America was founded as a Christian Nation

[musicman]

You're at the end of your rope, LOki. I can tell, because you're sinking into meanness and dishonesty.

Here you demonstrate the weakness of your argument--in order to prove your point, you demand that I first accept it as proven.

I've done no such thing; you know this. Remember - it was YOU who declared to glockmail - with no small amount of catcalling bravado, I might add - that:

No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

I have merely mapped out the avenues of attack you must take in order to defend this assertion. And - when you're not inventing dishonesty on my part - you are proceeding down these dead-end avenues as surely and predictably as cold weather in Antarctica. I shall expose each one for as long as you care to play this game.

Proving that other governments were not founded upon Christian DOES NOT prove that the United States was.

They're YOUR lame examples, LOki. If you don't like the outcome, find better ones. And, at least try to keep up the PRETENSE of honesty; I never offered any such assertion, and you know THIS, as well.

Let's spell it out again:

1. That man's nature is not thus.

2. That the U.S. Constitution is not designed thus.

3. That non-Christians have ever designed a governmental system thus.

4. That Christian principle does not proceed thus.

Plenty of Muslim nations have indeed proceded from the premise that man fell from God's grace, and that therefore, man's government is not to be trusted and God's law and revealed will are the only governance the righteous should follow

Already addressed; avenue #3 - a dead end. No less dead for your having restated it.

--this is no less a Christian princple

Avenue #4 - very dangerous ground for you, LOki. Avenue #4 is a drag strip, and you're riding a broken tricycle.

because the Founders of the United States of America, 1300 years after the principle of Christianity were cannonized, abandoned superstitious intolerance in favor of rational tolerance to achieve peace, liberty, and protect every man's right of conscience.

Avenue #1 - a dead end. Ascribes to human beings the ability to construct a governmental system based on pure rationality. They have demonstrated no such ability through the whole of recorded history.

I actually have, but you have to read my posts, rather than invent fictictious motives for me, and make unsubstantiated accusations about me. It's also wise to not demand from me proof of my assertion when you are categorically unwilling to provide proof for your own. Here you go:<blockquote><b>Thomas Paine:</b>
<i>"But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. <b>The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God.</b> Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. <b>The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work.</b>"</i></blockquote>

And this proves what?

You might also consider looking into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment">The European Enlightenment.</a>

And THIS proves what?

In your typical bullshit form, you pile on more unsubtantiated accusations as if the mass of them will lend credibility to them.

No - fattening posts is YOUR game, remember?

The fallacy you're engaging in here is three-fold; it's Straw-man because in your inabilty to mount a substantive and valid rebuttal of my points, you create this "imperviousness to any understanding of Christianity" to attack;

It is no creation of mine, LOki. You appear to have made it your life's work.

it's Ad-Hominem because you seek to diminish validity of the point being made by attacking the one presenting the point;

You're an unremorseful idiot without any sense or substance to back-up that accusation.

I'm sorry - what were you saying?

and it's Ad-Nauseam because you continue to repeat this unsubstantiated accusation over and over as if such repetition will grant validity to it.

The rest of your post continues in this vein - that, when I say that your obvious ignorance of Christianity makes you uniquely unqualified to make a statement like...

No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on

...that this amounts to an unsubstantiated accusation. You have certainly substantiated your ignorance on the topic to anyone reading your posts, who possesses even a pedestrian understanding of Christianity. But, at this point, I am unsure about quite how to proceed. It's as if I'd had a conversation like this:

Knucklehead: Einstien was out of his mind. E does NOT equal MC squared.

Musicman: That's an extraordinary assertion; certainly, you must know a lot about mathematics and physics.

Knucklehead: Well, I know that the "E" in the equation stands for "Ed".

Musicman: You are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

Knucklehead: That's an unsubstantiated accusation!

How shall I proceed, LOki? What would satisfy you?

[actsnoblemartin]

For what its worth, This country was founded with judeo-Christian values. So suck on that aclu.

