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

 

It matters if the Founding Fathers would have never thought that this was a possibility and did not mean for this to be the outcome. Protection of a God that they did not recognize at the expense of a God that they all knew. Was this a protection from one Christian denomination overruling the others or was it a true protection of all religions.

 

Same reason why the right to bear arms would not give me a right to own a working tank to protect my yard, a nuclear warhead or anything along those lines.

 

And for the record, while some hold the great and wonderous Founding Fathers up to such high esteem, they were wrong many, many times. They allowed blacks to be treated worse than animals and did not give women the right to vote.

 

So, they are far from perfect individuals making these decisions and since they were wrong on these two issues, they could easily have been wrong on other issues.

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.

 

For what it's worth I highly doubt that they thought that far ahead. They were too busy trying to keep the fledgling nation from falling apart.

 

Muslims and Buddhists were quite prevalent i certain parts of the world. Most of our founding fathers were from nations that had little to no interaction with the Ottoman Empire or nations composed largely of Buddhists, outside of trade routes and so on I would suspect that they would have probably been tolerant of them. That said I don't think they would have been 100% accepting, simply because differences and misunderstandings of others was can breed mistrust, contempt and/or violence.

 

They probably, had they lived here at the time, would have formed their own communities like most other groups that did not belong to the majority; i.e. Catholics, Jews and many migrant populations throughout U.S. history.

 

 

As an historical note, northern Europe traditionally had friendlier relations with the Ottoman Empire, both diplomatically and economically, than southern nations as most had never been invaded by them. However the Russians, Portuguese, Italians, Spanish, Austria and most of south-eastern Europe had much more recent memories of Ottoman, Seljuk or Mamluk Turks and their expansion in the Mediterranean and Europe. Central and Northern Europe were spared that by the the victories of the Franks at Tours, the Austrians at Vienna, the Spanish during the Reconquista, the Portuguese a the Battle of Diu and the victory of the Holy League at Lepanto. Again most of these victories were won with the blood of Southern and Eastern Europe.

Regarding the founding fathers' intent on religious freedom: Surely, when writing such an all-encompassing piece, they envisioned that the American ideal of religious freedom would attract people of all stripes? If this country was intended to be a "Christian Nation," shouldn't they have put language into the Constitution stating that religious freedom applies only to Christian sects, and non-Christians need not apply?

 

I think we give the founders less credit than they deserve for being forward-thinking.

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.

 

Are you saying that you are an "original intent" person on all issues or just this issue?

It matters if the Founding Fathers would have never thought that this was a possibility and did not mean for this to be the outcome. Protection of a God that they did not recognize at the expense of a God that they all knew. Was this a protection from one Christian denomination overruling the others or was it a true protection of all religions.

 

Same reason why the right to bear arms would not give me a right to own a working tank to protect my yard, a nuclear warhead or anything along those lines.

 

And for the record, while some hold the great and wonderous Founding Fathers up to such high esteem, they were wrong many, many times. They allowed blacks to be treated worse than animals and did not give women the right to vote.

 

So, they are far from perfect individuals making these decisions and since they were wrong on these two issues, they could easily have been wrong on other issues.

 

IMO your argument lacks consistency and you even say so at the end.

 

Why would "original intent" be your basis for one issue but not another?

It matters if the Founding Fathers would have never thought that this was a possibility and did not mean for this to be the outcome. Protection of a God that they did not recognize at the expense of a God that they all knew. Was this a protection from one Christian denomination overruling the others or was it a true protection of all religions.

 

Same reason why the right to bear arms would not give me a right to own a working tank to protect my yard, a nuclear warhead or anything along those lines.

 

And for the record, while some hold the great and wonderous Founding Fathers up to such high esteem, they were wrong many, many times. They allowed blacks to be treated worse than animals and did not give women the right to vote.

 

So, they are far from perfect individuals making these decisions and since they were wrong on these two issues, they could easily have been wrong on other issues.

 

Why does one necessarily have to come at the expense of the other?

Drug use is at an all time high, unemployment is rising, you can’t turn on the television without hearing someone being bleeped out for dropping the F bomb, little babies are being killed in their mothers womb, men are marrying men and women are marring women, teenage pregnancy is out of control, more and more children are being brought up without fathers in their lives.

