One Nation Under God

[Psychoblues]

Thanks for the neg reps dmp and pr. I distinctly noticed neither of you bothered to comment on board to the remark you so kindly disagreed with. You didn't comment to me either, but what a gas (fart) you are!!!!!!!!!!!

[Black Lance]

Thanks for the neg reps dmp and pr. I distinctly noticed neither of you bothered to comment on board to the remark you so kindly disagreed with. You didn't comment to me either, but what a gas (fart) you are!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, you didn't really do much more than state your opinion and insult Palerider. Isn't it kind of hard for them to argue with a statement of opinion?

Anyways, what do you disagree with about Palerider's opening post? I agree that America is not a theocracy, but Christianity has deeply influenced American society and government, and most of Pale's post strikes me as accurate.

[Gunny]

The people who make posts claiming that's what the FF's wanted.

Disagree. Stating that this Nation was founded by Christians; therefore, was founded as a Christian nation in NO WAY is advocating theocracy.

The vast majority of the FF's were Christians; yet, does the Constitution advocate theocracy? The opposite, in fact.

What is being addressed is the opposite extreme who absolutely refuse to admit the major role Christianity played in the creation of the US. It's like "if I pretend it isn't there, it doesn't count."

[Ruby]

I wonder why what the FF based it on, were motivated by, intended for the future of the country etc really matters at all. They are dead and the nation is for the living, its not their wishes, views or anything else that we should base our policies of today on.

We also founded this nation via genocide, should we preserve the idea of genocide being an acceptable thing to do to gain what we want?

We need to form policy, laws etc around what WORKS for the society living now and not worry that much over what long dead men intended.

[Dilloduck]

I wonder why what the FF based it on, were motivated by, intended for the future of the country etc really matters at all. They are dead and the nation is for the living, its not their wishes, views or anything else that we should base our policies of today on.

We also founded this nation via genocide, should we preserve the idea of genocide being an acceptable thing to do to gain what we want?

We need to form policy, laws etc around what WORKS for the society living now and not worry that much over what long dead men intended.

Great Idea, Ruby...... Let's hear those ideas flow---What do you think "works" for today.

[Ruby]

Great Idea, Ruby...... Let's hear those ideas flow---What do you think "works" for today.

A secular society that allows people to keep religion or lack of it their personal choice. We have various religions and not one should be favored over the other and they should all be free from intereferrence to practice their faith as long as they stay within the boundries of laws of the nation in which they reside.

An exclusionary society isnt going to work well and to favor one religion over another as a nation means we are exluding those who arent of that religion. Its the premise of many of our culturally held morals such as freedom of speech and not just for some, being against discrimination, civil rights etc. We have been making strides towards a more inclusive society so in todays world secular is the one that is inclusive.

[manu1959]

Cristóbal Colón was motivated by money, fame and power, not religion. Not to mention the fact that he served a foreign monarchy and had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of the US. He wasn't even the first European to discover the Americas. He was a Spanish merchant, nothing more. And he was a tyrannical, murderous megalomaniac to boot. A cuddly Christian he was not.

And whoever insinuated that the Americas are the "promised land" mentioned in Exodus needs to stop taking crazy pills. The Europeans who colonized the Americas committed genocide on a massive scale. Was that God's plan for the Jews? You're a retard.

Nothing will ever change the FACT that the US has always been a secular society. Not the Puritans or Cristóbal Colón or the Pilgrims or the Quakers. Some of the founders who signed and wrote the Constitution were Christians, but some were also Deists and Atheists. The political principals they based the Constitution on came from sources like John Locke, the philosophy of ancient Greece, the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and the Mayflower Compact. The Bible doesn't come into play. The mention of "God" in the DOI and Constitution is indicative of the vernacular of the day, not that the founders meant the US to be a theocracy.

every nation that exist committed genocide......

[Ruby]

every nation that exist committed genocide......

Thats not true. Most nations have had conflict or wars but not all nations have committed genocide. Sweden has not, Finland has not, Norway has not, Denmark has not just to name a few.

[Gunny]

I wonder why what the FF based it on, were motivated by, intended for the future of the country etc really matters at all. They are dead and the nation is for the living, its not their wishes, views or anything else that we should base our policies of today on.

We also founded this nation via genocide, should we preserve the idea of genocide being an acceptable thing to do to gain what we want?

We need to form policy, laws etc around what WORKS for the society living now and not worry that much over what long dead men intended.

Without intent/context, it leaves the door wide open for secular progressives to play their little dishonest games of literalism and/or relativism. Your statement would suit THEM just fine.

[manu1959]

Thats not true. Most nations have had conflict or wars but not all nations have committed genocide. Sweden has not, Finland has not, Norway has not, Denmark has not just to name a few.

really......

Swedish crusades into finland....viking invasions of English lands and slaughter of indigenous peoples...

google is a cool thing ...you should check it out

[Ruby]

Without intent/context, it leaves the door wide open for secular progressives to play their little dishonest games of literalism and/or relativism. Your statement would suit THEM just fine.

I really love all the terms that get created and then demonized, it all boils down to nothing more than a strawman argument built into a label.

We determine our own intent and context based on the realities of our lives, our needs and our desire to retain a society worth living in for our children and grandchildren.

No need for religion to be involved in the process, thats a personal belief you are free to apply in your personal life but has nothing to do with basing public laws or policy upon.


FOR MANU

Try googling the definition and criteria for genocide. It looks like this.

You seem to be confusing wars of conquest and colonization with genocide.

Genocide is foremost an international crime for which individuals, no matter how high in authority, may be indicted, tried, and punished by the International Criminal Court (ICC). According to Article 6 of the ICC Statute, This crime involves, "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:


(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

There are a number of things to note about these acts.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.ENCY.HTM

[LOki]

Without intent/context, it leaves the door wide open for secular progressives to play their little dishonest games of literalism and/or relativism. Your statement would suit THEM just fine.

This is the LOLz.

When confronted with interpretations of our founding documents that are self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships, and assertions that adhere to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of terms or expressions in the founding documents of this nation, proponents of the "Christian Nation" assertion rely on relativist interpretations of terms like "Their Creator" and "The God of Nature," to have "absolutey" meant Jesus, and invoke the relativist concept of "context", to prove so, while accusing their opponents of "relativism."

[Pale Rider]

IWe determine our own intent and context based on the realities of our lives, our needs and our desire to retain a society worth living in for our children and grandchildren.

No need for religion to be involved in the process, thats a personal belief you are free to apply in your personal life but has nothing to do with basing public laws or policy upon.

Can you show me one, just one, nation on this earth, that is still intact, that determined right from wrong completely on their own devoid of any religion?

Their isn't one. Man can not govern man by his own relativism. It doesn't work. Secularism is a wicked thing, and leads men down a road of self indulgence and corruption. Every secular nation there has ever been on earth, is no longer in existence.

[gabosaurus]

Separation of Church and State. That is all you have to say.
You rail at the Muslims for having a state religion, yet you endorse one yourself.
Sounds like you and the Muslims have a lot in common. Perhaps you should pray toward Washington five times a day.

[Black Lance]

This is the LOLz.

When confronted with interpretations of our founding documents that are self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships, and assertions that adhere to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of terms or expressions in the founding documents of this nation, proponents of the "Christian Nation" assertion rely on relativist interpretations of terms like "Their Creator" and "The God of Nature," to have "absolutey" meant Jesus, and invoke the relativist concept of "context", to prove so, while accusing their opponents of "relativism."

I know, those idiots think that a document has to be read in its propert context. I wonder what's wrong with them?