:yahoo:


John Adams Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

Wirelessly posted

1) quote our founding fathers all you want. It doesn't matter what they said rather what they wrote, particularly in our laws.

2) John Adams wasn't a Christian; so even if he'd wanted a more religiously based nation; it wouldn't have been your religion.

3) Ever heard of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" signed by President Adams? I don't think he's the best choice here... :lol:

4) you should have read my response to you on the other thread. Did you miss it?

Wirelessly posted

1) quote our founding fathers all you want. It doesn't matter what they said rather what they wrote, particularly in our laws.

2) John Adams wasn't a Christian; so even if he'd wanted a more religiously based nation; it wouldn't have been your religion.

3) Ever heard of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" signed by President Adams? I don't think he's the best choice here... :lol:

4) you should have read my response to you on the other thread. Did you miss it?

John Adams

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1
1.Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.(Return)

:yahoo:

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.

This has proved it's self true more and more every year... crime, unwed mothers, and general sloth. The takers vote themselves more taxpayer money every cycle.

This has proved it's self true more and more every year... crime, unwed mothers, and general sloth. The takers vote themselves more taxpayer money every cycle.

Your very right. There has been a systamatic attempt to remove God from the public square. And we wonder why. Many of these things can directly be associated with the removal of God from the publik skools.

Wirelessly posted

1) quote our founding fathers all you want. It doesn't matter what they said rather what they wrote, particularly in our laws.

2) John Adams wasn't a Christian; so even if he'd wanted a more religiously based nation; it wouldn't have been your religion.

3) Ever heard of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" signed by President Adams? I don't think he's the best choice here... :lol:

4) you should have read my response to you on the other thread. Did you miss it?

John Adams

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1
1.Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.(Return)

:yahoo:

:doh: my fault! John Adams was Unitarianism. My mistake. It was Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and (I think) James Madison who were the non-Christians. I was thinking Adams was on that list. :lol:

Care to address the other points I made though?

Wirelessly posted
:doh: my fault! John Adams was Unitarianism. My mistake. It was Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and (I think) James Madison who were the non-Christians. I was thinking Adams was on that list. :lol:

Care to address the other points I made though?
No. Our kids are really be indoctrinated by the secularists.

Madison even desired that all public officials - including Bradford - would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony:

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. [2]

Second, Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that:

It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other. [3] (emphasis added)

[2] Letter of Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773), in 1 James Madison, The Papers of James Madison 66 (William T. Hutchinson ed., Illinois: University of Chicago Press 1962).

[3] The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, Held at the Capitol in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday the 6th of May, 1776, 103 (Williamsburg: Alexander Purdie 1776) (Madison on the Committee on May 16, 1776; the "Declaration of Rights" passed June 12, 1776).

:smoochy:

Wirelessly posted


:doh: my fault! John Adams was Unitarianism. My mistake. It was Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and (I think) James Madison who were the non-Christians. I was thinking Adams was on that list. :lol:

Care to address the other points I made though?
No. Our kids are really be indoctrinated by the secularists.

Madison even desired that all public officials - including Bradford - would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony:

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. [2]

Second, Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that:

It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other. [3] (emphasis added)

[2] Letter of Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773), in 1 James Madison, The Papers of James Madison 66 (William T. Hutchinson ed., Illinois: University of Chicago Press 1962).

[3] The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, Held at the Capitol in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday the 6th of May, 1776, 103 (Williamsburg: Alexander Purdie 1776) (Madison on the Committee on May 16, 1776; the "Declaration of Rights" passed June 12, 1776).

:smoochy:

Like I said, I wasn't sure about Madison, I did a quick google search and couldn't find his religious affiliation. Why don't you try to debate te issue on your own rather than spewing quotes? Also, why do you continue to ignore the points I made on the other thread? Can't you find an appropriate quote to dispute me? Maybe you should look up *both* of te uses for the word 'indoctrination'. It seems to be the religious side that teaches people not to criticize their teachings. :shrug:

Wirelessly posted
Like I said, I wasn't sure about Madison, I did a quick google search and couldn't find his religious affiliation. Why don't you try to debate te issue on your own rather than spewing quotes? Also, why do you continue to ignore the points I made on the other thread? Can't you find an appropriate quote to dispute me? Maybe you should look up *both* of te uses for the word 'indoctrination'. It seems to be the religious side that teaches people not to criticize their teachings. :shrug:
list keeps getting smaller....
I don't want to hijack the thread. quotes and citations are what are called evidence (at least to me and most reasonable persons). You have yet to provide any.

Wirelessly posted
:doh: my fault! John Adams was Unitarianism. My mistake. It was Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and (I think) James Madison who were the non-Christians. I was thinking Adams was on that list. :lol:

Care to address the other points I made though?


:buddies:
Benjamin Franklin:

“In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, sir were heard, and they were graciously answered . . . I therefore beg leave to move–that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business.”

James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, editor (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 984-986, June 28, 1787.

“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”

James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, editor (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 985, June 28, 1787.

Wirelessly posted



:doh: my fault! John Adams was Unitarianism. My mistake. It was Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and (I think) James Madison who were the non-Christians. I was thinking Adams was on that list. :lol:

Care to address the other points I made though?

TJ was no evangelical in the traditional sense. But a religious man he was.

Thomas Jefferson

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis (really?), a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?(that does not happen in skool today) 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.”

