So you agree that this:
Can you cite anything at all from the Constitution which indicates that the authors of that document were trying to found a Christian nation? One word even?
is a red herring?
“These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”
Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457
Huh? Who are you replying to? What does this have to do with anything?
And why do you keep denying Christ? I mean, as a Christian, you have a duty to retract your false accusation. But whenever anyone asks you about this, you just refuse to answer. You refuse to even declare that you agree with Jesus’ teachings that false accusations are wrong.
Do you even purport to be a Christian? Yes or no. I don’t think I’ve seen you confess Christ with your mouth even once in your time here, for all your talk about the Bible. And I most certainly haven’t seen you confess Christ with your actions.
-Ben
DK: No, it is, in fact, a azure catfish.
If Der Komissar isn’t going to make any sense, I see no reason why I should have to, either.
Um, since the Founding Fathers were Deists, why would they want this to be a Christian Country, therefore, they would not allow themselves to be able to practice their own religion?
DK-guess what? You’re a moron. Congratulations. Now, promise us you will never breed.
MEBuckner wrote:
Actually, they didn’t.
Here’s the relevant sentences from Dred Scott v. Sandford in context:
"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion."
[bolding mine]
So in other words, the Supreme Court didn’t rule that black people have no rights, they merely commented that this was how black people used to be regarded.
Well, let’s see: a red herring is a “smoked herring having a reddish color”–no, wait, the relevant definition would be “something that draws attention away from the central issue”. Since what we’re debating is whether or not the United States was “intended” to be a Christian nation, I’d say asking for a citation from the Constitution–the fundamental document and framework of the government of the United States–indicating that this is a Christian nation is kind of CENTRAL TO THE FUCKING POINT UNDER DISCUSSION, you mindless twit.
How long did they hold you under when you were baptized, anyway?
tracer: Oh well, I didn’t really look up the decision, just quoted from secondary sources. I forget what point I was trying to make–something about the Supreme Court not being infallible, about which DK has been wildly inconsistent anyway.
MEBuckner: Actually, we were discussing biblical contradictions until this uneducated fuckhead wandered in. Since he’s too stupid to resolve these contradictions on his own, he avoids the issue by, in effect, pointing over our collective shoulder and saying, “Ooh! What’s that over there!”
So, technically speaking, that was a red herring. However, it’s Das Komissar who stinks like rotten fish.
Actually, the fundamental point of the OP was a rant against the violation of separation of church and state found in the government promotion of a Christian “National Day of Prayer”. So as far as that goes, I’m perfectly happy to lock horns with Der Kommissar over the whole “Christian nation” thing–it’s quite relevant to my original point. It’s just too bad that he’s so fucking stupid he couldn’t formulate a coherent argument for what the best method of pouring sand out of a bucket is.
I dunno where the whole abortion thing came from, though.
If you ask me, it came from the fact that abortion is a pet issue of DK’s, and he decided to wedge it in. Moreover, think of it in terms of DK’s basic postulates, spoken and unspoken:
The Founding Fathers wanted the US to be a Christian nation.
Why? Because the FFs were Christians.
All Christians are pro-life, period.
Ergo,
There is a conflict between the current state of the US (abortion is legal, and therefore the US is non- or anti-Christian) and what the Founding Fathers intended (pro-life=Christianity.) Since DK assumes that all people who are even nominally Christian share his views on abortion- since he feels that the Founding Fathers called themselves Christian and therefore can automatically be assumed to be pro-life- then the legality of abortion in America is the most glaring example of how America has strayed from the intentions of the Founders.
-Ben
See, Ben just laid out Der Kommissar’s argument (such as it is) far more coherently than DK himself could ever hope to. Sad, really.
I agree that this thread was originally about alleged biblical contradictions. And I am happy to take the time to show that these so-called “contradictions” are as elusive as the loch ness monster.
Issues of intent, the constitution, etc., were engendered by the following:
“I’m curious though, do you think the government should be officially supporting one or the other of us? Do you think Congress or a state legislature should issue a proclamation saying ‘The Bible Is Filled With Contradictions, So All You Good Citizens Out There Need to Take it With a Big Grain of Salt’?”
And I responded to this question - sue me.
Where does so-called “abortion” come into the picture?
It’s a good example of the disconnect that can arise between the intent of the country’s founders and the interpreters of the country’s laws.
In ANOTHER thread, I will be happy to show that so-called “abortion” is immoral, unlawful, unconstitutional, and un-Christian.
On the subject of red herrings - I never made the claim that the Constitution requires that the U.S. be a Christian country. This is why demanding that I provide evidence from the Constitution is disingenuous.
But you knew all that, which is no doubt why you must resort to pushing down straw men and twisting the words of the Supreme Court.
“The greatest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
Um…der kommissar-have you been licking toads again?
[sub]this guy cannot be for real. he can’t. i cannot conceive of anyone being this dumb outside of jdt…[/sub]
Go right ahead; knock yourself out. (I mean that; use a hammer and knock yourself out!)
You have failed to demonstrate that the founders intended this country to be a Christian nation.
Fine. Go start one in Great Debates.
Why do you keep posting this after it was shown that it is a mis-quote?
Here’s what you did say:
Who “intended” for the United States to be a “Christian country”? You’ve made a claim–that “the United States was intended to be a Christian country”. Please provide some sort of evidence to back this up. The Constitution would be one good place to start, yes, but hey, come up with some other evidence to show that the United States was “intended to be a Christian country”, and we’ll consider it. Just stating something doesn’t make it true.
“The challenge is to make the U.S. into the absolute monarchy it was intended to be. Perhaps the abolition of the Constitution is necessary.”
“The challenge is to make the U.S. into the Swahili-speaking country it was intended to be. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is necessary.”
“The challenge is to make the U.S. into the harem full of beautiful women who fulfill MEBuckner’s every whim it was intended to be. Perhaps a lot of smooth talking is necessary.”
If the United States was “intended” to be a Christian nation, then one could argue that it is legitimate for the government of the United States to encourage Christian prayer.
If the United States was “intended” to be an Atheistic nation, then one could argue that it is legitimate for the government of the United States to encourage atheistic critiques of the Bible.
If the United States was “intended” to be a nation where the church is separated from the state, and the government confines itself, as far as questions of religion go, to ensuring that everyone’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech is protected, then the government should not be encouraging either Christian prayer or atheistic critiques of the Bible. Christians are free to pray; atheists are free to critique the Bible, and Christians are free to respond to the atheists; and the government stays the hell out of it so long as nobody infringes on anyone else’s rights under the law.
Since the United States was not intended by its founders to be a “Christian nation”, but rather a free country, option number three is the correct choice. (Citations: the U.S. Constitution, which does not mention the U.S. being founded on any religion, and explicitly bans religious tests for holding public office and provides for the separation of church and state and religious freedom in the First Amendment; also, the writings of various Founding Fathers quoted elsewhere in this thread.) Therefore, the U.S. Congress, in encouraging Christianity by establishing a national day of Christian prayer, is going against the founders’ original intent.
Well the main thing is, whoever said it, it’s not true. In fact, the American Revolution dissolved the connection between government and the principles of Christianity (“Government is ordained by God to enforce God’s laws upon evil-doers”), and substituted the principles of classical liberalism and Enlightenment Deism (“Government is established by the people to protect their rights and liberties”).
DK:
Answer the following, if you will:
What possible reason could the non-Christian Founding Fathers have for intending the new nation to be a Christian nation?
If you mean that it was God, and not the Founding Fathers, who intended the new nation to be a Christian nation, how do you know this?
How many times ahve you passed (or, most likely, failed) Speech class?
But abortion isn’t “unlawful” in America, OBVIOUSLY, since “unlawful” means illegal, which it isn’t.
Another rather obvious problem here is that whether the Founding Fathers called themselves Christian has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they wanted to outlaw abortion.
Even if you state that all real Christians are against abortion, if you want to go from “The Founding Fathers were Christian” to “Abortion should be outlawed in the US today,” you have to prove the following:
The Founding Fathers really were Christian according to your definition of the term, and weren’t just calling themselves Christian, and didn’t have a definition of “Christian” which disagrees with your own. (For example, plenty of gay men consider themselves to be Christian. Do you agree with them that God doesn’t condemn anal sex?)
Just because someone thinks that abortion is murder doesn’t mean that they want it to be outlawed. Tris, for example, holds this opinion IIRC.
Moreover, you need to prove that we have an inviolate duty to follow the dictates of people who lived 200 years ago. Since the Founding Fathers gave the Constitution a capacity for amendment, they clearly meant us to make our own decisions about how to live.
Did I mention that you’re going to spend an eternity in hell, suffering the black flame which gives no light and sheds no heat but consumes the flesh of the damned for all eternity? That you will experience great weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, and will beg those in heaven for a mere drop of water, but they will be unable to salve your suffering, for there will be a great gulf which they cannot cross? You see, you steadfastly refuse to withdraw your false accusation. You’re probably sitting at home right now convincing yourself with some Pharisee-logic that if you apologize to Jesus for an accusation against Monty, then that makes it ok. But Jesus said that that isn’t enough- you sin every day you let your false accusation stand. What can you possibly gain? What sort of pride would lead you to refuse to apologize for a false accusation when it only makes people lose respect for you- when people would respect you enormously if you could just admit you made a mistake? What good does it do to save your pride when you lose your soul?
I realize I’m harping on this a bit much, but in all honesty, I find fundamentalist “Christians” very hard to understand. How can you people tell us we need to convert lest we go to hell when you lie so freely? How can you be so quick to condemn anal sex for no more reason than that it’s an inappropriate orifice insertion when you are willing to throw around false accusations?
-Ben
Actually, I think it was me he made the false accusation against, although it’s kind of hard to keep track–I guess all these avoidances of the point constitute “leaps of faith”.
**Der Kommissar wrote:
In ANOTHER thread, I will be happy to show that so-called “abortion” is immoral, unlawful, unconstitutional, and un-Christian.**
And I’m sure it’ll be filled with more fine examples of your debating style and technique, just like in this thread; Anal Sex is Unnatural.
Fucking Troll!
Okay, I’ve been digging and digging, but I can’t find my sources on this, which means someone’s made off with my books, but in a biography of Thomas Jefferson I used to have, it stated that when Jefferson was working on the Virginia bill of rights he wrote an admendment for FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. Hmm, don’t think one can make a stronger argument for the seperation of church and state than that. As for biblical contradictions, read Mark Twain’s Letters From the Earth in which he points out that man hates singing and going to church, yet that’s exactly what heaven’s supposed to be like! Wish I could find my copy as Twain goes on for pages about how foolish some commonly held Christian beliefs are. Sigh.
I somehow doubt that there’s a letter or other piece of writing out there, from Jefferson or Madison or Adams or one of that crowd, railing against the evils of abortion.