[glockmail]

It cannot be demonstrated that Patrick Henry ever said that. It's attribution comes from David Barton, who is for the 1st Amendment what Michael Bellesiles is for the 2nd Amendment--a guy with an aggenda who presents facts and then conveniently can't come up with sources. I'm not surprised you'd take sides with him--you share the same penchant for making fabrications.

Also, according to your own criteria, Patrick Henry was not a Founding Father of this nation.

Attack the source. Whouda thunk you'd stoop that low?

I never said Henry was a founder.

John Jay:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. "

[Psychoblues]

Stoops low? Who'd a thunk it??????????? You can't get much lower that the pukes defending the indefensible.

[Pale Rider]

For what its worth, This country was founded with judeo-Christian values. So suck on that aclu.

As much as the godless, Christian hating, liberal left would like to rewrite history and say it wasn't, they're just pounding sand.

America WAS founded on Christianity. Sure the founding fathers said we shouldn't write any laws condoning or protecting any religion, but THEY THEMSELVES were influenced by Christianity, because new America was itself, the vast majority, Christian. That's just the simple truth of the matter.

[LOki]

You're at the end of your rope, LOki. I can tell, because you're sinking into meanness and dishonesty.

More unsubstatiated accusation as the beginning of a rebuttal that contains no substance, and in it's stead, just more unsubstantiated accusations, unsubstantiated affirmations of previous accusations, more logical fallacies, and flat denial of reality.

I've done no such thing; you know this.

Denial of reality. To paraphrase your argument: "The Biblical Fall From Grace is a uniquely Christian founding principle of the United States. The Founding Fathers founded the United States on principles unique to Christianity. Therefore, the United States is founded on Christian principles unique to Christianity."

It bears repeating--besides being factually wrong, your argument is question begging.

Remember - it was YOU who declared to glockmail - with no small amount of catcalling bravado, I might add - that:

No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

I know what I said. I am not denying I said it. Yet not one example of such singly identifable Christian principle has been submitted; not by glockmail, and certainly not by you. This especially includes your Biblical Fall From Grace principle which is not demonstrably a principle this nation was founded upon, a principle omitted from the founding of nations founded prior to the founding of the US, nor even a principle unique to Christianity.

I have merely mapped out the avenues of attack you must take in order to defend this assertion. And - when you're not inventing dishonesty on my part - you are proceeding down these dead-end avenues as surely and predictably as cold weather in Antarctica. I shall expose each one for as long as you care to play this game.

The bullshit of your senseless and irrelevent "avenues" has already been <a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=98949#post98949">exposed</a>.

They're YOUR lame examples, LOki. If you don't like the outcome, find better ones. And, at least try to keep up the PRETENSE of honesty; I never offered any such assertion, and you know THIS, as well.

You offered this:<blockquote><a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=99155#post99155"><b>musicman:</a></b>
<i>"You would need to demonstrate that another governmental system in all of human history has proceeded thus."</i></blockquote>Let's get this clear--proving that other governments were not founded upon Christian principles DOES NOT prove that the United States was founded on Christian principles. Nor am I making the patently fallaceuos claim that other nations have to be proven to be founded on rational principles to prove that the United States was founded on rational principles. In this thread, these fallacies are all YOURS, and only YOURS.

If you wish to argue that the principles this nation was founded upon are not rational principles, I will gladly rise to that occasion. I have certainly demonstrated the Founder's intentions to use rational principles for the foundation of this nation, rather than religious principles--including those particular to Christianity. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise with any evidence or valid logic.

And just to get the logic straight musicman, I don't have to prove that any other nation was founded on rational principles to prove that the United States was; I don't have to prove other nations were founded on Christian principles to prove the United States wasn't. I must only prove that the principles this nation was founded upon are rational principles; and if I can't, the very next best thing is to prove that the Founders intended to do so. To prove that this nation is not founded as a Christian nation, I need only to find those singularly Christain princples neccessary for the foundation of such a nation to be missing--like some constitutional recognition of the supremacy of Jesus, for instance. On the other hand, you, in order to demonstrate that this nation was founded as a Christian Nation upon Christian principles, must demonstrate that the actual principles this nation was founded upon are actually Christian principles, and also unique to Christianity--like some constitutional recognition of the supremacy of Jesus, for instance.

