DescentBB

Here is an interesting article... Clicky!

\"...the act [of being sworn in over the Koran] undermines American civilization.\"

You know what undermines American civilization? Belief in God. Whether it's fanatical Islamists flying planes into buildings, or nutjob Christian Fundamentalists blowing up abortion clinics, or Bill O'Reilly imagining a War on Christmas. Religion is the death knell of our society.

See what I did just there? I just rewrote the article you linked from the opposite viewpoint. Notice the complete lack of supporting fact? Notice the hyperbole? The broad-brush use of whackos to paint entire millions of people? Yeah. It plays right into the author's intentions.

No, what really undermines American civilization is the belief that certain Americans (such as the ones that frequent Townhall.com and World Net Daily) espouse, that the government has the right to force someone to commit blasphemy in the religion he has chosen over a matter irrelevant to the actual office. The actual oath is meaningless; we have replaced oaths with laws, and whether or not you're sworn in you are held accountable to those laws.

Oaths are meaningless. Interesting...
Oaths would be a matter of personal honor in my view. Seperate from just obeying laws. America used to be about honor. Honor used to be important to people. Seems people think that is unimportant? Obsolete? I think not. American tradition seems to be unimportant to some as well? Tradition=Culture right? Of course any time you try to follow American cultural traditions, you are branded politically incorrect. Anti-multicultural. I have no problem with the intentions of this author. All he is doing as advocating American culture. Oops... that is not allowed anymore.

VonVulcan wrote:America used to be about honor. Honor used to be important to people. Seems people think that is unimportant? Obsolete? I think not. American tradition seems to be unimportant to some as well?

No. America was founded as and always has been a nation of laws. We abandoned tradition when we decided that a fully codified law system was superior to the English system of common law and precedent.

And regardless of your belief otherwise, tradition does not equal culture. Culture is reflective of a group's current attitudes, not their past attitudes. Tradition helps form culture.

For you, it's apparent that American culture involves the superiority of Christianity to all other belief systems, crossing the line from "anti-multiculturalist" to full-blown bigotry.

DCrazy wrote:"...the act [of being sworn in over the Koran] undermines American civilization."

As soon as I read this in the article, I wrote it off as garbage.

Dcrazed.. you really need to read more of this countries documents. Like most of the states' Constitutions. Most every one of them mention God in some capacity. Others are quite blunt about God.. THE God, being 5the creator of the universe.

DCrazy wrote:For you, it's apparent that American culture involves the superiority of Christianity to all other belief systems, crossing the line from "anti-multiculturalist" to full-blown bigotry.

Of course I believe that, that makes me a bigot? Now thats VERY interesting. How tollerant we are here.

This is an utter waste of time.

I honestly don't see how the hell any of you have any sense except DCrazy...

If you want to violate Freedom of Religion, go screw off. You right-wingers claim that the \"liberal evil secular atheist left\" is milking you of your religious freedoms even when atheists, muslims, and jews are by far still persucuted in this country, and there are even laws that still discriminate against other non-christian groups. Yet you hop on the bandwagon when it comes to forcing your beliefs on other people. I honestly don't see, unless you think this is a theocracy, that only christians count towards freedom of religion.

Can anyone help talk any sense to someone?

well you did post a venomous article VV.

hey dakatsu.. you forgot 'media'.

Duper wrote:Dcrazed.. you really need to read more of this countries documents. Like most of the states' Constitutions. Most every one of them mention God in some capacity. Others are quite blunt about God.. THE God, being 5the creator of the universe.

Yeah, and his name is Allah.

That article is utterly ridiculous, and the vast majority of the comments are downright sickening. The only intelligent statement I saw in there?

Article VI clearly states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

'Nuff said.

Ferno wrote:well you did post a venomous article VV.

I don't see it that way Fern... Seems if you don't go along with this newage-muticultural-politically correct new dogma you are labeled a bigot. You may notice I have done no name calling, just stated my views. Bad times are a commin folks...

I can't personally testify to Ellison's character, but the fact that he made a point of swearing on a Koran instead of a Bible is a sign that he takes the oath far more seriously than any of our other Congressmen. Granted, it could be a political stunt. But if his values really are less substitutable than those of our other representatives, then we're doing A-OK as a country with this.

I don't care which gods textbook the guy puts his hand on when he pledges his oath, it's an oath to americans he's commiting to, so if he fears allah then let him make his promise with allah as his witness! He's not going to feel particularly compelled to follow through on a promise he was forced to swear in front of a god he doesn't believe in!
I pretty much agree with DCrazy's understanding of the authors going off the deep end.
However I think he has gone off the deep end himself when he marginalizes tradition as an important ingredient for maintaining our culture. I'm assuming maintaining it is a goal we all share....

