• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Very nice summary Fanboy.

To Garrette,
If you followed the "Doc's proof.." thread, I think I know why he needs his lies to be true. He does use these little "facts" as proof (or support) of the validity of christianity. Every time we explain that he is wrong, which you did quite nicely on Doc's List of 19, it seems Doc views this as an attack against his faith. Mainly because he has tried to butress his faith with them.

But you are exactly correct in stating that it shouldn't/doesn't matter. That none of our arguments are against his faith or religion. It is against his desire to missrepresent history. It is against his desire to confuse the reality of theocracies.

I hope that he will respond to your arguments. It would require a change in character for him, but I am always hoping people will change for the better.
 
joobz said:
How do you know it's not?
your desire to have some concrete answer to this misses the point entirely. Specifics were never introduced in the constitution:


This is as far from a basing a country on a specific religion as you can get.
Click to expand...

I just read something about the First Amendment and it makes more sense than anything that I've read yet.


When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes.

There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no "Church of the United States." The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be "separated" from Christianity and its principles. The "wall" was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.

The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion." The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it.

In the current debate over the separation of church and state, the choices sometimes lean too extreme on both sides. At one extreme are those who want to use the State as a vehicle to enforce their brand of Christian ideas on everyone. At the other extreme are those who say the Founding Fathers would have wanted a situation where one can't mention God in any publicly sponsored forum, for fear of having the State appear to support religion. Somehow, between alternating volleys of quotations from devout Founding Fathers and anti-clerical quotations from Tom Paine, we've got to find a better approach.
Click to expand...

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/ch_state.html
 
Hardenbergh said:
I just read something about the First Amendment and it makes more sense than anything that I've read yet.




http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/ch_state.html
Click to expand...
There are some decent bits in that quotation but nothing that has not already been said repeatedly on this thread, and others. But the post argues mainly against a straw man. It mentions the extremes on both sides of the debate but argues as if the non-christians all adopt the extreme.

There is no mass movement to bar people from practicing the religion they choose. There is no mass movement to prohibit the mention of god or religion in public. There is no mass movement to prohibit politicians from praying or mentioning god in office. There is a movement to enforce the 1st amendment as written, to stop and prohibit governmental practices that either establish or favor any religion.

Children can pray in schools. Children can read their own bibles in schools. God can be mentioned in schools. What cannot be done is proselytizing in schools, passing religious-based legislation, favoring the religious over the non-religious (or the religious of one sect over the religious of another), and using governmental facilities for propogating religious beliefs.

There are far clearer explanations of this than the site you quoted.
 
Garrette said:
Have you? Please tell us what you think the cogent arguments are.

Have you read the posts in this thread? And in the Thomas Jefferson thread started by DOC?
Click to expand...

I've been following along to some degree. I haven't read every post.

I haven't read the book. I just found it today. In this overview of the book, it is said that the author points out that the concept of separation of church and state was something that evolved throughout history.

The Concept of "Separation" As The Product of Later History, Not the Founding

Hamburger contends, then, that "separation" is a constitutional norm that has evolved out of a series of culture clashes over the years. The simple belief that "separation" has a pure constitutional pedigree is inaccurate.

Instead, Hamburger argues, the concepts embodied by the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses eventually transformed, over time, into the concept of "separation." The "separation" of church and state, far from being an idea fixed at the founding, has had an evolving set of meanings.

Moreover, these meanings did not derive from constitutional exegesis alone, according to Hamburger. Rather, they have grown out of pointed culture clashes between dominant and minority religions.
Click to expand...

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020920_hamilton.html
 
Hardenbergh said:
I've been following along to some degree. I haven't read every post.

I haven't read the book. I just found it today. In this overview of the book, it is said that the author points out that the concept of separation of church and state was something that evolved throughout history.



http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020920_hamilton.html
Click to expand...
What's your point?
Jefferson coined the term "wall of seperation" which to me indicates that the founders had at least some form of that idea while framing the constitution. I have no doubt that the idea has evolved since then. I'm certain it evolved since then, but so what?

