Does Jesus or the Cross offend you?
Offline Many people when talking to Christians or confronting Christian topics try to pull the "offended" card in hopes to make everything all better. I don't believe there are many of those people on here, but I came across an article that I feel makes good points on the topic just the same;
http://www.crosswalk.com/spirituallife/1414727/
- Login to post comments
Offline The Declaration of Independence was written long before the attempt to create a government. It expresses the opinion of some ungoverned people. It doesn't express governmental principles, nor was it intended to do so. It has no legal weight.
uh... right! it was just a Declaration of Independence from England.
The inscription atop the Washington Monument has no legal weight.
ok
Christianity isn't required to run for president. I don't know where you got that idea. Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution says nobody can be forced to accept a religion to be eligible for federal employment and the 14th amendment makes it binding on state governments.
I later corrected myself. It's what I get for responding to quickly... Someone told me there were out right athiests who were elected as President. Could you list their names please? Just because I didn't know this.
You said, "Try telling the founders of this country we're not a Christian nation." Thomas Jefferson—the person who actually penned the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence—believed Christianity was a form of Platonic demon worship. Why do you think Thomas Jefferson made his own Jefferson Bible with Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul's ideas removed? He thought Jesus was a wise and ethical mortal and thought that everything surrounding Jesus was bullshit.
if he thought Christianity was a form of "Platonic Demon Worship", then why would he make a Bible with Christian writings in it?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all about Jesus. They are the core Gosple. They still talked not only about Jesus specifically, but "everything surrounding Jesus" as well.
I don't know where you get the idea that our laws are based on Christian teachings. What laws? The only laws you could mention are laws that practically every government, before and after both testaments of the Bible, has had in place.
The minds of the lawmakers of course is where it came. As I pointed out in the Constitution, it was also so for the written laws beyond the constitution. Most I"ll say because I can't specifically reference every name. Most lawmakers at the foundations of our country were Christian. Thus basing their bias off of what they know from Christianity. No Christian truely following would write a law into the books that went against God.
You said, "I have no problem with anyone expressing any religious beliefs in public places. I have a problem when people say certain beliefs do not belong. Yes, this would include an athiestic point of view. Everyone has a right to believe what they want in this country. However, they need to respect the foundations of this country and respect anyone with opposing beliefs." Nobody said certain beliefs don't belong. Please avoid creating strawperson arguments. They are saying public property is government property and the government is supposed to be neutral. The government should not allow religious or irreligious displays on public property because it connotes endorsement and thus non-neutrality. When someone tries to bypass government neutrality and places a cross on public property, the cross must be removed to bring government back to its state of neutrality.
I never said certain beliefs don't belong? Is that what you were saying? Sorry if that's how I came across.
You're right, people need to respect the foundations of this country. Which I think is the issue at hand here. One key we have to get by is the fact that there is nothing written saying this is a Christian nation... yea, I agree. However, there is nothing written that says this is not a Christian nation. We need to move beyond looking for specific reasons to say this is or is not a Christian nation and actually start looking at details.
You said, "Part of the basis of laws and statutes dating back to the founding years of this country put into place a requirement of Christianity to ensure no discrimination against the accused." That's absurd. You just argued, "To avoid discrimination against people they practiced discrimination against people."
at the time, it was to make sure there was no demonic or otherwise influence. It was understood for a Christian to be completely honest. I would, even today, be understood that demonic influence would try to hurt the innocent.
Research the Salem Witch Trials. It's a good example of what happens when people who claim to follow don't take into account the possibility that someone might be following their God. It's more than just saying your Christian or not. They all claimed to be Christian, and yet... many innocent people were burned.
Later you misrepresented Hambydammit's argument. "Are you saying we should start putting A's on top of churches and Islamic symbols on Jewish synagogues?" That's not what he was saying at all. That's private property. He was talking about public property, i.e. government property. He said that government should maintain neutrality on religious matters. "It's about preferential treatment [with the connotation of government endorsement] for any religion and discrimination against the non-religious." I find it difficult to believe you misinterpreted his statement so badly.
just clarification. that's all. It's not about symbols on government property either. The spearation of Church and state was to protect people from laws being made that were going to discriminate one way or the other. e.g.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- this being from Jefferson, it's basically saying you can't make a law that would benifit a particular religion, and also, can't make a law that would stop free exercise of any religion."
