Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
That's fanciful. Why would they change their minds for modernity? Do you think that they would be smarter or just more cynical? I would LOVE to hear the illogic that this is based upon.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation.
- Thread starter logician
- Start date
Starfish
Please no sarcasm
I completely disagree. They may have been disallussioned with the churches of their day, but not with God. Have you not read their words?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
That's just what you'd like to think, you have no way of knowing. Smear campaigns do not evidence make.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I disagree.
The ones that had belief in God(s) would still have their beliefs.
Though they may not agree with the churches of now a days, I doubt they would be atheists, hard core or otherwise.
logician
Well-Known Member
Yes, have you?
Draka
Wonder Woman
Maybe you should have had your reading glasses on instead of the blindfold. Perhaps you would have gotten a bit more out of them that way.
Kcnorwood
Well-Known Member
The Constitution is a secular document & no where does it endorse a surpreme being of any kind. Some Christians try to push it has such just so they can tell everyone that this country needs to get back to God.
They keep forgetting about article 11 of the Tripoli act which states:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
They keep forgetting about article 11 of the Tripoli act which states:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
kai
ragamuffin
Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i was just musing over this treaty when i came acoss the accusation that article 11 wasnt in the arabic version ,
In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States's treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean in terms of the United States's legal position in relationship with the rest of the world.[18] According to Hunter Miller's notes, "the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic" and "Article 11... does not exist at all."[19]
After comparing the United States's version by Barlow with the Arabic and even the Italian version, Miller continues by claiming that:
The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.[19]
From this, Miller concludes: "A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic... yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts
kai
ragamuffin
[New York, 3 October 1789]
By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be--That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in thecourse and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions--to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Starfish
Please no sarcasm
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Quoting myself because I'm hot.
It doesn't really matter what was written. The Declaration of Independence declared that "All Men were Created Equal" yet many of the people who signed it owned slaves. Congress never declared war on Iraq so does that mean 100 years from now this war will have never taken place? History is often construed if you only look at documents. Paper and ink have no soul.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
The Declaration is not a legal document, it proposes no law and makes no law. It is a cause of action. It is thus, NOT a founding document for the United States government. The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution WERE frameworks for law and "law of the land". The Declaration was not.
Regards,
Scott
Either way, the point is just because a document says something or doesn't say something doesn't mean that is how it is. Laws and such are more "guides" than actual "laws." There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State yet every government agency is closed on Christmas. Can you explain this (rhetorical)? It really doesn't matter if you can or you can't. The bottom line is people do what they want regardless of what a piece of paper says.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
And lots of people with that attitude end up in prison or bankrupt, too.
Regards,
Scott
No, they're laws. That's why they call them "laws".
Even if it weren't officially closed, so many government employees would book the day off that no non-essential office would be able to function, and there is so little demand for non-urgent government services that day that there is no need to keep them functioning.
One university in Toronto has such a high proportion of students who are Jewish that they shut down over the High Holidays. This is more pragmatism than preference: there's not much point in teaching a lecture that a half to a third of the students are going to miss.
I'm an atheist and even I want to spend Christmas with my family. Giving me the day off has nothing to do with giving my religious beliefs preferential treatment.
This is my point. The unwritten laws. There are so many Christians in America anyway it might as well be a Christian nation.
That's interesting because Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity either
I wouldn't say so. There's a difference between a nation with lots of Christians and a Christian nation.
Not originally, but the Christians have spent the last dozen-and-a-half centuries getting rather attached to the festival.That's interesting because Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity either