Where did THAT come from??

 

 

 

You just made that up.

 

I object very strongly when people use the whole "we are a Christian nation" line. This is not a theocracy. We are a country made up of people of dozens of different religious stripes (you know, the whole "Freedom of Religion" thing?). When people say "we are a Christian nation," I read that as them wanting to write our country's laws with a preference toward Christianity, to the exclusion of all others.

We were, and our founders intended us to be regardless of what many will say. However, the courts and politicians have twisted the founders words and we no longer are.

 

Well, with an answer like that, I guess it wouldn't matter if I replied or not. :lol:

 

 

BTW, No.

 

We were founded as a Democratic Republic, by men who were predominantly Christian in faith and piety but not neccessarily actions.

I object very strongly when people use the whole "we are a Christian nation" line. This is not a theocracy. We are a country made up of people of dozens of different religious stripes (you know, the whole "Freedom of Religion" thing?). When people say "we are a Christian nation," I read that as them wanting to write our country's laws with a preference toward Christianity, to the exclusion of all others.

 

:thumb:

I believe we are a nation based on and founded upon Christian beliefs that believes in religious freedom for everyone.

I believe we are a nation based on and founded upon Christian beliefs that believes in religious freedom for everyone.

 

:thumb:

 

That's what I was going to say. The country was founded upon Judeo-Christian values. I'm pretty sure the majority of the country would claim Christianity as its religion. But, the country was also founded upon the idea that people should have the freedom to worship, among other things. That said, not all the founders of the country were Christians, so its not like a group of Protestant Christians got on a boat and started a country. As much as some would like to believe, its not that simple.

 

So, in some sense, it is a Christian nation. Just like I'd call a country with a majority of Muslims a Muslim nation. What that doesn't mean, or shouldn't mean, here is that others aren't welcome, or aren't equal.

 

But, in a more real sense, I'd say no, we aren't a Christian nation.

 

I'm sure this one will get a lot of air time though. The problem, as I see it, is not whether we're a Christian nation or not. The problem is that we've allowed the government to expand way beyond what the founders envisioned into something that tries to control and legislate virtually all aspects of our life. The country was founded on the idea of freedom and the bigger our government gets the less freedom we actually have.

There is a strong historical connection to Judeo Christian values.

There is a strong historical connection to Judeo Christian values.

 

I would agree there's connection. Has to be when for many (certainly not all) of the Founding Fathers were driven by their faith in their thinking. However I believe they intentionally chose to avoid the relationships between the church and the state that had for so long dominated and corrupted Europe.

I object very strongly when people use the whole "we are a Christian nation" line. This is not a theocracy. We are a country made up of people of dozens of different religious stripes (you know, the whole "Freedom of Religion" thing?). When people say "we are a Christian nation," I read that as them wanting to write our country's laws with a preference toward Christianity, to the exclusion of all others.

 

Read any number of Justice Scalia's opinions on religious cases, I think you may be shocked to from what you learn.

 

I don't have time right this minute but later I will post some quotes of his on the subject.

Read any number of Justice Scalia's opinions on religious cases, I think you may be shocked to from what you learn.

 

I don't have time right this minute but later I will post some quotes of his on the subject.

 

I basically just read the Constitution instead of a Justice's interpretation of historical record. :thumb:

Read any number of Justice Scalia's opinions on religious cases, I think you may be shocked to from what you learn.

 

I.

 

I'll go out on a (thick) limb here and say that ol' Jim Shue and Justice Scalia are not on the same page.

I basically just read the Constitution instead of a Justice's interpretation of historical record. :thumb:

 

And the founders actions speak just as loud as their words, the same Congress that enacted the freedom of religion amendment, also voted to hire Chaplains for the congressmen the very next day. They also in the same session open and closed the session with a word of prayer and thanksgiving to God. The Supreme Court in it's first session started a tradition that is still practiced today to open and close the session with prayer. The Ten Commandments in Moses hand can be found in four different places on the Supreme Court building. There is plenty more but I'll post more later. The clear reading of the Constitution was meant for freedom from war over Catholicism and Protestantism that our founding fathers had watched tear Europe apart. Our founding fathers never had Muslims or Buddhist in mind when they wrote the first amendment. Does that mean we should change it today, no it doesn't, in fact we probably should. But what it does mean to me is that we are twisting the original meaning and I don't like for courts and people to do that to any law. If a law is no longer good repeal it and pass a new one, don't twist an old one to suit your needs now, because who decides how we twist it?

We are a nation brought up on Judeo-Christian beliefs. We are a nation mainly made up of Christians. But we are not a Christian nation.

 

What were the wonderful things that Obama said Muslims have done for our country?

And the founders actions speak just as loud as their words, the same Congress that enacted the freedom of religion amendment, also voted to hire Chaplains for the congressmen the very next day. They also in the same session open and closed the session with a word of prayer and thanksgiving to God. The Supreme Court in it's first session started a tradition that is still practiced today to open and close the session with prayer. The Ten Commandments in Moses hand can be found in four different places on the Supreme Court building. There is plenty more but I'll post more later. The clear reading of the Constitution was meant for freedom from war over Catholicism and Protestantism that our founding fathers had watched tear Europe apart. Our founding fathers never had Muslims or Buddhist in mind when they wrote the first amendment. Does that mean we should change it today, no it doesn't, in fact we probably should. But what it does mean to me is that we are twisting the original meaning and I don't like for courts and people to do that to any law. If a law is no longer good repeal it and pass a new one, don't twist an old one to suit your needs now, because who decides how we twist it?

 

That is a question I was going to post for some of our more adept readers of history like HHSDad, Peprock, bballfamily....how prevalent was Muslim, Buddhists in 1776 that our Founding Fathers would have thought that was a religion that would be prevalent in this country?

 

As they say on talk radio, I will hang up and listen for the response.

That is a question I was going to post for some of our more adept readers of history like HHSDad, Peprock, bballfamily....how prevalent was Muslim, Buddhists in 1776 that our Founding Fathers would have thought that was a religion that would be prevalent in this country?

 

As they say on talk radio, I will hang up and listen for the response.

 

Does it matter if other religions were prevalent? Or does it matter that the Constitution allows for other religions?

Does it matter if other religions were prevalent? Or does it matter that the Constitution allows for other religions?

 

The debate is whether or not it does in my opinion, I'm of the strict belief that the founding fathers didn't mean the first amendment to be interpreted like it is today, but rather meant it to keep out a catholic protestant debate. If that's what they meant then that's what the law means and the law doesn't protect other religions. It may be time to adopt a law that does allow protection of other religions, but to me the one in place doesn't do that because a law should be read in it's original intent. Laws should not be subject to their meanings changing at the whim of a judge.