It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NLBS #48: The United States Is Not, And Never Was, A Christian Nation

page: 33
117
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
So I'll ask again, other than logic and reason how else would we choose our morality??? It can't all come from what we are taught and even if they were, being that we modify them by experience that would still mean we are using reason to modify them at that point.


The logic and reason we're talking about here isn't absolute. It's not mathematical. It cannot be proven. That is precisely why 500 years from now, if humans still exist, they will laugh at the morality we accept as "correct" in 2015AD. It is something which will always evolve and can never be "solved".




posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

The Constitution has been rendered pretty much useless through centuries of case law. As I said earlier, each and every one of the original amendments to the Constitution is flagrantly violated every day. You can't blame the dog, you blame the owner.

And a nation comprised of 100% Scientologists isn't a "Scientologist Nation" but a "Scientology influenced nation"? You won't even bend a little on that extreme example? Oh brother.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guidance.Is.Internal
a reply to: Annee

And a nation comprised of 100% Scientologists isn't a "Scientologist Nation" but a "Scientology influenced nation"? You won't even bend a little on that extreme example? Oh brother.


You can do the bending.

Constitution is on my side.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal

LOL when I read Scientologist nation I think about the laws requiring people to be audited and the government is located in Los Angeles in that big ass building.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guidance.Is.Internal

The logic and reason we're talking about here isn't absolute. It's not mathematical. It cannot be proven. That is precisely why 500 years from now, if humans still exist, they will laugh at the morality we accept as "correct" in 2015AD. It is something which will always evolve and can never be "solved".


That's fine. I'm not saying it's provable or that our morals won't change. Of course they do, they change for various reasons. All I'm saying is that there is "reason and logic" behind those changes. They aren't just random guesses from one generation to the next or whatever. There are reasons behind why we decide to change them and those reasons are often determined by logical examination of whether or not they are working well for us or not.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
The groundwork of this nations laws and system of Government was absolutely not based on any single Religion for multiple reasons. One major reason was because the founders were escaping from exactly that type of government when coming here. All of them even had different religious views as well and understood that they all had equal right to worship however they chose. Therefor they didn't establish any dominate religion for this nation. That is what this topic is about.


We got it. We understand. Anyone who has researched American history understands this. Even the NLBS guys got that part right.



It's not about just by demographics alone what is the dominate religion here. That isn't even a topic of discussion since that is just raw data that answers that question.


It all depends on whether you would call a hypothetical nation comprised of 100% Christians a "Christian Nation". Me, I would. You apparently wouldn't because the religion hasn't been sanctioned by the government. You just need to acknowledge that there is no absolute definition of "Christian Nation".



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal



It all depends on whether you would call a hypothetical nation comprised of 100% Christians a "Christian Nation". Me, I would.


Well you are in the minority. Deal with it.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Lol, makes me wonder what an "IRS Audit" would feel like ..



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal



It all depends on whether you would call a hypothetical nation comprised of 100% Christians a "Christian Nation". Me, I would.


Well you are in the minority. Deal with it.


Hah! Exactly what a Christian in the U.S. would say to a Muslim. Bravo ..



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guidance.Is.Internal

It all depends on whether you would call a hypothetical nation comprised of 100% Christians a "Christian Nation". Me, I would. You apparently wouldn't because the religion hasn't been sanctioned by the government. You just need to acknowledge that there is no absolute definition of "Christian Nation".


Where did this absolute 100% come from?

Is that on another planet that doesn't have a secular Constitution?



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal



Lol, makes me wonder what an "IRS Audit" would feel like ..


LOL damn didn't think about that. That's so scary.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal

Ok, but this topic is specifically about This Nation, not some hypothetical one.

I understand what you're saying and that's fine as far as you're own personal choice in calling it a christian nation because it's predominately christian. However, this topic is about whether or not this country was officially established as "Christian" or not.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Well this has certainly been an interesting debate - I'll leave you with this one excerpt from Wikipedia:



Nation has various meanings, and the meaning has changed over time.[1] The concept of "nation" is related to "ethnic community" or ethnie. An ethnic community often has a myth of origins[dubious – discuss] and descent, a common history, elements of distinctive culture, a common territorial association, and sense of group solidarity. A nation is, by comparison, much more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its coherence, unity, and particular interests.[2]



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guidance.Is.Internal
Well this has certainly been an interesting debate - I'll leave you with this one excerpt from Wikipedia:



Nation has various meanings, and the meaning has changed over time.[1] The concept of "nation" is related to "ethnic community" or ethnie. An ethnic community often has a myth of origins[dubious – discuss] and descent, a common history, elements of distinctive culture, a common territorial association, and sense of group solidarity. A nation is, by comparison, much more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its coherence, unity, and particular interests.[2]


I think that's called REACHING.

And, I'll add my link:



Document Proclaims Secular Government by Jim Walker

A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, “No more than 10 percent– probably less– of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.”

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, “the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety.” www.earlyamerica.com...

edit on 1-6-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

You didn't even bother reading the definition



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guidance.Is.Internal
a reply to: Annee

You didn't even bother reading the definition


You're wrong.

I did read it.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
I think that's called REACHING.


And the real REACH here is that you think the Constitution actually protects people like homosexuals. It obviously hasn't.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
You're wrong.

I did read it.


If you read it and have one shred, one iota of honesty, you will admit that there is no accepted definition of "nation".



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guidance.Is.Internal

originally posted by: Annee
You're wrong.

I did read it.


If you read it and have one shred, one iota of honesty, you will admit that there is no accepted definition of "nation".


It's the Internet.

It's easy to find some one, or some writing that supports the position you determine is correct.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It's wikipedia for crying out loud.



new topics

top topics



 
117
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join