Is the US a Christian nation?

[Captain Obvious]

Are our principles, values, governance based on Christianity or are we a secular nation free to practice the faith of our choosing?

Simple yes or no.

Poll is non-public.

[Bo-4]

No ... secular -- free to practice (or NOT practice) faith of choosing.

[ace's n 8's]

Are our principles, values, governance based on Christianity or are we a secular nation free to practice the faith of our choosing?

Simple yes or no.

Poll is non-public.A ''no'' or ''yes'' to two different questions?

[ace's n 8's]

No ... secular -- free to practice (or NOT practice) faith of choosing.

There is the answer.

[Captain Obvious]

A ''yes'' or ''no'' to two different questions?

To clarify, the question isn't asking if Christianity is the primary faith in the US.

Hope that's clear.

[ace's n 8's]

To clarify, the question isn't asking if Christianity is the primary faith in the US.

Hope that's clear.The U.S. is NOT a Christian faithed nation, nor was it ever intended to be.

[Paperback Writer]

Certainly your Declaration and Constitution provided for a Christian foundation as it is based on Judeo-Christian premise, but you are not a Christian nation in the least.

Without Christianity there would be no United States in existence.

[Paperback Writer]

To clarify, the question isn't asking if Christianity is the primary faith in the US.

Hope that's clear.

You were the product of Christianity and without Christianity you would not exist. You are not a Christian nation, however.

How that plays out over the next few decades is predictable given your lack of solidifying tradition. Without religion we cling to the last vestige of human tradition in the UK which is why we're rallying culturally in the last 4 years. I think, unfortunately, it will be subverted and a blip on the path to wherever the bankers wish us to go.

[Common Sense]

You were the product of Christianity and without Christianity you would not exist. You are not a Christian nation, however.

How that plays out over the next few decades is predictable given your lack of solidifying tradition. Without religion we cling to the last vestige of human tradition in the UK which is why we're rallying culturally in the last 4 years. I think, unfortunately, it will be subverted and a blip on the path to wherever the bankers wish us to go.

All of Western Civilization is sort of a product of Christianity. That being said, if Christianity didn't exist, something else would have filled the void. I don't know how much different the world would be today.

[PolWatch]

The national religion is money and power. We worship those more than any traditional religious icon.

[Mister D]

Chef Obvious stirring the pot...:grin:

[Captain Obvious]

Chef Obvious stirring the pot...:grin:

Shush

[Peter1469]

Yes. You can't separate Christianity from our nation. It isn't possible. That doesn't mean that you need to be a Christian to live here. It is just a cultural fact that the US is a Christian nation.

[Mister D]

The national religion is money and power. We worship those more than any traditional religious icon.

We're officially Calvinist? :shocked:

[Captain Obvious]

We're officially Calvinist? :shocked:

Calvin Klienists

[Common Sense]

Saying the US is a Christian nation is like saying Disneyland is a Christian theme park.

[Polecat]

Some of the values of Christians of that era made it into the law. Society itself was the police force. But at no time has this nation ever been Christian.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Far from it.

[Captain Obvious]

Saying the US is a Christian nation is like saying Disneyland is a Christian theme park.

http://www.designbygemini.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/16.jpg

[PolWatch]

To be a Christian nation, wouldn't we have to be a theocracy?

[Paperback Writer]

All of Western Civilization is sort of a product of Christianity. That being said, if Christianity didn't exist, something else would have filled the void. I don't know how much different the world would be today.

Quite different. Look at the non-Christian nations in modernity. India, for example, or the KSA. They've got technology and yet their society is stymied by class and gender-based denominators that are a direct offshoot of their religions.

I'm agnostic but I've not caught on to the hostility in western liberalism for Christianity. It was critical to our better results. The abolition movement was entirely led by Christians and Christian thinkers. The SBLC was the catalyst and heart of the American Civil Rights movement. The "better angels", as Lincoln so aptly put it came at a direct appeal to the Christian conscience of Americans.

