Obama's America 2016

[quasarvs]

Did anyone look at my links? I am now convinced that most of the participants in this thread are only concerned with giving "likes" to people who tell them what they want to hear and reaffirm their beliefs than hearing the actual truth. Do I (or any of the opposition) get any "likes" for actually being right? I said that some of the founding fathers thought religion was stupid and I proved that right without any refutation from anyone else. However, the person who was wrong and couldn't spend two seconds googling the other side gets "likes." This is pure anti-intellectualism and extremely saddening for a person of reason. On another note, the Treaty of Tripoli is an interesting read, but I doubt any of you will take the time to look that up.

If you want to understand more about the Big Bang Theory, read up on the Casimir Effect and quantum fluctuation.

Okay first off, Publius did respond with his support of the notion that this country was founded as a Christian nation and at the very least the founding fathers had a deep respect for Christianity. Publius gave many, many references and referred to several founding fathers approval if not belief in religion. So yes, someone did refute your comment.

Secondly, students have little time to read the whole link that you posted it will help if you boil it down to one quote. However, I did read some of it and my opinion is that first, Thomas Paine was not even an American, second he was only one supporter of the American revolution, just because he thought his own brain was his god and disregarded religion does not mean they all did. I like Paine's work Common Sense, it is very good stuff, however he was not the majority of the nation at the time nor the majority of the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers weren't just people like Washington and Jefferson, but they were composed of people like the pilgrims etc. Those people helped found America as well.
I would also say that even Christians believe that there should be separation of church and state, meaning that the church has no direct power over the laws, and the state has no power to establish a certain church or have power directly ruling over a church. I think this is what the Founding Fathers wanted to be sure would not happen, because England had done that, and it did not work out well. However, there is no doubting religion influenced countless actions and decisions they made. Even Benjamin Franklin, who strangely enough was a deist, I believe, instructed that the Constitutional Convention pray before meetings.
So there is no doubts.

[Jonathan Whatley]

October 12, 1778 Congress issued the following act:
“Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness: Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby earnestly recommend to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.”

This is a good citation, though it strikes me that "true religion" seems hard for anyone at all to disagree with.

Something else strikes me: Gee, some "act" this was. Perhaps it was a non-binding resolution? So I went to look it up.

Guess what? There's more to the story. Where there's a period at the end above, the original goes on. (Publius, I trust you didn't take this out of context, that this was in your source.)

So here's the original resolution in full:

Resolution by the Continental Congress concerning moral behavior [as printed in the North-Carolina Gazette]
United States. Continental Congress

November 20, 1778
Volume 13, Page 486
North Carolina Gazette November 20, 1778.

In Congress, October 12, 1778.

Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.

Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measure for the encouragement thereof; and for the suppressing of theatrical entertainments, horse racing, gaming, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners.

Resolved, That all officers in the Army of the United States be, and hereby are strictly enjoined, to see that the good and wholesome rules provided for the discountenancing of profaneness and vice, and the preservation of morals among the soldiers are duly and punctually observed.

Extract from the minutes.
CHARLES THOMPSON, Sec'ty.

Resolution by the Continental Congress concerning moral behavior [as printed in the North-Carolina Gazette] (North Carolina Gazette November 20, 1778. Colonial and State Records of North Carolina, Documenting the American South, docsouth.unc.edu)

So we learn that the Continental Congress seemed to be concerned that the United States Army, the army of the founders, had serious problems with profanity, vice, and immorality.

To this, their only real substantive policy response seems to have been that they asked the states, and I quote, "for the suppressing of theatrical entertainments, horse racing, gaming, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners."

Publius, if Congress today started listing disfavored types of previously legal local small business for "suppressing," would you agree that this was consistent with the spirit of the Founders?

If not – or even if so – maybe the fact that the same resolution, in its preamble, gives a quick shout out to "true religion" doesn't do all that much to say that the Founders meant to make the United States explicitly Christian?

And maybe the fact that stuff like this is seriously put forward as evidence suggests that the case that they did might, just might, be overstated?

[sanantone]

Okay first off, Publius did respond with his support of the notion that this country was founded as a Christian nation and at the very least the founding fathers had a deep respect for Christianity. Publius gave many, many references and referred to several founding fathers approval if not belief in religion. So yes, someone did refute your comment.