DCrazy wrote:And regardless of your belief otherwise, tradition does not equal culture. Culture is reflective of a group's current attitudes, not their past attitudes. Tradition helps form culture.

If we just write off any change as the natural development of our culture then we have abandoned our culture and instead are engaged in a search for something different.
That doesn't mean we can't accept change but change should be judged by how it supports or destroys the foundation our culture is built upon. DCrazy says: "We abandoned tradition when we decided that a fully codified law system was superior to the English system of common law and precedent."

Well that may be literally true on it's face but look at it a little more and you'll find we changed up a little but really the system of laws we embraced in america are built out of the english laws, very closely. contrast that to Sharia law that all muslims are supposed to embrace. So when an american lawmaker says he'll make his oath to uphold the law on a muslim text witnessed to allah then you have to wonder what other change will he seek to make to our tradition of laws? Already we have seen in England the development of Sharia courts enforcing Sharia law on citizens of the United Kingdom who, one would think, would be under the law of the U.K. not some neighborhood muslim cleric!

You shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater here DCrazy. Just because this particular author displays some intollerant and illogical reactions doesn't mean he hasn't focused on a legitimate symptom or warning sign that something is starting to stink!

I would much rather see all politicians be required to read and explain their understanding of the laws that regulate bribery and treason and other statutes that regulate lobbiests etc. before they can take office. they can all go home and promise their favorite supreme being anything they want, it's me and my fellow citizens they owe loyalty to and it is our laws they should be afraid of if they ever cross them.
As it stands now they think of any oath as mere lip service because they all know that once in office congressmen routinely get caught taking bribes and molesting children and stealing the taxpayers money and get off with complete impunity! I can point out a dozen or so in office right now and there is no indication they are going anywhere except back to Washington to cash in some more!

Jeff250 wrote:

Duper wrote:Dcrazed.. you really need to read more of this countries documents. Like most of the states' Constitutions. Most every one of them mention God in some capacity. Others are quite blunt about God.. THE God, being 5the creator of the universe.

Yeah, and his name is Allah.

be sure and tell God that once you leave this planet.

Duper wrote:be sure and tell God that once you leave this planet.

You talking about Yahweh ? I sincerly hope not to met that entity ever !

Article sux BTW. No oath on a book of fiction should be allowed at all. The whole thing is a perversion of the constitution that (IIRC) tried to keep religion out of government. Would be better to take the oath on the contitution itself IMHO.

Amendment I (1791) wrote: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 grievances.

VonVulcan wrote:I don't see it that way Fern... Seems if you don't go along with this newage-muticultural-politically correct new dogma you are labeled a bigot. You may notice I have done no name calling, just stated my views. Bad times are a commin folks...

Well, first of all, I'm not into the new-age stuff.. too wierd for me. Multicultralism? meh, whatever. it's here to stay. PC.. oh you know that I'm nowhere near PC. And yet, no one's called me a bigot.

Did I see that you didn't throw out names? you bet I did.

With those out of the way, the reason I called it venomous is because it basically went on the offensive against a democratically elected muslim who wanted to take his oath on the Qu'ran. No different than electing a christian who takes his oath on the Bible. So I doubt very much that there are bad times coming because of someone's faith.

If you really want to see the writing on the wall in terms of actual bad times, I'll be happy to show the articles to you.

Grendel wrote:Article sux BTW. No oath on a book of fiction should be allowed at all. The whole thing is a perversion of the constitution that (IIRC) tried to keep religion out of government. Would be better to take the oath on the contitution itself IMHO.

Thats quite an assumtion Grendal... You have evidence to this effect? An oath on the constitution... they are promising to abide by it. (IIRC) To support it. To protect it.

Grendel wrote:Amendment I (1791)"]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 grievances.

Requireing a person to take an oath on a particular book does not establish a religion, it does not require the person taking the oath to be a member of that particular religion. However after reading what Will posted about what book to take an oath by, I tend to agree that a muslim taking an oath on the christion bible would be a meaningless gesture. However the muslim should be aware that the American people would take the oath given by the muslim more seriously if it were taken on a book that most Americans hold as supreme. I suppose now everyone will be screaming for my sources... My first source is my own belief through observation of the people around me. I knew this would be rejected so I did a search. There are many many polls that support my statement that most Americans are Christian. I find it interesting that the first results of my search seemed to focus not on the facts of percentage of Americans that were Christian, but on the poll takers opinion that the percentage was falling. It appears to me that there is a general all pervasive effort to discredit the Christian faith through any means possible.