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virgina (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237. MS-176.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted
Like I said, I wasn't sure about Madison, I did a quick google search and couldn't find his religious affiliation. Why don't you try to debate te issue on your own rather than spewing quotes? Also, why do you continue to ignore the points I made on the other thread? Can't you find an appropriate quote to dispute me? Maybe you should look up *both* of te uses for the word 'indoctrination'. It seems to be the religious side that teaches people not to criticize their teachings. :shrug:
list keeps getting smaller....
I don't want to hijack the thread. quotes and citations are what are called evidence (at least to me and most reasonable persons). You have yet to provide any.

From the other thread;

If the founding fathers wanted to state that we were a Christian nation (or one founded on Christian principles) they would have said "We the people of the United States in a firm belief of the being and perfection of the one living and true God, the creator and supreme Governor of the World, in His universal providence and the authority of His laws... do ordain, etc." rather than what we have now (what they originally and intentionally wrote). (The above quote is actually from William Williams of the Constitutional Congress. He proposed this as the preamble...now why would he have done that if we were always a Christian nation?)

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



:doh: my fault! John Adams was Unitarianism. My mistake. It was Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and (I think) James Madison who were the non-Christians. I was thinking Adams was on that list. :lol:

Care to address the other points I made though?

TJ was no evangelical in the traditional sense. But a religious man he was.

Thomas Jefferson

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis (really?), a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?(that does not happen in skool today) 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.”

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virgina (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237. MS-176.

I never said he wasn't religious, just that he wasn't a Christian. He was a deist.#My point is that our founding fathers weren't ALL Christians.

Your copy and paste marathon (though possible applicable) is by no means a sign of an opinion developed independently of your indoctrination (that is your inclination to avoid criticism of what you've been taught). You've yet to display the ability to defend your position rater you've proven your google skills.#

Quotes or not, answer me this:

If American has always been a Christian nation;

- why did#William Williams propose his more 'Godly' version of the preamble?

- why was the an initiative in Virginia to#change the wording of Article VI to say that "no other religious test shall ever be required than a belief in the one only true God, who is the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the evil"#

- why did#Maryland delegate Luther Martin say "there were some members so unfashionable as to think that... it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism."

There are countless examples of Christian attempts to 'Christian-ize' the Constitution and our law prior to the 1950's. It's was during that time they decided to begin claiming that America had *always* been a Christian nation.

Please explain *in your own words* :lol: you may use quotations to back up only what you say, not as the response itself. :yay:

Merry Christmas everyone!

Wirelessly posted
I never said he wasn't religious, just that he wasn't a Christian. He was a deist.#My point is that our founding fathers weren't ALL Christians.

Your copy and paste marathon (though possible applicable) is by no means a sign of an opinion developed independently of your indoctrination (that is your inclination to avoid criticism of what you've been taught). You've yet to display the ability to defend your position rater you've proven your google skills.#

Quotes or not, answer me this:

If American has always been a Christian nation;

- why did#William Williams propose his more 'Godly' version of the preamble?

- why was the an initiative in Virginia to#change the wording of Article VI to say that "no other religious test shall ever be required than a belief in the one only true God, who is the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the evil"#

- why did#Maryland delegate Luther Martin say "there were some members so unfashionable as to think that... it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism."

There are countless examples of Christian attempts to 'Christian-ize' the Constitution and our law prior to the 1950's. It's was during that time they decided to begin claiming that America had *always* been a Christian nation.

Please explain *in your own words* :lol: you may use quotations to back up only what you say, not as the response itself. :yay:

So you offer no evidence and use quotes to tell me I should stop quoting the founders.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Merry Christmas. Remember the real reason for the season. :buddies:

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted
I never said he wasn't religious, just that he wasn't a Christian. He was a deist.#My point is that our founding fathers weren't ALL Christians.

Your copy and paste marathon (though possible applicable) is by no means a sign of an opinion developed independently of your indoctrination (that is your inclination to avoid criticism of what you've been taught). You've yet to display the ability to defend your position rater you've proven your google skills.#

Quotes or not, answer me this:

If American has always been a Christian nation;

- why did#William Williams propose his more 'Godly' version of the preamble?

- why was the an initiative in Virginia to#change the wording of Article VI to say that "no other religious test shall ever be required than a belief in the one only true God, who is the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the evil"#

- why did#Maryland delegate Luther Martin say "there were some members so unfashionable as to think that... it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism."

There are countless examples of Christian attempts to 'Christian-ize' the Constitution and our law prior to the 1950's. It's was during that time they decided to begin claiming that America had *always* been a Christian nation.

Please explain *in your own words* :lol: you may use quotations to back up only what you say, not as the response itself. :yay:

So you offer no evidence and use quotes to tell me I should stop quoting the founders.

You threw quotes with little to no analysis from you, no thought. You got on me for not quoting people. So I quoted people and provided some specific history along with my own analysis. Now that's NOT what you wanted? :confused: I'm sorry, do I need to keep it simpler for you?

Why are you avoiding addressing the points I'm making? Please!!! Think about the issue at hand and come to your own conclusion! Even if you still come to the - incorrect - opinion that we're a Christian nation; at least you'd have thought about it for yourself rather than your copy and paste! (...aren't you one of the many that get on 'other' forumites that copy and paste and run...?)

Wirelessly posted

You threw quotes with little to no analysis from you, no thought. You got on me for not quoting people. So I quoted people and provided some specific history along with my own analysis. Now that's NOT what you wanted? :confused: I'm sorry, do I need to keep it simpler for you?

Why are you avoiding addressing the points I'm making? Please!!! Think about the issue at hand and come to your own conclusion! Even if you still come to the - incorrect - opinion that we're a Christian nation; at least you'd have thought about it for yourself rather than your copy and paste! (...aren't you one of the many that get on 'other' forumites that copy and paste and run...?)