Secondly, students have little time to read the whole link that you posted it will help if you boil it down to one quote. However, I did read some of it and my opinion is that first, Thomas Paine was not even an American, second he was only one supporter of the American revolution, just because he thought his own brain was his god and disregarded religion does not mean they all did. I like Paine's work Common Sense, it is very good stuff, however he was not the majority of the nation at the time nor the majority of the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers weren't just people like Washington and Jefferson, but they were composed of people like the pilgrims etc. Those people helped found America as well.
I would also say that even Christians believe that there should be separation of church and state, meaning that the church has no direct power over the laws, and the state has no power to establish a certain church or have power directly ruling over a church. I think this is what the Founding Fathers wanted to be sure would not happen, because England had done that, and it did not work out well. However, there is no doubting religion influenced countless actions and decisions they made. Even Benjamin Franklin, who strangely enough was a deist, I believe, instructed that the Constitutional Convention pray before meetings.
So there is no doubts.

No, he did not. I was not talking about the separation of church and state. His quotes were in response to someone else's post. I said some, not all, of the founding fathers thought religion was stupid. This was to support my argument that the founding fathers were not monolithic in their beliefs. People love to say the founding fathers wouldn't do this or they wouldn't do that. The truth is that not all of the founding fathers agreed on everything. There is further proof in the fact that they eventually joined separate political parties with very different views on the role of the federal government. SOME! SOME! SOME! What is there not to understand about the word some? Again, being religious is not synonymous with believing in God. He asked for proof and I posted it. I was right and he was wrong. There is no way of getting around it.

Thomas Paine was an immigrant. Many Americans were immigrants at that time and there are even millions now. Immigrants can't become Americans all of a sudden?

[Publius]

It's not hard to search the other side when you're not so one-sided. This took like 2 seconds for me to find. Being spiritual is not the same thing as being religious. Religion is organized.

freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

This article is more thorough.
History of the Separation of Church and State in America

There have been advances in the Big Bang Theory made in quantum physics and the String Theory. It's actually pretty interesting and goes beyond the average person's understanding of the theory just because hardly anyone actually reads up on it. I'm a Christian by the way.

One sided? Hardly. I’ve researched and studied both sides and the 3-4 quotes that “the other side” uses, are either 1) not taken in the entirety, 2) taken out of context, or 3) misunderstood. You can go to WallBuilders | Presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage. to find, quotes from both sides. A problem we have today are historians and writers who get their info from other historians and writers who got their information from other historians and writers, and so on. If you want to know what they believed, thought, and said, go back and read it.

Have the “advances” in quantum physics and the String Theory include how life came from none-life? Where the matter for the Big Bang came from? Solved the problem with the Cambrian explosion? Or solved the problems with Carbon 14 dating? Just to name a few of the many flaws. Most people simply say, “science” hasn’t found answers to those questions yet. So in other words, “I don’t have any evidence and blindly believe”.

Washington didn't believe in political parties!

Everything changes with the context of the times now doesn't it? You can't pick and choose. Everything has to be considered within the context of the times. Some of the things in the original Constitution were outdated. Some of the beliefs of the founding fathers are outdated. The founding fathers also disagreed on a lot of things like having a strong, centralized government and religion. Some of the founding fathers thought religion was stupid.

What things in the Constitution are outdated? And what beliefs of the founding fathers are? There’s not doubt they disagreed on some issues. Just look at the anti federalist papers and federalist papers.

Jefferson's quote was poetic in nature. He didn't think very highly of Christianity.

He didn’t think highly of Christianity? Would you mind suggesting a reason why he spend tax payer dollars, when he was president, to create and propagate Christian literature for the native indians? The famous Jefferson Bible wasn’t him cutting out the pieces he didn’t like, but the life and works of Christ so it could be used as a tool to reach unbelievers.

I’m not saying Jefferson himself was a Christian, no. But we find repeated places where Jefferson himself, speaks and acts in a supportive manner of the Christian faith. To say he did not think highly of Christianity isn’t accurate.

No, he did not. I was not talking about the separation of church and state. His quotes were in response to someone else's post. I said some, not all, of the founding fathers thought religion was stupid. This was to support my argument that the founding fathers were not monolithic in their beliefs. People love to say the founding fathers wouldn't do this or they wouldn't do that. The truth is that not all of the founding fathers agreed on everything. There is further proof in the fact that they eventually joined separate political parties with very different views on the role of the federal government. SOME! SOME! SOME! What is there not to understand about the word some? Again, being religious is not synonymous with believing in God. He asked for proof and I posted it. I was right and he was wrong. There is no way of getting around it.

Thomas Paine was an immigrant. Many Americans were immigrants at that time and there are even millions now. Immigrants can't become Americans all of a sudden?

