America's National Church

Where has God ever said that he created the United States of America. The founders that created this country were mostly deists, most likely for the lack of science to explain things back then.

Religion has no place in schools or the government.

I also ask you to look over this site, andsee some of the things that bush is doing:

theocracywatch.org...

Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.

Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.)

1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.

In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

3. It had teeth.

Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

4. It had a shallow breastbone.

Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.

5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils.

The case for evolution is not 100%. It's not proven. It's a theory; a belief, if you will. Why should that belief be allowed to be spoken, but one's belief in God not be?

The Founders were overwhelmingly Christian; Deism, as an offshoot of Christianity, was not an early version of modern humanism or atheism as some would insinuate, but was Judeo-Christian in regards to issues such as the existence of God, special creation and morality. As an offshoot of Christianity, Deists held to what would by and large be considered Christian views on government and morality in general.

Even Thomas Jefferson, who is today often mistaken for a Deist or an atheist, said when speaking of Jesus' teachings in the NT,


"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus"


Jefferson's admonitions of Catholicism and what he saw as Platonic influence on Christianity should not be seen as a dismissal by Jefferson of Christianity as a whole.


While running for President, Jefferson had to defend himself against charges that he was an atheist. Why? Because there were laws throughout the country at that time that did not permit atheists, or anyone who did not practice Christian morality, to hold office.

The current secularization of America is foreign to, or more specifically, completely against, the model of government built by the Christian founders. As believers in Judeo-Christian ethics, they understood that there is no truly "neutral" belief system.

Originally posted by junglejake
The Founders were overwhelmingly Christian

FWIW, many of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons. And all that entails.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The conspiracy started a few decades ago, when the CFR was given the task of laying out a path by which the nation would be molded in a manner that would take their faith in God away and replace it with narcissism and the worship of the government. This would make the nation more accepting to becoming part of a one world government and willingly surrendering its Divine inheritance and national sovereignty.

I never thought of that before. And it does make a lot of sense, in hindsight.
I can see have the government takes certain events, makes us think they are evil, and makes changes in such a way they we think we are being helped. But in reality were are either being molded, as you say, or becoming less free.
I would be intereted in hearing more about when the CFR did this dirty deed!

Originally posted by junglejake
The case for evolution is not 100%. It's not proven. It's a theory; a belief, if you will. Why should that belief be allowed to be spoken, but one's belief in God not be?

No, it is not 100% proven, but then again neither is what killed the dinosaurs. The difference is that religion can not be proven because it involves simply having faith. Evolution may someday be proven so at least there is that possibility.

Ok, so evolution may not be proven in our lifetimes, but it has the ability to be proven. This is true. But then, wouldn't that also be true of religion? When you die, it's plainly proven to you that it was either true or not. If Revelations comes to pass, I'd say that'd be pretty strong proof, too. So both can be proven.

Originally posted by junglejake
When you die, it's plainly proven to you that it was either true or not.

Well since dieing takes us out of this realm of existence, those who are living can not prove this without dieing. See the problem. So in a practical sense, it can not be proven in this way.

If Revelations comes to pass, I'd say that'd be pretty strong proof, too.

Yes this is true, but this is something that WE can not prove. It is not something that we could ever have control over so as to test and validate it. If Revelations does happen then IT would prove itself to be true. However since we have no control over it happening, WE can not prove it to be true or not true. This is the difference between religion and things like evolution. What is taught in public schools are things that have been proven by man or have the possibility of being proven by man.

Atheism should not be confused with agnoticism.

Though many people are turning away from the Church they aren't necessarily turning their backs on God.

In fact if anything - I believe they are turning towards Him.

back to this evolution thing..seems like we are all off on a tangent here but... okay so explain how the bible explains neanderthal man....didn't they eventually evolve into homosapiens....(yes I realize there is a missing link)

and I don't think believe that evolution, abortion, secularism, and the other stuff you said is being forced upon others especially Christians and demanding them that they need to change their way of thinking.

All the things you mentioned should be discussed in forums such as the media, internet, and schools...My problem is with elected officials and government forgetting to run the government and getting involved and influenced by issues that do not relate the how a country is run. What does my morals have to do with how much taxes I pay? what does me be pro-choice have to do medicare going bankrupt? What does believing in evolution have to do with border security and immigration?

And yet we can be taught philosophy in school. That can't be proven. We are taught about governments. We are taught that the Nazis were evil. (totally agree with that, but it is an opinion that can't be proven). We are taught creative writing in school. Well, as long as you don't mention God in your writings, you can be creative. So just because something isn't considered a science, it still can be taught and spoken of by public officials...

Originally posted by worldwatcher
back to this evolution thing..seems like we are all off on a tangent here but... okay so explain how the bible explains neanderthal man....didn't they eventually evolve into homosapiens....(yes I realize there is a missing link)

Actually, modern theories into this believe cromagnon man and neanderthal man were 2 seperate species living at the same time, and that we evolved from cromagnon, who wiped out the neanderthals.

and I don't think believe that evolution, abortion, secularism, and the other stuff you said is being forced upon others especially Christians and demanding them that they need to change their way of thinking.

