Air Force Academy creates worship area for Pagans, Druids, and Wiccans

It doesn't OVERRIDE it, it INTERPRETS it, it gives context to it. Otherwise you read your own contemporary prejudices about the meaning of the words into it. The opinion of a founder of the nation ought to count for a great deal.Some quotes from John Adams’ first State of the Union addressJohn Adams' First State of the Union Address - Wikisource, the free online library : The above has an indirect statement of thanks to God (the source of benevolence) and a reference to our moral and religious principles, which rather does identify the entire nation with whatever he thinks those are. And this is said in a context that includes a reference to injustice and violence at sea which of course refers to the piracy which was the occasion of the Treaty of Tripoli. Here we have a statement of his view of the morally degenerated condition of France which strongly implies the importance in his mind of a strong sense of moral and religious obligations and of public faith and national honor as the source of any trustworthy agreement between the two nations.Hardly a recommendation of the French Revolution or any of its designers by the way.I’m reading these documents with an eye to demonstrating his religious views but it’s also interesting to note that he also goes on to mention foreign influence on the Indians against the U.S. I don’t think I’d ever run across this before.His second State of the Union addressJohn Adams' Second State of the Union Address - Wikisource, the free online library : Acknowledgment of Divine Providence in both the sufferings, including from diseases, and blessings of the nation, with gratitude for the latter. The third State of the Union address: The fourth: For context to his statements about religion and morality:Adams was a Unitarian and not a traditional Christian and had many ideas about religion that a Bible believing Christian would disagree with, but he nevertheless strongly endorsed general Christian principles. The Wikipedia article about him has: Just for some background about another founder: In public addresses Washington also did not specifically refer to Christian beliefs but said such things as this from his farewell speech to the nationhttp://www.access.gpo.gov/...ss/senate/farewell/sd106-21.pdf : But what he meant by his terms becomes more specifically Christian when you read some other quotes by and about Washington: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Unfortunately some did. Much later, though, in and after the Reformation, and in Luther's case he regretted having any part in it. Calvin seems to have retained too much of the Catholic idea that it's right to persecute heretics, and that spirit has erupted from time to time since, quite true, but in brief limited events against which soberer minds soon prevailed, nothing like the Inquisition.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And yet the Treaty of Tripoli, a government document carrying the full force of law, ratified by Congress and signed by the President, states in unequivocal, simple, direct language that the government of the United States is in no sense based on the Christian religion.Odd, that he would sign a document if he genuinely believed that the government of the Unites States is based on teh Christian religion. Odder still that a majority in Congress would ratify the same document if they also believed the government to be based on the Christian religion.Even odder still, the COnstitution of the United States does not mention God, Jehovah, Yahweh, the Bible, Jesus, or any other character of the Christian faith even once. It carries no reference to a creator; no mention of any Commandments.In fact, in a most bizarre twist for any nation supposedly created as a Christian state, the Constitution specifically outlaws any sort of official state religion, including Christianity, while expressly providing the inalienable right of all citizens to worship what and how they choose, without any sort of addendum that restricts such freedom to Christianity.The document even disallows any sort of religious test for holding a public office, which is why we can have elected representatives who are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Wiccan, Agnostic, Scientologist, Mormon, or any other religious persuasion. Isn;t that a bit uncharacteristic for a nation supposedly founded on Christian principles?Especially considering that actual Christian governments, like those of the Pilgrim colonies that preceded the United States by over a century, did restrict freedom of religion to the point of banishment for any who denied Christ? Who did include a requirement that officials be Christian? That did mention Jesus and God and Christianity in their founding legal documents?Isn't it rather odd that the laws of the United States, from the Constitution on down, bear such little resemblance to actual examples of Christian governments?Your opinions, Faith, strain credulity to the point that I doubt your ability to differentiate reality from your own personal fantasy-land.Your interpretations contradict legal documents, Faith.

Pardon me if my History's a bit rusty, but didn't Christopher Columbus come to the New World thinking it was India?

