A question for political minded Christians.

Ben Franklin was clearly a founder of this country.

He was an astrologer. Perhaps we should have an official white house astrologer by this logic.
My proof - Look at any original copy of Poor Richard's Almanac - that publication that made him famous through out THE LAND that we were taught in highschool was 'a collection of pithy humorous sayings" ....but did they ever show you a copy?
public.gettysburg.edu...
Look at almost ANy page - they were all about astrology.

Now Jefferson - there was a Christian man for you. He even published his OWN version of the Bible - he cut the Bible up, and took out everything he didn't like - he took out all supernatural aspects.
etext.lib.virginia.edu...

No virgin birth, no Christ miracles, ect.

reply to post by OldDragger


You know, I read this post too quickly. This post is about challenging the Christians who feel that we need more "God" in government. Why just Christians? Do you not think Muslims feel this way? In England they are close (if not already) to having separate courts. Perhaps, it is a wish of religious minded people in general that they see their values more represented?

Or, perhaps, it is just a vocal minority?

Your thread title is rather misleading. I am a Christian. I am politically minded. Do I want "God" in government? Hell to the freakin' no. I like them all neatly separated. However, I want to practice my beliefs freely and not have my beliefs infringed upon.

Do I need statues outside of a courthouse? Nope. Do I need prayer in school? Only prior to exams.

reply to post by OldDragger

The Constitution does not contain the words "Christian", "Christ", "Jesus" or "God"

OOOppps

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

Article VII - Ratification

Looks like it does mention "Lord"

Facts is facts

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Looks like it does mention "Lord"

Facts is facts

PLEASE! I was hoping nobody would post THAt lame claim.
It's a custom of dating, is not part of the body of The Constitution and certainly does not ( in itself ) carry any implication of law.
Are you seriously saying that phrase indicates a desire to establish a Christian nation? If not you are simply hair splitting or baiting.
I would expect better.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
The founders wanted freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Freedom from religion is implicit in the notion of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means I am free to practice religion "A" while freely choosing to disbelieve all others, rejecting them as rubbish. For example if I were a Buddhist then under the US constitution I am free from all other religions. Nobody can force them upon me. I am free.

I have freedom of/from religion so I choose "∅", the empty set. That was easy. No fuss, no bother, no pathologies.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Lilitu]

reply to post by OldDragger

Are you seriously saying that phrase indicates a desire to establish a Christian nation?

No

Nor am I "baiting"

You said, and I quote:

The Constitution does not contain the words "Christian", "Christ", "Jesus" or "God"

That is YOUR blanket statement. You did NOT qualify or quantify your blanket statement.

If you are going to post statements and represent them as fact, you really should make sure they are indeed factual.

I simply pointed out a fallacy in your statement.

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


"In the year of our Lord" is simply an English translation of "Anno Domini", or A.D.
It's used in the Gregorian and Julian calendar. It's NOT really a religious reference.
Gee thanks for contributing a completely irrelevant point! Hope it was satisfying for you!
My last comment on this goofy hair splitting!

It is even more important these days that we seperate the state from the church. Our founding fathers knew that combining the two only leads to problems. Explaining that to some Christians is a very daunting task. Just look at the problem countries, they are problems because of their religious attachments.

reply to post by OldDragger


Is it going to be your intention of reacting with scorn and ridicule every time someone points out an obvious fallacy in something you present as fact?

This definitely hinders and even precludes the possibility for intellectual discourse.

Semper

It is likely that the people, and the politicians from the days when the constitution was draughted would have never given a second thought to their personal faith. It was uncommon for people to be non-religious in those days, so inclusion/exclusion of any piety wouldn't have been scrutinised at all at the time.

I think there's a real solution to the church/state conundrum.
If the religions want to influence political decisions, then they lose their tax-free status, and we grandfather this so they have to pay all backtaxes.
My, wouldn't the economy blossom.

reply to post by Badgered1

It is likely that the people, and the politicians from the days when the constitution was draughted would have never given a second thought to their personal faith.

Do you really hold to that?

I personally find it difficult to believe that any person, regardless of their purity of intentions, can make such vastly important decisions without some influence from their belief system.

Let's face it, we are all animals of our past and our conditioning. That is what makes you, you. While as adults, we certainly have the ability to make conscious and independent decisions, but how could we ever know that those decisions were not in some way; no matter how minuscule; effected by our past, our religion or our societal conditioning?

I would present to you that all of your actions and decisions are predicated upon whatever past or current belief system you have subscribed to.

Psychologically one can not stop being who they are.

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


I think you may have missed the intent of my comment, or perhaps my wording was unfortunate. My point is that at that time people were likely very religious, and it was such a part of their life that they would not consciously be thinking about those who were not religious. It would be almost alien for them to think about non-religious types as it wouldn't really occur to them that anyone wouldn't be a Christian. It was a social norm.

If someone tells you that they don't have a cellphone, your likely reaction would be, "Oh, that's odd!" Because pretty much everyone has a cellphone and it's more unusual for someone to not have one that to have one. (please don't pick apart this sentence and start a whole new debate on it...that's not the point).
Same for the 'founding fathers'. If someone said, "Oh, I'm not a Christian!" Their reaction might be somewhat confused as it was very unusual for people to be non-Christian at the time.

I didn't mean to say that nobody thought about their religion, I was trying to convey that it was something that was normal to them.

reply to post by Badgered1


Got it...

Yeah, we are on the same page exactly and I agree 100%

I think this is just an assumption on your parts, and also irrelevant to my question. Saying the Founders "assumed" anything when writing The Constitution is not supported by historical fact. The idea of non Christian religion
was hardly a novelty in the late 18th century.

I don't have time to post links as I am at work, but you might look up, The Enlightenment, Secularism and Deism. To state that the founders just assumed that everyone was Christian is a very weak argument.
Again, if they intended to found a Christian nation, why is there no language to that effect in The Constitution?

The best way to phrase it while still be intellectually honest is we were created as a secular nation legally and a Christian nation culturally.

According to the constitution, while the founding fathers acknowledged the existence of a divine being and many were Christian and respected their Christian heritage, it was their goal to make America secular by definition in a legal sense.

Secular State.

Not atheistic, not hostile to religion, not endorsing one religion over another. Just to remain neutral and to acknowledge it's not the governments business to be involved in matters of religion.

And I'm OK with that. As long as I can practice my faith freely, it doesn't matter if Christianity was endorsed in a government document. That's a temporal matter and 'our kingdom isn't of this world.'

reply to post by AshleyD


Bingo!
You got it!
As far a Christian culturaly, that has changed very much over time., as has the meaning of Christian. That fits in very nicely with the idea of seperation don't you think?

(Opinion) I don't think that the colonialists intended to set up a theocracy. I do think that they wanted a government that would allow freedom of religion. However, the mention of the 'cultural' aspect of religion is a key point.

It seems to me (opinion again) that 'separation of church and state' is now being interpreted as 'eradication of church by state.'

As a Christian, I have no problem with the existence of other religions, be it Wicca, Paganism, Islam, or whatever.

(Side note: is there a difference between a religion which seeks inspiration from a higher power, and a belief system which guides one's life? For example, could AA be considered a religion?)

What I do have a problem with is the public's tendency to lump all Christians and/or believers in God into one group. There is a profound difference among various Christian belief systems, and I find some of them to be totally reprehensible. All Christians do not share the viewpoint of the church made famous recently by its attacks on the U.S. military. To me, their actions were decidedly un-Christian.

The Bible that I read tells me to obey the laws of the land, so I pay taxes, observe speed limits, and try to live as a responsible citizen.

Separation, yes. Eradication, no.