94 percent of America's founding era documents mention the Bible

[kmortis]

And?

I didn't say it was.

What it did, was draw a direct line between government funds and religious groups. Those who were not religious and/or opposed abortion, got zilch.

When a government links religion with abortion, it is time to take notice. Serious notice.

Ok, I'll play along. What's your point, Claus? Do you have one, or just pot-stirring again?

 

[CFLarsen]

Ok, I'll play along. What's your point, Claus? Do you have one, or just pot-stirring again?

If you think pointing out that the US was founded on strong religious sentiments, and that US government is blurring the lines between church and state, is "potstirring", then you can sleep well at night.

Nothing will harm you. Your government protects you. Really.

 

[Big Les]

the UK may be a "secular country" but it is a Chirstian state. And yes, it is an accident of history, but then, what isn't?

The difference (from other social conventions, institutions, or even laws) being that we aren't really beholden to christianity unless we wish to be. Most of us can choose to ignore it without legal or social sanction. We don't even have to pay lip service to it. What qualitative difference does the UK being a "christian state" make to my everyday life as an atheist? Or even my neighbours as a Muslim?

 

[joobz]

How is that "consistent for the time"? People in the US were deists?

in the social circles that were influential in designing the government. Yes.

How far ahead in time do you wish to go? Well beyond the formation of the US, but then, what's your point?

Actually, the question is, what is your point? I've made it clear I was refering to what the founding fathers intentions were for the United states. Don't be needlessly obtuse.

So, it's your contention that the US is founded on religion, just not one single religion?

yes, you can say that. It was founded on the principle that there isn't one right religion.

 

[CFLarsen]

in the social circles that were influential in designing the government. Yes.

Ah. In "influential" "social circles".

Conveniently fuzzy terms.

Actually, the question is, what is your point? I've made it clear I was refering to what the founding fathers intentions were for the United states. Don't be needlessly obtuse.

No, the question is, how far ahead in time do you wish to go? Well beyond the formation of the US, but then, what's your point?

yes, you can say that. It was founded on the principle that there isn't one right religion.

That's not what I asked. I asked if it is your contention that the US was founded on religion (but not one single one)?

 

[Cleon]

Would you apologize if you didn't think you were wrong?

Wow. Just wow.

Still no comment of Ducky's selective quoting? Why not?

I would be happy to discuss Ducky's analysis, which I am of the opinion is essentially correct.

However, I would prefer to limit such discussion to what he actually said. Since you apparently don't feel bound by such petty constraints, I am electing to not waste my time.

 

[joobz]

Ah. In "influential" "social circles".

Conveniently fuzzy terms.

hardly. I've referenced Locke, Franklin, Washington, jefferson all having diest leanings. Would you claim they had no influence and weren't in similar social circles.

No, the question is, how far ahead in time do you wish to go? Well beyond the formation of the US, but then, what's your point?

I answered your question. The founding fathers were still in office, only 10 years post constitution ratification. How can you think that the treaty wasn't a clarification of thier intent? Unless, of course, you believe that all of the founding fathers were dead by then and we had a completely different set of legislatures who preverted the government by that time.

That's not what I asked. I asked if it is your contention that the US was founded on religion (but not one single one)?

I answered your question. Yes, It was founded on the principle that no one religion is the right one.


ETA: The Bill of rights were added to the constitution 2-4 years after the constitution was ratified. Is that too late from the time of the founding of the government to be considered the intentions of the founding fathers?

 

[kmortis]

If you think pointing out that the US was founded on strong religious sentiments, and that US government is blurring the lines between church and state, is "potstirring", then you can sleep well at night.

Nothing will harm you. Your government protects you. Really.

Ok your point is oversimplification of history and paranoia. Gotcha.

 

[CFLarsen]

Wow. Just wow.

It's a perfectly reasonable question. You want me to apologize, even though I don't think I am wrong.

So, would you apologize if you didn't think you were wrong?

I would be happy to discuss Ducky's analysis, which I am of the opinion is essentially correct.

However, I would prefer to limit such discussion to what he actually said. Since you apparently don't feel bound by such petty constraints, I am electing to not waste my time.

Despite that his omissions contradicted him?

hardly. I've referenced Locke, Franklin, Washington, jefferson all having diest leanings. Would you claim they had no influence and weren't in similar social circles.

Not at all. However, it is impossible to gauge that "influence".

