• 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!

U.S.A - A Nation Founded on Christian Faith

true blood

Active Member
Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established "as plantations of religion." Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives--"to catch fish" as one New Englander put it--but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct. They enthusiastically supported the efforts of their leaders to create "a city on a hill" or a "holy experiment," whose success would prove that God's plan for his churches could be successfully realized in the American wilderness. Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves "militant Protestants" and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church.


The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

Congressional Fast Day Proclamation
Congress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a "day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer" throughout the colonies. Congress urges its fellow citizens to "confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness." Massachusetts ordered a "suitable Number" of these proclamations be printed so "that each of the religious Assemblies in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same" and added the motto "God Save This People" as a substitute for "God Save the King."

Congressional Thanksgiving Day Proclamation
Congress set December 18, 1777, as a day of thanksgiving on which the American people "may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor" and on which they might "join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance." Congress also recommends that Americans petition God "to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.'"

Another Thanksgiving Day Proclamation
Congress set November 28, 1782, as a day of thanksgiving on which Americans were "to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness."

Morality in the Army
Congress was apprehensive about the moral condition of the American army and navy and took steps to see that Christian morality prevailed in both organizations. In the Articles of War, seen below, governing the conduct of the Continental Army (seen above) (adopted, June 30, 1775; revised, September 20, 1776), Congress devoted three of the four articles in the first section to the religious nurture of the troops. Article 2 "earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers to attend divine services." Punishment was prescribed for those who behaved "indecently or irreverently" in churches, including courts-martial, fines and imprisonments. Chaplains who deserted their troops were to be court-martialed.

Settling the West
In the spring of 1785 Congress debated regulations for settling the new western lands--stretching from the Alleghenies to the Mississippi--acquired from Great Britain in the Peace Treaty of 1783. It was proposed that the central section in each newly laid out township be reserved for the support of schools and "the Section immediately adjoining the same to the northward, for the support of religion. The profits arising there from in both instances, to be applied for ever according to the will of the majority." The proposal to establish religion in the traditional sense of granting state financial support to a church to be controlled by one denomination attracted support but was ultimately voted down.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Tell me, true blood why all these religious men crafted a Godless Constitution and prohibit a politcal test of faith.

Tell us why they choose common law over God's law?

-pah-
 

Pah

Uber all member
SOGFPP said:
I do feel that the doctrine of religious freedom (free from state support and control) was largely influenced by those Colonists who were fleeing from religious persecution in England (by another group of "Christians" if I remember correctly)........ but to call the country a Christian nation sounds silly to me.

I don't really know about the other colonies, Scott, but I do know about Plymouth. Unlike a "johnny-come-lately" with Madison as an ancestor, I have three ancestaral lines to the Mayflower. The Pilgrims were the most tyranical religious fantatics the US has ever known - they are further right than the Religious Right. Rhode Island and Connecticutt were initially settled by colonists the Pilgrims had banished from Plymouth Colony for being either more religious than they or had less faith or practise. This group was abborant, unlike any other group in this nations history From this group sprung, to the shame of Christianity and still an ugly blot today, the only locality in the US to persecute witches.

Why anyone would claim the Mayflower Compact as a model of American Christianity is beyound me.

-pah-

As a Christian and a veteran of three armed conflicts on behalf of the USA (Panama, Iraq, and Somalia) I can tell you that I would take up arms and fight for the United States of America today and any day.........

......... I would not fight for the Christian States of America...... it goes against the freedom that millions have fought and died for.

"....... and Justice for all." :)

Peace,
Scott
 

true blood

Active Member
pah said:
Tell me, true blood why all these religious men crafted a Godless Constitution and prohibit a politcal test of faith.

Tell us why they choose common law over God's law?

-pah-

God's law? What do you mean by this? Jesus Christ was the END of the "God's law". I really don't think you know what Christianity is. God's law only pertained to Israel. Jesus Christ, their Messiah, came to fullfill God's law and he did and doing so ENDED it. Understand? Faith in Jesus Christ is now "God's law".
 

true blood

Active Member
Scott, If you were in the U.S. military you would go fight, not because of your "beliefs" in what your fighting for. But rather because, the Commander-in-Chief ordered you to.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
-Faith in Jesus Christ is now "God's law"-

tell that to a jew ;)

and blindly following orders is how things like the prison-torture evil happin. "I was just following orders." is no excuse for an evil act.

anyway, back on topic... I would just like to point out (once again) that the constitution was based in a large part on the Iriquois great law, and thus the whole based on christian principles is flawed as the Iriquois were certenly not christian.
it is also based on the Anchient Roman government wich also was not christian...
The third influance was the Magna Carta, wich incidently was also not a religious document but a set of civil laws to crontrol the power of the monarchy.