A side note, all non-proft organizations get tax breaks. Churches don't have a means of receipts like most others to get their tax breaks, thus the law was put in place, no property tax. All purchases or otherwise are still taxable.
You said, "I guess I should say that there is yet to be a president elected for these United States that did not have a Christian background." That has no bearing on whether the government is Christian. The only claim that would support is, "Christian citizens are bigoted toward non-Christians."
The mindset of the lawmakers and founders is where that comes from. You can say this site was built on Atheistic foundations. You could not claim neutrality in that aspect, there is also no way I could claim this site to be Christian based. Why? The mindset of the founders!
You then proceeded to name a bunch of the founding fathers who you claim were Christian. They might be Christian but that doesn't matter. It does nothing to prove the government was founded as a Christian government. Many Christians at the time supported the separation of church and state because it would prevent certain sects from gaining federal power to persecute other sects. The separation of church and state was designed to protect everyone. Your argument fails because you can't infer that certain religious beliefs of the founding fathers entail an official government stance on religious matters.
exactly. It was to protect people, not restrict people. It still doesnt' change the basic mindset. My argument not only supports what you just claimed, it still holds water.
I would also like to know how you've managed to ignore Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli: "[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." That statement was published in newspapers throughout the country and there was no outcry from the public about it being false. It was read out loud on the senate floor and there was no protest about it. It was then signed into law by the people who heard it read out loud. The statement is clear evidence of a non-Christian foundation of government and it has legal weight, unlike all of the anecdotal evidences you put forward for the opposite conclusion.
I'll have to read up on that treaty. I'm not familiar with it.
For others. Understand that I never said "I had the right way". Someone likes putting words in my mouth. I am on here to not only express what i know, but to learn more. I have told others who have talked to me on other posts I have formed that I'm here to learn. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, better yet, I'm willing to become an Atheist! IF I see enough evidence to prove there is no God. That has yet to happen.
This post is obviously not about that, so lets' not make it about that. This was just to clarify my stance here. I'm not here to say I'm the only one that has it right. I'm here to discuss and learn. I hope you're all here to do the same.
BTW, the person who listed off the different religions of the people who signed the Constitution... sorry to say, their all Christian based religions. Doesn't matter which it is, they're still Christian. You can't lable a country on religion either, it's a following only. We call other countries Islamic, not suni, Sheit or anything else. Same deal
- Login to post comments
Offline Visual_Paradox wrote:
You said, "Try telling the founders of this country we're not a Christian nation." Thomas Jefferson—the person who actually penned the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence—believed Christianity was a form of Platonic demon worship. Why do you think Thomas Jefferson made his own Jefferson Bible with Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul's ideas removed? He thought Jesus was a wise and ethical mortal and thought that everything surrounding Jesus was bullshit.
if he thought Christianity was a form of "Platonic Demon Worship", then why would he make a Bible with Christian writings in it?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all about Jesus. They are the core Gosple. They still talked not only about Jesus specifically, but "everything surrounding Jesus" as well.
Jefferson's Bible has no reference to Jesus' miracles or his resurrection. When you take out the things that lead people to think that Jesus was the son of God, can it really be considered a Christian document?
To Jefferson, Jesus was simply a good Deist teacher.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline For others. Understand that I never said "I had the right way". Someone likes putting words in my mouth. I am on here to not only express what i know, but to learn more. I have told others who have talked to me on other posts I have formed that I'm here to learn. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, better yet, I'm willing to become an Atheist! IF I see enough evidence to prove there is no God. That has yet to happen.
Atheism isn't (and doesn't require) a proof of no god. It's simply a rejection of the hypothesis "there is a god" based on insufficient evidence.
If someone accuses a person of a crime in court, but brings no proof at all to back this assertion, the judge would throw out the case. (or rule for the defense) We've just evaluated the claims and found them to be baseless.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all about Jesus. They are the core Gosple. They still talked not only about Jesus specifically, but "everything surrounding Jesus" as well.Jefferson's Bible has no reference to Jesus' miracles or his resurrection. When you take out the things that lead people to think that Jesus was the son of God, can it really be considered a Christian document?
To Jefferson, Jesus was simply a good Deist teacher.
I have an honest question. How can one write a "Bible" with the Biblical books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and have no reference to any of Jesus' miracles or his resurrection? In all honesty, you'd only be able to quote from the books sparingly and not actually have the books themselves there.
