America is a secular nation.

[Sunstone]

The reformation and religious wars were a terrible upheaval. Hatred, genocide and intolerance. N. America was not spared. The founding fathers were acutely aware of how pernicious religion could be and sought to hobble it without enraging any particular faction.

The US was born of the Enlightenment, as an experiment in tolerance and government by reason rather than religion; a Humanist endeavor. The founding fathers feared religion and took pains to assure the US would operate as a secular state where religion had no coercive influence and all were free to believe as their consciences moved them.

Anyone seeking to enshrine any particular religious outlook in law is anathema to all things American and a serious threat to the republic.

Good post! Frubals!

 

[Reverend Rick]

Playing by the rules and being a part of the solution use to mean for women to remain silent and for all blacks in this nation to live in fear. And many people then were pleased with the current course.

Luke, how could you take something good and turn it into something so ugly?

You brought this up, not I, so just remember who got me started.

Women being silent? Who gave women the vote? You focus only on the bad men of the time and give no credit to the same group that made needed corrections.

Blacks living in fear? I know they did and some still may feel this way.

Once again, the same people you condemn also were the group that gave Blacks the right to vote, and the equal rights amendment. There must have been more folks fighting to free slaves and make things fair, because it was not an easy change to make, but it was done because it was the right thing to do.

I have always wondered why the founding fathers got so much credit and the people who fought in the Civil war never receive much credit. Likewise the folks in the south who risked their lives to sneak black folks up north on the underground railroad.

Look at today. How about the last two Secretaries of state? They were Republican appointed, but somehow they don't count for anything because they were conservative, like a black person cannot be conservative. Whats up with that?

 

[.lava]

Inspired by this post:

I am making this thread to debate this.

Given the ENORMOUS amount of evidence to prove "We the People" live in a secular nation, I will be making several post as I give more evidence, quotes, and wording from the Constitution.

First, the biggest issues, comming from the constitution. Not are the only mentionings of god and religion that it is not a requirement to hold any offices, it even states that church and state are to remain seperated.

From the first amendment:

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

This means congress cannot constitutionally pass a law that respects one religion over another. If it is permited for one religion, it must legally be permited for all of them.​

From Article 6, which is self explanatory:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.​

That simply means you DO NOT have to be of any religion.​

From article 2, which is the exact oath a President must take:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.​

Where is the mentioning of God? That's right, it not official. Every four years when a President is sworn into office, the very end part of "So help me God" is unofficial.​

​

​

​

hi

you have interesting topic. sorry i can't read it all at the moment.
USA appears not to be secular country to me. that's how it looks like from eastern side. we don't have Qur'an in our hotels or in hospitals for example. Bush is also very religious. he sounds like he's inspired by history of Christianity.

well, maybe i am wrong but i amnot the only one who sees that way.
so imo USA isnot secular at all.

 

[Sunstone]

hi

you have interesting topic. sorry i can't read it all at the moment.
USA appears not to be secular country to me. that's how it looks like from eastern side. we don't have Qur'an in our hotels or in hospitals for example. Bush is also very religious. he sounds like he's inspired by history of Christianity.

well, maybe i am wrong but i amnot the only one who sees that way.
so imo USA isnot secular at all.

There's a cultural "war" going on in the States over whether to be a secular nation or a Christian nation.

 

[.lava]

There's a cultural "war" going on in the States over whether to be a secular nation or a Christian nation.

since when?

at least USA government is not secular today. Bush is playing the religious role, well, he thinks he does. he thinks he is fighting against gog-magog thingy.

 

[Sunstone]

since when?

at least USA government is not secular today. Bush is playing the religious role, well, he thinks he does. he thinks he is fighting against gog-magog thingy.

The so called "Culture Wars" started in the 1960s and 70s.

 

[Luke_17:2]

I, too, strongly object to these claims. Christians built America so that other religions could live in peace? Puh-lease. Peace for other religions--great as I would love it, it just isn't a reality in today's society.

I can't convince people who have decided that they're the poor victims of the Christians, Muslims, Jew, etc. Who can't appreciate the freedom they have.

No, there will never be complete peace. But the only persecution is in the Middle East or in Atheist societies such as China.

Just put it this way, you're non-religious and not dead. You're vocal about it, and not dead. Do you want to know real persecuted peope? Christians in Saudi Arabia and China.

That statement of yours makes me furious. You have more freedom then you deserve.

And I would be very careful where you go with the attack on Muslims, atheists, and Jews.

Yeah, I know. I certainly won't post any cartoons of Mohammed.

Jews, as I said, segregate themselves so they can practice their religion. Which means, though they don't impose it, they're no different the Puritans who segregated themselves in New England.

American atheists, for one, have been long saying that people have every right to practice their religion so long as it does not interfere with the personal lives of others.

Well, many Christians evangelize because we look at the Bible and see a commission to win souls. Now, would you call evangelization interfering with your personal lives? The thing is it's our constitutional right: "Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Conservative Christians, by contrast, have done a great deal to impose their views on those who do not always accept them.

Nope. We proselyte quite ferverently, but we don't impose our religion on you. And, as I said, we have a right to proselyte under the First Amendment.

Again, if you call that imposition, then you don't deserve the freedom you have as you can't appreciate it

Look, there's no denying that a massive portion of early Americans were Christians. But our Founding Fathers were disproportionately liberal as compared to the population as a whole. As an example, in the middle of 1776, the nation was roughly split 33-33-33 on whether to break from England, stay with them, or just "whatever." (In that day, the patriots held the liberal position, and the tories were the conservatives.)

This is not revelation.

I decided 40 years ago that I most definitely would have been a Tory during the revolution.

Yes, the Founding Fathers were liberal to the point of revolutionary -so they strove for a government that would be secular. I don't deny that. The thing they had no control over is whether or not the US was a Christian nation -that's up to the people to decide, and the vast majority of society was Christian. Still is.

But the decision to break away was, of course, unanimous.

The Declaration of Independence was ratified unanimously because the few left leaning conservatives that were represented opted to withdraw in protest from the Congress.

Most tories viewed it as treason so, of course, they wouldn't attend.

That would be unconstitutional. A state can indeed make their own laws, but the laws as defined by the constitution are above state laws. Im not going to say professing faith in Yehway in some places as a requirement for office never happened. However, it was illegal for such a thing to have happened in this nation.

Don't cross me on this subject. I've studied this subject since before I was still a youngster, and have studied it ever since.

The constitution says that "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" -Under the United States: that means in the federal government. The states aren't bound by that clause; they didn't operate by it; and the federal government made no move to change that after the ratification process. Why? Because the states have every right to lean toward one religion or another. That's because they're sovereign; coequal with the federal government.

So, it's not illegal. You obviously need to take several courses in constitutional law.

This statement is simply childish to believe. If you want to compare modern Middle Eastern Muslim nations to America being a nation for all religions, please do take into consideration that in Medieval Europe you could be killed for not being a Christian.
Even until relativity recently in England it was required to profess faith in the official state church.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

We're talking about America: not medieval Europe. And the fact is that the predominant Christian population that always has been predominant in the US (then and today) were willing the new government be formed on a secular and liberal basis.

Then they done the same thing to those who were here first. Convert or die.

The Puritans in New England did. The Quakers (who were Christians) didn't.

Anyway, who would want to live in a Puritan society? The non-Puritans who moved there were kind of nuts. That doesn't excuse the despicable acts of the Puritans, but still.

The treaty of Tripoli clearly states that, ""...Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...." And that was signed some of the Founding Fathers. George Washington even oversaw it's writing and signing. And John Adams was head of Congress when it was signed. And just because the Muslim leaders that also signed aren't still around, nor are there nations, the fact still remains it was denied in 1797 that America was founded on Christianity.

Yes: the government. I didn't deny that.

Anyway, though already debunk, that clause of the treaty was struck down by act of the Supreme Court in 1892.

Anyway, a treaty between two nations ceases to be valid when one of the signers ceases to exist. As a matter if fact, it ceased to be valid 8 years after the signing. It is a half-baked argument.

Look it up. And I don't mean on the Atheist America sites.

 

[Smoke]

That statement of yours makes me furious. You have more freedom then you deserve.

Again, if you call that imposition, then you don't deserve the freedom you have as you can't appreciate it

I've noticed for decades now that certain kinds of Christians always think they know exactly how much freedom other people deserve.

 

[Luke_17:2]

I've noticed for decades now that certain kinds of Christians always think they know exactly how much freedom other people deserve.

There you go again: playing the victim.

Did I say that I was going to take your freedom away? No. I was expressing an opinion, not considering my faith, that you have no appreciation for the great freedom you have.

You don't deserve any freedom because you can't appreciate. Atheists would agree: you have to appreciate freedom to deserve it. Because if you can appreciate it, you can feel lucky or grateful based on your knowledge that there are those without said freedom.

 

[McBell]

Anyway, though already debunk, that clause of the treaty was struck down by act of the Supreme Court in 1892.

LOL
You are kidding right?
Do you honestly believe that just because the supreme court "struck down" the treaty in 1892 that those who wrote the treaty in 1797 suddenly changed their minds to agree that the USA was founded on Christianity?

Anyway, a treaty between two nations ceases to be valid when one of the signers ceases to exist. As a matter if fact, it ceased to be valid 8 years after the signing. It is a half-baked argument.

Talk about half baked arguments...

 

[sandandfoam]

There you go again: playing the victim.

Did I say that I was going to take your freedom away? No. I was expressing an opinion, not considering my faith, that you have no appreciation for the great freedom you have.

You don't deserve any freedom because you can't appreciate. Atheists would agree: you have to appreciate freedom to deserve it. Because if you can appreciate it, you can feel lucky or grateful based on your knowledge that there are those without said freedom.

As a non-American that is a deeply unsettleing point of view. My understanding was always that the American way was that everyone deseved freedom, period. It does seem to me that the Bush administration has a point of view similar to you Luke17:2, as evidence of this I would cite Pakistan where the Bush administration supports the military dictatorship over democracy. The ability of the administration to make calls on who does and who does not deserve to be free rests on the tacit support of views such as those you have expressed here Luke17:2. I strongly disagree with this, everyone deserves to be free and this principle should be inviolable.

