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.

 

Our Founding Fathers were Christians, Prove me wrong. You Can't.

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


Agree one hundred percent on your post.

The Founders did not give us our rights, they merely gave us protection from government encroachment upon them.




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
It plainly states, that CONGRESS shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof; or ABRIDGING the FREEDOM of speech, or of the PRESS.


By your understanding, the constitution is contradicting itself when it is clearly not. There is a clear difference between 'respecting' and 'free exercise'. Congress cannot make any laws in favour of one religion but at the same time congress cannot prohibit the freedom of religion in this country. Just because you are free to follow which religion you wish does not mean that congress is obligated or can write laws in favour of such, the constitution clearly prohibits this fact.

Im sure though you full well understand the clear fact of seperation of church and state, and yet you cannot seem to come to terms with admitting you are wrong on this point, so you make excuses.


Does this mean that because someone in Government talks about religion that CONGRESS passed a damn law?


Well that was not what I or anybody here argued. My argument was over the fact that the government has no right involving religion within our laws. It was not against congressmen and women expressing their personal beliefs as they are citizens. So if your local state congressman or woman is muslim and praises islam, thank goodness you will be around to defend his right to do so and I certainly will have no problem.

The OP was clearly trying to use the religious connections of the founders to justify religious laws, and he is greatly mistaken. It doesnt work like that.

In anycase I would verywell like you to answer my question. If by your understanding the constitution only allows the right for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, then does this mean an athiest american has lesser rights than a religious one?

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by endisnighe
It plainly states, that CONGRESS shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof; or ABRIDGING the FREEDOM of speech, or of the PRESS.


By your understanding, the constitution is contradicting itself when it is clearly not. There is a clear difference between 'respecting' and 'free exercise'. Congress cannot make any laws in favour of one religion but at the same time congress cannot prohibit the freedom of religion in this country. Just because you are free to follow which religion you wish does not mean that congress is obligated or can write laws in favour of such, the constitution clearly prohibits this fact.

Im sure though you full well understand the clear fact of seperation of church and state, and yet you cannot seem to come to terms with admitting you are wrong on this point, so you make excuses.


Does this mean that because someone in Government talks about religion that CONGRESS passed a damn law?


Well that was not what I or anybody here argued. My argument was over the fact that the government has no right involving religion within our laws. It was not against congressmen and women expressing their personal beliefs as they are citizens. So if your local state congressman or woman is muslim and praises islam, thank goodness you will be around to defend his right to do so and I certainly will have no problem.

The OP was clearly trying to use the religious connections of the founders to justify religious laws, and he is greatly mistaken. It doesnt work like that.

In anycase I would verywell like you to answer my question. If by your understanding the constitution only allows the right for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, then does this mean an athiest american has lesser rights than a religious one?

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Southern Guardian]


Hey mods, I have just quoted so I do not miss anything in SG's comment.

You know SG, I usually do not bring up my spiritual or religious convictions. It is because people always believe that is why someone argues the way they do. Others connect the spiritual with the cerebral.

That is why I always talk about the freedom of choice. Freedom of speech. Freedom of economy. Freedom of everything.

The founders WERE mostly Christian philosophers. No one argues that. The OP brought to the argument that people have been arguing that they were not. That may be why he/she brought this thread to the table.

I know for a FACT that the Founders were majority Christians. I have not read analysis, I have read their words. That should not be an argument.

All this being said, I find the Founders to have my sole convictions to be the same as theirs, FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

I never said I feel that Congress SHOULD EVER legislate morals. I have even pissed off my fellow religious folk when I have said that TRYING to stop abortion by legislation was wrong. I have always stated that to try and change others minds was to provide them the information to make a knowledgeable decision.

For a FACT that there are more people in the US of A looking for adoptable children than there are abortions each year FRELLING PISSES ME OFF!

As for your question that if I believe that an atheist should have less rights, you REALLY have to excuse me if I find that just a little condescending.

I am all about individual rights above and beyond the collective. Everyone has the right to their own beliefs and their own convictions.

I just ask that those that espouse the spiritual or religious are given the same rights as those that espouse the opposite.

Freedom and equal rights under the law.

True LAW, to do no harm to another and to not infringe on the Absolute rights of another. Defined as the rights to Life, Liberty and Property.

SG, I want what you want. Freedom and Liberty from tyranny. We have to make a decision to eliminate the hypocrisy and control that the banksters and corporations that have us under their whip.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
A lot of the founding fathers were deists, as others have pointed out. They believed in god, but didnt follow any religion. And of course some of them were christians too.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loken68
Alot of people still want to make the claim that our Nation wasn't founded on Christian Principle's. well after looking at these list I sort of doubt that.


Well, perhaps you should read through the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. It's so amazingly secular you wouldn't believe it.

The religious affiliations of the founders are not evidence that the "nation was founded on christian principles". References to gods and creators in those documents are not evidence that the "nation was founded on christian principles", as creators and gods are not exclusive to christianity.

So if the founding father's religious affiliations have nothing to do with it, and the documents that form our government have no christian references, what exactly is it that is giving you this wacky notion that the "nation was founded on christian principles"?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


You are going to apply certain aspects of the Constitution and the DoI to your assertions, right?

Now, I will agree that the Constitution specifically separated the power of government and religion, BUT, the Declaration specifically called it into play.

YES, the founders wanted to separate the religion from government, but they DID NOT want to separate the people from religion.

Yes?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
YES, the founders wanted to separate the religion from government, but they DID NOT want to separate the people from religion.

Yes?


I believe that to be a fair and accurate statement. There was no priority to eliminate religions.

There was, however, a definite effort to eliminate religious wording in the documents. Specifically the DOI was intentionally changed by Franklin from reading "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" to the now familiar "We hold these truths to be self-evident".

The founders were certainly not attempting to eradicate religion but they were certainly mindful of excluding it as a foundation for the nation. The founding documents are much more compliant with Masonic egalitarian principles than christian principles. In fact, I see nothing of christian principles in the documents and at most, brief references to a creator and god. Neither of those words are exclusive to christianity.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


The ability to transform?

Yes, BUT, there is always that but.

You have the RIGHT to not believe in Religion or a furtherance of GOD.

But those that decide to believe? Are they supposed to be quiet? Are they not allowed to espouse their rhetoric? Of course not. That is obvious.

I believe that all that want to contribute should contribute. NOW, that is different than the folks that espouse the average rhetoric. But, I believe in the first amendment, wholeheartedly!



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
You have the RIGHT to not believe in Religion or a furtherance of GOD.


Right on. The First Amendment is a two lane road.



But those that decide to believe? Are they supposed to be quiet? Are they not allowed to espouse their rhetoric? Of course not. That is obvious.


Agreed 100%



I believe that all that want to contribute should contribute. NOW, that is different than the folks that espouse the average rhetoric. But, I believe in the first amendment, wholeheartedly!


I do as well. My main contention is with the OP who claims the nation was founded on christian principles because the DOI signers all listed religious affiliations.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Flagged and starred.
Just for all the names.

Didn't notice this thread starting to take off.
You certainly got some of the everyday scouffers going on this one.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by dalan.
 


Agree one hundred percent on your post.

The Founders did not give us our rights, they merely gave us protection from government encroachment upon them.


Thank you, I think that it is very important for people to understand the philosophy that influenced our founding fathers in regards to where our rights derive from. So that they may understand that no one has the authority to take them from you, unless of course, you allow someone to.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


dalan, where do our rights derive from?

I know I envelope the same ideals you do, but we derive a difference in where our rights come from.

Explain it to those that do not understand.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I fail to see the point overall...the founding fathers were christian...ok.

and?

they were also slave owners, smokers, and politicians.

If the Founding Fathers (praise be their holy name, they be icons here) wished to create a christian based nation, they would have stated pretty clearly that fact. They created the America we know despite their christian heritage...they seen the fallicy of putting any religion into politics because one day, a different religion (say, islam) may become on top and suddenly you have islamic law shoved into political structure.

No, every christian should be almost violently opposing any religious overtones in political discourse...religion is a private matter, not a public policy matter...you care for your religion...then put it in its place.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   


MAJESTY.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by randyvs]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


sqeeze me? Who the heck are these people?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

MAJESTY.


OOOOOhh my god that was a mountain of Cheez Wiz.


Jesus holding the Constitution? This seems like the perfect cover for a Tea Party pamphlet.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


HEY!

I am a tea partier kind of.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


I do as well. My main contention is with the OP who claims the nation was founded on christian principles because the DOI signers all listed religious affiliations.


The main problem is that people are ignorant and don't understand the concepts they are arguing.

Natural Law has certain spiritual connotations to it, but it is an ethical theory. Ethics is a school of philosophy developing a secular understanding of morality.

Our nation was founded by Christians and Deists who followed natural law and used natural law as the foundation of a nation.


It's incredibly straight forward which is why I bang my head trying to understand the difficulty people have with this.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


Spectre, TELL them the base of NATURAL LAW.

Tell them the basis what it means!



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join