No, America is not a Christian nation

I find it funny how much Christians babble on about their rights coming from god, and only being from their god. Yet the bible is the very antithesis of liberty, freedom, and dignity. Plus, the bible says "the lord giveth and the lord taketh away". Anyone who has ever read the bible can see the abrahamic god is a complete psychopathic sadistic egomaniac who takes away what is given on a whim for whatever slight.

When the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was coined, it was not with the Bible in mind, that's for sure. The founders were Deists, not christians. A HUGE difference.

As a Christian and bible student, I disagree with your take on it. The founders were all Christians, no jews, muslims, or pagans took part in the founding, nor has any non Christian (at least openly) taken oath to be president. Some facts = all presidents, judges, citizens sware in on a bible. In God we trust is on our money (the founders did not wish for government to become our Lord), and yes our rights are described as inalienable (they come from God). Clearly, it is not an atheist or faithless nation. The majority even in 2013 are Christian (80%). America is not under one corrupt church, we are free to chose our path, but the founders and the nation is Christian. Also, I would like to add that God has blessed this nation above all others. How many home invasions did you have in 1950 ? NONE. Today ? Happens 2-3 times a night in most major cities.

As a Christian I respect your right to follow any path you chose and want you to have a good trip and enjoy it. However, I will not lay down my culture, traditions, morals, or faith to appease the minority that have benefited from the civilization our Christian founders established.

jayfosters
As a Christian and bible student, I disagree with your take on it. The founders were all Christians, no jews, muslims, or pagans took part in the founding, nor has any non Christian (at least openly) taken oath to be president. Some facts = all presidents, judges, citizens sware in on a bible. In God we trust is on our money (the founders did not wish for government to become our Lord), and yes our rights are described as inalienable (they come from God). Clearly, it is not an atheist or faithless nation. The majority even in 2013 are Christian (80%). America is not under one corrupt church, we are free to chose our path, but the founders and the nation is Christian. Also, I would like to add that God has blessed this nation above all others. How many home invasions did you have in 1950 ? NONE. Today ? Happens 2-3 times a night in most major cities.

As a Christian I respect your right to follow any path you chose and want you to have a good trip and enjoy it. However, I will not lay down my culture, traditions, morals, or faith to appease the minority that have benefited from the civilization our Christian founders established.

Like I said before, they were mostly Deist, not Christian. Thomas Jefferson certainly wasn't a Christian.

Britannica

Deists. Unitarians. Panthiests. Look up the definitions of these. They are not Christian. Some founding fathers were. Many weren't.

In god we trust was put on money in the 1950's. for the nearly 200 years of history prior, it was not on our money.

The principles and foundation of this country were not Christian by any means.

I know one thing is for sure. We should be a reading nation.

You guys can make this claim or that. But I will read what I see and qoute. I believe this and look to it when in doubt, just as I would a bible.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

It doesn't say which god there. Just that there IS a god, and whomever that god may be by our own natures, has endowed us all with inalienable rights. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (that was actually thought by some as property at one time)

It does not say christian in there. And that's ok with me. Even if I follow certain principles and believe in God. I do believe we all have rights and that none of them should be separated from any of us.

Now morality, lord help us all that's a tough one. Because the rights were written due to abuses, and the declarational causes of separation were written due to grievances and those grievances were never answered for by a foreign ruler. That foreign ruler accused his colonies of insurrections and rebellion, all sorts of crap that the colonies rejected by letter, you can read them today.

But you know, today we still hold those truths as self evident, as nation in trust. I worry sometimes that in our pursuit of a perfectly upstanding sense of morality, that we forget the basic meanings life liberty and happiness. Its probably more so relevant in our restriction of Liberty. But Its only in those times when I write long winded posts. What I will tell you (from my point of view) is that no person of any religion, if they really believe in our natural, god given rights would take them away. And to know why, you'd have to look at our nations earliest history.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Deist is just a scripture lawyer fancy way of saying they were believers in a creator but they may or may not go by the bible. I would argue that this term is erroneous, just look at Geroge Washington's innaguration prayer. Also, i emphasize I am all for letting people chose their path, I disagree with Christians who push on people who do not care to believe it. This is why Christ said turn the other cheek. If someone pisses off a non believer and the non believer asks the Christian to stop, and the Christian does not, then Christ taught we should turn the other cheek if the non believer smacks us. Why ? Because we are not following Christ's way of planting seeds. We are only to fish out of the right side of the boat. God doesn't want everybody just yet, as many are not ready. However, if a bully hits me as a Christian, I will hit back.

FreeMason
Really? So if society decides to take away a right to life, you're ok with that because the social convention is ok with it?

No, of course not.

I don't think any of the convicted felons the state governments have executed in your country over the years were ok with it.

Do not convicted serial murderers also have an inalienable right to life, from nature or God Himself?

reply to post by Pejeu


Murder in our country is against our founding values. Life and Liberty
Thus it gets the steepest penalty the law has. The removal of Liberty and then Life.
Not to be confused with the defense of life and liberty.

Oh, I see.

So rights actually are nothing but social conventions.