That seperation is the easiest way to avoid issues of which religion is favored.

Why should it be christian instead of muslim?
Why should it be protestant intead of roman catholic?
How much do we allow each of the religion's rules dictate legislation? why favor one set of religious rules over another? What does it mean to be in the religious minority?

The wall is there for a reason. If it has been strengthened over time by use, why is that bad?
 
Hardenbergh said:
I've been following along to some degree. I haven't read every post.
Click to expand...
Understandable; it's a long thread. But you might do a bit more research before expecting everyone else to restate what has already been repeatedly stated.

I haven't read the book. I just found it today. In this overview of the book, it is said that the author points out that the concept of separation of church and state was something that evolved throughout history.
Click to expand...
I usually read reviews as a launching point from which to decide whether or not to buy a book, so no problems there. But I do not rely upon reviews to conclude that the books points are valid or invalid when I haven't seen the book myself.

That said, I think you will find very few people disagreeing that the concept of separation has evolved. Many things have evolved. The place of African-Americans in US society has evolved. The rights of women have evolved.

The difference is that on the separation issue, we have clear evidence directly from one of the primary founders that separation was an original intent.

We have no such evidence regarding African-Americans or women's rights.
 
I don't understand. If the founders actually meant the first amendment to prohibit the establishment of a state religion, why didn't they say "Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion, or the free exercise thereog" instead of their language, "...respecting the establishment of religion..."

Two big differences:
1) "respecting the establishment of...": so the law doesn't have to actually establish a state religion to be prohibited
2) "establishment of religion...": not _A_ religion, but just religion in general. This preserves the "freedom FROM religion" right, in addition to the freedom of religion, which is protected in the next part.

The wording is very clear that it does more than just say "There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states." Do people really think that is unintentional?
 
DOC said:
I brought in the following points made by Dr. James Kennedy (post 31)

1. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times.
2. The Articles of Confederation mention God.
3. The Constitution is explicitly signed, "in the year of our lord". Now in our schools BC has been changed to BCE.
4. The treaty of Paris in 1783, negotiated by Ben Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay, acknowledged the Trinity as it made official our separation from Great Britain. It began "In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity."
5. Chaplains have been on the public payroll from the very beginning.
6. The Constitutions of all 50 states mention God in one way or another.
7. The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
8. Our national anthem mentions God.
9. Every president has been sworn in on the Bible.
10. Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
11. Virtually every president has called for a national days of prayer, of fasting, of thanksgiving. This included James Madison, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.
12. Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
13. Oaths in the courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
14. The Christmas and thanksgiving holidays are Christian holidays.
15. God is mentioned all over Washington, D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
16. The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and of the ten commandments. A total of twenty depictions.
17. Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust".
18. The freedom Shrine exhibits tell the story of American liberty, and God is mentioned in many if not most of these documents on public display.
19. The Bible was the primary textbook in our schools. Children learned their ABC's using Biblical words.

Newsweek said some years ago, "Historians are now coming to realize that the Bible , even more than the Constitution, founded the nation of America."

Have they all been refuted. Your {joobz} building a reputation for making false statements. But you don't seem to care, and you continue to make them. It's your credibility! If you don't care about it, I guess we shouldn't either.
Click to expand...




Ducky said:
Yes they have, and I posted the link to a post that handles this. You ignored it, yet again:

Originally Posted by Ducky View Post
This post dealt with all this BS then, and you never replied to it. Now you repeat it. Is this in hopes that we won't remember you were totally rebuked last time with it?
Click to expand...


Your much like joobz in that you love to use the word "all" when the word "some of" is more in line with the truth. One can also say the same about your love affair with the word "totally".

Now, when Garrette responds to 6 of the 19 points I brought in -- that is not dealing with "all" this BS (as you call it). Also responding to 6 of 19 points are not "totally rebuking" them. You lose credibility when you consistently tell falsehoods like this.

I know you and joobz will continue to do this in the future, but this stuff adds up over time, and eventually any statements you make will become almost meaningless.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Your much like joobz in that you love to use the word "all" when the word "some of" is more in line with the truth. One can also say the same about your love affair with the word "totally".

Now, when Garrette responds to 6 of the 19 points I brought in -- that is not dealing with "all" this BS (as you call it). Also responding to 6 of 19 points are not "totally rebuking" them. You lose credibility when you consistently tell falsehoods like this.

I know you and joobz will continue to do this in the future, but this stuff adds up over time, and eventually any statements you make will become almost meaningless.
Click to expand...

Wow. Talk about projection.
 
DOC said:
Your much like joobz in that you love to use the word "all" when the word "some of" is more in line with the truth. One can also say the same about your love affair with the word "totally".

Now, when Garrette responds to 6 of the 19 points I brought in -- that is not dealing with "all" this BS (as you call it). Also responding to 6 of 19 points are not "totally rebuking" them. You lose credibility when you consistently tell falsehoods like this.

I know you and joobz will continue to do this in the future, but this stuff adds up over time, and eventually any statements you make will become almost meaningless.
Click to expand...

Did you miss not only the post I linked to, but this one by Garrette?

No response? Just some crap about credibility?

Ho hum.

Thanks for playing, DOC. You lose.
 
DOC said:
I know you and joobz will continue to do this in the future, but this stuff adds up over time, and eventually any statements you make will become almost meaningless.
Click to expand...
You are correct. reputation does build on itself.

Goodluck with that fact.*




*I'm calling you a delusional liar.
 
Garrette said:
That’s twice for Moses. The ten commandments appear one more time, though. They are in the lower corner of the courtroom door, definitely not in a place of prominence, and without any text on them, merely the roman numerals I through X.
Click to expand...

I have been told that those represent the bill of rights. I can't seem to find a good source for either point of view, however.

[edit] Snopes has a source that shows that it does indeed represent the bill of rights. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp
 
Last edited:
Ducky said:
Did you miss not only the post I linked to, but this one by Garrette?
Click to expand...


I must have missed this 2nd post by Garrette. I only read the other one you mentioned. But I hope everyone reads the info (and opinions) in it, and researches it, because there are almost no sources. But even if everything is true it doesn't refute all the points made by Kennedy. And for anyone to make a statement that it refutes "all" the points Kennedy mentioned is simply wishful thinking of overly biased atheists. I'll be happy if people read Kennedy's points and then read Garrette's post and researches it. Then you can make up your own mind on the Christian foundations of America.

And while your at it you can read this info that comes from the Library of Congress website to help you make up your mind on the religious foundations of America.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
 
DOC why do you repeatedly ignore where I have linked to my response on that LOC display?
 
Garrette said:
DOC claims that the items on this {Kennedy's} list:

a. Demonstrate that the US was founded as a Christian nation
Click to expand...


This is a false statement. The nation has Christian foundations but I never said the US was founded as a Christian nation. So the original premise of your responses to Kennedy's points is incorrect.
 
DOC said:
This is a false statement. The nation has Christian foundations but I never said the US was founded as a Christian nation. So the original premise of your responses to Kennedy's points is incorrect.
Click to expand...

You're equivocating your attempt at wordplay on your stance with D. James Kennedy's position. Kennedy clearly thinks this was a christian nation, founded by christians, so your criticism is irrelevant.

Kennedy's own words, from his book "Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul (written with Jim Nelson Black):"

"But the fact is, the United States of America was conceived and brought forth by Christians, and history tells us that story in no uncertain terms....Anyone who reads about the values upon which this nation was founded understands perfectly well that this was, from the start, a Christian nation." (p. 71)
Click to expand...

So the responses Garrette gave were in fact, on target.

Why do you not respond to my criticism of the LOC display, and why have you never addressed my points on your misrepresentation of the Trinity Decision?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom