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.

 

NEWS: Reclaiming America for Christ

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Eh? The founding fathers were devout Christians. The original religion of this country was Christianity.

And yes, it was founded on Christianity - read the Declaration of Independence, or recite the Pledge of Allegiance once in awhile.

Yes, this country IS A CHRISTIAN NATION. It bothers me to hear all these people call it otherwise. Those who can't face that this is a CHRISTIAN NATION need to (A) Get over it. or (B) Leave.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

-wD



One form of fundamentalism breeding another. Isnt it Beautiful?

There is a perculiar notion you should know about called the separation of church from state. The US is a nation founded by xtians using xtian morality as a STARTING point. Jedi is a religion to these days and by your logic there could feasibly be a Jedi nation in the future. Imagine the royalties for George Lucas!!!!

One nation united under Yoda.

I have heard that the Statue of Liberty carries an inscription that begins... Bring us your poor etc etc etc. I have not heard anything stipulating that the incoming poor, tired and hungry must subscribe to a ridiculous fairytale where a bunch of Italians nail a guy to a tree.




posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Thank sofi, I do look hard around to find reliable links, and for the last poster, Whiskey Jack
yes you are right we are a nation of many Christians and many religions, and that include Christians of all denominations, because as you know is many.

But we are not a nation founded on Christianity, yes under God but not under Christ.

[edit on 24-2-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Ah, I'm glad we finally have seen the truth come out here.

Yes, what I meant by rooted has already been explained.

I understand that we are secular government, I never claimed we weren't. By "rooted", I simply meant that the traditions of this country had Christian roots. And that's true? No big deal there.

The whole 'tradition' of the Bible-swearing-in process will not be discontinued - until we have a non Christian President...

-wD



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I’m beginning to believe American Christians are under assault after all. I have found an review here where the Rev. Billy Graham tells us that President Richard Nixon was a satanic beast!

While I had always suspected it to be the case to have such an august citizen declare it to be so certainly lends credence to the claim in my mind.


“Why, Aitken agonizes, did Nixon delete the expletives, and thus highlight their presence even more? "The explanation," he says, "is that the tapes were censored with Hannah (his mother) Nixon in mind." He quotes the president telling a staffer that "If my mother ever heard me use words like that she would turn over in her grave."

Aitken professes to be astounded by both the explanation and the corresponding public response, considering them examples of invincible American provincialism. He protests fervently that, after all, the worst words showing up on the tape were "----" and "-------," and that Nixon never vocalized "the familiar locker-room expressions for sexual intercourse..."

Aitken's earnest distinction is almost funny; it would certainly not have cut any ice with Hannah Milhous Nixon.

When Graham heard of the tapes' release, his first reaction was characteristic of the breed: he put off reading the transcripts.

But when he finally sat down with the The New York Times text, he told biographer Marshall Frady that his shock at what he read first made him weep, then made him vomit, and left him nauseous for hours.
The nausea was evoked not only by the text itself, but by what the text revealed to Graham about himself, and the massive self-deceit and denial which had marked his relationship to Nixon. Graham's public statements on the tapes sounded dazed, full of such phrases as "I never dreamed...I just could never conceive...it was all something totally foreign...I never saw that side..." and so forth.

But Graham had also played many variations on premillenial dispensationalist themes, so he soon came to suspect that more than individual failings were involved. To his authorized biographer, John Pollock, he suggested that what the tapes recorded were the results of a "demonic assault."
Pollock adds that Graham also believes "Satan was somehow involved in the downfall of Nixon." Many others must have reached similar conclusions. But before that rationalization took form, they grasped at another one, the one they had always been taught, by Graham and others, which was that whatever specific words actually underlay the dark phrase "expletive deleted," such expressions were in the dialect of the reprobate, the Other, the bad person, yes, the Beast. A man who talked like that could not be one of them.”

www.kimopress.com...

There you have it. Incontrovertible proof that Nixon was a satanic beast per Billy Graham. Break out the holy water fire hoses!



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
.
And what happens when the American Indians reclaim America from Christ?

These religious zealots are completely myopic.
.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Kay. Back to the topic.

Given that the fundamentalists are working on a marketing plan to push their reclaim America agenda - does anyone see the potential for everyone else to work together - environmentalists, anarchists, democrats, Unitarians, Catholics, Indians, immigrants, unemployed, uninsured, mad, worried - and beat them at their own game?



.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
...[D]oes anyone see the potential for everyone else to work together - environmentalists, anarchists, democrats, Unitarians, Catholics, Indians, immigrants, unemployed, uninsured, mad, worried - and beat them at their own game?