Too often agnostics refuse to see Christianity's contributions to secular humanism, for those philosophers without their own foundations in a Judeo-Christian culture could not have extrapolated their positions.

I would continue but you see my point.

[Chris]

Christian society, predominantly; secular state.

[ace's n 8's]

Quite different. Look at the non-Christian nations in modernity. India, for example, or the KSA. They've got technology and yet their society is stymied by class and gender-based denominators that are a direct offshoot of their religions.

I'm agnostic but I've not caught on to the hostility in western liberalism for Christianity. It was critical to our better results. The abolition movement was entirely led by Christians and Christian thinkers. The SBLC was the catalyst and heart of the American Civil Rights movement. The "better angels", as Lincoln so aptly put it came at a direct appeal to the Christian conscience of Americans.

Too often agnostics refuse to see Christianity's contributions to secular humanism, for those philosophers without their own foundations in a Judeo-Christian culture could not have extrapolated their positions.

I would continue but you see my point.You have more bullshit than a farmers field, I guess the important part here is that you believe it.

[Peter1469]

To be a Christian nation, wouldn't we have to be a theocracy?

Not at all. It is cultural. Not political.

[Polecat]

Not at all. It is cultural. Not political.

It WAS cultural.

[Paperback Writer]

You have more bullshit than a farmers field, I guess the important part here is that you believe it.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfppslG65J1qgcsdbo1_400.jpg


Sock puppet say wot?

[Common Sense]

Quite different. Look at the non-Christian nations in modernity. India, for example, or the KSA. They've got technology and yet their society is stymied by class and gender-based denominators that are a direct offshoot of their religions.

I'm agnostic but I've not caught on to the hostility in western liberalism for Christianity. It was critical to our better results. The abolition movement was entirely led by Christians and Christian thinkers. The SBLC was the catalyst and heart of the American Civil Rights movement. The "better angels", as Lincoln so aptly put it came at a direct appeal to the Christian conscience of Americans.

Too often agnostics refuse to see Christianity's contributions to secular humanism, for those philosophers without their own foundations in a Judeo-Christian culture could not have extrapolated their positions.

I would continue but you see my point.

I don't think there is something inherent in Christianity that led to the success of Europe. I think it was a combination of factors. I'm not hostile to Christianity or the fact that it has been a cultural foundation. I just think it could have easily been neo paganism, Judaism or even a western interpretation of Islam. Perhaps the Roman Empire would still be in existence.

Certainly the world would be a much different place, but I don't think we would be in the dark ages.

[Paperback Writer]

I don't think there is something inherent in Christianity that led to the success of Europe. I think it was a combination of factors. I'm not hostile to Christianity or the fact that it has been a cultural foundation. I just think it could have easily been neo paganism, Judaism or even a western interpretation of Islam. Perhaps the Roman Empire would still be in existence.

Certainly the world would be a much different place, but I don't think we would be in the dark ages.

I've not said it led to the success of Europe as success is subjective. I've said that it led precisely where you are now. We all would have looked much different without it.

There are some who feel China is a "success" and certainly with the Islamic revolution in progress, there are those in this world who feel that those values are correct and Yemen is a "success".

What I said is that we in the west are where we are now, with the culture we have precisely because of Christianity, not in spite of it.

[ace's n 8's]

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfppslG65J1qgcsdbo1_400.jpg


Sock puppet say wot?Get off the sock shit, punk

[ace's n 8's]

I've not said it led to the success of Europe as success is subjective. I've said that it led precisely where you are now. We all would have looked much different without it.

There are some who feel China is a "success" and certainly with the Islamic revolution in progress, there are those in this world who feel that those values are correct and Yemen is a "success".

What I said is that we in the west are where we are now, with the culture we have precisely because of Christianity, not in spite of it.Been misinformed lately, have you?

[Paperback Writer]

Get off the sock shit, punk

I've not said it before, hence your commentary is erroneous unless you are a sock, "punk". Course Philly Rabbit uses "punk" where others do not, perhaps you ought make friends with him that way you can both criticise me at length.