To answer your question as well. To have anything promoting the teachings of Jesus CHRIST and suggesting them to be something to follow, then yes, it is a Christian document. the word Christian literally means "follower of Christ" or in longer terms, one who would follow the teachings of Jesus.
If Jefferson had the aforementioned books in his Bible, regardless whether he took out the "mericle work" it would still hold the teachings of Jesus be it that's what those 4 books were about.
p.s. Jesus taught through his miricles.
- Login to post comments
Offline Atheism isn't (and doesn't require) a proof of no god. It's simply a rejection of the hypothesis "there is a god" based on insufficient evidence.
If someone accuses a person of a crime in court, but brings no proof at all to back this assertion, the judge would throw out the case. (or rule for the defense) We've just evaluated the claims and found them to be baseless.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent you or your views. It comes down to many non-believers coming to me claiming little proof of this or no proof of that. Therefore I came to the conclusion it was proof they were looking for.
This would also explain when I offered for people to look for God using scientific methodology, there were no takers.
I guess my stance would then have to be the exact opposite of what you represented as an Atheist. That being the rejection of the basis that "there is no God" based on insufficient evidence. Plus, personal experience as well, but that doesn't go far on forums unless people are willing to try it for themselves.
- Login to post comments
False. That is not the reasoning behind it. We want symbols removed from schools, court rooms, etc, because we are NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY. We are not supposed to be religious at all. We are simply supposed to allow people to practice their own religions without undue government intervention.
When I attend a function at a state university, and there is a prayer to Jesus that I'm expected to participate in, I am left with a choice: Ostracize myself or pretend to agree. If you invite me to a prayer meeting at your house, I can just decline the invitation, but if I want an education, I have to go to school. If the schools are allowed to promote a religion, that's not offensive to me -- it's discriminatory.
Consider this: I've been called for jury duty three times in my life. I've been struck all three times after expressing my atheism. Granted, I didn't particularly want to do jury duty, but that's not the point. I am not allowed to participate because of my lack of Christianity. Posting the ten commandments is not offensive to me -- it promotes and encourages discrimination against me.
Consider the recent congressional resolution elevating Christian holidays. They could have simply said, "We support all holidays, all religions, and non-believers alike." Instead, they chose to go with the majority. That is not offensive -- it's discrimination.
I'll shut up about the large cross if we include an equally large and prominent symbol of every other world religion -- and an equally large and prominent atheist "A." You see how it works? It's not about promoting religion. It's about preferential treatment for any religion and discrimination against the non-religious.
And it's also a strawman. This isn't about being offended. I'm not offended when people pray before meals. I'm discriminated against when the government forces me to either act Christian or be part of the disenfranchised minority.
Again. Horseshit.
We don't claim to be offended. We claim to be discriminated against.
Real Harm:
Transformation from Secular to Religious Government
Under the Bush administration, our country is experiencing a major transformation from a secular to a religious government. The President's faith-based initiative is central to this transformation and raises serious questions about church-state separation. "Slouching toward theocracy. President Bush's faith-based initiative is doing better than you think," by Bill Berkowitz, 2/6/04 provides an overview of this transformation.
On February 4, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives voted for provisions in a social services bill that allow religiously based job discrimination in publicly funded programs run by churches.
Remember -- churches pay no taxes. Isn't that what you call an unfair business advantage??? Real harm
Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been following Bush's Faith-Based Initiative since he assumed the office of President. They have filed lawsuits, and their magazine, Church and State, has many important, in-depth articles.
From Americans United, August 17, 2004:
Philadelphia Church That Endorsed Bush Gets $1 Million 'Faith-Based' Grant
Wednesday June 23, 2004
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I got as far as the giant flaming strawman in the middle of the first page of that article and stopped reading. Atheists don't protest the use of religious symbols in public places because we are offended by them. We protest because their presence implies our participation and support for the religion so represented, which is not why we pay our taxes. Would you consider it real harm if the government announced it was funding a task force to promote atheism across the country? Would you feel this was a fair and legitimate use of your tax dollars? If no, would that be because you are "offended" by atheism?
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
I agree with your post 100%. It comes down to a matter of the supremacy of a single viewpoint as opposed to fairness based upon impartiality. I like your "shoe on the other foot" example as it illustrates this point perfectly.
The new scapegoat for Christians failure to maintain their religious monopoly on what it means to be an American is secularism.
HERE IS WHAT THEY WONT TELL YOU!
A Christian can be a secularist. A Jew or Muslim or atheist can be a secularist. A secularist is merely a person who recoginizes that religion and politics DONT MIX!
Any moron with half a brian can look at the division in the middle east between Sunnis and Shiites to know that when you bring up labels and discard common law, someone will get fucked.
The same sectarin violence existed between the Catholics and Protestants in Irland.
A human is a human is a human. We are all going to beleive what we beleive dispite what others tell us. We CAN use the the common goal of appeal without force and include bitching about the other without killing each other.
Utopias dont exist, and only a fool will set themselves up to be king of the hill with force, rather than the voluntary appeal of fact.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Right. My objection is using public monies to put religious symbols on public property. What you do with your own property is your business.
I do, however, find the symbolism of the cross offensive. When I was a kid in fundy school, I went through a phase where I drew pictures of Christ and the two thieves being crucified on the cross. It was a really violent picture with blood and everything. At school I was encouraged. My parents encouraged me, too.
My brother, in a rare moment of lucidity, called it disgusting. I figured he must be wrong because everyone else liked it.
Logical fallacy: argument from popularity.
When my nephew was about 7 or 8, he used to go around saying his favorite color was red because it reminded him of Jesus' blood. That was SO not okay with me. It was all I could do to keep my mouth shut. Most of the time I had to go into another room.
I hope he outgrows his fundy upbringing. He isn't planning on college and that concerns me because I don't think he ever learned how to think for himself.
College would at least force him to see how other people live and think.
So yeah, I do find the cross offensive. It's the most popular necklace symbol, isn't it? People might as well wear little guillotines around their necks. It's the same damn thing. On the other hand, I respect the right of others to wear a cross or a guillotine or whatever the hell they want. As long as it's private, I won't get in your face. I am teaching myself to keep arguments about religion in the public sphere. It's been hard to bite my tongue at times.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yeah , hey lets put an electric chair symbol in the public square.
Xians are sick sick sick ..... and f ing sick
Seperate religion from the market place .... Stop being tolerant of witchcraft tax free peddlers ....
Holy Water ?
Atheism Books.
i really do think they need to keep out of the school system and any goverment arena
I am offended by the cross,, the funny little jewish hat and the headscarf. These are symbols of mental slavery. To display your intellectual limitations with pride sickens me.
When I see a woman in a burqa I am even more offended. They are allowing themselves to be defined completely by their primitive faith. All you can see about them is that they are Muslim. I have the same reaction to Jesus fish displayed on the back of someone's car. The first and only thing the driver wants those behind him to know is his delusions.
I'm offended when businesses display their religion prominently. Here in Perth we have a chain of bed stores that displays the Jesus fish on their logo. The implication is that being a christian makes them more worthy of people's business.
I'm also offended by churches, temples and mosques. These are places where ignorance is worshiped and children are brainwashed.
I do not demand that people remove their crosses, yarmulka or headscarf. I do not go around tearing Jesus fish off cars or lobbying for a ban on burqas. I do not call for all places of worship to be demolished. Why? because no matter how offended I am I have no right to stop other people from offending me. I bleieve in free expression no matter how stupid the idea being expressed is. I will however do my best to boycott businesses that make a point of their faith. That is my right as a consumer.
When it comes to religious symbols on public property or paid for with public funds, then I do have a right to demand their removal. It is no longer individuals expressing personal faith. It's the country claiming a national faith. I will not be labelled with the primitive dogma of others.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
[/quote=caposkia]
As I had guessed, most people on this site don't find it an offense, however, I have learned a lot from the responses given. Very interesting.
Woah! huh???? Who told you we're NOT a Christian country? Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Did you know that "Laus Deo" (Praise be to God) is written at the very top of the Washington monument? Did you know you are required to be a Christian to even run for president??? Try telling the founders of this country we're not a Christian nation.
Now you may want to believe it, but I'm sorry, it's just not the case. We are a Christian Nation. Our laws and statutes were based on Christian teachings. For a refresher on the DOI, please check out; http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Imediately, right at the beginning you'll notice such phrases as; "...God entitled them" and "...endowed by their Creator" and yes God and Creator are capitalized siginifying they are in fact referencing to the Christian God. No other religion would capitalize God be it that they all have a name they use for their higher power, and creator may be a description others may use, but they wouldn't consider it a significance to capitolize.
uh... expected to participate in??? who told you you were expected to pray? or even believe for that matter??? Anyone who tells you that does not understand what it means to be a Christian.
I have no problem with anyone expressing any religious beliefs in public places. I have a problem when people say certain beliefs do not belong. Yes, this would include an athiestic point of view. Everyone has a right to believe what they want in this country. However, they need to respect the foundations of this country and respect anyone with opposing beliefs.
People also need an open mind. Someone mentioned in this blog that people will believe what they want and no one can change their mind.. not an exact quote, but it was along those lines. Unfortunately, that's very true. I see it as stubborness. You really have to question what you believe if you aren't even willing to listen to an opposing factor. I'm here because I'm willing to accept any opposition with open ears and an open mind. I'm still a believer because no oppositional views have in my understanding, successfully refuted my views.
...and you said this is NOT a Christian nation???
Part of the basis of laws and statutes dating back to the founding years of this country put into place a requirement of Christianity to ensure no descrimination against the accused. It was understood at the time that if you were a Christian, you were absolutely going to look at any issue with an open mind and a clear conscience. These would be the requirements of being a Christian. Judge Not, ya know?
as we all know, unfortunately, through the history of this country, people claiming to be Christian did not view issues with open minds or clear consciences... just look at the Salem Witch Trials.
I know the response to this too. A perfect example of why religion should not be invovled... etc.... well, if these people convicting people of being witches were true Christians, none would have been killed. It's just not the teaching of the New Testiment! Whether you believe it or not, you can't deny that.
are you saying we should start putting A's on top of churches and Islamic symbols on jewish synagogs??? uh... just fyi. If Athiests had a church or any property for that matter in a public place, they'd have every right to not only display an A, but to not display anything they didn't want displayed.
of course they'd get friction from some morons out there, but they're just dispensationalists. They have no concept of tolerance.
well, churches pay no "property tax". Because they are a non-profit organization. Just like any other non-profit organization, they get tax breaks. br..hem... and uh... any church that is profiting I must say is NOT Christian.
As far as sparation of Church and state, that is quite a topic and a misunderstanding by both sides if I do say so myself. I'd have to do some research before I comment on that more, but to sum it up, the declaration of seperation was never meant to keep God out of the Government.
Noone had to. It's obvious to anyone with accurate knowledge of our country's founding.
Yes. There's no jesus in there. Anywhere.
Did you know "Qui curat" (Who gives a fuck) is written on my brain right now?
I didn't. Could you show me in the rule book?
No need. They would tell you themselves.
We are not. The original settlers came here to get away from a christian nation.
Some of the founders were christian, some were deists. Read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography for an explicit disavowal of christianity. The separation of church & state was made very clear.
That's nonsense. You need to get out more.
Look at an original draft of the Declaration. Every damn noun is capitalized. People wrote like that back then. Or will you contend it was just the christians?
There are no theists on operating tables.
I could respond in detail, but I already wasted ten minutes of my life reading that last bit of tripe. I'll sum it up with your own words.
Wow. Just... wow.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Your argument is easily defeated, as the United States was founded via the creation of the Constituion, not the Declaration of Independence.
The United States is in no way a Christian nation. Our laws are clearly not based on Christian laws (how many of the ten commandments are laws? maybe three, depending on how strictly you adhere to them). Your statement that the President has to be a Christian is completely inaccurate. The requirements are laid out in the Constitution, a document you might be interested in reading before making claims about the nature and functioning of the U.S. government.
Really? I thought the only requirements were to be
I must've missed the part that says you gotta be Christian to be the president. Maybe they changed the part that says no religious test shall be required to hold any office of public trust under the United States.
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
While the founding fathers likely had to placate a significant christian population just as we do today, this doesn't mean they embraced christianity themselves or thought it was best for our nation.
caposkia wrote:
Tell them yourself: (A small sample)
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, bigotry, and persecution".
" In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people. "
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
All of these from President James Madison... and:
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " – Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."
"Question with boldness even the existance of God, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear"
Thomas Jefferson.
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion....." Treaty of Tripoly(Barbary Treaty) Artical 11. Signed without dissent by both houses of congress and signed into LAW by President John Adams, June 10th 1797.
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
John Adams
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." Thomas Paine From - The Age of Reason
All No True Scotsman fallacies aside...
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. " Thomas Paine
Some things never change.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
YEAH , bump
Jefferson , Paine , even Jesus/Buddha too !