The problem with your perspective, soficrow, is that those of like mind are to be found in almost every group you name and converts to be found in all. For one thing, you are confusing evangelical Christianity with fundamentalist Christianity, which is a profound mistake. There are very many Christians who are ready, willing, and able to bring as many souls into the flock, as possible, who are in no way interested in bringing about a theocracy, or whatever it is that causes you to irrationally fear and attack all Christians, or at the very least, paint them all with the same brush.

One more thought, if you will. Historically, Christianity has flourished the most when Christians have been the most oppressed.

[edit on 05/2/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

The problem with your perspective, soficrow, is that those of like mind are to be found in almost every group you name and converts to be found in all. For one thing, you are confusing evangelical Christianity with fundamentalist Christianity, which is a profound mistake.





Hmmm. I agree that "those of like mind are to be found in almost every group you name and converts to be found in all." I don't think I am confusing evangelical Christianity with fundamentalist Christianity.

I only see a problem with fundamentalism, not evangelical Christianity: Bush is pushing Christians to fundamentalism, and playing fundamentalists against one another.

...He's got the fundamentalist Christians on a leash at home - plus, he's in solid with Islamic fundamentalists through people like the bin Ladens and Chalabi - AND he's got Jewish fundamentalists on a string too.

It's just a good old-fashioned divide and conquer strategy. ...While everyone's distracted with their squabbling, the big boys sneak in and grab the loot.


....I'm saying that everyone NOT fundamentalist - evangelicals, Buddhists, democrats, Unitarians, Catholics, Indians, immigrants, unemployed, uninsured, mad, Jewish, worried, environmentalists - have more in common with each other than with the fundamentalists.

...That truly spiritual and religious people are the same, no matter what their religion or calling. The rest is just frosting, not the heart.

...and we can come together, stop war and violent destruction, and America's return to eugenics policies.



.



[edit on 24-2-2005 by soficrow]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The question still stands, if they were intent on not making any religious beliefs as part of the founding of the nation...why would they proclaim that all men are created equal by the Creator in the declaration of independence?

If they wanted to, i am pretty sure they would not have mentioned that "all men were created equal by a Creator."


Agreed. I think that the Founders wanted religion to have a part in American life, but also wanted to keep the business of governing and the business of religion separate as much as was practical.[1]

By using the (at the time) generic term "Creator", instead of Lord or Jesus, they are more inclusive. It should also be noted, as was pointed out elsewhere in the thread, that at the time of our nation's founding being "ecumenical" was having a conversation between a Lutheran, a Catholic and a Quaker
In the current age, you have to add in the other major religions that exist in this country when speaking of "ecumenical" meetings. Really what this means, to me, is that when I hear someone speaking of "Retaking the US for Christ" I hear them saying they want to disenfranchise anyone who is not Christian or further to disenfranchise anyone who is not Christian enough for the speaker.

Short of trashing 230 years of legal precedant, and rewriting at least the first amendment to our constitution, I don't see a good way to "retake America for Christ." Beyond that, I don't see that it's necessary to retake the US government, even if you do want to "retake America for Christ."

Speaking as a non-Christian, the best thing you can do to convince me of Christ's righteousness, is to demonstrate what kind of a good person that being Christian has made you. Instead of condemning anyone whose religious views differ, show me how Christians, more than any other, will stop to help those who need it. Show me how Christian values, even if not encoded in law, can make the nation prosper more than any other.

I guess I don't see encoding Christian rules in our legal system as a way of making our nation any more virtuous. It didn't work in the Holy Land, after the First Crusade. It didn't work in Europe, during the time of absolute monarchy. It's not working in Vatican City currently. What does work, it seems, is people striving together towards a better future, whether they're working with Baptists, Universalists, Pentecostalists, Muslims or "Flakey New-Agers[2]"


To that end, I'd like to thank you, actually. Though we have, on this issue, diametrically opposed viewpoints (at least it seems like that now), I love the fact that we can discuss this like rational adults. No descent into screaming, trolling or name-calling. We disagree, but aren't being jerks about it


[1] Yes, practical. Religion will never, nor should it be, completely divorced from a political official's actions.

[2] I can say this because I have been, at several points in my life, a "flakey New-Ager"



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Interesting, LadyV. Freemasons CAN be CHRISTIANS. Did you know that?



The conspiracy behind this thought process that we are NOT a Christian nation is ABSURD. Why? I suggest YOU do some research, here. Simply because you cannot deny that both the Declaration of Independence acknowledge a GOD - Not Allah, not Buddha - A GOD. Second, so does our POA. Now, I understand that this was implemented in the early 50's, but it stands nonetheless. That further makes this a Christian country.

I will go further here: This thought process that many people stick to that says we ARE NOT a Christian nation is an attempt by atheists, other religions, or what have you, to implement themselves INTO society and give THEMSELVES a place in life. However, they cannot do that without the acknowledgement that we were founded on religion. It's the truth, I'm sorry; I know it is hard for you to admit that =[

-wD

[edit on 23-2-2005 by WeBDeviL]



God is just a general term. Here, Fido, here, Fido. You know very little about your own belief.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Just do as Jesus says everyday. Nobody can take away anything Gods wants in this world. The question is what do we do everyday to show his love in our family, community and the world? The answer will led to more action I hope.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whiskey Jack

Agreed. I think that the Founders wanted religion to have a part in American life, but also wanted to keep the business of governing and the business of religion separate as much as was practical.[1]


Well, we finally agree in something. Yes, they wanted to separate government and religion, but still making the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith present in the making of this nation, tenets which all Christian-Judean faiths share, which most of the early pilgrims in the US did share.



Originally posted by Whiskey Jack
By using the (at the time) generic term "Creator", instead of Lord or Jesus, they are more inclusive. It should also be noted, as was pointed out elsewhere in the thread, that at the time of our nation's founding being "ecumenical" was having a conversation between a Lutheran, a Catholic and a Quaker
In the current age, you have to add in the other major religions that exist in this country when speaking of "ecumenical" meetings.


Yes, I agree that other religions should not be excluded from freedom of religion nowadays, as long as these religions don't infringe the rights of others.


Originally posted by Whiskey Jack
Really what this means, to me, is that when I hear someone speaking of "Retaking the US for Christ" I hear them saying they want to disenfranchise anyone who is not Christian or further to disenfranchise anyone who is not Christian enough for the speaker.


I don't think these people want to disenfranchise anyone. i also don't think these people are going to go to the streets with guns making you choose between changing your religious beliefs or dying.



Originally posted by Whiskey Jack
Short of trashing 230 years of legal precedant, and rewriting at least the first amendment to our constitution, I don't see a good way to "retake America for Christ." Beyond that, I don't see that it's necessary to retake the US government, even if you do want to "retake America for Christ."


I don't think noone in here is saying that we should trash "the 230 years of legal precedents"....oh wait...what am i talking about...some in here want exactly that...
Well, you can exclude me from those people as well as other members who also don't want to trash the history of the US.



Originally posted by Whiskey Jack
Speaking as a non-Christian, the best thing you can do to convince me of Christ's righteousness, is to demonstrate what kind of a good person that being Christian has made you. Instead of condemning anyone whose religious views differ, show me how Christians, more than any other, will stop to help those who need it. Show me how Christian values, even if not encoded in law, can make the nation prosper more than any other.


i am not here to convince you on any religious beliefs, first of all, because i am not a follower of any religion, althou i do think most religions have good things to teach us if people are able to forget about the past and concentrate on the present. i was arguing that the forefathers clearly wanted the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith as part of the making of this nation, as all the sects the pilgrims were part of back then were clearly Christian, with a few differences.


Originally posted by Whiskey Jack
I guess I don't see encoding Christian rules in our legal system as a way of making our nation any more virtuous. It didn't work in the Holy Land, after the First Crusade. It didn't work in Europe, during the time of absolute monarchy. It's not working in Vatican City currently. What does work, it seems, is people striving together towards a better future, whether they're working with Baptists, Universalists, Pentecostalists, Muslims or "Flakey New-Agers[2]"


No, but what i think Christians want is the recognizion that whether or not people want to agree with it, this nation was pretty much written and forged with the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith, and they see these new attacks on their faith as a way for those who do not agree with them and hate them because of the past of their religion and their beliefs, as trying to get rid of Christianity in the US.


Originally posted by Whiskey Jack
To that end, I'd like to thank you, actually. Though we have, on this issue, diametrically opposed viewpoints (at least it seems like that now), I love the fact that we can discuss this like rational adults. No descent into screaming, trolling or name-calling. We disagree, but aren't being jerks about it


[1] Yes, practical. Religion will never, nor should it be, completely divorced from a political official's actions.

[2] I can say this because I have been, at several points in my life, a "flakey New-Ager"


Well, i thank you too, you are one of the few people in these forums that I see we can discuss in a civil manner without having to resort to insults.


Good job, I am looking forward to more discussions with ya.


---edited for errors---

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Our founder fathers had wisdom in their views of the world and our nation. They had beliefs but the also wanted us to worship on our own, with our peers and also in our privacy without interrupting others.

But when you have Religious Leaders taking like this.



The 700 Club when the Rev. Jerry’s fal well-told Pat Robertson, “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'”


In public make you wonder about what really their agenda is all about, also you are going to find the followers that will believe blindly what they preach.

This was after the 9/11.



Pat Robertson, again, has said that just as Supreme Court justices place a hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, so they should also place a hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible. In Khomeini's Iran, and in the recent Taliban rule of Afghanistan, we saw how brutal and bloody this looks in real time.