Ok. We are having a discussion on what the founders intended. Their quotes are necessary to make that determination. You have not quoted anyone since you have not provided any citation for anything you presented. I on the other hand have. Copy and past is acceptable in the proper context (this being one) that is needed for demonstration.

As far as you label of "Christian Nation". That may have different meanings to different people. This country is defined by the Judeo/Christian influence of the bible in our laws and ability to self govern. Our founders expected our leaders to be Christians REGARDLESS OF DENOMINATION. That is the key. That was why there was not "religious test for office" so that one sect.....of Christianity would be established. They knew from where they came from what happened when a specific church governed people.

Daniel Webster on the Mass. Constitution:
I believe I have stated the substance of the reasons which appeared to have weight with the committee. For my own part, finding this declaration in the constitution and hearing of no practical evil resulting from it, I should have been willing to retain it unless considerable objection had been expressed to it. If others were satisfied with it, I should be. I do not consider it, however, essential to retain it as there is another part of the constitution which recognizes, in the fullest manner, the benefits which civil society derives from those Christian institutions which cherish piety, morality, and religion. I am clearly of opinion that we should not strike out of the constitution all recognition of the Christian religion. I am desirous, in so solemn a transaction as the establishment of a constitution, that we should keep in it an expression of our respect and attachment to Christianity - not, indeed, to any of its peculiar forms(denomination) but to its general principles.

(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. III, pp. 3-7.)

So you offer no evidence and use quotes to tell me I should stop quoting the founders.
OK I'll enter this into evidence http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf, no where in there does it say we have a judeo-christian government, but it does have this line
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
This sound to me like they thought the matter over and came to the rational conclusion that religion and politics don't mix.

You’ve made baby Jesus and I cry. I can't believe I just read all of this.....

You’ve made baby Jesus and I cry. I can't believe I just read all of this.....

:lol:

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

You threw quotes with little to no analysis from you, no thought. You got on me for not quoting people. So I quoted people and provided some specific history along with my own analysis. Now that's NOT what you wanted? :confused: I'm sorry, do I need to keep it simpler for you?

Why are you avoiding addressing the points I'm making? Please!!! Think about the issue at hand and come to your own conclusion! Even if you still come to the - incorrect - opinion that we're a Christian nation; at least you'd have thought about it for yourself rather than your copy and paste! (...aren't you one of the many that get on 'other' forumites that copy and paste and run...?)

Ok. We are having a discussion on what the founders intended. Their quotes are necessary to make that determination. You have not quoted anyone since you have not provided any citation for anything you presented. I on the other hand have. Copy and past is acceptable in the proper context (this being one) that is needed for demonstration.

As far as you label of "Christian Nation". That may have different meanings to different people. This country is defined by the Judeo/Christian influence of the bible in our laws and ability to self govern. Our founders expected our leaders to be Christians REGARDLESS OF DENOMINATION. That is the key. That was why there was not "religious test for office" so that one sect.....of Christianity would be established. They knew from where they came from what happened when a specific church governed people.

Daniel Webster on the Mass. Constitution:
I believe I have stated the substance of the reasons which appeared to have weight with the committee. For my own part, finding this declaration in the constitution and hearing of no practical evil resulting from it, I should have been willing to retain it unless considerable objection had been expressed to it. If others were satisfied with it, I should be. I do not consider it, however, essential to retain it as there is another part of the constitution which recognizes, in the fullest manner, the benefits which civil society derives from those Christian institutions which cherish piety, morality, and religion. I am clearly of opinion that we should not strike out of the constitution all recognition of the Christian religion. I am desirous, in so solemn a transaction as the establishment of a constitution, that we should keep in it an expression of our respect and attachment to Christianity - not, indeed, to any of its peculiar forms(denomination) but to its general principles.

(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. III, pp. 3-7.)

Didn't know I needed to provide MLA citations here! :lol: If you believe that the information I've provided is in accurate please feel free to point it out. Otherwise :shrug:

"Our founders expected our leaders to be Christians"?? Really? Where is that in the constitution? Our founding fathers expected what they addressed in our laws. I'll certainly give you that at least a few of them personally prefered that, but a requirement for this is actually specifically outlawed! There is no religious test so that there cannot be religious tests, not just so that the Carholics don't take over.

Now, why did the founding father's generation protest so much to the godlessness of our constitution...if we were a Christian nation from the beginning? Why dd subsequent generation fight to change things to be unquestionably Christian if we were already a Chriatian nation? This is the crux of the debate here. If we've always been a Christian nation, why were people protesting the godlessness of it all?

I referenced evidence that Christians were against this. I referenced quotes from proposed changes to the constitution and law rather than people's personal opinions in it. I don't really care what Daniel Webster *said* I care about what our laws *say* and the ways in which people proposed to change it.

Wirelessly posted
Didn't know I needed to provide MLA citations here! :lol: If you believe that the information I've provided is in accurate please feel free to point it out. Otherwise :shrug:

"Our founders expected our leaders to be Christians"?? Really? Where is that in the constitution? Our founding fathers expected what they addressed in our laws. I'll certainly give you that at least a few of them personally prefered that, but a requirement for this is actually specifically outlawed! There is no religious test so that there cannot be religious tests, not just so that the Carholics don't take over.

Now, why did the founding father's generation protest so much to the godlessness of our constitution...if we were a Christian nation from the beginning? Why dd subsequent generation fight to change things to be unquestionably Christian if we were already a Chriatian nation? This is the crux of the debate here. If we've always been a Christian nation, why were people protesting the godlessness of it all?