Let's spell it out again:

1. That man's nature is not thus.

2. That the U.S. Constitution is not designed thus.

3. That non-Christians have ever designed a governmental system thus.

4. That Christian principle does not proceed thus.

Already addressed; avenue #3 - a dead end. No less dead for your having restated it.

Avenue #3 already demonstrated as bullshit, but well worth illuminating it's bullshit nature even further: There is nothing in Christian principles that makes Christianity any more tolerant of other religions than Islam is or was, or any more founded in The Fall From Grace than Islam is, or made 18th century Christians less lethally judgmental than Muslims. Your "imperviousness to perfectibility" is embraced no more by the Muslim faith in principle, than the Christian faith embraces it in principle; and this test of yours offered in rebuttal, regarding religious intolerance--..."it presumes to elevate mere man to "arbiter of religious righteousness" - even unto death,"...--has a long history of being strongly held by Chistians. A history rational folks would like to avoid, and the rational folks who founded this nation managed to avoid by NOT creating a Christian nation founded on Christianity, and instead founded this nation on rational principles.

In fact, where you demand that Christian principles do not "...presume(s) to elevate mere man to 'arbiter of religious righteousness'", Benjamin Franklin--a Founding Father of this nation--unambiguosly asserts his opinion to the contrary:<blockquote><b>Benjamin Franklin:</b>
<i>"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England."</i></blockquote>I might suggest, musicman, that you take him seriously while you attempt to disavow the intolerance of Christian principles to freedom of religion.

Avenue #4 - very dangerous ground for you, LOki. Avenue #4 is a drag strip, and you're riding a broken tricycle.

Your Avenue #4 is irrelevent. I have not denied that the Fall From Grace is a Christian principle. There is just zero evidence that the Fall From Grace is a princple on which the United States is founded.<blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
<i>"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion with all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"</i></blockquote>Outside of your delusions, in the real world, the actual principle salient to this discussion, the principle that our Founding Fathers fought for, was not a Christian principle in any sense--it was the right to freely worship <b>ANY</b> god in any manner, according to one's own conscience. That principle, all by itself, precludes this nation from being a Christian nation in its founding principles. That principle is not diminished in the least by any mention of "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence, and is strongly affirmed by the 1st Amendment to The Constitution of the USA.

Avenue #1 - a dead end. Ascribes to human beings the ability to construct a governmental system based on pure rationality. They have demonstrated no such ability through the whole of recorded history.

Wrong. The United States of America is founded upon rational principles, and not founded upon The Biblical Fall From Grace.<blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
<i>"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."</i></blockquote>"It will never be pretended..." except by you musicman (throw in glockmail and Pale Rider too), and you will never aknowledge "that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses" because evidence and valid logic are meaningless to you.

And this proves what?

And THIS proves what?

Do you even bother to read your own challenges? Or are you denying that the European Enlightanment did not occurr in the 18th century for people who lived in the 18th century? Perhaps you are denying that the European Enlightenment was characterized by a newly enhanced respect for evidence, valid logic, and founding one's beliefs in reason rather than faith and/or superstitions. Perhaps you deny that it "...advocated Reason as the primary basis of authority". Perhaps you are denying that the Founders of this nation were students of the European Enlightenment. Perhaps you deny that they were influenced by the writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume. Perhaps you are denying that Thomas Paine was a Founder of this Nation and that the quote provided favors reason over faith. Perhaps you are in complete denial that Thomas Paine, the Founding Fathers, the European Enlightenment and its contributors, and their influences ever existed.

This is verifable fact--many Europeans and Americans of the 18th century--particularly those instrumental in the founding of the United States--did, in fact decide to interpret the Biblical worldview as "more allegory and metaphor...than historical fact" in favor of a rational worldview based on verifiable evidence, valid logic, and reason.

