Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
28 online now:
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,718 Year: 18,754/19,786 Month: 1,174/1,705 Week: 426/518 Day: 44/58 Hour: 3/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is America a Christian Nation?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 206 (546888)
02-14-2010 5:56 PM


The founders represented the majority of the nation's people who were likely at least 75-90 percent Protestand Christian at the time of the founding.

The founders did not establish a Christian nation perse. As substantiated by the inscriptions on the buildings and statue, etc in the government buildings and wording in the founding documents, Biblical principles were established but not Christianity perse.

What the founders were particularly interested in relative to Christianity is that no denominational sect or church system was to be established such as the RCC or Anglican Church or any such thing. What they established primarily was the freedom to practice religion anywhere, be it in school, government or private sector, uninhibited. This they did and this they practiced after the documents were established. Thus no fuss was raised about praying and Bible reading in schools or anything like that.

Whoever was in the majority in the school boards, in government, etc made the determination as to how much and what of anything, be it religious or whatever in the public sector.
Thus, in our time, the majority supposedly representing us has spoken. Thus in Texas the people's reps have tended towards more Christianity in some areas and in places like NY etc the majority have forbid what the founders allowed in their time.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-14-2010 6:35 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-14-2010 7:51 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 02-14-2010 8:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 17 by DC85, posted 02-14-2010 9:54 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-16-2010 1:40 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 206 (546961)
02-15-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
02-14-2010 7:51 PM


Re: Representative Leadership
But,
Dr Adequate writes:

.........my dear Buzsaw,........

President Lincoln once said, referring to another man at a function in the White House something like; "I don't like that man. I guess I'll need to get to know him better."

Perhaps, Doc, we're getting to know one another better. You're looking more adequate to me after our freeforall exchanges.

Dr Adequate writes:

.........if a school board can tell you when to pray and who to pray to and what to pray for, then you do not have freedom of religion. Maybe they do, but you don't.

But Doc, have you forgotten that we have a republic wherein each of us has a vote which we can cast so as to remove/install the sort of governmant representatives who will implement the wishes of the majority of us? This applies also to the Texas school boards and all levels of government. This applied to the founders, some of whom were deists. This is what their majority constituents wanted and that's what they implememted. Don't you think the majority should determine policy, or do you think a few should dictate policy to the majority as was the case in socialistic Europe, Cuba, China etc last century when a few minority despots dictating policy murdered over a hundred million of the majority opposition in their own nations?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-14-2010 7:51 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2010 11:45 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 26 by DC85, posted 02-15-2010 4:05 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 206 (547707)
02-21-2010 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
02-15-2010 11:45 AM


Re: Representative Leadership
Dr Adequate writes:

I haven't forgotten that. But I also remember that we are a republic with a constitution.

But the Constitution does not call for minority rule. It calls for a representative republic wherein the majority chooses the representatives who determine policy.

Dr Adequate writes:

I'm somewhat surprised that you take the attitude that you do, because you yourself belong to a minority religious group. You're a Seventh Day Adventist, aren't you? Very well then, suppose that the people in your district voted for a law that only Sunday could be kept as the Sabbath. Wouldn't you and I then join our voices in pointing to the First Amendment and talking about freedom of religion? Would you, under those circumstances, be talking so loud about how we're a republic with "representatives who will implement the wishes of the majority".

I'm the member of no church. I regularly attend a 7th Day Baptist church.

They could vote for stores, etc being closed on Sundays or no liquor etc, but they couldn't vote the right to worship away. Apples and oranges.

Dr Adequate writes:

No, in that case you'd agree with me in saying that freedom of conscience must always be defended. Except that I would always say that it must always be defended, whereas you apparently get to pick and choose.

Under the Constitution, no individual picks and chooses policy. That's the duty of the people's reps elected to establish policy.

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Edited by Buzsaw, : correct wording


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2010 11:45 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-21-2010 10:42 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-21-2010 10:55 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2010 10:57 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 206 (547714)
02-21-2010 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Otto Tellick
02-16-2010 1:40 AM


Establishment & Practice Not Same
Otto Tellick writes:

Buzsaw writes:


What they established primarily was the freedom to practice religion anywhere, be it in school, government or private sector, uninhibited. ... Thus no fuss was raised about praying and Bible reading in schools or anything like that.

This is missing the point {AbE: actually, it's just wrong} in a couple of big ways. To start with, what they established primarily was that government would have no direct involvement, and take no specific position, whether positive or negative, with respect to any particular religion, where "particular" entails not just "Christian Sect X" as opposed to "Christian Sect Y", but also "Any Christian Sect" (i.e. Christianity in general) as opposed to any non-Christian religion.

You've got that wrong, Otto.

The free exercise clause forbids the government from denying the practice of religion. That applies to any place, including government facilities. Thus the practice of church in Congress sanctioned by the founders. Government can limit some rituals and/or actions by civil and federal laws, however. That's where the representives elected by the people set policy.

Though the government can't pass laws establishing a religious sect, government cannot, according to the 1st Amendment restrict the practice of religion in or out of government facilities as the founders did indeed practice to the extent that the elected reps determined. Establishing and practicing are not one and the same.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-16-2010 1:40 AM Otto Tellick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2010 12:03 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-22-2010 12:19 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 206 (547717)
02-21-2010 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dr Adequate
02-21-2010 10:57 PM


Re: Representative Leadership
I pretty much agree with most of what you posted, Dr Adequate. This is why a lot of what was practiced in the early days when Protestant Christianity was quite dominant, nobody in most situations objected to what was practiced in the public facilities.