Oh, I do so love to be criticised by those less intelligent.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m27qa2dJtB1qc353v.gif

[Common Sense]

I've not said it led to the success of Europe as success is subjective. I've said that it led precisely where you are now. We all would have looked much different without it.

There are some who feel China is a "success" and certainly with the Islamic revolution in progress, there are those in this world who feel that those values are correct and Yemen is a "success".

What I said is that we in the west are where we are now, with the culture we have precisely because of Christianity, not in spite of it.

It's actually a fascinating idea. What would the world be like without the rise of Christianity? So many things may have been different. The rise of Christianity played a role in the demise of the Roman Empire. Where would we be now if there had been no dark ages?

Certainly we are where we are due to Christianity. To a lesser extent we are where we are due to the rise of Islam as well.

[Matty]

It is not christian. You aren't allowed to say God, show a picture of Jesus, put a tree or a crèche in the public square or say merry Christmas. If you do the atheists crawl out of the woodwork and you are forced to remove them. We are a nation of bitter controlling atheists.

[Matty]

It is not christian. You aren't allowed to say God, show a picture of Jesus, put a tree or a crèche in the public square or say merry Christmas. If you do the atheists crawl out of the woodwork and you are forced to remove them. We are a nation of bitter controlling atheists.
Christianity is the least tolerated religion in America.

[Polecat]

Christianity is the least tolerated religion in America.

Try not to beat people over the head with a cross so much. It will help.

[Common Sense]

It is not christian. You aren't allowed to say God, show a picture of Jesus, put a tree or a crèche in the public square or say merry Christmas. If you do the atheists crawl out of the woodwork and you are forced to remove them. We are a nation of bitter controlling atheists.

http://northofboston.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Christmas-Tree-Market-Square.jpg

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/135570855-nativity-scene-on-the-town-common-with-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=HtsyrPJh%2FrLXIhOBe3S85c4EGsu59RKLecYL4aBX64w%3D

God, Jesus, merry Christmas.

[Calypso Jones]

Chef Obvious stirring the pot...:grin:

oh yes.

t'is the season to be jolly, Troll lol lol lol lol, lol lol lol lol

[Common Sense]

Christianity is the least tolerated religion in America.

...and yet it's the only one with a government sanctioned holiday.

[Matty]

...and yet it's the only one with a government sanctioned holiday.
Which the cockroach atheists hypocritically " take off" roflmao.

[nic34]

There is a reason God, Jesus and Christianity is not mentioned in any Official founding documents.

[Common Sense]

LOL...cockroach.

[Matty]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/18/atheists-move-halts-christmas-tradition-in-santa-monica-churches-go-to-court-to/



and l there are thousands more just like it.

[ace's n 8's]

I've not said it before, hence your commentary is erroneous unless you are a sock, "punk". Course Philly Rabbit uses "punk" where others do not, perhaps you ought make friends with him that way you can both criticise me at length.

Oh, I do so love to be criticised by those less intelligent.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m27qa2dJtB1qc353v.gifYou claim yourself to be intelligent, where as I find you only to be highly ''opinionated'', without a hint of factually based assertions.

[ace's n 8's]

There is a reason God, Jesus and Christianity is not mentioned in any Official founding documents.
You good sir,, are informed

[Matty]

You claim yourself to be intelligent, where as I find you only to be highly ''opinionated'', without a hint of factually based assertions.


He he is very talented in leftist talking points.

[Chris]

There is a reason God, Jesus and Christianity is not mentioned in any Official founding documents.


Why? I have my understanding of it, but what's yours?

[ace's n 8's]

He he is very talented in leftist talking points.YEAH,, it didn't take to long for me to realize that shit,, gotta have at least 20,000 in every crowd to keep up with a small handful of informed people.

[Common Sense]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/18/atheists-move-halts-christmas-tradition-in-santa-monica-churches-go-to-court-to/



and l there are thousands more just like it.