There is no biblical law within the constitution.

wa:do
 
Speaking as a Marine, what I think Scott was saying was that he would pick up his weapon and go fight again... seemed obvious to me. He was saying if required he would fight for his peoples country not your twisted dystopian ideal of a nation. he seemed to be speaking for himself as a free man... what this nation made him.
The fact that the majority of our founding fathers were Deists is well documented. To issue a prayer to God does not prove they were christian. The prayer you cited repeatedly had no reference to Christ. Hellfire man, it could be used to make an argument that this was a muslim nation. Bah. Beat it to fit, paint it to match. That how you handle things that don't settle well with your 'vision'?
 

true blood

Active Member
There is very little proof that our founding fathers were not Chrisitan Deist. George Washington was for many years a vestryman at Truro Parish, his local Episcopal Church. I'd like to see these "well documented" proofs you speak of. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were in fact less hospitable to religion than Washtington as am I, religion is nothing more then a crutch, a popularity contest but evidence supports that they held very powerful support in a "true single religion" or a "Christian Diest" as was Jefferson. There are far too many references to Jesus Christ in early speeches, writings, journals, etc.. that were written by their own hand and/or out of their own mouths. I'd rather reason by their own words instead of "buying" what you say, or what some modern text book claims. I have enough reading comprehension to do so, as you should too. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson kept their own journals and when they make mention of "God, in the name of Jesus Christ", it doesn't take an intellect to know they were Christians. You claim they're Deist or that it could be argued they're Muslim. That is nothing more then Ignorance. The fact that Congress held prayer every morning during the drafting, and these prayers are also documented and likewise address God, in the name of Jesus Christ, to help draft the documents shaping the Government of this Nation. This is founding a nation on a Christian Faith by their belief that God, in the name of Jesus Christ, would help them each day while drafting the documents. Christianty isn't about the 10 commandments, it isn't about the Sermon on the Mount, it isn't about many of the things you label christianity to be. Christianity is about living as Jesus Christ lived, loving others as Jesus Christ did, its about equality, the rights and freedoms all people and that these are inalienable. The proof that this nation is founded on the principles of Jesus Christ is clearly evident even in the artwork of that time period. Its amazing how people will twist truth and spin it, especially among Athiest and those among self proclaimed denominations, example catholics. To do Justice, to lover mercy, to demean ourselves with charity, humility and temper of mind. These are the very characteristics of being a real christian.

My apologies to Scott. I just didn't seem how your opinon on what you find reasonable to fight for had anything to do with this thread. May I remind you, our Revolutions were based on "religion"
 

Pah

Uber all member
true blood said:
God's law? What do you mean by this? Jesus Christ was the END of the "God's law". I really don't think you know what Christianity is. God's law only pertained to Israel. Jesus Christ, their Messiah, came to fullfill God's law and he did and doing so ENDED it. Understand? Faith in Jesus Christ is now "God's law".

Please tell your fine Christians friends, if they reject God's words in the Old Testament, they must also reject the story of creation and the reason for Christianity.

You can't pick and chose, true blood. It's there in your bible, the bible Christianity approved. Either it all stays and is relevant to today's Christianity or none of it stays. I'll hear none of this "matter of convienence", please

Now, answer why they chose common law - you seem to have forgot the most important point of my post

-pah-
 

Pah

Uber all member
true blood said:
Scott, If you were in the U.S. military you would go fight, not because of your "beliefs" in what your fighting for. But rather because, the Commander-in-Chief ordered you to.

I have news for you, true blood. I retired from the military after 20 years of service to my country. I have no obligation to follow any commander-in-chief. But, and know this well, there are certain times, when if theocracy rears its ugly head in any credible or real way, I would take to the streets my weapons and the promise of my life to defeat it.

-pah-
 

clirus

Member
To pah

pah quote
Read 'em all and tell me if you need more to be convinced today's United States of America was founded in the common law brought from England - Christianity was not included in the Constitution by Christians. Only a non-descriptive reference to religion is visible in the Constitution - certainly Christianity was not specified.

Reply
You fail to mention that English common law was based on Christianity.

Look up Blackstone on the internet. It is long, but the following is a quote.

"THIS law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."
 

Ardhanariswar

I'm back!
do you suppose that our founding fathers were speaking in a spritual sense? (besides using the word Jesus christ?).

the majority of americans that time where protestant. so much for christian principles. they cheated the indians out of thier land and pushed em. oh ya, thats what jesus wants! cough, ya right.

not everything in a garage is a car, not every person in a church is christian. they may call themselves one and be wannabes, but they are hypocrites if they do the opposite of what jesus would do.
 