Obama said we are no longer a Christian nation and he is right. But are we better?

 

Matthew 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Are you saying that you are an "original intent" person on all issues or just this issue?

 

All issues, but I also believe if the ability to change and amend those I don't agree with, with new laws. Our constitution left open the ability to add amendments, on this and many other laws. A democracy only functions properly in my opinion if the laws are read as they were meant to be read, otherwise the people's voice is being overruled by an activist judge.

For what it's worth I highly doubt that they thought that far ahead. They were too busy trying to keep the fledgling nation from falling apart.

 

Muslims and Buddhists were quite prevalent i certain parts of the world. Most of our founding fathers were from nations that had little to no interaction with the Ottoman Empire or nations composed largely of Buddhists, outside of trade routes and so on I would suspect that they would have probably been tolerant of them. That said I don't think they would have been 100% accepting, simply because differences and misunderstandings of others was can breed mistrust, contempt and/or violence.

 

They probably, had they lived here at the time, would have formed their own communities like most other groups that did not belong to the majority; i.e. Catholics, Jews and many migrant populations throughout U.S. history.

 

 

As an historical note, northern Europe traditionally had friendlier relations with the Ottoman Empire, both diplomatically and economically, than southern nations as most had never been invaded by them. However the Russians, Portuguese, Italians, Spanish, Austria and most of south-eastern Europe had much more recent memories of Ottoman, Seljuk or Mamluk Turks and their expansion in the Mediterranean and Europe. Central and Northern Europe were spared that by the the victories of the Franks at Tours, the Austrians at Vienna, the Spanish during the Reconquista, the Portuguese a the Battle of Diu and the victory of the Holy League at Lepanto. Again most of these victories were won with the blood of Southern and Eastern Europe.

 

Thanks for responding.

Regarding the founding fathers' intent on religious freedom: Surely, when writing such an all-encompassing piece, they envisioned that the American ideal of religious freedom would attract people of all stripes? If this country was intended to be a "Christian Nation," shouldn't they have put language into the Constitution stating that religious freedom applies only to Christian sects, and non-Christians need not apply?

 

I think we give the founders less credit than they deserve for being forward-thinking.

 

Not sure how we think they wanted to protect the rights of Muslims and Buddhists while doing nothing to protect the rights of women or blacks actually living in this country.

 

Logic doesn't seem to follow that path.

 

Let me point out, I AM NOT SAYING that we shouldn't have freedom in this country to worship as Muslim and Buddhist, just saying I am not sure that is what the FF's had in mind.

Are you saying that you are an "original intent" person on all issues or just this issue?

 

Not sure. Never thought about it.

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?

 

They sure do.

 

They said, "all men are created equal." But that's not what they practiced. I would ask the question: What does it mean when the Father of the Nation prayed for God's blessings upon our Liberties and yet offered reward money for runaway slaves?

 

Was it cultural? Sure. But is cultural an excuse for sin?

 

The Founding Fathers had every chance to make an official statement about establishing a church or faith in the governing documents. They chose not to. They hired a minister for Congress. Was that cultural or a statement of faith endorsing the state?

 

BTW, the Supreme Court Building also pays homage to Hammurabi's Code, Confuscious and Solon.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

Drug use is at an all time high, unemployment is rising, you can’t turn on the television without hearing someone being bleeped out for dropping the F bomb, little babies are being killed in their mothers womb, men are marrying men and women are marring women, teenage pregnancy is out of control, more and more children are being brought up without fathers in their lives.

Obama said we are no longer a Christian nation and he is right. But are we better?

 

Matthew 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

 

To be clear as another poster pointed out previously he did not say we are not a Christian nation. He said we are not JUST a Christian nation.

 

Are you blaming other religions?

All issues, but I also believe if the ability to change and amend those I don't agree with, with new laws. Our constitution left open the ability to add amendments, on this and many other laws. A democracy only functions properly in my opinion if the laws are read as they were meant to be read, otherwise the people's voice is being overruled by an activist judge.

 

Thanks.

 

To go back to another post of yours what wording of the Constitution are you using as your basis?

To be clear as another poster pointed out previously he did not say we are not a Christian nation. He said we are not JUST a Christian nation.

 

Are you blaming other religions?

 

No I am not blaming other religions. I am blaming ourselves for not acknowledging Jesus Christ.