I answered your question. The founding fathers were still in office, only 10 years post constitution ratification. How can you think that the treaty wasn't a clarification of thier intent? Unless, of course, you believe that all of the founding fathers were dead by then and we had a completely different set of legislatures who preverted the government by that time.

OK, 10 years. Why not further?

I answered your question. Yes, It was founded on the principle that no one religion is the right one.

But was it founded on religion?

You really don't want to answer that one, do you?

ETA: The Bill of rights were added to the constitution 2-4 years after the constitution was ratified. Is that too late from the time of the founding of the government to be considered the intentions of the founding fathers?

You tell me.

Ok your point is oversimplification of history and paranoia. Gotcha.

Oversimplification? Even paranoia? How so?

Or would you rather stop here?

 

[joobz]

Not at all. However, it is impossible to gauge that "influence".

I'm not certain of your point. I hold that christianity wasn't a founding principle of the United states.

OK, 10 years. Why not further?

If you have information to counter my claim, please present it. Do you have other legal documents to state that the founding fathers had a desire to create christian nation?

But was it founded on religion?

You really don't want to answer that one, do you?

I've answered it twice already. What part of Yes, It was founded on the principle that no one religion is the right one", do you not understand?

You tell me.

tell you what?

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm not certain of your point. I hold that christianity wasn't a founding principle of the United states.

It is not possible to gauge that influence you are talking about.

If you have information to counter my claim, please present it. Do you have other legal documents to state that the founding fathers had a desire to create christian nation?

You didn't answer the question: Why not further than 10 years?

I've answered it twice already. What part of Yes, It was founded on the principle that no one religion is the right one", do you not understand?

Because you are not answering the question if it was founded on religion.

tell you what?

The time frame you want to use.

 

[joobz]

It is not possible to gauge that influence you are talking about.

this is drifted from my original point.

You didn't answer the question: Why not further than 10 years?

You didn't answer my question. Do you have information to counter my claim?

Because you are not answering the question if it was founded on religion.

asked and answered.

The time frame you want to use.

What time frame do you want to use?

 

[CFLarsen]

this is drifted from my original point.

Quite possibly.

You didn't answer my question. Do you have information to counter my claim?

I asked first: Why the 10 year time frame?

asked and answered.

I'm sorry, but you have only said that the US wasn't founded on a specific religion (Christianity). You haven't answered if it was founded on religion.

What time frame do you want to use?

That's what I am asking you. You were the one introducing one.

 

[joobz]

I asked first: Why the 10 year time frame?

The time frame I'm considering is why the initial founders of the country still had political power/control.

I'm sorry, but you have only said that the US wasn't founded on a specific religion (Christianity). You haven't answered if it was founded on religion.

again. It was not founded upon any single religion. It allows for people to hold to whatever belief they wish, but it contains no text requiring such beliefs. You can state that such a foundation IS based upon religion. But not in the positive sense. It is based upon the knoweldge that religion isn't meant for government.

That's what I am asking you. You were the one introducing one.

what did I introduce?

 

[kmortis]

Oversimplification? Even paranoia? How so?

Or would you rather stop here?

I'll give it one more round. Just call me Mr. Quiote, thankyouverymuch.

Oversimplification.

If you think pointing out that the US was founded on strong religious sentiments, and that US government is blurring the lines between church and state

The US wasn't founded on "strong religious sentiments". It was, in part, founded to insulate the Government from "strong religious sentiments". Actually, it was more part of the overall theme of avoiding entanglements. To follow a religion means, at least to a Western way of thinking, pledging feality to a higher being of some sort. This means that the government may not always hold its citizens' best interests in "mind".

Did the US FFs intend that everone who held public office be agnostic or atheist? No. No religious test, at all, is permissible by the US Constitution (or the preceding Articles of Confederation). This tells me that religion is not to be a litmus test, of any kind, for choosing political office holders. Granted, it's unreasonable to assume that voters wouldn't take the religon of the office-seeker in mind when they go to vote, but it should not be a de facto disqualifier.

Even today, there is no Official Religion of These United States. Faith-Based or no Faith Based. There is a predominant one. And it's the same, titualrly, that existed in 1782, that is Christianity. Let's face it, at the end of his life, Johnny Adams was concerned that Thomas Jefferson wasn't "right with God" and kept pestering TJ to accept Calvinism. Johnny was a Deist, earlier on, yet from Jefferson's writing you get the distinct impression that Adams had converted. We've had Episcopal (Anglican), Unitarian, Methodist and Quaker (did you know that Nixon was the US's last Quaker Prez?) presidents. Hell, even a Catholic snuck in for about three years. Would it be nice to get more diversity, yes. Should that be the only deciding factor? No.