You’re actually the one who has failed in providing evidence. WHICH founding fathers thought religion was stupid? Even the deists among them saw it as good. This quote is from Franklin to Paine, “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?” I’m in no way saying that there were not founding fathers that didn’t think highly of religion. I’m saying, I asked you which ones, and you never listed any. I’m sorry, but how was I wrong? I asked you a question and then said "I THINK you may find that even the founding fathers that were deists believed that a free nation could not survive with out a moral and religious people." Of which that statement, holds to be true. I never stated none of them thought religion was stupid.
On another note, let's say 5% of the founding fathers thought religion was stupid (which is likely a very generous number). Let's not do what most historians do. Look at the minority, the exception, and rewrite history around it. That was not the way in which most of them thought. It was not the thought process of the time.

[Publius]

Is it me or is it expansive to cite 17th century Kings of England, by or for whom the colonial charters were written, as founding fathers of the nation born of a fierce revolution against their successor?

My point was that from the very beginning, the intention of the colonists was to advance the Christian faith. BTW, it also wasn’t just charters I listed but also America’s first constitution, the “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” as well as the “New England Confederation”.

Publius, would a list of leaders of the Democratic Party who profess Christianity prove that the Democratic Party has a Christian intent for the nation? It would start at the top and I think it would include a large majority.

It would for sure include a large majority. But your comment, or rather question and comment, has no bearing on this current topic. The point there was that the majority of founding fathers were not atheists, agnostics, and desists, but Christians. In regard to your comment however, because people act inconsistently in accordance to their worldview does not discredit their worldview. Likewise, it’s understood that because one claims a religion, it does not provide validity to them individually. However, our fathers were not just people who claimed one thing and acted on another. Their actions and beliefs were coherent.

This is touching and well-said.

Glad you agree. One could say that it was dual declaration. A declaration of independence from Great Britain, but also a declaration of dependence on God.

But it sounds like politically he was renouncing the colonial charters, above, in favor of the Revolution.

He was referring to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. My apologies if it sounded as if it was that way. That was not it's intention.

So (a) Moses, author of the Torah and a prophet of all Abrahamic religions, and (b) the Israelites he led. These are outstanding historical and moral figures, and essential and integral to Christianity, I know. But they're not exclusive to Christianity and can't prove Christian intent.

Understood, however it does show that not only were they familiar with religious practices but proposed to incorporate religious icons into governmental affairs.

This is a good citation, though it strikes me that "true religion" seems hard for anyone at all to disagree with.

Well I sure would like to see a state that attempts to carry out those wishes now.

This is a good point.

• The King of England was styled "George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and so forth". He was head of an established Christian church, the Church of England. Claims to Christianity were wound up with his statements and governance at every level.

• The rebels, while mostly individually Christian, adopted – I agree, not a 100% consistent and universal refusal to mention Christianity or prayer in government documents and stuff: no one's claiming this! it would be a straw man – but they adopted what was overall, and especially by comparison, a radical pluralism. The Revolution clearly disestablished religion from the state. It was clearly rooted in Enlightenment philosophy. It had at its heart thought leaders like Paine and Franklin, political leaders like Jefferson and Madison.

Kind readers: Which side do you identify with more?

I am in no way, defending or furthering the TYPE of Christianity displayed by the King George, and most of the monarchs of that time. For them, the king had become a symbolic figurehead. The religious nature of the founding fathers was much different.

It did not “disestablish religion from the state” not at all. Rather, what they did was ensure that the state could not establish a religion. They did not intend that religion can not be found in a state’s processes at all.

Something else strikes me: Gee, some "act" this was. Perhaps it was a non-binding resolution? So I went to look it up.

Guess what? There's more to the story. Where there's a period at the end above, the original goes on. (Publius, I trust you didn't take this out of context, that this was in your source.)

So here's the original resolution in full:

Resolution by the Continental Congress concerning moral behavior [as printed in the North-Carolina Gazette] (North Carolina Gazette November 20, 1778. Colonial and State Records of North Carolina, Documenting the American South, docsouth.unc.edu)

So we learn that the Continental Congress seemed to be concerned that the United States Army, the army of the founders, had serious problems with profanity, vice, and immorality.

To this, their only real substantive policy response seems to have been that they asked the states, and I quote, "for the suppressing of theatrical entertainments, horse racing, gaming, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners."

Publius, if Congress today started listing disfavored types of previously legal local small business for "suppressing," would you agree that this was consistent with the spirit of the Founders?

If not – or even if so – maybe the fact that the same resolution, in its preamble, gives a quick shout out to "true religion" doesn't do all that much to say that the Founders meant to make the United States explicitly Christian?

And maybe the fact that stuff like this is seriously put forward as evidence suggests that the case that they did might, just might, be overstated?