Their agenda also included to get into every American private life because in God’s eyes is not private life. They also make a very big difference on the roles of men and women.

Women are to be submissive wives and homemakers, while men are stronger bigger and in charge, occur that will mark as sinners any single mother around and occur with an economy like ours I don’t see a man supporting a household with an ever pregnant women and six hungry mouths.

I see as unrealistic views.

www.uuworld.org...

At the end fundamentalist believes are not different that Muslin believes when it comes to the roles of male over female, They hate women’s liberation, sexual liberation and individual freedom



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   


You know very little about your own belief.


Let's leave the personal insults aside, shall we?

Anyways, the term God, to them, seeing as they were Puritans escaping religious persecution from the British Empire, can mean a couple different things.

First off - Yes, they were referring to what they knew as God, and that's exactly what they called it - God.

Second - Yes, it can mean something other than a Christian God. It could be the God of Nature, as we see in our very own Declaration of Independence.

Now, for you to assume that I know very little about my own belief is beyond me. For you to assume that I would not know that the term 'God' can mean any great creator, well, that is beyond me.

For you to assume anything is beyond me. Assumptions lead to ignorance, my friend.

-wD



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL


For you to assume anything is beyond me. Assumptions lead to ignorance, my friend.

-wD



I think she was referring to evidence you illustrated, not making assumptions.




.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
well, sorry people....I know I probably shouldn't be doing this, and well probably have skeptic overloard or one of the other mods yelling at me agian....but....
well, I want this question answered....

I left it on another board, and am throwing the link to the page, so whoever wished to can review the conversation....but, well...
here's is the question....


Originally posted by dawnstar

Originally posted by Croat56

Originally posted by dawnstar

I am wondering though.....
there are many people who chose to be married without all the religous fanfare.....common law, justice of the peace, ect.....
There are churches, and maybe even some states still that fail to recognize a common law marriage...are you saying that those who are not wed in a religous ceremony, under a religous doctrine (gays included but not exclusive to gays) shouldn't be considered "married"?

[edit on 25-2-2005 by dawnstar]


Yes the ones that are married like that are not really considered married in the eyes of the church


so, should they be considered "married" in the eyes of law?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

so, are they actually saying that the gay marriage issue could in essence effect the marital status of every heterosexual couple in the country that chose not to have a "religous" wedding.......could the idea of "civil unions" be extended to them also?
or that in the future, women will have to stand up before God and man and make a vow that she may not actually believe God would desire for her to make(I don't), that she love, honor, AND OBEY, her husband in order to be "married"?

like I said, my apologies, but, well, it's more likely that the thread will be allowed to be buried, without an answer, I think...
and well, if the gay issue affects heterosexual couples also, maybe they should just be honest and forthright, and let us know that.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Like I said, whether or not my "evidence" (which is just opinion ? ) agrees with your argument, the fact remains.

When the original founders came over, they were following a God - they were puritans. So, going by this logic, this would lead us to conclude that the morals and bases they founded this great country on were with christian morals. It's true.

The fact that they left the door open to other religions is a moot point.

We can argue about this all day, but in the end, it comes down to the morals they based it on. Besides, my point was scued by a few sarcastic comments way early in this thread anyways. LoL, all I was saying was that this country was founded based on religious morals, not secular or atheist ones.

out,

-wD



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
WeBDevil, what the founder fathers wanted and what religious fundamentalist are claiming are two different things, I hope you understand the difference after reading some of the post that does not include insults to you.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...

“In 1660, Edward Burrough catalogued the maltreatment of Quakers in New England: 64 Quakers had been imprisoned; two Quakers lashed 139 times, leaving one "beat like into a jelly"; another branded with the letter H, for heretic, after being whipped with 39 stripes; and three Quakers had been executed.“


The founding fathers were sick of this kind of internecine warfare as they had had a belly full of it in Europe. The Constitution was founded on purely egalitarian ideals.

Egalitarian:
Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.

Any class that teaches otherwise should subtract points from the roster as the student would be more ignorant for having attended.

As to reclaiming America I think that executing Quakers and others may seem a tad harsh but it is the most effective way to rid the country of pesky non-believers and Christians that belong to different sects, it also carries the side benefit of insuring against any backsliding by Johnny come lately converts to the good news.

Soon I will to go visit the graves of my grandfather who was crippled by gas in WW1 and my father who was a submarine commander in WW2 and the rest of my relatives that are buried in Arlington National cemetery. I have a lot of relatives there because we’ve been here since the 1600’s and many of them were Quakers. While there I will think seriously about whether some here are right to tell people they should leave THEIR Christian country.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Marg -


Yes, I understand the thread and what these fundamentalists wanted, but what happened and what brought me in here in the first place was the debate about the founding father's mentality.

What these fundamentalists want is their business - not mine. =]

-wD



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join