I referenced evidence that Christians were against this. I referenced quotes from proposed changes to the constitution and law rather than people's personal opinions in it. I don't really care what Daniel Webster *said* I care about what our laws *say* and the ways in which people proposed to change it.

This is implied in the constitution. You have provided no evidence. You simply keep asking the same "why" questions over and over. You fail to see the context. Typical revisionism.

The words of Justice Brewer author of Holy Trinity vs US.
[I] have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian nation. . . . [T]he calling of this republic a Christian nation is not a mere pretence, but a recognition of an historical, legal, and social truth. 37


36. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 11. (Return)

Wirelessly posted


Didn't know I needed to provide MLA citations here! :lol: If you believe that the information I've provided is in accurate please feel free to point it out. Otherwise :shrug:

"Our founders expected our leaders to be Christians"?? Really? Where is that in the constitution? Our founding fathers expected what they addressed in our laws. I'll certainly give you that at least a few of them personally prefered that, but a requirement for this is actually specifically outlawed! There is no religious test so that there cannot be religious tests, not just so that the Carholics don't take over.

Now, why did the founding father's generation protest so much to the godlessness of our constitution...if we were a Christian nation from the beginning? Why dd subsequent generation fight to change things to be unquestionably Christian if we were already a Chriatian nation? This is the crux of the debate here. If we've always been a Christian nation, why were people protesting the godlessness of it all?

I referenced evidence that Christians were against this. I referenced quotes from proposed changes to the constitution and law rather than people's personal opinions in it. I don't really care what Daniel Webster *said* I care about what our laws *say* and the ways in which people proposed to change it.

This is implied in the constitution. You have provided no evidence. You simply keep asking the same "why" questions over and over. You fail to see the context. Typical revisionism.

The words of Justice Brewer author of Holy Trinity vs US.
[I] have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian nation. . . . [T]he calling of this republic a Christian nation is not a mere pretence, but a recognition of an historical, legal, and social truth. 37


36. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 11. (Return)

How is it implied? Because Justice Brewer said it in 1905? What was the reasoning HE used? I just don't see how it can be determined that America is a Christian nation when it's not in our constitution that we are :shrug:

BTW, do you agree with everything any supreme court justice says just because they're supreme court justices? :lol:

Revisionism???? Thats what I'm calling Christians out on here. Many of them fought for one thing then suddenly in the 1950s, realizing they were fighting a losing battle, switched tactics and LIED!

I know I keep asking the same "why" questions over and over again...maybe that's because you're not answering them...? It's a pretty simple question, if we've always been a Christian nation, why were some people fighting to make us a Christian nation until the 1950's?#



If I give proper 'term paper' level citation on my forum posts will you shut up about it?

"We the people of the United States in a firm belief of the being and perfection of the one living and true God, the creator and supreme Governor of the World, in His universal providence and the authority of His laws... do ordain, etc." -William Williams of the constitutional congress (From a letter written by William Williams to the Printer American Mercury and published in same on February 11, 1788. It was also published in the Connecticut Courant March 3, 1788.The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, Vol. III. Ratification of the Constitution by the States, Pennsylvania, Edited by Merrill Jensen, Madison State Historical Society of Wis, 1978, pp 588-590.)

Thomas Jefferson (though religious/spiritual) was a non-Christian and rejected Christian doctrine of the trinity and and eternal hell (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788 and a letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817 respectively)

The 1788 Virginia initiative to change Article VI from "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United Stares" to "no other religious test shall ever be required than a belief in the one only true God, who is the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the evil." this change was obviously rejected (The Godless Constitution, The Case Against Religious Correctness. By Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. W. W. Norton & Company New York/London.(1996) pp 37)

Now can we please stop quibbling over citations a discuss the topic here? Your continuous avoidance of the points I raise lead me to believe that you have no response, you've run out of applicable talking points. Please, prove me wrong, quote a reference and make your own analysis! :yay:

Wirelessly posted
How is it implied? Because Justice Brewer said it in 1905? What was the reasoning HE used? I just don't see how it can be determined that America is a Christian nation when it's not in our constitution that we are :shrug:

BTW, do you agree with everything any supreme court justice says just because they're supreme court justices? :lol:

Revisionism???? Thats what I'm calling Christians out on here. Many of them fought for one thing then suddenly in the 1950s, realizing they were fighting a losing battle, switched tactics and LIED!

I know I keep asking the same "why" questions over and over again...maybe that's because you're not answering them...? It's a pretty simple question, if we've always been a Christian nation, why were some people fighting to make us a Christian nation until the 1950's?#
If I give proper 'term paper' level citation on my forum posts will you shut up about it?

"We the people of the United States in a firm belief of the being and perfection of the one living and true God, the creator and supreme Governor of the World, in His universal providence and the authority of His laws... do ordain, etc." -William Williams of the constitutional congress (From a letter written by William Williams to the Printer American Mercury and published in same on February 11, 1788. It was also published in the Connecticut Courant March 3, 1788.The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, Vol. III. Ratification of the Constitution by the States, Pennsylvania, Edited by Merrill Jensen, Madison State Historical Society of Wis, 1978, pp 588-590.)