Also, it is a proven fact innocent people have been put to death (not just) in your country for crimes they did not commit.

What about their inalienable, God given right to life?

Pejeu
Oh, I see.

So rights actually are nothing but social conventions.

Also, it is a proven fact innocent people have been put to death (not just) in your country for crimes they did not commit.

What about their inalienable, God given right to life?

edit on 2013/10/19 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Sir you would have to ask lawmakers who pass the laws why they are pro life but execute people they find guilty. I suppose you hang around certain other countries asking them why they cut off peoples hands for stealing too. Or why they decapitate people for other offenses. How much luck do you have there in asking the general population a question like that? Your attempts to find hypocrisy in those who do not write the law and punishments they feel are fit for breaking them are failing you, severely.

What I can tell you personally is what I have already said. Life and Liberty have worth. When people see those removed it is never a celebrated event. There aren't people jumping up and down and throwing parties when someone loses either.

We were talking about the nature and existence of rights, as a concept.

I believe I've made my point quite conclusively.

That is: rights are social conventions.

reply to post by Pejeu


NO no no. You were attempting to do what? make americans look like hypocrits. You were not talking about preserving nor upholding rights.

When you take a life be they man woman or child, intentionally, with malice, or hate, even total disregard for life and liberty do you agree or disagree that this is the opposite of ensuring and upholding rights? Because we are not talking about some harmless goober "lightin a doob." We're talking about a person depriving someone of life and liberty in sick and heinous ways that are literally dangerous to society. Do you sentence that person to 25 tears, let them out and find them doing the same thing again to someone else?

OR do you separate them from society so that no one else faces the same issues the victims faced? and IF you know these are the types of people you cannot let out, explain to me why if they are for depriving life and liberty in those ways should they enjoy life and liberty themselves.

I would have said America is a Jewish nation.....what with over 70% of men being circumcised and all.

Nephalim
reply to post by Pejeu

 

NO no no. You were attempting to do what? make americans look like hypocrits. You were not talking about preserving nor upholding rights.

When you take a life be they man woman or child, intentionally, with malice, or hate, even total disregard for life and liberty do you agree or disagree that this is the opposite of ensuring and upholding rights? Because we are not talking about some harmless goober "lightin a doob." We're talking about a person depriving someone of life and liberty in sick and heinous ways that are literally dangerous to society. Do you sentence that person to 25 tears, let them out and find them doing the same thing again to someone else?

OR do you separate them from society so that no one else faces the same issues the victims faced? and IF you know these are the types of people you cannot let out, explain to me why if they are for depriving life and liberty in those ways should they enjoy life and liberty themselves.

So you're saying if you infringe on someone else's rights then you basically annul/forfeit your own rights?

Even though they may be natural/God given?

How can you or other people take or give away / suspend / cancel your God given, inalienable rights?

What if you DON'T get caught or are indicted but found NOT guilty (despite being so)?

Then you get to keep your rights even though you've infringed on someone else's?

So basically, if you're a skilled and/or lucky enough criminal... no consequences for you for your crime?

You get to keep your rights?

I'm not the one making you look like hypocrites.

I'm merely exposing contradictions, flaws and inconsistencies in your reasoning and arguments.

reply to post by jayfosters


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I suggest you read that.

reply to post by jayfosters

This is why Christ said turn the other cheek. If someone pisses off a non believer and the non believer asks the Christian to stop, and the Christian does not, then Christ taught we should turn the other cheek if the non believer smacks us. Why ? Because we are not following Christ's way of planting seeds.

Actually, that's a Chinese philosophy. The theory goes that because of the yin and yang, if you are smacked on the cheek, you can turn the other cheek and they won't hit you again because they believe in balance.

Don't believe everything you hear, and do your bloody research, for crying out loud.

PSA

Let's please address the post and not the poster.

You are free to attack theories, explanations, posts, etc. but not fellow members.

Thanks

What im trying to argue is that God given rights as enumerated by our Christian founding fathers, all of them not just the deists like Jefferson, are truly liberating rights.

What the op says are rights are merely tools of fascism.

Pejeu

FreeMason
Really? So if society decides to take away a right to life, you're ok with that because the social convention is ok with it?

No, of course not.

I don't think any of the convicted felons the state governments have executed in your country over the years were ok with it.

Do not convicted serial murderers also have an inalienable right to life, from nature or God Himself?

How can a state be restricted on what rights are socially acceptable unless those rights go beyond popularity and are given by God.

Either you accept the ability of government to restrict any right or some are inalienable by God.

Cant have it both ways.

Agreed?

reply to post by FreeMason

Either you accept the ability of government to restrict any right or some are inalienable by God.

It says "Creator", not "God". So for all we know, they were talking about a force completely distinct from your god.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by FreeMason

 

Either you accept the ability of government to restrict any right or some are inalienable by God.

It says "Creator", not "God". So for all we know, they were talking about a force completely distinct from your god.

Exactly. How can we know they weren't talking about our parents? Aren't they technically our "Creators" since they had to have sex in order to create us? Creator =/= God.