 

[Luke_17:2]

As a non-American that is a deeply unsettleing point of view. My understanding was always that the American way was that everyone deseved freedom, period.

Everyone is has a right to, freedom, that doesn't mean that they appreciate it. And I think if you can't appreciate it, then you don't deserve it -but those rights are still yours. I'd never think of taking it away from anybody, as that's not my call; but that doesn't stop me from thinking that some don't deserve it as they can't appreciate it.

It does seem to me that the Bush administration has a point of view similar to you Luke17:2, as evidence of this I would cite Pakistan where the Bush administration supports the military dictatorship over democracy. The ability of the administration to make calls on who does and who does not deserve to be free rests on the tacit support of views such as those you have expressed here Luke17:2.

Bhutto is a communist. Mussharaf is trying to keep Muslim extremists from taking control of Pakistan, and thus handing its nukes to a Talibanish government. In case you didn't notice, Bhutto isn't dead, and people are allowed to protest.

Luke17:2. I strongly disagree with this, everyone deserves to be free and this principle should be inviolable.

Why, praytell, should it be inviolable? And why does everyone deserve it?

The American Declaration of Independence says, "...endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."

Do you believe in God, stephenw?

 

[Luke_17:2]

LOL
You are kidding right?
Do you honestly believe that just because the supreme court "struck down" the treaty in 1892 that those who wrote the treaty in 1797 suddenly changed their minds to agree that the USA was founded on Christianity?

First of all, the treaty says the US GOVERNMENT wasn't founded on Christianity, and that I'd agree with. The nation however was. I've already made clear why.

The United States is a Christian nation because the vast majority of the people are Christians and Christianity has had a long-lasting effect.

Talk about half baked arguments...

Look it up: I'm right.

The treaty is irrelevant; it ceased to be relevant 8 years after its signing, and now that the opposite nation doesn't exist anymore, the treaty isn't valid.

 

[sandandfoam]

"Bhutto is a communist. Mussharaf is trying to keep Muslim extremists from taking control of Pakistan, and thus handing its nukes to a Talibanish government. In case you didn't notice, Bhutto isn't dead, and people are allowed to protest."


Freedom and democracy apply equally to those whose views one may diagree with, look at Hamas for example, the majority of Palestinians voted for them ergo they have a democratic mandate whether or not one agrees with them, we have to accept the situation as it is, not how we wish it to be. As regards Bhutto not being dead, one can hardly cite that as evidence of pro-democratic policy. The right to protest has been curtailed and the military have repressed protest, in any event the ability to protest does not equal democracy.


" Why, praytell, should it be inviolable? And why does everyone deserve it?"
- Because of the inherent dignity of the human condition.



"The American Declaration of Independence says, "...endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."
Do you believe in God, stephenw?"

I don't see the relevance of this, but. Yes I think I might. I'm far from certain.

 

[Smoke]

There you go again: playing the victim.

Not playing the victim at all; just pointing out a problem with your way of "thinking."

 

[Reverend Rick]

Not playing the victim at all; just pointing out a problem with your way of "thinking."

A person does not have a right to an opinion without it being a problem?

 

[McBell]

First of all, the treaty says the US GOVERNMENT wasn't founded on Christianity, and that I'd agree with. The nation however was. I've already made clear why.

The United States is a Christian nation because the vast majority of the people are Christians and Christianity has had a long-lasting effect.

Appeal to numbers.

Look it up: I'm right.

The treaty is irrelevant; it ceased to be relevant 8 years after its signing, and now that the opposite nation doesn't exist anymore, the treaty isn't valid.

The TREATY itself was made irrelevant, I do not argue that.
The half baked idea (your words. I would say 'your strawman') is your theory that once the treaty became irrelevant that the belief of those who wrote it ALSO became irrelevant.
The authors of the treaty believed that the USA was not founded on Christianity.
And all the twisting and manipulating in the world does not change that fact.
Regardless of what you want to believe.

A person does not have a right to an opinion without it being a problem?

Opinions can have flaws in them just like theories.
Or is it your opinion that opinions are not to be looked and shown where there are potential flaws?
Before you reply, just remember that it is your opinion that same sex couple couples should not get married and because of that opinion you point out potential flaws in the opinion that they should.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one.

No one is perfect, therefore all opinions are flawed to some degree.

Each and every opinion can cause problems for others.

Therefore, should all of us abandon our opinions or just adopt popular opinions only?

 

[McBell]

Opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one.

No one is perfect, therefore all opinions are flawed to some degree.

Each and every opinion can cause problems for others.

Therefore, should all of us abandon our opinions or just adopt popular opinions only?

No.
But perhaps they should stop whining whenever a potential flaw in one of their opinions is pointed out?

 

[Reverend Rick]

No.
But perhaps they should stop whining whenever a potential flaw in one of their opinions is pointed out?

This is the second time you have mentioned whining to me. So any disagreement is whining? I guess all the Gay right threads are whining too?