Thomas Jefferson (though religious/spiritual) was a non-Christian and rejected Christian doctrine of the trinity and and eternal hell (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788 and a letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817 respectively)

The 1788 Virginia initiative to change Article VI from "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United Stares" to "no other religious test shall ever be required than a belief in the one only true God, who is the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the evil." this change was obviously rejected (The Godless Constitution, The Case Against Religious Correctness. By Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. W. W. Norton & Company New York/London.(1996) pp 37)

Now can we please stop quibbling over citations a discuss the topic here? Your continuous avoidance of the points I raise lead me to believe that you have no response, you've run out of applicable talking points. Please, prove me wrong, quote a reference and make your own analysis! :yay:


Finally something to respond to. Without some citation, especially when we look back in our history, we don't know context or intent. Sadly, the left has been successful is eliminating great historical works from our classrooms. GW , AL just to name a few. Why? Because God and Jesus may have slipped into some of the most important speeches of our history.

The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.





The suggestion that the U. S. Constitution is godless because it makes only brief mention of the Deity and Christian custom is superficial and misguided. Professors Kramnick and Moore succumb to the temptation to impose twentieth-century values on eighteenth-century text. Their book is less an honest appraisal of history than a partisan tract written for contemporary battles. They frankly state their desire that this polemic will rebut the "Christian nation" rhetoric of the religious right. Unfortunately, their historical analysis is as specious as the rhetoric they criticize.

1. Daniel L. Dreisbach, D. Phil. (Oxford University) and J. D. (University of Virginia), is an associate professor at American University in Washington, D. C.. He is the author of Religion and Politics in the Early Republic (University Press of Kentucky, 1996), and Real Threat and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty and the First Amendment (Crossway Books, 1987).

Copyright 1997 by Daniel L. Dreisbach. All rights reserved. Used by permission of the author.

:buddies:



religion and devotion to God.

Wirelessly posted



:doh: my fault! John Adams was Unitarianism. My mistake. It was Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and (I think) James Madison who were the non-Christians. I was thinking Adams was on that list. :lol:

Care to address the other points I made though?

But Unitarians believe in one god, on form of god and that Jesus is not, and can not be god, part of god or another form of god.

This is implied in the constitution. You have provided no evidence. You simply keep asking the same "why" questions over and over. You fail to see the context. Typical revisionism.

The words of Justice Brewer author of Holy Trinity vs US.
[I] have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian nation. . . . [T]he calling of this republic a Christian nation is not a mere pretence, but a recognition of an historical, legal, and social truth. 37


36. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 11. (Return)

“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
—President John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli (Article 11), 1796

TJ was no evangelical in the traditional sense. But a religious man he was.

Funny you would select Thomas Jefferson as a poster child, since in his day the "faithful" were saying the same things about him I've heard people say about Obama and Romney.

"Should the infidel Jefferson be elected to the Presidency, the seal of death is that moment set on our holy religion, our churches will be prostrated, and some infamous prostitute, under the title of goddess of reason, will preside in the sanctuaries now devoted to the worship of the most High." (New England Palladium editorial, 1800)

“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
—President John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli (Article 11), 1796

Read the history behind this. Adams had to make that comment in order to placate the Islamic nations when the U.S. wanted to engage in trade with Muslims during that time. There was also some ongoing piracy problems that our ships were encountering along the Barbary coast. The pirates were attacking and taking over foreign ships. Muslim government of Tripoli did not want to deal with a non-Islamic nation, especially one professing to be "Christian". Stating that America was not a "Christian nation" in any sense was part of the requirement needed in order to enter into that Treaty of Tripoli.

Read the history behind this. Adams had to make that comment in order to placate the Islamic nations when the U.S. wanted to engage in trade with Muslims during that time. There was also some ongoing piracy problems that our ships were encountering along the Barbary coast. The pirates were attacking and taking over foreign ships. Muslim government of Tripoli did not want to deal with a non-Islamic nation, especially one professing to be "Christian". Stating that America was not a "Christian nation" in any sense was part of the requirement needed in order to enter into that Treaty of Tripoli.

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
-- John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity...."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831

That, sir, is context. What you said is an ASSUMPTION that because he was dealing with an Arab nation he lied about the foundation of the nation.

...That, sir, is context. What you said is an ASSUMPTION that because he was dealing with an Arab nation he lied about the foundation of the nation.

From the document of the Treaty of Tripoli:



ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp)


(emphasis, mine)

As I mentioned, you should really look up the history on this treaty. That is what also prompted John Adams to obtain a copy of the Qur'an so that he could read about the islamic ideology. Read all about it!

From the document of the Treaty of Tripoli:



(emphasis, mine)

As I mentioned, you should really look up the history on this treaty. That is what also prompted John Adams to obtain a copy of the Qur'an so that he could read about the islamic ideology. Read all about it!

Not a single thing in your post in any way supports you assertion that John Adams lied about the founding of this country. I know the history, and it in no way supports your claim.

From the document of the Treaty of Tripoli:



(emphasis, mine)

As I mentioned, you should really look up the history on this treaty. That is what also prompted John Adams to obtain a copy of the Qur'an so that he could read about the islamic ideology. Read all about it!

To be clear, the assumption you made was that Adams lied about America being a Christian nation, not that the treaty was with an Arab nation.

To be clear, the assumption you made was that Adams lied about America being a Christian nation, not that the treaty was with an Arab nation.

As I specifically stated: In order to placate the Muslims, that wording had to be included in the Treaty in order for it to be acceptable. Had the Muslims not been given that assurance, the treaty would not have happened.

Take some time to research what was taking place at that time.

As I specifically stated: In order to placate the Muslims, that wording had to be included in the Treaty in order for it to be acceptable. Had the Muslims not been given that assurance, the treaty would not have happened.

Take some time to research what was taking place at that time.

