'we the people=the wealthy what males'. It was written as a letter to King George and if you bother to read it all, it is a beef against the English Monarchy.

Consider, Thomas Jefferson, primary author, extended the vote to 'yow-man farmers' (men who owned land), not the public of all white males, that came with Andrew Jackson.

'The people' this did not include women or blacks, quite obviously, along with poor white males until later times.

This is an example of taking the intended meaning when written and interpreting it from a modern perspective.

If you had ever studied American history, you would understand what you fail to understand.

The system was intended to benefit rich land-owning white males. All in all, not much has changed.

 

[Gurucam]

Hmmmm, I don't know any Christians who practice turning the other cheek, especially not the ones in the military:think:

Seems an honest reply.

Fact is, it seem very clear that, one is not a Christian if one does not 'turn the other cheek'. Therefore those people, who you know and who are not turning the other cheek, are not Christian. Where did you get the idea that they are Christians?

Although many (maybe, billions) are called to Christianity, only a few will actually be Christian, so prophesied, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore it is not at all surprising that you know none.

That is not to say that most every one is without religion. Fact is that a very great chunk of those who write 'Christian' as their religion are in fact, not Christian at all but are Moses-ians.

It seems quite appropriate for Moses-ians to seek 'an eye for an eye'.

I tell you what, give me some time to see what I can find. I may be able to Google a video of a Christian soldier in Iraq running around turning cheeks.

Seems to be a search for a needle in a hay stack. God luck.

Maybe the American Christian soldiers have killed the almost 1million Muslims, leaving millions of orphans, all by running around turning their cheeks.

Fact is that a very great chunk of those who write 'Christian' as their religion are in fact, not Christian at all but are Moses-ians.

It seems quite appropriate for Moses-ians to seek 'an eye for an eye'.

May be the resources of the U.S.A. enables them to meet Iraq at their (Iraq's) level which seems to 'an eye for an eye'.

Seems that in the U.S.A. there are both types of people, those who esteem 'an eye for an eye' (i.e. Moses-ians) and those who esteem 'turning the other cheek' (i.e. Christians).

War is simply a legal, legitimate and acceptable means by which those who esteem 'an eye for an eye' can and do implement their belief.

At any event, if Christians are fighting and killing people in Iraq, it is because they are simply being unconditionally obedient to precisely what the Holy Spirit has in mind for them.

It seems that only 'children of God' will inherit earth, in the fullness of time, when God's kingdom of heaven descends here. And the fullness of time seems at hand. It seems that children of God are Christians, who are the chosen few. So it seems that under grace of God very many will be killed. War may simply be an option which God use. Natural disasters seems another option which God use. What you think?

Fact is Moses-ians, i.e. those who esteem 'an eye for an eye' are killing out them selves in their quest to uphold their ideology. This is possibly how and why only 'children of God', i.e. those who esteem 'turning the other cheek', will inherit earth eventually.

Therefore to worry about war, seems to be worrying about God's business which may just be going just the way He want. Your worry may just be your folly because you are neglecting yourself.

Indeed therefore, the question was about you and your persuasion. Your salvation and deliverance does not rest on what the six or so, other billions of people on earth at this time, believe or do.

 

[Sonrise]

Last night Holy Spirit spoke to me that I wasn't considering the fact that Mr. Muslim has "feelings" too, and is wounded for his own people. Then, I pick up the book I am currently reading, and read this....and have repented...

The Jews have a legend tha, when their forefathers were saved from Egypt and the Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea, the angels joined the songs of triumph sung by the Israelites. And God said to the angels, "The Jews are men and can rejoice about their escape. But from you I expect more understanding. Are the Egyptians not also my creatures? Do I not love them too? How do you fail to feel my sorrow about their tragic fate?"

Joshua 5: 13 says, "and it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, a Man stood opposite him with His sword drawn in His hand. And Joshua went to Him and said to Him, "Are you for us or for our adversaries?"

If the one met by Joshua had been only a man, the answer could have been "I am for you" or "I am for your adversaries," or even "I am neutral." These are the only possible human responses to such a question. But the Being whom Joshua met was sent from the Lor and, therefore, when asked whether He was for or against Israel, gave and answer that is the most unexpected and diffucult to understand: "No." What does this "no" mean?

He came from a place where beings are not for or against, but where everyone and everything are understood, looked upon with pity and compassion, and loved with fire.

Will post more now on the Islam thread.

 

[Rusha]

By the way do you hold that one should have one's hand chopped off for writing 'Christianity' as one's religion instead of one's Spiritual tradition? Or may be one should be stoned to death for same?

Hmmmm, I don't know any Christians who practice turning the other cheek, especially not the ones in the military:think:

I tell you what, give me some time to see what I can find. I may be able to Google a video of a Christian soldier in Iraq running around turning cheeks.

Maybe the American Christian soldiers have killed the almost 1million Muslims, leaving millions of orphans, all by running around turning their cheeks.

