Is America a Christian Nation?

you have no clue who the Puritans were. I would guess that you aren't even Christian, with a statement like that. ever heard of this? Maryland Toleration Act - Wikipediaexcept in the mid 17th century, lol.ever heard of the 1st amendment? LOL take your Ridallin man.

Your substance to insult ratio overall has got to be around 1 to 10. And what little substance you do offer has little if anything to do with the main topic of this forum. Do you really get that big a kick out of tossing puerile insults about? I'm quite serious. I can't for the life of me understand why you post here.

Yes because several of our founding father's were Christians, that is already known as you can research them for your self, I think most of America is Christian, but there is Freedom of religion here so other religion is here to.

Your logic is as sound as your grasp on English prose.

Hi jrchamberlee Really?By your logic ...America is a Deist nation because several of our founding fathers were Deists, that is already known as you can research them for yourself, ... but there is Freedom of Religion here, so other religions are here as well.or even more telling:America is a White nation because several of our founding fathers were white, that is already known, as you can research them for yourself, ... (do I really need to go further?)Please note that Evangelical Christians and Mormonism did not exist back then, so -- again according to your logic -- America is NOT an Evangelical Christian or Mormon nation because none of the founding fathers were Evangelical Christians or Mormons, that is already known, as you can research this for yourself, ... but there it Freedom of Religion here, so other religions are here ... and this now includes Evangelical Christians and Mormons as well as Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Pentacostal christians, deists, jews, muslims, hindus, atheists, native beliefs, etc etc etc.More importantly, virtually ALL founding fathers were secularists (meaning they believed that church and state should be separate, to each his own)Because of the Freedom of Religion, ALL religious beliefs and non-beliefs are treated on an equal level, and individuals have the right and freedom to believe in whatever faith they desire as long as they do not try to force their belief on others. Because of the Freedom of Religion here, there are now more varieties of religions here than existed during the founding of the nation.Do a majority of Americans now identify themselves as Christian? Yes, however they are divided into several significantly different sects. Thinking that this makes the US a Christian nation is like thinking that white founding fathers and the majority of white people in america make it a white nation ... which is quite curious if we have a black president eh?Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty & brevity

Message 1: Message 108: Something that's been bothering me every since shortly after 1980 when the RRR came up the claim Percy's talking about: just exactly which founding principles are they talking about and just how are those supposed to be Christian in origin.Let's start with Freedom of Religion, which you yourself brought up. How is that supposed to be Christian? Where in Christian doctrine is everybody given the right to believe what they want to believe, even to join other religions if they want? That thought seems to me to be quite foreign to Christianity. In Rabbinic Literature class, our teacher, a rabbi, told us about a famous Italian rabbi who had been a Christian but who converted to Judaism. But he had to keep his conversion a secret, because Constantinian law, which was in effect throughout Europe from the time of Emperor Constantine until the mid-1800's, made converting from Christianity a capital crime, ie punishable by death. That Christian principle doesn't quite sound like Freedom of Religion to me, but rather quite the opposite. And I'm sure you are also aware of how worshipping other gods fares in the Bible.What about democracy? You know, the pagan Greek idea of self government. Or a republican government, you know, the pagan Roman idea of representative government with its two assemblies and a triune executive. When James Madison was travelling to the Constitutional Convention, was he studying his Bible for ideas of how to form this new government? No, he was busy studying classical history, ie the histories of ancient pagan Greece and Rome. And it is no accident that our federal government is based on those pagan governments.Indeed, the very idea of self-government and of the governed granting the government its right to govern, derives much more from humanism, the philosophy that had sparked the Renaissance, the Rebirth of Western Civilization, than from Christianity. The strongest expression of this idea, along with the Preamble to the Constitution, is the Declaration of Independence, which flies completely in the face of the prevailing governing principle that was truly Christian, the Divine Right of Kings. Indeed, King James had his version of the Bible commissioned because the other popular English translation did not sufficiently emphasis the Divine Right of Kings.I trust that you can see why such Religious Right claims never made any sense to me. Had you ever given it much thought yourself?

Um wasent your Abraham Lincoln an atheist, or at least aa documented sceptic.So it would stand to reason that since your founding father was an atheist America is an atheist nation ??

Abraham Lincoln wasn't president until ~90 years after America was founded.
I don't think he was born when the founding fathers founded America.I realise that some people encompass a wider group of politicians when using the phrase 'founding fathers', but I don't think Lincoln is in that list either.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Lol dint know that dunno much about American history, i thought he was one of the first.

He was the 16th president.

you are just as bad, in fact i think you are one of the worst, way worse than even the British. I think you are the meanest troll on here. you are 10x worse than I am, but I know you like to tease and cause trouble.so to honestly answer your question: no, unless I happen to have the misfortune of having to communicate with you.I have begged the Admin for an ignore option on this site, so I would never have to read any of the juvenile shit that you type, but its not a perfect world.If you notice I try not to respond to you (because its a total waste of fucking time).but your post clearly illustrates my thoughts, just name calling and general assholery.ADVICE: ignore my posts, and leave me the fuck alone.

Tell you what, Champ. I'll give you a chance to put your money where your mouth is. I've got nearly 3,000 posts here, you've got less than 1,000, roughly a 3 to 1 ratio. I'd bet that for every post of yours that you can find that is all substance, no insults, I can find 5 of mine that are. And I'd bet that each of mine that I select would be longer than yours as well.But you won't do that. You're not about substance and backing up what you say with evidence. You're about whining and making shit up. So my second bet is that you either won't respond to this, or you'll dismiss it with some lame ass excuse.Edited by subbie, : Subtitle

Hi dwise1, nice post. And then there is the whole issue of the wall of separation of church and state and who the letter was written to from one of the founding fathers explaining it.Enjoy

The specific wording, "wall of separation of church and state", may have been in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist congregation, but he was just describing a concept that had already been presented to the public about 40 years earlier by his life-long friend and fellow Founder, James Madison, in A Memorial and Remonstrance (my emphasis added):

quote:

---

2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

---

The situation under which that document was written is described on my page, http://dwise1.net/rel_lib/memorial.html, which contains its text:

quote:

---

Patrick Henry's constituents had been complaining to him about the decline of public morality, much as the Religious Right does nowadays. In response, he sponsored a bill that would allocate public funds (ie, tax money) to "[establish] a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion" (ie, clergy). Thomas Jefferson's faction opposed the bill and were able to delay a vote on it until the next session. Then they were able to persuade James Madison to write a pamphlet opposing the bill which they then distributed throughout the state. That pamphlet, A Memorial and Remonstrance, proved so effective that when the State Legislature reconvened, Henry's bill was dropped without even being brought to a vote. Instead, Thomas Jefferson's Religious Liberty bill was voted into law.

---

It should be noted that Madison wrote A Memorial and Remonstrance in 1785, a few years before he drafted the First Amendment, so here we have the original intent of that amendment.The first paragraph expounds on the idea of rights of conscience, that "The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate." The following paragraphs examine the detrimental effects of mixing church and state.

Is it so hard to stay on topic? yet another post of you talking shit.LOL@U Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.