It's not being forced, but it is being said, and taught in our schools.

All the things you mentioned should be discussed in forums such as the media, internet, and schools...My problem is with elected officials and government forgetting to run the government and getting involved and influenced by issues that do not relate the how a country is run. What does my morals have to do with how much taxes I pay? what does me be pro-choice have to do medicare going bankrupt? What does believing in evolution have to do with border security and immigration?

Although their morals don't have much to do with taxation, they play a large part in making laws. If our morals allowed us to murder, there would be no laws preventing murder. If it is ok to steal, no laws enforcing that. Morality does play a large role in government.

Originally posted by junglejake
And yet we can be taught philosophy in school. That can't be proven. We are taught about governments. We are taught that the Nazis were evil. (totally agree with that, but it is an opinion that can't be proven). We are taught creative writing in school. Well, as long as you don't mention God in your writings, you can be creative. So just because something isn't considered a science, it still can be taught and spoken of by public officials...

yes public officials can teach and talk about whatever they want...however not in their position of office. The church needs to be separated from the state. Our state of the union shouldn't have references to God.. Bush can talk about god all he wants in his church or in his private life....not in politics.

This argument isn't about what can be proved or not or whose religion is right or wrong...It is about the government officials separating their personal ideology from the interests of a nation.

Originally posted by junglejake
And yet we can be taught philosophy in school. That can't be proven.

True, but no one is attempting to pass philosophy off as fact, it is merely a system by which to reason.

We are taught about governments.

Which can be proven to exist

We are taught that the Nazis were evil. (totally agree with that, but it is an opinion that can't be proven).

Well here I agree with you that it is wrong to teach anything in public education as being more or less moral then anything else. School is about learning facts.

We are taught creative writing in school. Well, as long as you don't mention God in your writings, you can be creative.

Who says that you can't mention gods or any other ideas in reference to creative writings? And no, creative writing is not a 'fact', but it is not passed off as such hense the word creative.

Who says that you can't mention gods or any other ideas in reference to creative writings? And no, creative writing is not a 'fact', but it is not passed off as such hense the word creative.

My school wouldn't allow us to mention God or write anything religious in creative writing. One kid got suspended for doing it after being told he couldn't. At the time, I didn't care, as I was an evangelical athiest when I was in highschool.

that's a wierd school jake.

when I was in high school..we had a class (can't remember the exact name they used) but we read books like Paradise Lost, Dante's Inferno, lots of Greek and other mythology and we were encouraged to write and discuss the different gods of man.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
This argument isn't about what can be proved or not or whose religion is right or wrong...It is about the government officials separating their personal ideology from the interests of a nation.

But what if they believe their personal ideology is in the interest of the nation? Who can say if that official is just spouting their personal ideology or actually working towards what they believe to be the interests of the nation as a whole?

EDIT: Oh, and my school was a bit of a police state. We actually spawned Rage Against the Machine, whose name was inspired by my dear highschool. And today (this was instituted the year after I left...wonder if I had anything to do with it) if a teacher deems a story to be too dark or violent, the kid is taken to jail until their parents come and get them. No charges made, just detention of the individual for the day.

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by junglejake]

Originally posted by worldwatcher
that's a wierd school jake.
when I was in high school..we had a class (can't remember the exact name they used) but we read books like Paradise Lost, Dante's Inferno, lots of Greek and other mythology and we were encouraged to write and discuss the different gods of man.

Same here. I don't know what school you go to JJ, but it sounds almost unbelievible to get suspended for such a thing. Angry Athiest High!?!

I'd like to point something out. I just went and read through this thread again, and noticed a trend. The arguement seems to be that one's faith has no place in government. Would that be true of voters, then, as well? My faith comes before politics. If my congressperson is trying to enact a law that violates that faith, I'm not going to vote for that person. If my congress person is trying to enact a law that violates that which I feel politically, but doesn't effect my faith, I will not vote for that person. My faith is intermingled with my politics. Many Christians I know are the same way. So how are we going to be represented if our elected officials are supposed to hide our religion in a dusty closet?

Also, this problem extends far beyond just GWB. There are monuments that have to be removed or destroyed because they have some reference to Christianity and are on public land. How is that protecting people and not just destroying our heritige?

Originally posted by junglejake
But what if they believe their personal ideology is in the interest of the nation? Who can say if that official is just spouting their personal ideology or actually working towards what they believe to be the interests of the nation as a whole?

To the best of my knowledge, the president is not elected to be a religious/spiritual guide or leader. He/she is elected to protect US citizens and the interests of the country (or at least that is what we are told).

Originally posted by junglejake
So how are we going to be represented if our elected officials are supposed to hide our religion in a dusty closet?

Take abortion for instance. There are politicians that are for it and against it, however you rarely hear (at least publicly) them saying that God is the reason for their decision. Now we all know that this plays a factor in their decisions, but it is best considered not to comment on it because of the way that they are expected to carry themselves. People get quite emotional over their religions and those in positions of power need to keep a level head and discuss the topics logically and rationally. That is why, IMHO, religion and government should not be mixed.