That simple direct language means something different to you than it meant to them. You have a modern secularist idea of all these things. They never ever thought in terms of government or life without God -- this is even true of the least religious of the founders, Jefferson and Franklin -- and the God they all refer to in their private correspondence is always the God of the Bible. I didn't say he believed that in those terms. I don't think he contradicted himself. You might if you give a different meaning to the Treaty's words than he does. But he clearly considered the U.S. to be founded on Christian PRINCIPLES and required these of the citizenry to guarantee our freedoms. See above. That's because it is not based on the Christian religion per se but on principles derived from it, and it is shot through with these. Seeing this takes understanding the historical context of the time and I don't claim to know a great deal about it myself but I have no doubt encountered more information about that era that supports my views than you have. It isn't a "Christian state" in the sense you are using the term. That is WHY the Constitution outlawed an established religion and religious tests. I could argue that they expected too much of their citizenry (although they did warn against our losing our republic if we failed to maintain our moral heritage) as we have lost everything they took for granted in those days about the moral and religious nature of the population the government was designed for. They knew we live in a fallen world and they didn't want to compel anyone to accept anything against his or her conscience, and they did guarantee freedom of religion for all in that sense.But at the same time you have to reckon with the fact that they DID open Congress with prayer, and prayer in the name of Jesus Christ yet, and I believe I remember that as late as 1920 new members of Congress were welcomed in the name of Jesus Christ, and that many Presidents, notably Lincoln, even Presidents without the most traditional Christian beliefs, called on God in their speeches, and even called for times of fasting and prayer for the nation.You find all that contradictory with your nonreligious understanding of the Treaty of Tripoli and the Constitution, because you can only think in terms of religion or nonreligion, you don't have a Christian culture in mind that was shot through with Christian principles that permeated every aspect of the thinking in those days. But that's what Christians have in mind when we talk about the Christian character of this country. It was more Christian than any other nation on this earth had ever been, not only in the beliefs of its population but in the principles on which the government and the laws were founded.DeToqueville witnessed to the saturation of the lives of the people with religion and their political life and assumptions as well -- not any religion, the Christian religion. The Constitution could not ever have been written without it. The specific differences in belief of the founders, the "Deism" the lack of religious language in some documents, are not proof against the fact that EVERYTHING American in those days was Christian to such an extent that it didn't have to be said on all occasions for it to be assumed. And it often WASN'T explicitly said because they DID want to extend the blessings of Christian freedoms to all peoples of whatever beliefs. The problem is that we've lost that frame of reference today after a century or two of gradual erosion. It doesn't restrict freedoms to Christianity, the whole system of freedoms was made possible by Christianity, and if you take it away you also take away the freedoms.Again, I'm saying that it was the Christian principles embodied in our Constitution and our Laws that established this freedom and all our other freedoms and inspired the writing of them into our Constitution. It was necessary but it may be a big part of the reason why the nation has lost its original Christian character since only a Christian with a strong historical sense -- and there are few of us around unfortunately -- would understand what the founders meant. But if we made sure all citizens had a good solid education in the founding principles members of other religions could adhere to them without believing in the religion itself. Well, many of the Christians felt betrayed by the nonreligious language in the Constitution and it may be that our form of government, viable as so many said only on the moral and religious character of the people, was doomed to degenerate despite its lofty concepts and despite its apparent recognition of the tendencies of fallen human nature to undo it all. That's because it is NOT a Christian government in THAT sense. Thank you. Actually, mine don't but yours do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which Christian principles were these?-MeldinoorABE: Be specificEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

You may be able to infer some of them from the speeches of Adams and Washington I linked a few posts above, about the moral condition of the nation and of France for example.

Thank you, Faith.I may indeed be able to infer some "principals", but I'd like you, the expert, to explain which "Christian principals" this nation was founded on.Thanks,-Meldinoor

Indeed he did, which is why the islands he discovered were called the "West Indies." Thoughts of conversion to Christianity came after the islands had already been discovered, for obvious reasons.Note, of course, that those islands are not and never have been part of the United States...and so Faith's mention of Columbus is rather irrelevant.

No he didn't. He wrote the 'Jews and Their Lies' only 3 years before his death. He died hating the Jews and advocating persecution of the Jews as shown in his last sermon four days before his death: He was also successful in having them killed and expelled from several regions of Germany including Saxony, Brandenburg, and Silesia within a few years before his death as attested to many eyewitnesses. Hmm, torturing, expelling and burning Jews. Hmm, that sounds familiar. I wonder where Hitler got his ideas from?There was no contrition in Luther's heart for the Jews. He along with Calvin were petty religious thugs who advocated and caused the persecution and deaths of innocent people. End of story. Your condoning their murderous, hate-filled speach and actions is hypocritical and revulting. And you wonder why non-believer want nothing to do with you. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

As Melindor does in Message 126, I too would like to know exactly what principles you're referring to? What principles that are strictly Christian and not also secular in nature do you believe did the founders use in designing the United States government? It would be particularly interesting to see how these principles were incorporated in the Constitution.And please don't try to assert that freedom of religion is a Christian value. I can't think of any religion, other than Islam, that is less tolerant of other faiths. Do you think that being tolerant is something other than accepting that other faiths are no less valid than one's own? Or maybe you can call yourself tolerant if you just manage hold yourself back from burning synagogues, forcibly removing children from their parents so they can be raised as Christians, or destroying almost all of an entire civilization's written history (read much Maya literature lately?) just because it's pagan.Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonWhat's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

So have the Protestants. I see no difference except in scope. They both have blood on their hands.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

The difference is? The whole bible is a book of religious do's and don't's. In order to have a relationship with God you have to conform to these religious do's and don'ts do you not? You need to repent, pray, worship god, etc, etc. I really do not see the diference. I think you confuse yourself or I should say brainwash yourself.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I do not deny that there was some, but please name the incidents of Protestant blood on their hands and give statistics comparing the scope of their offenses to the Catholic church's.Scope matters, and source matters. A few leaders still barely out of the Catholic church or a few wrongheaded ones corrected by the soberer ones cannot compare to a concerted program of persecution, torture and murder conducted over centuries -- and even before the office of the Inquisition was officially established.Thank you

I'm sorry you don't see the difference.ABE: But to try to state it: religion is NOTHING BUT following rituals and do's and don't's, no relationship with God whatever.Christianity is relationship with Christ and obedience follows from the relationship and done in love to Him.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.