Read it ALL again,
the bibles too
Go Jesus ! and thanks, good lesson, sorry you were misquoted , as was prophisized,
The most Amazing story of all time, YET
I like the part , I am one with the father
ME TOO , we are one
Atheism Books.
The Constitution allows all good standing citizens to run for or to be appointed to hold offices regardless of their religion "no religious test". But what this guy doesnt understand is that common law, according to the Constitution was never ment to be monopolized by on religion nor were our common law was intended to be ripped out of any holy book.
It was never the founders intent for Christianity to be sole interperter or owner of the Constitution. Freedom of religion is garunteed by the Constitution but how Christians get to "Jesus owned government" out of that is absurd.
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Artical 11, Barbary Treaty signed without dissent by both houses of Congress and signed into law June 10th 1797 by President John Adams.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Personally, I'm bothered by crosses since they are torture devices. The Romans used them for incredibly painful executions. I think that any group that uses a torture device as their symbol while claiming to be about peace and love is up to something.
-Triften
really... have you read the Bible?
who said anything about Jesus being in there?
If you really don't, then why are we talking??? If you didn't care, then you wouln't talk to me, and you have every right not to.
ya know, I could be wrong on that... I guess I should say that there is yet to be a president elected for these United States that did not have a Christian background...
ok... like who? the signers of the Constitution for example maybe... let's see.
Abraham Baldwin... uh... nope, he was a Christian
John Dickinson - From his will: "To my Creator I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity." hmmm... he could be an athiest..er... nah
Gunning Bedford - Funeral oration on the death of Washington: "Now to the triune God, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be ascribed all honor and dominion, forevermore." nope... also known as a Christian
James Wilson - "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority for that law which is divine...far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." - from The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804) hmm. starting to see a pattern...
I will remind everyone that these are the actual signers of the Constitution... the document that has no reference or indication of God or Jesus Christ in it...
Jacob Broom - Writing to his son: "Don't forget to be a Christian. I have said much to you on this head and I hope an indelible impression is made. "
Roger Sherman (signer of all 4 of our founding documents). When asked by his church, White Haven Congregational, to help revise the wording of their creed: "I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. That the Scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him."
Alexander Hamilton - Proposed formation of the Christian Constitutional Society to spread Christian government around the world. After the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he stated: "For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." - from Diffine, D.P., One Nation Under God - How Close a Separation?
Rufus King - Selected as manager of the American Bible Society. In a speech made before the Senate at the time Missouri was petitioning for statehood, he said: "I hold that all laws or compacts imposing any such condition [as involuntary servitude] upon any human being are absolutely void because contrary to the law of nature, which is the law of God."
John Langdon - Vice President of the American Bible Societythose crosses were the worst kind of punishment of it's time. They were in fact incredibly painful and a very terrible and embarrassing way to die.
Think of it this way. How would you feel if you were destined to hang on one of those torture devices... but then someone came along and took your place on it. Would you not be forever greatful? Would you not use that as a symbol of Love that someone had for you????
and before anyone can cynically respond, this is what Christians believe. Believe it or not, if that's how you view it, it is quite the sacrifice.
so are you saying our tax dollars pay for the sale of Chrisitianity? if so, sorry to burst your bubble, but that's simply not true... even if there was some of it going towards promoting Christianity (which I truely believe it's not), there are far worse things this government is secretly spending our money on than a following. Ask them why our debt is so large.. I'm sure the answer won't be Christians take it all...
The Declaration of Independence was written long before the attempt to create a government. It expresses the opinion of some ungoverned people. It doesn't express governmental principles, nor was it intended to do so. It has no legal weight.
The inscription atop the Washington Monument has no legal weight.
Christianity isn't required to run for president. I don't know where you got that idea. Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution says nobody can be forced to accept a religion to be eligible for federal employment and the 14th amendment makes it binding on state governments.
You said, "Try telling the founders of this country we're not a Christian nation." Thomas Jefferson—the person who actually penned the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence—believed Christianity was a form of Platonic demon worship. Why do you think Thomas Jefferson made his own Jefferson Bible with Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul's ideas removed? He thought Jesus was a wise and ethical mortal and thought that everything surrounding Jesus was bullshit.
I don't know where you get the idea that our laws are based on Christian teachings. What laws? The only laws you could mention are laws that practically every government, before and after both testaments of the Bible, has had in place.