Ferno wrote:

VonVulcan wrote:I don't see it that way Fern... Seems if you don't go along with this newage-muticultural-politically correct new dogma you are labeled a bigot. You may notice I have done no name calling, just stated my views. Bad times are a commin folks...

Well, first of all, I'm not into the new-age stuff.. too wierd for me. Multicultralism? meh, whatever. it's here to stay. PC.. oh you know that I'm nowhere near PC. And yet, no one's called me a bigot.

Did I see that you didn't throw out names? you bet I did.

With those out of the way, the reason I called it venomous is because it basically went on the offensive against a democratically elected muslim who wanted to take his oath on the Qu'ran. No different than electing a christian who takes his oath on the Bible. So I doubt very much that there are bad times coming because of someone's faith.

If you really want to see the writing on the wall in terms of actual bad times, I'll be happy to show the articles to you.

Lets see them Fern, maybe we are heading in the same direction, just from two different points of view. Maybe we CAN find some "common ground".

You still haven't stopped to think about what forcing (or convincing) him to swear over the bible would actually do. Remember Sir Thomas More? King Henry executed him for refusing to commit blasphemy (he was Catholic and Henry, obviously, the newfound leader of the Anglican Church). All More had to do was put his hand on the book and swear that Henry and Anne were rightful heirs to the throne, but the preamble required him to quickly renounce the authority of the pope.

More was beheaded. He was also beatified.

VonVulcan wrote:

Grendel wrote:Article sux BTW. No oath on a book of fiction should be allowed at all. The whole thing is a perversion of the constitution that (IIRC) tried to keep religion out of government. Would be better to take the oath on the contitution itself IMHO.

Thats quite an assumtion Grendal... You have evidence to this effect?

There are people that think Jefferson was an atheist -- if you want I can dig out some book recommendations. One hint is that there's no mentoning of religion in the constitution (except in A1.)

VonVulcan wrote:An oath on the constitution... they are promising to abide by it. (IIRC) To support it. To protect it.

Yes. But by swearing that on a book of faith that book is lifted above the constitution, ie. it has to be regarded as graver to break the oath on the book than an oath on the constitution, forcing a value system rooted in the book rather than rooted in the constitution.

VonVulcan wrote:Requireing a person to take an oath on a particular book does not establish a religion, it does not require the person taking the oath to be a member of that particular religion. However after reading what Will posted about what book to take an oath by, I tend to agree that a muslim taking an oath on the christion bible would be a meaningless gesture.

Me taking an oath on either would be meaningless as well -- what should I swear on ? "The Origin of Species" ? What about buddists ? Or any other belief system ?

VonVulcan wrote:However the muslim should be aware that the American people would take the oath given by the muslim more seriously if it were taken on a book that most Americans hold as supreme.

Uh, you just said it would be a meaningless gesture ?

VonVulcan wrote:I suppose now everyone will be screaming for my sources... My first source is my own belief through observation of the people around me. I knew this would be rejected so I did a search. There are many many polls that support my statement that most Americans are Christian. I find it interesting that the first results of my search seemed to focus not on the facts of percentage of Americans that were Christian, but on the poll takers opinion that the percentage was falling. It appears to me that there is a general all pervasive effort to discredit the Christian faith through any means possible.

I don't think that's a bad thing. Here's a good read for you, check it out if you get the chance: Letter to a Christian NAtion, Sam Harris.

DCrazy wrote:You still haven't stopped to think about what forcing (or convincing) him to swear over the bible would actually do. Remember Sir Thomas More? King Henry executed him for refusing to commit blasphemy (he was Catholic and Henry, obviously, the newfound leader of the Anglican Church). All More had to do was put his hand on the book and swear that Henry and Anne were rightful heirs to the throne, but the preamble required him to quickly renounce the authority of the pope.

More was beheaded. He was also beatified.

Irrelevant to this thread and these times. (IMO)

Grendel wrote:

VonVulcan wrote:

Grendel wrote:Article sux BTW. No oath on a book of fiction should be allowed at all. The whole thing is a perversion of the constitution that (IIRC) tried to keep religion out of government. Would be better to take the oath on the contitution itself IMHO.

Thats quite an assumtion Grendal... You have evidence to this effect?

There are people that think Jefferson was an atheist -- if you want I can dig out some book recommendations. One hint is that there's no mentoning of religion in the constitution (except in A1.)

I am sorry, I was refering to your statement about (I assume) the bible being a work of fiction. I am unused to having to be so precise in writing.

*EDIT*

Grendel wrote:

VonVulcan wrote:However the muslim should be aware that the American people would take the oath given by the muslim more seriously if it were taken on a book that most Americans hold as supreme.

Uh, you just said it would be a meaningless gesture ?

Again, sorry for being imprecise. I meant the act of a muslim, or any person for that matter, taking an oath on a book he/she did not believe in would be meaningless for that person. But the person would or should be aware that the oath would be taken seriously by the American people. And breaking that oath would be the last thing he/she should do. Now I know that our present politicians break them all the time but for purposes of this discussion, lets assume they don't.

As for Jefferson,

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration, President of the United States: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis; a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." from Query XVIII of his notes on the State of Virginia, America's God and Country, William Federer, p.323

Thomas Jefferson. "No power over the freedom of religion…(is) delegated to the United States by the Constitution." America's God and Country, William Federer, p.323

Thomas Jefferson: "The precepts of philosophy and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. (Jesus) pushed his scrutinizes into the heart of man, erected His tribunal in the regions of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head." April 21, 1803, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, America's God and Country, William Federer, p.333

Thomas Jefferson: March 4, 1805, offered A National Prayer for Peace: "Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage. We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen." America's God and Country, William Federer, p.328

Do you suppose he was coerced?

VonVulcan wrote:Thats quite an assumtion Grendal... You have evidence to this effect?

I am sorry, I was refering to your statement about (I assume) the bible being a work of fiction. I am unused to having to be so precise in writing.

There's too much evidence in favor of the book being fiction to quote here. A good start is the Documentary hypothesis. There is no evidence for major key points of the book to be true (virgin birth, resurrection, genesis, or even the existence of a God etc.)

Jefferson wasn't coerced, just misquoted. He had some thoughts about the book of his own (see below), along w/ others that are interesting:

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration, President of the United States:

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.

-in a letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

and:

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

More:

Thomas Jefferson wrote: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.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")


I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789


History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.


The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820


To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820


It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

(ref. http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm)

VonVulcan wrote:Irrelevant to this thread and these times. (IMO)

And how so? The article (and you) supports the view that it's a perversion of American tradition to not swear upon the good book of Christianity, regardless of the fact that it would be blasphemy for the Senator-elect to do so. Henry supported the view that it's treason to not swear an oath disavowing papal authority, even though it would have been blasphemy (or at least sacrilege) to do so.

I fail to see how you fail to see the relevance.

And Grendel's got an even better point: swearing an oath upon a religious book is a tacit admission that it is a graver violation to commit offense to the book than to the office for which you are being sworn. That's a perversion of American values right there.

Grendel wrote: There are people that think Jefferson was an atheist -- if you want I can dig out some book recommendations. One hint is that there's no mentoning of religion in the constitution (except in A1.)

as far as the Constitution that may be correct as it was technically a legal document. BUT we do have this little piece of paper called the "Declaration of Independence" that says something just a little different

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Laws of Nature and of Nature's God

that they are endowed by their Creator

you cannot deny that this country was founded on freedom OF religion. not freedom from religion. our fore father had the right to worship God as they chose, who ever their god was.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

the Key words here are "law" and "Establishment"

es·tab·lish·ment /ɪˈstæblɪʃmənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-stab-lish-muhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a permanent civil, military, or other force or organization.
9. an institution, as a school, hospital, etc.
10. the recognition by a state of a church as the state church.
11. the church so recognized, esp. the Church of England.

our fore fathers did not want a government run religion (the Church of England) so you have is ass backwards with the separation of church and state, they didn't want to keep the church out of the government they wanted to keep the government out of the church. it is paramount to a state run new agency.

and the second half of the article

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

it seems that too many people would like to focus in on the first half of establishing a religion, and totally omit the second half. the Government CANNOT make any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion and this includes on government property.

As far as Thomas Jefferson being an Atheist thats a Myth that has been perpetuated by Atheist to further their cause and abolish religion from our nation. here are just a few on this "atheists" actions while he was President.

o He attended religious services in the Capitol Building (and such services were also held in the Supreme Court building).

o He favored using the word "God" in the national motto.

o He granted land, buildings, and salaries for clergy teaching in Indian schools.

o Supported the use of the Bible as reading materials in such schools.

o He personally prayed at public events.

o Exempted churches from taxation.

o In 1801, he wrote that "the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which [the clergy] have enveloped it, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and freest expansion of the human mind."

here are some of the things he said.

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”[Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]

Very importantly this person admitted:

“It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson

interesting words and actions from a man that was an Atheist

You are derailing the argument. The US legal system is built on the constitution, not the independance declaration. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Your forefathers didn't want religion influencing the government (vs. the government run religion.)

CUDA wrote:As far as Thomas Jefferson being an Atheist thats a Myth that has been perpetuated by Atheist to further their cause and abolish religion from our nation.

I have seen that argument the other way round -- "As far as Thomas Jefferson being an Christian thats a Myth that has been perpetuated by Christians to further their cause and establish religion in our government." TJ may have been religious but he certainly knew what christianity did to humankind in the past. Just reread the above quotes.

CUDA wrote:Very importantly this person admitted:

You seem to be unaware that TJ created his own version of the bible, the Thomas Jefferson Bible.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen.

Nothing religious about that BTW.

Let me requote TJ on the regular bible:

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

Thomas Jefferson was clearly an incredibly inconsistent person.

According to Think Progress (not exactly an unbiased and guaranteed accurate source ) it is not necessary to take the oath on any book at all making the entire debate superfluous.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/30/kor ... r-ellison/
As a Canadian I don't know if this is accurate or not. Anyone know?

Makes sense to me, but then I only live here My GF told me when she had to testimony in court last year she just had to \"swear\", w/o any book.

Grendel wrote:You are derailing the argument. The US legal system is built on the constitution, not the independance declaration. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Your forefathers didn't want religion influencing the government (vs. the government run religion.)

The amendment is worded to prevent the government from compelling belief in any one particular creed. This is hardly the same thing as keeping religion(s) from "influencing the government". People are bound to act according to their moral dictates, and government is composed of people and their laws.

Ford Prefect wrote:According to Think Progress (not exactly an unbiased and guaranteed accurate source ) it is not necessary to take the oath on any book at all making the entire debate superfluous.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/30/kor ... r-ellison/
As a Canadian I don't know if this is accurate or not. Anyone know?

If that source is true, I retract this thread then.
I do think the artical is worthy of discussion if it is true. Three cheers for dissents post as he nailed the seperation of church and state issue.

Firewheel wrote:Thomas Jefferson was clearly an incredibly inconsistent person.

Thomas Jefferson was a person who lost fail later in life after the death of his wife. The circumstances alone around that is enough to make many folks bitter.

The "bible" that he made that you are refering to was intended as a primer for the native Americans (indians) as most of their understanding of english was weak. it was very simplified and iirc was only the New Testiment.

Ah, that explains it. It seemed like most of the anti-bible quotes came from later in life.

yup, this is all very conveniently omitted by those who know. I'm thinking that the majority of the \"average Joe\" don't however.

Myth:
The United States is a Christian Nation.

Response: This can be taken a couple of different ways, some valid and some not. It could mean simply that a majority of Americans are Christian and/or have always been Christian. This is true. It could mean that American society has been heavily influenced by Christian beliefs and traditions. This is also true. These are, however, simply factual observations and do not mean much when it comes to political and legal action.

Read the rest of it here

Ferno wrote:Myth:
The United States is a Christian Nation.

Response: This can be taken a couple of different ways, some valid and some not. It could mean simply that a majority of Americans are Christian and/or have always been Christian. This is true. It could mean that American society has been heavily influenced by Christian beliefs and traditions. This is also true. These are, however, simply factual observations and do not mean much when it comes to political and legal action.

Read the rest of it here

Ferno don't you find the third paragraph of that piece a bit loaded?

"Upon what can such a position be based? One way is to argue from the fact that many who came here were Christians fleeing persecution in Europe. Aside from the irony of using past persecution to justify contemporary persecution, this merely confuses the context of how and why the continent was settled with how and why the United States, as a legal entity, was created."

He implies that the current practice of their religion by Christians is somehow inflicting persecution on someone!
Yet in the sixth paragraph he rationalizes that congress opening it's business each day with a prayer (to the Christian god) isn't necessarily a Christian act.
So depending on how the characterization of prayer suits his argument it's either not even a Christian act or it's the abhorrent act of Christians persecuting the non believers!

I have to call bull★■◆● on that piece. It's full of self serving spin offered up as objective analysis!