Still an assumption, still no evidence. My quotes provide CLEAR context that Adams did not believe the government was nor should have been formed under the pretense of religion.

Whether the Ottoman Empire (who controlled Tripolitania at the time) would have accepted negotiations from a christian nation is immaterial. I would be like a man saying "I'm not a woman" to do business with someone who doesn't want to do business with a woman. The fact that he said it to placate the other guy does not mean that he is, in fact, a woman in disguise.

Still an assumption, still no evidence. My quotes provide CLEAR context that Adams did not believe the government was nor should have been formed under the pretense of religion.

Weather the Ottoman Empire (who controlled Tripolitania at the time) would have accepted negotiations from a christian nation is immaterial. I would be like a man saying "I'm not a woman" to do business with someone who doesn't want to do business with a woman. The fact that he said it to placate the other guy does not mean that he is, in fact, a woman in disguise.

The fact that the treaty of Tripoli was agreed upon is proof enough.

Do you really think that the Muslims would have accepted a treaty with the United States sans the wording about America not being a Christian nation?

The fact that the treaty of Tripoli was agreed upon is proof enough.

Do you really think that the Muslims would have accepted a treaty with the United States sans the wording about America not being a Christian nation?

Sorry, I deal in facts not accusations and assumptions.

And as far as looking up history, maybe you should read up on the Ottoman Empire, they signed a treaty with Russia (Christian) in 1739. So please provide your historic context for the Ottoman empire not dealing with christian nations.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted
How is it implied? Because Justice Brewer said it in 1905? What was the reasoning HE used? I just don't see how it can be determined that America is a Christian nation when it's not in our constitution that we are :shrug:

BTW, do you agree with everything any supreme court justice says just because they're supreme court justices? :lol:

Revisionism???? Thats what I'm calling Christians out on here. Many of them fought for one thing then suddenly in the 1950s, realizing they were fighting a losing battle, switched tactics and LIED!

I know I keep asking the same "why" questions over and over again...maybe that's because you're not answering them...? It's a pretty simple question, if we've always been a Christian nation, why were some people fighting to make us a Christian nation until the 1950's?#
If I give proper 'term paper' level citation on my forum posts will you shut up about it?

"We the people of the United States in a firm belief of the being and perfection of the one living and true God, the creator and supreme Governor of the World, in His universal providence and the authority of His laws... do ordain, etc." -William Williams of the constitutional congress (From a letter written by William Williams to the Printer American Mercury and published in same on February 11, 1788. It was also published in the Connecticut Courant March 3, 1788.The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, Vol. III. Ratification of the Constitution by the States, Pennsylvania, Edited by Merrill Jensen, Madison State Historical Society of Wis, 1978, pp 588-590.)

Thomas Jefferson (though religious/spiritual) was a non-Christian and rejected Christian doctrine of the trinity and and eternal hell (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788 and a letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817 respectively)

The 1788 Virginia initiative to change Article VI from "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United Stares" to "no other religious test shall ever be required than a belief in the one only true God, who is the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the evil." this change was obviously rejected (The Godless Constitution, The Case Against Religious Correctness. By Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. W. W. Norton & Company New York/London.(1996) pp 37)

Now can we please stop quibbling over citations a discuss the topic here? Your continuous avoidance of the points I raise lead me to believe that you have no response, you've run out of applicable talking points. Please, prove me wrong, quote a reference and make your own analysis! :yay:


Finally something to respond to. Without some citation, especially when we look back in our history, we don't know context or intent. Sadly, the left has been successful is eliminating great historical works from our classrooms. GW , AL just to name a few. Why? Because God and Jesus may have slipped into some of the most important speeches of our history.

The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.





The suggestion that the U. S. Constitution is godless because it makes only brief mention of the Deity and Christian custom is superficial and misguided. Professors Kramnick and Moore succumb to the temptation to impose twentieth-century values on eighteenth-century text. Their book is less an honest appraisal of history than a partisan tract written for contemporary battles. They frankly state their desire that this polemic will rebut the "Christian nation" rhetoric of the religious right. Unfortunately, their historical analysis is as specious as the rhetoric they criticize.

1. Daniel L. Dreisbach, D. Phil. (Oxford University) and J. D. (University of Virginia), is an associate professor at American University in Washington, D. C.. He is the author of Religion and Politics in the Early Republic (University Press of Kentucky, 1996), and Real Threat and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty and the First Amendment (Crossway Books, 1987).

Copyright 1997 by Daniel L. Dreisbach. All rights reserved. Used by permission of the author.

:buddies:



religion and devotion to God.

"Left to the individual citizen" :yay:

It's any govt involvement that I have a problem with. Since control over religious affiliation is not given to ANY govt in America, and since there is no explicit mention and any specific deity in our founding documents; we are not now nor have we ever been a Christian nation. Without specific mention of a national religion (either implied or directed) one cannot claim that we have one nor that one was intended.

You're still not answering my question by the way. Why are you avoiding it? You've still not managed to prove thr we've always been a Christian nation...you've just thrown quotes from your handbook. Why don't you close it and think about this on your own? Like I said, even if you still disagree, at least you came to the conclusion in your own rather than a conclusion fed to you.

The fact that the treaty of Tripoli was agreed upon is proof enough.

Do you really think that the Muslims would have accepted a treaty with the United States sans the wording about America not being a Christian nation?

He is intentionally missing the point. The Muslims were familiar with "christian " nations based on the model of Europe. They were wording the document to tell them they were not a Christian nation in the SENSE that the Muslims were familiar with. It also hinged on "Christian" nation meant.