You said, "I have no problem with anyone expressing any religious beliefs in public places. I have a problem when people say certain beliefs do not belong. Yes, this would include an athiestic point of view. Everyone has a right to believe what they want in this country. However, they need to respect the foundations of this country and respect anyone with opposing beliefs." Nobody said certain beliefs don't belong. Please avoid creating strawperson arguments. They are saying public property is government property and the government is supposed to be neutral. The government should not allow religious or irreligious displays on public property because it connotes endorsement and thus non-neutrality. When someone tries to bypass government neutrality and places a cross on public property, the cross must be removed to bring government back to its state of neutrality.
You said, "Part of the basis of laws and statutes dating back to the founding years of this country put into place a requirement of Christianity to ensure no discrimination against the accused." That's absurd. You just argued, "To avoid discrimination against people they practiced discrimination against people."
Later you misrepresented Hambydammit's argument. "Are you saying we should start putting A's on top of churches and Islamic symbols on Jewish synagogues?" That's not what he was saying at all. That's private property. He was talking about public property, i.e. government property. He said that government should maintain neutrality on religious matters. "It's about preferential treatment [with the connotation of government endorsement] for any religion and discrimination against the non-religious." I find it difficult to believe you misinterpreted his statement so badly.
You said, "Have you read the Bible?" Yes, I have read the Bible and recently I've been reading the Hebrew and Greek itself. It's a cool set of texts but it's ultimately unimpressive.
You said, "I guess I should say that there is yet to be a president elected for these United States that did not have a Christian background." That has no bearing on whether the government is Christian. The only claim that would support is, "Christian citizens are bigoted toward non-Christians."
You then proceeded to name a bunch of the founding fathers who you claim were Christian. They might be Christian but that doesn't matter. It does nothing to prove the government was founded as a Christian government. Many Christians at the time supported the separation of church and state because it would prevent certain sects from gaining federal power to persecute other sects. The separation of church and state was designed to protect everyone. Your argument fails because you can't infer that certain religious beliefs of the founding fathers entail an official government stance on religious matters.
I would also like to know how you've managed to ignore Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli: "[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." That statement was published in newspapers throughout the country and there was no outcry from the public about it being false. It was read out loud on the senate floor and there was no protest about it. It was then signed into law by the people who heard it read out loud. The statement is clear evidence of a non-Christian foundation of government and it has legal weight, unlike all of the anecdotal evidences you put forward for the opposite conclusion.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
Are you aware that churches don't pay tax? Do you have any idea how much money governments are giving up by not collecting tax from churches, given the number of them and the valuable property they own? This alone amounts to a massive annual subsidy for religion.
You have noticed, I hope, that the words "In God We Trust" appears on money and on many government crests hanging in many tax-funded places. Now ask yourself this question: how much money would Macdonalds pay to have the golden arches similarly displayed? Before you try to lowball that figure, reflect on the amount of money that corporations pay to have their logos appear at the Olympics or on NASCAR cars. Then remember that by buying this space, the corporation would be associated with the biggest, baddest brand of all, the USA, and be prominently displayed to every demographic in every market in the country. I'd say the space would be worth billions, easily. But, right now, the government gives it away to religion free.
Those are just two examples. There are dozens of others.
Your last point about the debt is assinine and beside the point. I never said the government gives all its money to religion, I just said that it subsidizes religion.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
You know what else bothers me about the post? That damn "No true scottsman fallacy". How can you assume that you, of all people, got christianity right? Better yet you have found that christianity was the one true religion out of 20000 or so existing religions and an infinite number of other possible religions. It is such a cop out. Anyone who has ever done anything in the name of christianity that makes your belief look bad is passed off as "No true christian". Maybe they actually interpreted it the way it was supposed to be read. The killing of witches is in the bible for instance. If there has ever been a book that contradicts itself in terms of morality, it's gotta be the bible.
I don't know if you have noticed, but history is unkind to those countries that embraced theocracy. It's right up there with rogue statism and communism. You may think that you want no seperation of church and state, but I would bet my life that you will be sorry if it happenes in your lifetime. Well, you may not be sorry, but anyone who doesn't prescribe to your faith will. This is mere speculation on my part, but history is a good indicator. Just look at how much worse it is since Bush has been in office. You can say that the problems weren't religious it is just his views on foreign policy, but his views come from his interpretation of the bible. Who are you to say he is wrong?