I don't know if we should call the U.S. a Christian Nation but its population certainly is predominantly Christian and the government was shaped by a cast of Christians who made sure it was known to all by official announcement and document that the government they were establishing was in no way going to be allowed to interfere with certain inalienable rights they believed were granted all men, not by mankind, but by their creator, God.

Now you can argue what is is all day long but it sure looks like America is predominantly Christian and was designed that way from the beginning by Christians.

Duper wrote:yup, this is all very conveniently omitted by those who know. I'm thinking that the majority of the "average Joe" don't however.

Does this mean that we have to preface the mention of any Christian who found religion through a traumatic life experience the same way, i.e. "he's a Christian, but he did go through a rough time, so that's to be expected"?

Let's just let the cards fall where they may.

I never said it was without spin. I simply posted it for your consideration.

And speaking of spin.. are you saying it's left spin?

\"He implies that the current practice of their religion by Christians is somehow inflicting persecution on someone!\"

Persecution of whom?


If it was supposed to be a christian state at the start, then it would technically be a theocracy. But we know better, don't we? Mainly due to the whole seperation of church and state. If it weren't for that, america would be similar to Iran.

Ferno wrote:I never said it was without spin. I simply posted it for your consideration.

And speaking of spin.. are you saying it's left spin?

"He implies that the current practice of their religion by Christians is somehow inflicting persecution on someone!"

Persecution of whom?

You would have to ask the author, he's the one who alleges that Christians fleeing persecution in Europe are ironically using past persecution to justify contemporary persecution'...
And no it's not necessarily 'left' spin, it's anti-christian spin. The left doesn't enjoy much political support from the Christian base so in that sense they do engage in anti-christian spin when they think it suits them...and they also pose as pro-christian when they think it helps them.

If it was supposed to be a christian state at the start, then it would technically be a theocracy. But we know better, don't we? Mainly due to the whole seperation of church and state. If it weren't for that, america would be similar to Iran.

I don't think it was or is supposed to be a "Christian State" and never suggested it was.
I do recognize however that this is a predominantly Christian country, it always has been and was founded by Christians who went to great lengths to make sure the government wasn't allowed to interfere with the expression or practice of ones religion.

If you think the steps they took to ensure separation of church and state, a phrase which isn't in the constitution by the way, means the government is supposed to keep people from being able to express their faith, pray, or otherwise publicly practice religion, then you are completely wrong!

The only place you can tie the phrase "separation of church and state" to our government is a letter written by Jefferson to the Baptists;
""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."

Jefferson also wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

It's pretty obvious that the founders had no problem with people practicing their religion and public prayer and all sorts of intertwining of individual religious expression even in their capacity as government representatives and during the performance of those duties.
They also were pretty clearly opposed to the Baptists requests (I assume any others as well) who seemed to want the lawmakers to put some federal muscle behind their particular brand of Christianity. The founders seemed to say "Of course we believe in the Christian God, We believe that a lot of the basic rights we hold dear come, not from man, but from God. We will design a government to protect our rights and yet make it incapable of infringing on those rights since they come from the higher power."

They didn't want government deciding which religion was the 'right' one and they didn't want government helping religion and they very clearly wanted the individual citizen to be able to practice his religion openly and without interference from government as long as that practice didn't step on the rights of others.
And that is where the debate rages today.
Today we have people who will say, for example, that swearing on a bible before testifying in court is stepping on others rights yet it's pretty clear that the founders of this country wouldn't agree with that. They included all sorts of prayer and deference to God in their work as lawmakers.

They weren't so concerned if someone expressed their faith in a personal way and obviously didn't think a government official doing so, even at work, was a form of persecution against others. They probably would have no problem with someone refusing to use the bible to swear an oath but I believe they would be opposed to making it a law that states no one may swear an oath on the bible.

How anyone can read the words:
"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."
and from that they can come up with all sorts of anti-religious intent and completely ignore the half of the statement which says: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof! it's beyond reason to accept that incomplete, if not blatently, disingenuous interpretation.

There is a two sided component to the authors "wall", his intent was obvious to anyone with rudimentary reading comprehension skills and an objective mind. The wall protects both sides and that means the predominantly Christian country will have a lot of Christians expressing their faith. there wont be a balance here, not because the government sided with Christians over others but because there are a lot more of them than others!
They won't be allowed to use the muscle of government to compel people to support them but the government won't be allowed to stop them from expressing their faith either.
When you go to France you will find most people there speak french, you can't escape it.
If you come to America you will find the expression of religious faith to be largely Christian, you can't escape it and the government can't protect you from it.
Deal with it.