No - fattening posts is YOUR game, remember?

More unfounded accusation. Nicely enhanced by projection. Remember musicman, your argument is over-fat with unsubstatiated accusations--you're the one who is still piling them on.

It is no creation of mine, LOki. You appear to have made it your life's work.

You have made it up entirely in denial of your own lack of understanding of Christianity, and your obvious refusal to aknowledge anything but your imaginings, and unsubstantiated opinions as fact.

The rest of your post continues in this vein - that, when I say that your obvious ignorance of Christianity makes you uniquely unqualified to make a statement like...

No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

...that this amounts to an unsubstantiated accusation. You have certainly substantiated your ignorance on the topic to anyone reading your posts, who possesses even a pedestrian understanding of Christianity. But, at this point, I am unsure about quite how to proceed. It's as if I'd had a conversation like this:

Knucklehead: Einstien was out of his mind. E does NOT equal MC squared.

Musicman: That's an extraordinary assertion; certainly, you must know a lot about mathematics and physics.

Knucklehead: Well, I know that the "E" in the equation stands for "Ed".

Musicman: You are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

Knucklehead: That's an unsubstantiated accusation!

How shall I proceed, LOki? What would satisfy you?

Let me fix this little vignette for you, so it is accurate, and consistent with reality:<blockquote>LOki: Christians believe that Jesus is Author of Creation.

musicman: You obviously don't know anything about Christianity; you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

LOki: That's an extraordinary assertion; certainly, you must know a lot about Christianity.

musicman: Well, I know that you obviously don't know anything about Christianity; you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

LOki: Really? What do you base this on?

musicman: Well, I know that you obviously don't know anything about Christianity; you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

LOki: Yes. You said that before. But what do you base this accusation on? What proof? What evidence?

musicman: First, you obviously don't know anything about Christianity; secondly, you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

LOki: I see that you must have a problem with what I said about the Christian belief that Jesus is Author of Creation, but what is that problem exactly?

musicman: The problem is, you obviously don't know anything about Christianity; you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

LOki: Yes, you keep saying that, but you fail to provide a reason for saying so.

musicman: The reason is, you obviously don't know anything about Christianity; you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

LOki: Repeating these unsubstantiated accusations does not constitute valid reasons for making them--you need to explain youself; bring evidence and valid logic.

musicman: How dare you assert I am making unsubstantiated accusations when you obviously don't know anything about Christianity; you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made. What do you want from me, LOki? Look, I can make up a little dialouge that proves you're being unreasonable!

LOki: LOL.</blockquote>

[LOki]

Attack the source. Whouda thunk you'd stoop that low?

Pointing out verifaible facts is not stooping low.

I never said Henry was a founder.

Then what's your point in bringing him into this discussion?

John Jay:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"

Since Patrick Henry didn't say this, you're going to present it as John Jay? It was made up when you posted before, it is no less made up now.

John Jay:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. "

Yet the our nation's primary founding document--the US Constitution--flatly and specifically rejects the notion that religion should be a qualifying criteria for holding any public office or trust in the Nation. John Jay may have wanted only Christian rulers, but he achieved no foundational accomodation for this theocratic wish in the foundational document of this nation.

[LOki]

As much as the godless, Christian hating, liberal left would like to rewrite history and say it wasn't, they're just pounding sand.

I have brought the thoughts and opinions of the Founding Fathers, and you have ignored the significance of their assertions. Meanwhile, on your side of this is a guy disingenuously misquoting and <b>making up</b> quotes for Patrick Henry, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison; and a host of religious opponents to the separation of church and state such as Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell, disseminating those patent falsehoods as if they were the truth. In your mind, this is not rewriteing history. Your accusation is a joke, as are your superstitious, liberty hating, theocratic right attempts to revise history so that Christianity is prominently asserted in the Constitution.

America WAS founded on Christianity.

You haven't brought evidence for this yet, and you fail to do so below--it's just restating your convictions which we have been aware of since the first time you expressed them.