I said "oversimplification" becase this whole argument is a very complex interleaf of philosophy, history and religion. No single sentence could satifactorally sum up all the factors that went into the foundation of the US, with the possible exception of the use of the word "kluge". you tried to distill it down to a soundbite, and it just doesn't work like that.

Paranoia:

and that US government is blurring the lines between church and state, is "potstirring", then you can sleep well at night.

Nothing will harm you. Your government protects you. Really.

Nowhere did I state that the government was to be trusted implictly. So your implication that I'm pollyanna-ing this topic is unfounded.

 

[CFLarsen]

The time frame I'm considering is why the initial founders of the country still had political power/control.

A lot of things happened politically in those 10 years. How can you say they still had political power/control?

[/I] again. It was not founded upon any single religion. It allows for people to hold to whatever belief they wish, but it contains no text requiring such beliefs. You can state that such a foundation IS based upon religion. But not in the positive sense. It is based upon the knoweldge that religion isn't meant for government.

You still won't answer the question if it was founded on religion.

Just yes or no.

what did I introduce?

A time frame.

I'll give it one more round. Just call me Mr. Quiote, thankyouverymuch.

Oversimplification.


The US wasn't founded on "strong religious sentiments". It was, in part, founded to insulate the Government from "strong religious sentiments". Actually, it was more part of the overall theme of avoiding entanglements. To follow a religion means, at least to a Western way of thinking, pledging feality to a higher being of some sort. This means that the government may not always hold its citizens' best interests in "mind".

Did the US FFs intend that everone who held public office be agnostic or atheist? No. No religious test, at all, is permissible by the US Constitution (or the preceding Articles of Confederation). This tells me that religion is not to be a litmus test, of any kind, for choosing political office holders. Granted, it's unreasonable to assume that voters wouldn't take the religon of the office-seeker in mind when they go to vote, but it should not be a de facto disqualifier.

Even today, there is no Official Religion of These United States. Faith-Based or no Faith Based. There is a predominant one. And it's the same, titualrly, that existed in 1782, that is Christianity. Let's face it, at the end of his life, Johnny Adams was concerned that Thomas Jefferson wasn't "right with God" and kept pestering TJ to accept Calvinism. Johnny was a Deist, earlier on, yet from Jefferson's writing you get the distinct impression that Adams had converted. We've had Episcopal (Anglican), Unitarian, Methodist and Quaker (did you know that Nixon was the US's last Quaker Prez?) presidents. Hell, even a Catholic snuck in for about three years. Would it be nice to get more diversity, yes. Should that be the only deciding factor? No.

Oh, yes. You gave the answer yourself, by listing the various presidents. If there is one deciding factor when it comes to electing a president, it is his stance on religion. Atheists simply don't get elected. Heck, they can hardly get elected for anything.

I said "oversimplification" becase this whole argument is a very complex interleaf of philosophy, history and religion. No single sentence could satifactorally sum up all the factors that went into the foundation of the US, with the possible exception of the use of the word "kluge". you tried to distill it down to a soundbite, and it just doesn't work like that.

Where did I say anything about religion being the only factor?

Paranoia:

Nowhere did I state that the government was to be trusted implictly. So your implication that I'm pollyanna-ing this topic is unfounded.

Your lack of concern, especially in the face of the harsh reality, speaks for itself.

 

[joobz]

A lot of things happened politically in those 10 years. How can you say they still had political power/control?

WHy do you think they weren't?

You still won't answer the question if it was founded on religion.

Just yes or no.

WHy do you feel that I haven't answered the question?

A time frame.

A time frame for what?

 

[CFLarsen]

WHy do you think they weren't?


WHy do you feel that I haven't answered the question?


A time frame for what?

B'bye.

 

[joobz]

B'bye.

Now you know how I felt about your questions.

 

[BrianSI]

You still won't answer the question if it was founded on religion.

Just yes or no.

Why does "Nature's God" = religion to you? Is science now a religion? "Nature's God" refers to the physical forces / laws in the universe. Do you deny there are physical forces / laws in the universe that led to the creation of life on earth with a conscience?