I apologize if it seemed to be taken out of context. I’ve just been grabbing a few random quotes from the mountain of evidence. There are plenty of other acts and whatnot published by congress, by the federal and state governments that supported and encourage religion, prayer, etc. That’s the point I was wishing to make, and if it isn’t yet clear, I can and will gladly list (depending on how much you want) a short or long collection of such information.
Well, I also left off the beginning part of the act “Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” This wasn’t just for the army, but the public.

In answer of your question, of course it would depend on what type and in what context, but from what we read from their own words, it seems that yes, that would be case.

As I said previously, this is one of many, many examples. If you wish I can provide, or as others have stated, it takes 2 seconds to google.

[Publius]

Yes, I know the founding fathers were mostly religious themselves to some extent, and practiced their religion openly. However, because of the rigid nature of the regime they were escaping, they wanted to specifically avoid any "official" American religion, so they incorporated that into the Constitution. And yes, pretty much everbody in the early days of America was Christian, but strictly by choice. It was just the zeitgeist of the time. I hate copying and pasting really long quotes into posts because it quickly becomes off-putting and tl;dr for most people, so here are a few links...

Council for Secular Humanism

The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

Was America founded as a Christian nation or as a secular nation?

The Christian Nation Myth


And even if you read none of those, and even if every single one of those is wrong and America really was actually founded on Christianity, it is still meaningless today. Now America is a hugely multi-racial and mixed-religious country, not a bunch of stoic, pious white guys who basically all believe the same things. Which renders most of those things irrelevant, since nothing in religion can be proven. It was once an overwhelming majority preference, which was the only real claim it ever had, but even that is gradually fading.

No, the founding fathers did not found a universal religion for their new nation. If, in the Constitution you’re referring to the “separation of Church and State” no where in it does it state that. That clause is actually from a letter, not the constitution. It wasn’t until, long after the founding fathers, the Supreme court ruled that there should be the separation. The constitution states that the government shall make no one religion mandatory, supreme, etc. Nowhere did they encourage the absence of religion. Speaking of separation of Church and State, would anyone like to explain why it’s the Bible that’s outlawed from the public schools? Pieces of the koran, and any humanistic or atheistic book out there, not only are permitted but encouraged. Don’t forget, Secular Humanism and Atheism was deemed a RELIGION by the US Supreme Court.
I’m glad you recognize that the founding fathers were Christian, many people won’t admit to that fact these days. Mostly, not because they’re stubborn, simply ignorant and misinformed. I apologize if I caused anyone an inconvenience from the really long quotes, however I didn’t copy and paste those, but typed every character. As I mentioned in a previous post, a fine link to also view is wallbuilders.com

I can concur on the whole point that believing in evolution and/or string theory, Big Bang theory, etc. is just as much religion to the common man as religion itself is. Can you look at one of those insane diagrams that Steven Hawking draws and make sense of it? It just looks like mathematical/geometric jibberish to me because I'm not a physicist. So I preach what Bill Maher preaches: The Gospel of I Don't Know. Because NO ONE KNOWS. It could ALL be fake for all most of us know.

If you're in a deprivation chamber, or in an intense dream, or in some sudden natural brain-chemical-induced hallucinogenic phenomena, you can't tell the difference between being spoken to by some all-powerful cosmic deity or simply being directly spoken to by your all-powerful base urges or subconcious. No one knows. That's why we can't justify basing a government, a society, its laws, or any major world decisions on either religion or speculative fringe science.

Well actually, I stated that it took much more trust/faith to believe in man’s theories then God’s word. Nevertheless, it surely is for the common man, a religion, I agree 100%. To be honest, it takes no physicist to see all the flaws. It just takes someone who will use their brain. Okay, so if no one knows anything, how do you know that? How do you know that no one knows?

Realistic reasons = Empathy for other humans, the cognitive awareness of their pain being caused by the same things that cause your own pain; the golden rule. Also, social functionality, ethical egoism, psychological egoism, etc. A moral compass and moral guidelines can and do easily exist without the religion part. I know this because I cringe at the thought of injuring or torturing other people, don't steal because I hate being stolen from, etc., and I have no religion to base these things on; they're just self-evident truths to any sufficiently mentally capable person. You shouldn't need some archaic superstitious instruction manual for this, or have to be motivated by a warm fuzzy feeling or by the fear of some vengeful cosmic deity shaking a parental finger at you for questioning its alleged will.

As far as reasons to believe in God and Christianity, there are probably as many reasons as there are for any other religion or scientific ideation... That is, if you're looking for some sort of "reason" behind everything, or can't accept that there may well be no reason whatsoever. That's a fundamental flaw in almost all religions: The inability to accept that everything could just as easily have happened completely by chance, that there is just as likely no reason whatsoever for our existence, and it’s just as likely that we are a lonely blip on the cosmic radar with no meaning. Not saying that we are, just pointing out that there is absolutely nothing saying that we’re not, beyond humans' inability or unwillingness to comprehend or accept the concept.