Pah

Uber all member
clirus said:
To pah

pah quote
Read 'em all and tell me if you need more to be convinced today's United States of America was founded in the common law brought from England - Christianity was not included in the Constitution by Christians. Only a non-descriptive reference to religion is visible in the Constitution - certainly Christianity was not specified.

Reply
You fail to mention that English common law was based on Christianity.

Look up Blackstone on the internet. It is long, but the following is a quote.

"THIS law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."

No less an authority on Christianity as the Roman Catholic Church, the link I provided, says differently.

It makes a disctinion explicitly between common law courts and ecclesiastical courts.
The common law courts were:
  • Court of King's Bench,
  • the Court of Common Pleas,
  • and the Court of Exchequer.

In contrast,
The ecclesiastical courts of England were:

The Archdeacon's Court which was the lowest in point of jurisdiction in the whole ecclesiastical polity. It was held by the archdeacon or, in his absence, before a judge appointed by him and called his official. Its jurisdiction was sometimes in concurrence with and sometimes in exclusion of the Bishop's Court of the diocese, and the statute 24 Henr. VIII, c. XII, provided for an appeal to the court presided over by the bishop.
The Consistory Court of the diocesan bishop which held its sessions at the bishop's see for the trial of all ecclesiastical causes arising within the diocese. The bishop's chancellor, or his commissary, was the ordinary judge; and from his adjudication an appeal lay to the archbishop of the province.
The Court of Arches was a court of appeal belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the judge of such court was called the Dean of the Arches because in ancient times he held court in the church of St. Mary le bow (Sancta Maria de arcubus), one of the churches of London.
The Court of Peculiars was a branch of and annexed to the Court of Arches. It had jurisdiction over all those parishes dispersed throughout the Province of Canterbury in the midst of other dioceses, which were exempt from the ordinary's jurisdiction and subject to the metropolitan only. All ecclesiastical causes arising within these peculiar or exempt jurisdictions were, originally, cognizable by this court. From its decisions an appeal lay, formerly, to the pope, but during the reign of Henry VIII this right of appeal was abolished by statute and therefor was substituted an appeal to the king in Chancery.
The Prerogative Court was established for the trial of testamentary causes where the deceased had left "bona notabilia" (i. e. chattels of the value of at least one hundred shillings) within two different dioceses. In that case, the probate of wills belonged to the archbishop of the province, by way of special prerogative, and all causes relating to the wills, administrations or legacies of such persons were, originally, cognizable therein before a judge appointed by the archbishop and called the Judge of the Prerogative Court. From this court an appeal lay (until 25 Henr. VIII, c. XIX) to the pope; and after that to the king in Chancery.

It is said (and probably true) that common law originated in the Book of Doom by King Alfred and contained much from Chritianity
From the same source:

After their day the manuscript of the work was brought to light and was published both in Saxon and English by the Record Commissioners of England in the first volume of the books published by them under the title, "The Ancient Laws and Institutes of England". The profound religious spirit which governed King Alfred and his times clearly appears from the fact that the "Liber Judicialis" began with the Ten Commandments, followed by many of the Mosaic precepts, added to which is the express solemn sanction given to them by Christ in the Gospel: "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil." After quoting the canons of the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, Alfred refers to the Divine commandment, "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them", and then declares, "From this one doom, a man may remember that he judge every one righteously, he need heed no other doom-book."
However the very same paragraph goes on to indicate the removal of Christian precepts and principles
The original code of the common law compiled by Alfred was modified by reason of the Danish invasion, and from other causes, so that when the eleventh century began the common law of England was not uniform but consisted of observances of different nature prevailing in various districts, viz: Mercen Lage, or Mercian laws, governing many of the midland counties of England and those bordering upon Wales, the country to which the ancient Britons had retreated at the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. These laws were, probably, influenced by and intermixed with the British or Druidical customs. Another distinct code was the West-Saxon Lage (Laws of the West-Saxons) governing counties in the southern part of England from Kent to Devonshire. This was, probably, identical for the most part with the code which was edited and published by Alfred. The wide extent of the Danish conquest is shown by the fact that the Dane Lage, or Danish law, was the code which prevailed in the rest of the midland counties and, also, on the eastern coast. These three systems of law were codified and digested by Edward the Confessor into one system, which was promulgated throughout the entire kingdom and was universally observed.