He is intentionally missing the point. The Muslims were familiar with "christian " nations based on the model of Europe. They were wording the document to tell them they were not a Christian nation in the SENSE that the Muslims were familiar with. It also hinged on "Christian" nation meant.

Who is missing the point? I see the "point". But the "point" is based entirely upon false pretenses. Also, if you want to ensure the "deal gets done" as they say, based upon your assertion that the Ottoman Empire was familiar with "christian" nations in Europe and the Ottoman Empire had entered treaties with those nations why would you want to say you were different from them?

...So please provide your historic context for the Ottoman empire not dealing with christian nations.

I already did. The Treaty of Tripoli.

[SIZE=1]Wirelessly posted[/SIZE
"Left to the individual citizen" :yay:

It's any govt involvement that I have a problem with. Since control over religious affiliation is not given to ANY govt in America, and since there is no explicit mention and any specific deity in our founding documents; we are not now nor have we ever been a Christian nation. Without specific mention of a national religion (either implied or directed) one cannot claim that we have one nor that on.

This is another silly statement. :killingme. You are advocating no god at all. And now yous modify to no "specific" deity. Again clearly the context of the authors was Christian. Now you say " none of our founding documents" mention God. Really?

The Mayflower Compact, November 11, 1620
Fundamental Orders of Connecticut January 14-24, 1638-39

The Virginia Declaration of Rights
Drawn originally by George Mason and then adopted unanimously by the Convention of Delegates at the Capitol in Williamsburg on June 12, 1776

The Articles of Confederation

Ordinance of 1787
An Ordinance For The Government Of The Territory Of The United States Northwest Of the River Ohio (Northewest Ordinance)

I already did. The Treaty of Tripoli.

No, no you didn't. The signing of a treaty with a non-christian nation does not mean they wouldn't sign one with a christian nation. As is evident by the fact that they DID sing a treaty with a christian nation as previously stated.

Wirelessly posted

[SIZE=1]Wirelessly posted[/SIZE
"Left to the individual citizen" :yay:

It's any govt involvement that I have a problem with. Since control over religious affiliation is not given to ANY govt in America, and since there is no explicit mention and any specific deity in our founding documents; we are not now nor have we ever been a Christian nation. Without specific mention of a national religion (either implied or directed) one cannot claim that we have one nor that on.

This is another silly statement. :killingme. You are advocating no god at all. And now yous modify to no "specific" deity. Again clearly the context of the authors was Christian. Now you say " none of our founding documents" mention God. Really?

The Mayflower Compact, November 11, 1620
Fundamental Orders of Connecticut January 14-24, 1638-39

The Virginia Declaration of Rights
Drawn originally by George Mason and then adopted unanimously by the Convention of Delegates at the Capitol in Williamsburg on June 12, 1776

The Articles of Confederation

Ordinance of 1787
An Ordinance For The Government Of The Territory Of The United States Northwest Of the River Ohio (Northewest Ordinance)

(sorry, I said founding docs and should have specified the constitution)

Those doc you reference do indeed specifically mention God however the constitution (in spite of the precident set by previous docs) specifically does not. You cannot infer it means something that is not there. You do not know the minds of our founding fathers. Yes, there were Christians in the constitutional congress but one can be a Christian without writing it into the constitution thus establishing the Christianity of our nation (though not mandated by law). There were also Chrsitians in the constitutional congress that pushed for specific mention of a Christian God, that pushed to declare this a Christian nation, that pushed to rewrite the preamble and article VI. These initiatives did not pass. Christians like William Williams continued to push. Later generations continued. Then they all suddenly stopped. Why do you figure they continued insist the constitution be amended to specify Christian ideals? Was it because the Christian God isn't there? Why would they insist on change if no change was needed?

No, no you didn't. The signing of a treaty with a non-christian nation does not mean they wouldn't sign one with a christian nation. As is evident by the fact that they DID sing a treaty with a christian nation as previously stated.

Nice to see you around again McGinn. :buddies:

This is another silly statement. :killingme. You are advocating no god at all. And now yous modify to no "specific" deity. Again clearly the context of the authors was Christian. Now you say " none of our founding documents" mention God. Really?

The Mayflower Compact, November 11, 1620
Fundamental Orders of Connecticut January 14-24, 1638-39

The Virginia Declaration of Rights
Drawn originally by George Mason and then adopted unanimously by the Convention of Delegates at the Capitol in Williamsburg on June 12, 1776

The Articles of Confederation

Ordinance of 1787
An Ordinance For The Government Of The Territory Of The United States Northwest Of the River Ohio (Northewest Ordinance)

<b>The Mayflower Compact</b> - not a founding document of the United States of America

<b>Fundamental Orders of Connecticut</B> - founded the government for 3 towns in Connecticut not the United States of America

<b>The Virginia Declaration of Rights</b> - States "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion"

<b>The Articles of Confederation</B> - never mention the word "god" or "christian" and only mention religion to say " The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

In other words, if a state is attacked because of religion it is the responsibility of other states to defend even if they follow a different religion.

<b>Northewest Ordinance</B> - Mentions religion only in passing by saying "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Of course the same passage also says that the government will NOT attempt to convert American Indians to Christianity. (Of course it also says their lands will not be taken, since they were this document is null and void).

Nice to see you around again McGinn. :buddies:

Thanks, been a while. Too much going on in real life, plus I was getting the impression people didn't really like me on here, lol. :buddies:

Who is missing the point? I see the "point". But the "point" is based entirely upon false pretenses. Also, if you want to ensure the "deal gets done" as they say, based upon your assertion that the Ottoman Empire was familiar with "christian" nations in Europe and the Ottoman Empire had entered treaties with those nations why would you want to say you were different from them?