Sure the founding fathers said we shouldn't write any laws condoning or protecting any religion, but THEY THEMSELVES were influenced by Christianity, because new America was itself, the vast majority, Christian. That's just the simple truth of the matter.

Yeah. Below are the exact influences Christianity had on the Founders of this nation:<blockquote><b>Thomas Paine:</b>
<i>"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."</i></blockquote><blockquote><b>John Adams:</b>
<i>"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
</i></blockquote><blockquote><b>Thomas Jefferson:</b>
<i>"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."</i></blockquote><blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
<i>"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."</i></blockquote>

[glockmail]

[1]Pointing out verifaible facts is not stooping low.

[2]Then what's your point in bringing him into this discussion?

[1]Since Patrick Henry didn't say this, you're going to present it as John Jay? It was made up when you posted before, it is no less made up now.

[3]Yet the our nation's primary founding document--the US Constitution--flatly and specifically rejects the notion that religion should be a qualifying criteria for holding any public office or trust in the Nation. John Jay may have wanted only Christian rulers, but he achieved no foundational accomodation for this theocratic wish in the foundational document of this nation.

1. Perhaps you could point out where John Jay's quote was made-up. This is bullshit claiming quotes are made-up.
2. Why not? You brought up non-founders, such as Paine.
3. This portion of the quote was simply to put the issue in context, that Jay used the words "our Christian nation", which is the subject of the OP.

[glockmail]

......
Yeah. Below are the exact influences Christianity had on the Founders of this nation:<blockquote><b>Thomas Paine:</b>
<i>"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."</i></blockquote>

You already admitted that Paine was not a Founder, than you claim him to be again. He was a damn atheist, like you. At least he had common sense.

[LOki]

You already admitted that Paine was not a Founder, than you claim him to be again.

You lie.

He was a damn atheist, like you.

You lie again.

At least he had common sense.

Truth.

[Pale Rider]

You haven't brought evidence for this yet, and you fail to do so below--it's just restating your convictions which we have been aware of since the first time you expressed them.

I did with my initial post, and subsequent posts, all of which you have totally ignored.

You've lost the debate. The only person here that believes the garbage you're dredging up is you. The rest of us know the truth. It's simple. It's written, and it's staring you in the face. You REFUSE to admit it because you're an atheist, and you'll fight the facts until your dying breath. But your fight is in vain. You will NEVER be able to rewrite history.

This country was founded on Christian principles by Christian people. There's no more simple truth than that.

[LOki]

I did with my initial post, and subsequent posts, all of which you have totally ignored.

I have replied directly to your posts, you're just as full of shit as glockmail.

You've lost the debate.

Not on the merits of evidence, but rather the intensity of your denial of reality.

The only person here that believes the garbage you're dredging up is you. The rest of us know the truth. It's simple. It's written, and it's staring you in the face.

Fucking LOL!

You REFUSE to admit it because you're an atheist, and you'll fight the facts until your dying breath.

You need to disseminate such lies because you cannot refute the argument I have presented. Double LOLZ!

But your fight is in vain. You will NEVER be able to rewrite history.

I'm not the one posting lies in the place of history though.

This country was founded on Christian principles...

Repeating this in an attempt to make it true is the exact revisionism that would make Joesph Goebbles proud. BRAVO!

[LOki]

1. Perhaps you could point out where John Jay's quote was made-up. This is bullshit claiming quotes are made-up.

David Barton is the source for that quote, and he has admitted that he can't find it's source--no one else can either. It's confirmed bullshit.

2. Why not? You brought up non-founders, such as Paine.

I never said Paine was not a Founder, you certainly suggested he wasn't.

3. This portion of the quote was simply to put the issue in context, that Jay used the words "our Christian nation", which is the subject of the OP.

I had no idea that the sole point of the OP was to demonstrate that John Jay said "our Christian nation." I don't argue he said otherwise. My point is that his notions did not carry to the foundational document of our nation.

[glockmail]

You lie.

... .

Either you agree with that criteria or not. Not a signer = not a Founder. Paine was neither, but he was an atheist.