To further debunk the proposition that America was founded on Christian law rather than common law I quote again from the same link
When the period of English colonization in America began, the aborigines were found to be wholly uncivilized and, consequently, without any system of jurisprudence, whatsoever. Upon the theory that the English colonists carried with them the entire system of the English law as it existed at the time of their migration from the fatherland, the colonial courts adopted and acted upon the theory that each colony, at the very moment of its inception, was governed by the legal system of England including the juridical principles administered by the common law courts and by the High Court of Chancery. Thus, law and equity came hand in hand to America and have since been the common law of the former English colonies.

When the thirteen American colonies achieved their independence, the English common law, as it existed with its legal and equitable features in the year 1607, was universally held by the courts to be the common law of each of the thirteen states which constituted the new confederated republic known as the United States of America. As the United States have increased in number, either by the admission of new states to the Union carved out of the original undivided territory, or by the extension of territorial area through purchase or contest, the common law as it existed at the close of the War of the American Revolution has been held to be the common law of such new states with the exception that, in the State of Louisiana, the civil law of Rome, which ruled within the vast area originally called Louisiana, has been maintained, subject only to subsequent legislative modifications.

"You fail to mention that English common law was based on Christianity." - No sir, it was answered in the links provided

-pah-
 
Christian, Deist, atheist, whatever--I think the Founding Fathers had their personal religious beliefs, and many of them differed with each other. The one belief they shared, however, was that their personal religious beliefs should not be forced on others in the government....people should be free to follow their own religion and morality, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. This is the essence of a secular government, and we have come a long way from the divine monarchies of old.
 

Pah

Uber all member
true blood said:
Pah, please define in your own words What is Christian law?

Christian law is all commandments, injunctions and specified law contained in both the Old and New Testamants It is what every Christian does or should follow. It includes ecclesiastical law created by Christian Churches.

-pah-
 

true blood

Active Member
pah said:
Please tell your fine Christians friends, if they reject God's words in the Old Testament, they must also reject the story of creation and the reason for Christianity.

You can't pick and chose, true blood. It's there in your bible, the bible Christianity approved. Either it all stays and is relevant to today's Christianity or none of it stays. I'll hear none of this "matter of convienence", please

Now, answer why they chose common law - you seem to have forgot the most important point of my post

-pah-

Pah, the books of the bible were written to different bodies of people during different Administrations. The old testament is nothing more than a history book of Israel. The prophets didn't even know of the revelation of the great mystery which was revealed unto Paul. Jesus Christ didn't even know. Christianity is explained in the doctrinal epistels[right believing, Romans, Ephesians, Thessalonians], and then the reproof epistels[not believing rightly, Corinthians, Philippians], and the correction epistles[to bring back to right believing, Galatians, Colossians]. These three (doctine, reproof, correction) constitue "instruction in righteousness".
 

Pah

Uber all member
true blood said:
Pah, the books of the bible were written to different bodies of people during different Administrations. The old testament is nothing more than a history book of Israel. The prophets didn't even know of the revelation of the great mystery which was revealed unto Paul. Jesus Christ didn't even know. Christianity is explained in the doctrinal epistels[right believing, Romans, Ephesians, Thessalonians], and then the reproof epistels[not believing rightly, Corinthians, Philippians], and the correction epistles[to bring back to right believing, Galatians, Colossians]. These three (doctine, reproof, correction) constitue "instruction in righteousness".

You'll find great arguement from many Christians.

Now you have again avoided the question -why they (the framers of the Constitution) chose common law?

-pah-
 

true blood

Active Member
Well the Administration of the Old Testament is far in the past my friend. This is a new Admin. The Bible explains that there will be a total of 7 different admins. I'm not bound to a past one but rather the present Age of Grace. Maybe those many christians you speak of don't realize this truth.


Tell me Pah, you don't think common law was based on christianity? If no, what do you think it was based on? But really, why should I acknowlege your question when you never acknowlege what I say? You always suggest such-and-such a group would argue against me.
 

Pah

Uber all member
true blood said:
Well the Administration of the Old Testament is far in the past my friend. This is a new Admin. The Bible explains that there will be a total of 7 different admins. I'm not bound to a past one but rather the present Age of Grace. Maybe those many christians you speak of don't realize this truth.

Tell me Pah, you don't think common law was based on christianity? If no, what do you think it was based on?

It is based upon accumulated court decisions.

But really, why should I acknowlege your question when you never acknowlege what I say?

I acknowledge what you say - I respond to it. What you mean to ask is why I acknowledge what you write by refuting it. That should be an obvious answer but I'll spell it out. You are wrong.

You certainly don't have to answer my question but a non-answer will, in the minds of other readers, diminish your position. Have it any way you want!


You always suggest such-and-such a group would argue against me.

That means I will not debate with you further on the point but I think you are wrong and that others will think you wrong.

-pah-
 
Top