Now that we have a more diverse population, elected reps and the courts have established different policy and that's the way a republic should work, so long as policy remains within the perameters of the Constitution. That's were it gets sticky and controversial, i.e. interpreting the Constitution's intent. Then we go full circle back to the intent of people who's constituency were predominantly Christian. Of course, their intent would be more Christian oriented than the intent of many of our interpreting judges today.

Bottom line: As we the people of the Republic (majority) become more secular, the intent of our Christian oriented founders becomes less relevant.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2010 10:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2010 12:05 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2010 12:33 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2010 1:02 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 206 (547769)
02-22-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Adequate
02-22-2010 12:05 AM


Re: Representative Leadership
Dr Adequate writes:

Well, see my previous post. We know how James Madison interpreted the First Amendment, and he wrote it.

However, obviously the majority of signers on to the admendment thought otherwise. Else why would they have allowed exercise within government, not considering that to be establishiing religion by law?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof........

Embolding mine to emphasise make no law........prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Thus there was no law restricting free exercise of religion, no matter where.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2010 12:05 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2010 5:37 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 206 (547770)
02-22-2010 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Coyote
02-22-2010 12:33 AM


Re: Representative Leadership
Coyote writes:

This process started back with The Enlightenment, which the founding fathers studied and emulated. They passed on the legacy of The Enlightenment, not the legacy of the Dark Ages.
That means we don't need, after thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands of years, to kowtow to the various shamans for fear of being burned at the stake, the Inquisition, or the like.

Again, it would take an establishment law for that to ever happen. That's why it didn't happen when exercise of religion was within government facilities. No law established anything by them doing that. Along came representatives who decided that that was not good policy and they discontinued it.

If however, the majority of the people's reps decide that we should go back to more exercise within government and the courts didn't overturn, no law of Congress can stop them from doing it as per the amendment.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2010 12:33 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-22-2010 6:47 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 206 (547798)
02-22-2010 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
02-22-2010 5:37 PM


Re: James "I Wrote The Bill Of Rights" Madison
Dr Adequate writes:

Er ... because they might have been idiots?

The fact is that the guy who wrote the First Amendment thought that it excluded the chaplainship to Congress. If we want to know what the Framers thought, we know what James Madison thought, and he wrote the Bill of Rights.

Dr Adequate, this is not the republic of James Madison. For that matter, even James Madison said,

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the whole future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

John Q Adams, signer, saidThe highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Samuel Adams said "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."

Alexander Hamilton said, "The Christian Constitutional Society." Its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion; and second: The support of the United States."

John Hancock was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence and member of the Continental Congress. He stated: "Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend you to every measure for their support and encouragement…Manners, by which not only the freedom but the very existence of the republics are greatly affected, depend much upon the public institutions of religion."

On September 12, 1782, Congress approved the governmental printing of the first English-language Bible printed in America. Printed in the front of that Bible was the following Congressional endorsement: "Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States Congress…recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States." Of this event, one early historian observed: "Who, in view of this fact, will call in question the assertion that this is a Bible nation?

Benjamin Rush was a Founding Father and signer the Declaration of Independence. "The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [extinguishing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that is was improper to read the Bible at schools. The Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period in life...[It] should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public happiness."

Those are just a few cited. There's more:

http://www.truenews.org/...paration_of_church_and_state.html


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2010 5:37 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by hooah212002, posted 02-22-2010 9:25 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 80 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-23-2010 10:17 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2010 11:55 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 206 (547803)
02-22-2010 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ZenMonkey
02-22-2010 6:47 PM


Re: Representative Leadership
Zen Monkey writes:

So to get back to Buz at long last, I believe that what the above illustrates is the nature of government neutrality with regards to religion. If by "religion within government facilities" you (Buz) mean non-discriminatory use of public venues for religious purposes, I don't see a problem with that.

Check, Zen. That's what the Constitution calls for. If Zen Buddhism becomes as prominent in the US of A as Christianity was in the days of the founders, then get up the majority vote, install enough support and have the representatives implement building some Buddhas around DC where the Buddist sheeples can bring their offerings and prayers, etc. Imo, God forbid, but that's how a republic is suppose to work.

Zen Monkey writes:

But if you mean Congress ought to start basing more legislation on Christian beliefs, then that's not how this country is supposed to work, no matter how many of those Congress-critters or their constituents are Christian themselves.

Congress shall not forbid the free exercise of religion. Freely exercising legislates nothing. Anything which gets out of hand can be handily handled at the poles.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-22-2010 6:47 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 206 (547835)
02-23-2010 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Coyote
02-22-2010 10:00 PM


Re: Representative Leadership
Coyote writes:

Preferably at the south pole. That's farther away.

So you decry the idea of a republic, Coyote? What would be a better system?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2010 10:00 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 02-23-2010 10:14 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 206 (547881)
02-23-2010 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ZenMonkey
02-23-2010 10:17 AM


Re: James "I Wrote The Bill Of Rights" Madison
Zen, those quotes are not in the Constitution. They are quotes of the signers on to the Constitution relative to what kind of a nation they proposed. Most of them were early presidents. Most of those quotes were about exercising Christianity and not about establishing any sect.

They did not want any sect established such as the Anglican Church which was tied up with the Brittish government and certainly didn't want Catholicism established as it was pretty much all over the civilized world back in the Dark Ages.

They left exercisement of Christianity open to change from what they were practicing. Thus it has been changed to a more secular nation. I don't see why you people have a problem with that. I'm certainly not advocating establishment of my religious beliefs into law.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-23-2010 10:17 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2010 5:49 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 84 by bluescat48, posted 02-23-2010 9:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019