Thats cute.
You are misrepresenting people's views. Just because Ben Franklin uses the term 'Almighty' does not make him a Christian. He and several other founding fathers were deists.
So what did Jesus sacrifice again? What did he lose?
-Triften
Hey, caposkia. Is English your second language? If it isn't you need to get your ass back to grade school.
I'm gonna hazard a guess that you have never read any of the founding documents of this nation, nor have you any appreciable knowledge of its history. I have read all of the founding documents more than once. Your arguments are not even specious they are outright lies! However, I suspect you might actually believe them to be true because you likely heard them from any of several bastions of intelligence like Pat Robertson or possibly from your fundy preacher.
You might be interested in knowing that we have had several presidents who were actual atheists. OMG! Now, what was that about xtian belief being a requirement to be president? What the hell are you smoking? I want some.
Laus deo at the top of the Washington Monument means nothing other than someone ignored their legal responsibilities when approving the final design. Read the letters and writings of Jefferson, Madison, Paine and other Founding Fathers and you will clearly see (assuming you can open your eyes to reason) that they not only founded this nation as a secular nation but disdained christianity as a religion. Many of the Founding Fathers were extremely critical of subsequent congresses when they started mixing mythology with government. That, to any reasonable person, means they founded this nation as secular, not xtian! Think, man, think! Don't simply parrot some drivel you heard in church! "Good" xtians will lie in a heartbeat to turn this country into their idea of paradise.
You also might want to bone up on some basic legal principals before you start making shit up. Our laws (federal at least) are made up from basic principles that have been in existence far longer than xtianity. xtians stole them from the pagans, along with most of the stories in the bible, and called them god's word. As far as local laws are concerned, just because some xtian assholes on a local school board manage to ramrod "In god We Trust" posters down everone's throat and have them placed in all the school rooms in the district, does not in any way mean this is a xtian nation.
Oh, and I love how the mind of a xtian works. When witch hunts were popular xtian murderers were good xtians doing god's work, when witch hunts were no longer favored xtian murderers only called themselve xtians but weren't really xtians. The only difference between then and now is now you guys have backed off stripping women of their clothes to examine them for signs of witchcraft while you secretly get your nut off, and turning them into firewood afterward. A hundred years from now some equally insufferable ass will be declaring that you weren't really a xtian because of the way you pray. Give me a break!
What you need to do is get your head out of your preacher's ass and start thinking for yourself, if that's possible at this stage in your life. Half the crap you came up would be laughable if it wasn't so sad and dangerous. It's ingorant people like you in the government now who are tearing this country down in an attempt to throw out the constitution and turn it into a theocracy.
Read some history. Never, ever has there been a government mixed with religion that did not almost immediately become evil ( a concept I believe in as a construct of man, not spirits). In every instance power is abused, human rights suffer or are eliminated, murder by the state is rampant, etc., etc., and all in the name of god. If you want to remain ignorant and believe in myths go ahead, I really don't care what you do. Just keep your assinine mythology out of government!
"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150
Yes, I have….really. Why would you ask that here? Did I miss some passage in the bible which states that America is a christian country?
I don’t care that it says Laus Deo at the top of the Monument. I care that you think America is a Xian nation, and that you base this on an inscription at the top of a piece of stone. That’s why I’m talking to you.
You COULD be wrong on that? You GUESS you should say?
Hey, I’m an atheist with a “Xian background”. Can I count on your vote, son?
I guess I could also point out that there is yet to be a president elected that was not white or male. Those are part of the requirements too, yes?
So we are a congregationalist Nation.
Wait…make that an episscopalian Nation.
Er…presbyterian Nation?
hmm…would that pattern indicate that some signers of a secular constitution happened to be Xian? Let’s continue:
Fine. You’ve convinced me. We are a Huguenot nation.
Since you apparently lack the rigor to actually research Franklin‘s autobiography (despite my pointing you towards it), I will charitably provide it:
Sounds to me, like he read a xian refutation of deism, and found the arguments so weak, he became a deist instead. What was that about misquoting again?
Wow, you’re right. Capitalization doesn’t change the words that are there. Good job.
However, to return to the issue (how’s that short-term memory coming along?), I was responding to your “claim”:
Can you blame me? You’re profaning my secular nation with your Xian demagoguery.
You silly little xians with your unintended irony!
There are no theists on operating tables.