Sorry if that one isn’t good enough for you, but it directly contradicts his claim. And that is all that is needed to prove that one statement wrong. Feel free to go back and see what it was. And just to be clear, I never claimed the Constitution enshrined Christianity. Only that the statement “the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” is nonsense. (emphasis mine)
Fine with me. But it appears he got a good deal on a trainload of straw and keeps implying I claimed things I didn’t.
On this point, he may like to be made aware of King Mohammed V of Morocco. When asked by the Nazis how many Jews there were in Morocco (with a view to removing them all to concentration camps), King Mohammed replied “5 million” which was the total population of Morocco at the time.
Basically he was saying - if you want our Jews, you’ll have to fight all of us.
Mohammed was/is very popular in Israel and you can still find portraits of him in some Israeli homes.
Sorry, but it isn’t. The dating system does not prove the country was founded on the Christian religion. And this is getting to be a ridiculous tangent on its own.
I just use the grown up and reasonable approach, as in
‘HEY ASSHOLE1 DON’T SEND ME ANY OF THIS SHIT!!!’
Sometimes it works.
Aren’t portraits of Muhammad considered sacrilegious to Muslims?
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Sorry, but it isn’t. The dating system does not prove the country was founded on the Christian religion. And this is getting to be a ridiculous tangent on its own.
[/QUOTE]
Either that or the American Atheists association is secretly Christian since the date on their website uses the year 2010. For that matter most Christians still use Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, the month of March, they celebrate Easter, and they use other days and dates with pagan gods in their origin.
I’ve also seen people point to legal documents that began with “In the name of God, Amen” as proof of a person’s religious leanings. Point of fact is that almost all documents began this way, so much so that it was pre-printed on many forms used by lawyers and legislators. It’s similar to the “if anybody can show just cause” part of a wedding ceremony- it’s not really soliciting comments so much as it’s tradition.
The French Republican calendar was famous for completely removing anything supernatural from its nomenclature. The simple version of today’s date is 20 Prairial CCXVIII (20th day of the Month of Meadows, Year 218 of the Revolution), though in fact it’s way more complicated than that. The calendar didn’t last long though- people were a bit loathe to throw away the calender they had known all their lives and that was still used by every country on every side of them.
Go here and you can download the US military’s newspaper, the Stars & Stripes. If you download the edition for Japan, you’ll notice that it also uses the Japanese dating system. I guess that means the US military is founded on the Shinto religion!
If you’re referring to the founding prophet of the faith, then the answer is: “It depends on the individual Muslim.” After all, there are mosques with portrayals of the man. In this case, though, I believe that poster was referring to the king names Muhammed.
Uh it seems clear to me he’s referring to the Moroccan King Mohammed V.
Pretty sure portraits of him are just fine.
Hmmm, I got curious and tried googling up the Moroccan information and came across this: Morocco: Jewish - Muslim Music fest, and see from the article the current King there has a high-profile Jewish advisor. That has to be unique in the Arab world.
Does it? Iran’s not Arab, of course, but it has a Jewish Member of Parliament (Majlis). So does Bahrain, which is Arab, and which has a Jewish woman as its ambassador to the US.
Not quite the same as a high-profile advisor to the monarch, but still pretty politically prominent.
This is a joke, right?
It is not – not in any sense at all. And the use of a dating convention does not prove otherwise.
You can’t point to a single founding principle rooted in Christianity. Not one.
Oh boy, more straw!
Way to keep the tangent going Mr. Moderator.
So, the fact that what you consider the most important founding document dates it by using a reference to Jesus Christ (you know, the guy who Christianity was founded upon), is not evidence that the this statement:
“…the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
…is false?
Well, in that case, sure, whatever you say. :rolleyes:
And that doesn’t even take into account other founding documents, like the DofI.
I think I’m going to take Kimstu’s advice and spare myself another day in your Strawmanistan. Careful with those matches!
There are certainly arguments for the idea that the US is in some sense a Christian nation, but that’s about the worst one I’ve ever heard.
What other method of dating were they going to use? :rolleyes:
[quote=“magellan01, post:115, topic:542391”]
So, the fact that what you consider the most important founding document dates it by using a reference to Jesus Christ (you know, the guy who Christianity was founded upon), is not evidence that the this statement:
“…the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
…is false?[/qupote]
No. It isn’t. At all. That was the only dating convention available to them. It’s meaningless. Most of them were not Christians themselves. Thomas Jefferson despised Christianity.
Why don’t you name an actual foundational principle based on Chrstianity.
Care to explain what my moderating status has to do with your argument? Otherwise this seems like some kind of attempted pot shot. Let’s review your disagreement with Diogenes the Cynic here.
You said it was formed on Christian beliefs.
To which you mentioned the dating system.
To review: you’re arguing that the Constitution is formed on Christian beliefs based entirely on the use of the words “in the year of our Lord.” This is a laughably bad argument, which is why I asked if you had other support for it. You haven’t posted any.
How about just the date: “September 17, 1787”, and not go the additional step of including a mention of “our Lord”. Surely that would have been more secular/less Christian, no? And less evidence that you’re wrong.
Please tell me you’re kidding.
Kidding again? Maybe you’re confusing his thinking that the miracles and some of the biblical passages went too far with the actual teachings of Christ, which he held in exceedingly high esteem.
“…all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”
You know, as stated in the original founding document of the United States.
The Declaration of Independence is an important document, but it’s not “the original founding document of the United States.” There’s also nothing particularly Christian about the statement, and no evidence that Creator means the Judeochristian god.