In a world where guidelines are relative, that is to say, up to individuals, who’s to say that is right or wrong. Your neighbor could believe that injuring or torturing people are morally fine. Plenty of people do in fact. Furthermore, You many cringe, others may do so with glee. Furthermore, if moral compasses and guidelines can exist without anything to base it on. Who’s to say that they’re even superior. Let’s take this a step further. You say these truths are “self-evident truths to any sufficiently mentally capable person” but from where do these self-evident truths come from? Or, maybe WHY do these self-evident truths exist? Is there a reason? If not, and it’s merely random, how do we know that it is true?

For theism in general, yes there are many logical reasons and conclusions. But Christianity, when compared to other religions does rise above. I’m not saying this because I’m intolerant, or think “my” religion is the best. But when you come and look at the facts, the data, what’s written, there’s things in all the other religions that doesn’t add up.
Whether or not that that’s the case, looking for a reason, what is wrong with that? Because there may be no reason? How would you know if you didn’t go, look, and reach that conclusion after going through all the possibilities. You can prove something exists much more easily then if doesn’t exist. To prove something doesn’t exist, you’d have to omnipresent, that is present everywhere. I don’t think that “the inability to accept that everything could just as easily have happened completely by chance” is a flaw at all. First of all, what is chance? How can “chance” itself cause anything? It can’t. Secondly, when there are reasons, and plenty of reasons, to believe that our existence and the existence of things was not by chance, then why would a hypothesis, that contains little to no evidence, have equal weight as the possibility of something that does?

[Publius]

*Chomps on popcorn*

o_o

Enjoy your popcorn! Hope you have a big bag if you intend on staying! :roflol:

[LaterBloomer]

"Speaking of separation of Church and State, would anyone like to explain why it’s the Bible that’s outlawed from the public schools? Pieces of the koran, and any humanistic or atheistic book out there, not only are permitted but encouraged."

Bibles are NOT outlawed in public schools. "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. – Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan"

You'll probably find (at least) one in the library. Bibles, torahs, korans, etc. ARE all allowed in public schools, and can even be used in classes, but usually when they are taught in some sort of cultural or comparative studies course, not when one is used as the basis of all moral behavior, the basis for scientific ideas, etc.

[Ace_King]

Hey Sanantone

I gave ya a like , so you can smile now

Alright back to this popcorn, this is topic is pretty interesting if you ask me.

o_o

[Publius]

"Speaking of separation of Church and State, would anyone like to explain why it’s the Bible that’s outlawed from the public schools? Pieces of the koran, and any humanistic or atheistic book out there, not only are permitted but encouraged."

Bibles are NOT outlawed in public schools. "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. – Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan"

You'll probably find (at least) one in the library. Bibles, torahs, korans, etc. ARE all allowed in public schools, and can even be used in classes, but usually when they are taught in some sort of cultural or comparative studies course, not when one is used as the basis of all moral behavior, the basis for scientific ideas, etc.

I'm aware that some libraries and some public schools allow it. But by in large, over the last several decades, religion, prayer, etc. in the schools has been under attack. It's only certain religions that are under attack. As I mentioned, the U.S. Supreme court called atheism and secular humanism a religion (specifically in relation to the first amendment). Yet, these religions are permitted and others aren't. Oh, and it is my understanding that people are trying to remove the Bible from public libraries now.

-Omaha Nebraska;Student was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time, or to even open his Bible at school.
-Denver, Colorado; Elementary School Principal removed the Bible from the school library.
-In the Alaska public schools, students were prohibited from using the word "Christmas" at school. Also prohibited exchanging cards or presents with the word "Christmas", or displaying anything with that word because it contained the word "Christ".
-In OHIO v. WHISNER, 1976; it was deemed unconstitutional for a Board of Education to use or refer to the word "God" in any of it's official writings.
-In ROBERTS v. MADIGAN, 1990; it is unconstitutional for a classroom library to contain books which deal with Christianity, or for a teacher to be seen with a personal copy of the Bible at school.
-A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral. (ABINGTON v. SCHEMPP, 1963; COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF LEYDEN, 1973)
-It is unconstitutional for a kindergarten class to ask whose birthday is celebrated by Christmas. FLOREY v. SIOX FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, 1979

This, is just School, and few cases and instances that involve such matters. "Separation of Church and State" is also just as plainly evident in any government setting, from court rooms to cemeteries. This definitely isn't the same America it used to be.