Why can't you just answer the question with a simple *yes* or *no*?

 

[Town Heretic]

First, it's an obvious war on Islam. Second, seeing all the random soldiers who comeback crying saying it's a shame what they are over there doing, and it's pure genocide.

All the soldiers? Name a few. Link to their testimony/accounts.

I have seen way too many of these people on corners with signs and on their videos explaining the genocide that is happening.

Where? I've never seen anything like it. Sounds common enough to make me wonder why I don't get out more...that said, I've seen a number of people on corners who can tell you exactly why most people are going to hell. So do you believe them too? Or is it only the ones who back your bias that you put faith in?

Funny how they don't get any airtime to tell their story on any of the major news networks-it's an obvious hush them up attempt.

That or you're dead wrong, confusing an anecdotal example of an errant understanding with something that deserves a wider consideration. You assume in this that reporters who frequently make their living attacking the policies of those in power have suddenly stopped doing their job. This vast conspiracy on the one hand or your undemonstrated anecdote on the other...:think: It's a real choice to make, isn't it.

I will take their word for it, verses anyone on here.

Of course you will. And that in itself says a great deal about why.

Third, what does it matter Muslims are in the Army helping kill them?

Depends on if you're rational or not. If you are that's a peculiar question. Given you suspect a Muslim genocide you'd expect Muslims would be among the last to aid in that undertaking. Or are Muslim soldiers less convicted in their faith than others?

They are there because they get a check like everyone else, that's them running around acting like kuffars killing their own.

Uh-huh. Or, heaven forbid, you're attempting a rather elaborate internal dance to avoid a simpler and more likely truth.

We had no right to invade anyway.

So you are American then?

Korea shoots a test missile off whenever they get ready, go tackle them. Iran just wants to have their own nuclear reactor, but they hassle them, and let Korea shoot off and have what they want.

It isn't the nuclear reactor but the why of it and the bomb we all know is at the heart of it.

It's a war on Islam, plan and simple,

No. It's a war on fanatics, some of whom use Islam the way some have used any religion, historically, to the end of power.

just like the media war on Islam, showing all negative stuff.

Good news is no news. Train wrecks are what draws viewers. But, of course, this has to fit into your apparent larger delusion.

When is the last time the media broadcast stories of the Messianic Jews being terrorized by the other Jews in Israel? As I remember, there are car bombings, church burnings and banning return to Israel for those Jews who have accepted Christianity.

A shout among a chorus isn't going to draw much attention. A brush fire next to a conflagration is similarly lost. Haven't heard of the Messianic Jew problem. Given the large Christian network and sensitivity to Christian persecution I'm disinclined absent some substantiation to believe it much of a problem.

Some of those guys come back just messed up about the things they were told to do: Rolling around with spare weapons so they can put it on the person they shoot if they didn't have any weapons etc.

People come back from every war with terrible weights. War is a horrible thing. But until you sustain your particular attempts to paint a larger practice with something more than declaration you aren't really saying much, if saying it loudly.

It's clear what is going on over there.

It's clear enough what you believe and that's about it.

Find any WMD's over there yet?

Not that I know of...and I don't know of many who believe that's what this was all about. Going after North Korea, beyond sanctions, is problematic for us given South Korea could be overrun and a goodly number of our troops with them.

Thats the last thing I'm saying about that issue.

I'm as convinced of this as I am of the rest. :chuckle:

Call it cultural bias, ax grinding, or whatever you want. YES, IM GRINDING AN AXE HARD RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT'S PURE GENOCIDE, AND PEOPLE JUST SIT AND TALK TRASH LIKE THEY DESERVE TO BE GETTING MURDERED.

OF COURSE THEY ARE OVER THERE TRYING TO GIVE SOLDIERS, BECAUSE THEY WANT THEM GONE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

I don't think shouting will make anything more or less true. It's obvious that you believe what you're saying, but I think the facts are just as obviously stacked against you. A war about oil and a vision of a democratic beach head in the Muslim world has nothing to do with genocide.

Save your reply comments to this message, because I will not be replying to anything trying to justify the actions, or say it was Muslims fault that the US is killing all those people.

If unsubstantiated declaration is your idea of argument I can see why you wouldn't want to keep going with this...can't say I blame you.

:e4e:

 

[nicholsmom]

I'd say they wrote it with an eye toward the governing of the people as they were constituted, but with an understanding that this commonality had a way of changing over time and so the references to the divine are general to a point.

Perhaps that was the reason for the generalized references, perhaps not.

Do you really want me to break out the Washington, Monroe, Jefferson quote books on the subject?

Sure. Do they say in there somewhere that this sort of government would work for any sort - even an immoral society? I would be interested in quotes that directly contradict my point that our government was designed by men of morality for a people dedicated to living according to Judeo-Christian morality.

I think it's closer to the truth to say that having kings and Popes declare the national conscience for generations, our humanly flawed but relatively wise forefathers designed an institution dedicated to the principle that each man should answer to his own good judgment and conscience with regard to God and to the government for his actions as they related to his neighbor.