Because the authors of the treaty knew that the signers needed to be convinced that they were not like the other European countries that were ran by an actual "Church" ie Church of England. The authors knew they would be skeptical because of previous wars and attacks. SO they framed a treaty that would be acceptable. This is simple a simple explanation and not a lie by the author of the treaty but rather tactical wording.

Because the authors of the treaty knew that the signers needed to be convinced that they were not like the other European countries that were ran by an actual "Church" ie Church of England. The authors knew they would be skeptical because of previous wars and attacks. SO they framed a treaty that would be acceptable. This is simple a simple explanation and not a lie by the author of the treaty but rather tactical wording.

You're still ignoring the fact that they DID have treaties with Russia and France.

You're still ignoring the fact that they DID have treaties with Russia and France.

Not ignoring anything. So what if they may have had treaties with other countries. Has nothing to do with anything. More dragging down everything in to minutia to make no real point.

Thanks, been a while. Too much going on in real life, plus I was getting the impression people didn't really like me on here, lol. :buddies:

Anyone that takes this stuff that seriously doesn't get it.

Wirelessly posted



(sorry, I said founding docs and should have specified the constitution)

Those doc you reference do indeed specifically mention God however the constitution (in spite of the precident set by previous docs) specifically does not. You cannot infer it means something that is not there. You do not know the minds of our founding fathers. Yes, there were Christians in the constitutional congress but one can be a Christian without writing it into the constitution thus establishing the Christianity of our nation (though not mandated by law). There were also Chrsitians in the constitutional congress that pushed for specific mention of a Christian God, that pushed to declare this a Christian nation, that pushed to rewrite the preamble and article VI. These initiatives did not pass. Christians like William Williams continued to push. Later generations continued. Then they all suddenly stopped. Why do you figure they continued insist the constitution be amended to specify Christian ideals? Was it because the Christian God isn't there? Why would they insist on change if no change was needed?

You can't have it both ways. You said that none of our founding documents mention a "specific deity". I cite some and you reply with the constitution is silent on the matter. Well that was not the statement that you made in the first place?????

Again you offer no citations or historical context for the questions you keep asking. More why would so and so do this or that....

The constitution was not written in a vacuum, it has a context. The historical documents have a huge impact on how the constitution was written and shed light on to the philosophy of those who wrote it.

Not ignoring anything. So what if they may have had treaties with other countries. Has nothing to do with anything. More dragging down everything in to minutia to make no real point.

It has to do with the hole argument, you say "we pretended to not be a christian nation so they would sign the treaty". But they did sign treaties with christian nations, so no need to pretend so if we were, we'd say we were, but we AREN'T.

I don't see what is so hard to comprehend....

Again you offer no citations or historical context for the questions you keep asking. More why would so and so do this or that....

because you would say it doesn't matter, like you did to me...

<i>"SHOW ME EVIDENCE I CAN IGNORE!!!!</I>

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



(sorry, I said founding docs and should have specified the constitution)

Those doc you reference do indeed specifically mention God however the constitution (in spite of the precident set by previous docs) specifically does not. You cannot infer it means something that is not there. You do not know the minds of our founding fathers. Yes, there were Christians in the constitutional congress but one can be a Christian without writing it into the constitution thus establishing the Christianity of our nation (though not mandated by law). There were also Chrsitians in the constitutional congress that pushed for specific mention of a Christian God, that pushed to declare this a Christian nation, that pushed to rewrite the preamble and article VI. These initiatives did not pass. Christians like William Williams continued to push. Later generations continued. Then they all suddenly stopped. Why do you figure they continued insist the constitution be amended to specify Christian ideals? Was it because the Christian God isn't there? Why would they insist on change if no change was needed?

You can't have it both ways. You said that none of our founding documents mention a "specific deity". I cite some and you reply with the constitution is silent on the matter. Well that was not the statement that you made in the first place?????

Again you offer no citations or historical context for the questions you keep asking. More why would so and so do this or that....

The constitution was not written in a vacuum, it has a context. The historical documents have a huge impact on how the constitution was written and shed light on to the philosophy of those who wrote it.

I did say 'founding docs' but a) I clarified constitution and b) as McGinn said, these are NOT founding docs of America.

I don't provide historical context for my question?! Look back at the thread, I reference 3 instances of this and after I realized the drum required proper MLA level citation, I provided it. William Williams and representatives of the state of Virginia presented changes to the preamble and Article VI of the constitution to specify a Christian God and require a test for Christianity. There are plenty more examples, how many do you need?

I understand the constitution wasn't written in and vacuum and that it has context however you're ignoring parts of said context. For example that not all members of the Constituional Congress were Christians and most certainly objected to wiring God into it. It also seems pretty contextual that suggestions were indeed made and subsequently rejected.

Wirelessly posted



I did say 'founding docs' but a) I clarified constitution and b) as McGinn said, these are NOT founding docs of America.

I don't provide historical context for my question?! Look back at the thread, I reference 3 instances of this and after I realized the drum required proper MLA level citation, I provided it. William Williams and representatives of the state of Virginia presented changes to the preamble and Article VI of the constitution to specify a Christian God and require a test for Christianity. There are plenty more examples, how many do you need?


I responded to this. The signers were all members of differing denominations to include one catholic. They did not want any ONE denomination to have more importance or authority over any other AKA the Church of England.