I agree. And my favorite quote concerning that, among those I included in my earlier post, says just that:

Patrick Henry:
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]​

I also like Laura Ingalls Wilder on the subject:

"The crowd was scattering away then, but Laura stood stock-still. Suddenly she had a completely new thought. The Declaration and the song came together in her mind, and she thought: God is America’s king.

She thought: Americans won’t obey any king on earth. Americans are free. That means they have to obey their own consciences. No king bosses Pa; he has to boss himself. Why (she thought), when I am a little older, Pa and Ma will stop telling me what to do, and there isn’t anyone else who has a right to give me orders. I will have to make myself be good.

Her whole mind seemed to be lighted up by that thought. This is what it means to be free. It means you have to be good. ‘Our father’s God, author of liberty—‘ The laws of Nature and of Nature’s God endow you with a right to life and liberty. Then you have to keep the laws of God, for God’s law is the only thing that gives you a right to be free.”

- from Little Town on the Prairie
​

How's that for a little more? :e4e:

Much better, thanks :e4e:

 

[nicholsmom]

Founding Father Quotes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Did you read in the citation to whom Jefferson wrote that, and do you know for what purpose? Clearly not. Why not check into it before quoting it out of context?

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

What do you suppose that this means concerning our form of government and the morality of the citizens required for that government to be effective?

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
-Thomas Jefferson "Notes on Virginia"

In what way do you suppose that this (as well as others of the same sort that you included) contradicts my points? Don't just spout something about Jefferson being no Christian, go and read my post - check out my point, see how the quotes back up that point, and then tell me how this quote contradicts or counters in any way my point.

Here's an interesting one...

Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself."
-Thomas Jefferson -in his private journal, Feb. 1800

Talk about hearsay...

Did you not know that Ol' Ben became a Diest?

Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." -Benjamin Franklin

Again, how does this contradict or even counter my point?

No, sometimes, more just means more cherry picking. :wave:

You tell me who's cherry-picking Or tell me how many different sources it takes to escape the designation. I cited several, you only two. :think:

 

[Essex]

They were afraid of factionalism, hence the general terms used most often by the founders and framers. As states did have established religions, pushing it on a national level was seen as a threat. Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptists because they feared he, an antitrinitarian, might create a Federal church (he also wrote it because he was trying to break the Congregationalist/Federalist power structure in Connecticut and hoped the Baptists could help him out).

Amendments to declare America a Christian nation were proposed during the 19th century and rejected. Interestingly enough, "progressives" and "Free thinkers" tried to pass an amendment putting "separation of church and state" in the constitution. As we know that was rejected but the left was able to insert it into constitutional law in 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education).

The "many of the founders and framers" were "deists" charge isn't true. Jefferson toyed with it but rejected it. Franklin made cooing noises at it but never did anything much to promote it. Paine and Ethan Allen were the only two notable figures to fully embrace it. "Deist" was not something any politician at the time wanted to call himself or be called. The charge was leveled against Jefferson by Christians in New England. Jefferson scrambled to get Christian clergy to refute the charge and many did.

Rather amusing today to see "progressives" take the word of 18th century neo-Calvinists as proof of what Jefferson's faith was.

"Deism" had died out in England before the Revolution and after the deist William Beadle murdered his wife and four kids in 1782, "deist' was not a popular word. It became further hated after the French Revolution.

 

[nicholsmom]

More cherry picking. lain:

I can post more that say the opposite but what's the point? I guess you were loading your ammo and missed the point of me posting quotes by other founding fathers verses the ones that the other guy chose to post, right?

For the record, I am not a "guy"

While you are busy pointing fingers at Nick, you have several pointing back at yourself. You clearly failed to address my original point in posting your "opposing" quotes, since they in no way addressed my points.

Why did you throw old Ab Lincoln out there?

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession." -Spoken by Abraham Lincoln

Abe was not a founder, for one thing. Also his association with the Christian church is considerably up in the air because of this sort of quote (unsourced, btw). Note that every man at one point in his life is not a Christian - each Christian experiences conversion, before which he is not a Christian.

See we can cherry pick all the random things we want from them, and say, "YOU SEE!" lain:

Except Nick quoted from several different sources, whereas you cherry-picked only two - three if you want to count the unsourced one from old Abe.

Why don't you cut right to it and find in the founding documents where it mentions anything that you are asserting about your religious beliefs.

How about this:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.​

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

... ___ ...

 

[bybee]

Well then,

Well then,

Im a human first, and nothing amends for almost 1 million people killed and all those orphans.

i don't care if I'm american or not

You could leave this place which you find so offensive. bybee

 

[UseSomeCommonSense]

You could leave this place which you find so offensive. bybee

I can stay in America, because I pay my taxes, and I have a right to my own opinion. Thats what the founding fathers wanted.

So, maybe you should leave, since your comment falls in line with what a dictator would say.