Thousands? I frankly don't care if they use public land, but I can see the argument against it.

Would you like the same public lands used for a Muslim display?

[nic34]

but you are not a Christian nation in the least.

Agreed.

[nic34]

Why? I have my understanding of it, but what's yours?

In order to not favor ANY religion.

[Polecat]

In order to not favor ANY religion.

Funny part is it was intended towards different flavors of Christianity at first.

[Matty]

Thousands? I frankly don't care if they use public land, but I can see the argument against it.

Would you like the same public lands used for a Muslim display?
Hey! You can't a Christian prayer in our schools but the muslims get their footpaths so!

[Bob]

To clarify, the question isn't asking if Christianity is the primary faith in the US.

Hope that's clear.

I wish you had been clear since clearly you confused many who reply.

The country is called a Christian nation merely due to numbers. The government is no religion.

But the public for the most part are Christians. Therefor, i said yes.

There is research on this by the way which i have bothered to study.

Matter of fact, by far, the dominant religion are the Catholics.

[nic34]

Thousands? I frankly don't care if they use public land, but I can see the argument against it.

Would you like the same public lands used for a Muslim display?

Seems the city will be saving money just ending the argument altogether.

[Common Sense]

Hey! You can't a Christian prayer in our schools but the muslims get their footpaths so!

Footpaths?

[Chris]

In order to not favor ANY religion.

Because government and anything is dangerous, religion, business, what have you.

[Bob]

I prefer not to judge the country by the fact the Government bears no religion. Most working for government are members of some christian church. Has Obama now rejected the christian church democrats claimed he attends?

[Polecat]

Because government and anything is dangerous, religion, business, what have you.

Or one guy with billions of dollars.

[Common Sense]

I wish you had been clear since clearly you confused many who reply.

The country is called a Christian nation merely due to numbers. The government is no religion.

But the public for the most part are Christians. Therefor, i said yes.

There is research on this by the way which i have bothered to study.

Matter of fact, by far, the dominant religion are the Catholics.

Protestants outnumber Catholics in the US by a ratio of 2/1.

[Bob]

Because government and anything is dangerous, religion, business, what have you.

In the days of the founders, they established government to not harm the citizens, in fact the 10 amendments were to protect citizens more than ordinary.

These days, Government is created in the image of Democrats who by design set up government as your ruler. They BS when they claim they are for freedom.

Pretty soon, expect them to take over your internet.

[Bob]

Protestants outnumber Catholics in the US by a ratio of 2/1.

I am corrected.

Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Religion in the United States is characterized by a diversity of religious beliefs and practices. Various religious faiths have flourished, as well as perished, in the United States. A majority of Americans report that religion plays a "very important" role in their lives, a proportion unique amongdeveloped countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-pewreligion-2)The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-pew2012-1) According to the American Religious Identification Survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_Secularism_in_Society_a nd_Culture#American_Religious_Identification_Surve y_.28ARIS.29) (ARIS) of 2008, 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, with 51% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant or unaffiliated, and 25% professing Catholic beliefs.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-ARIS2008-3)[4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-uscensus2012-4)

Wikipedia

[ace's n 8's]

In the days of the founders, they established government to not harm the citizens, in fact the 10 amendments were to protect citizens more than ordinary.

These days, Government is created in the image of Democrats who by design set up government as your ruler. They BS when they claim they are for freedom.

Pretty soon, expect them to take over your internet.Good post

[Bob]

Or one guy with billions of dollars.

They don't have billions of dollars in most cases. A huge line of credit most likely backed up with vast stock holdings.

To obtain money is to perform service or sell goods at a staggering rate and employ at times into the hundreds of thousands of workers.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Polecat]

They don't have billions of dollars in most cases. A huge line of credit most likely backed up with vast stock holdings.

To obtain money is to perform service or sell goods at a staggering rate and employ at times into the hundreds of thousands of workers.

Nothing wrong with that.

Yup, George Soros is a sweet heart ain't he?

[Chris]

In the days of the founders, they established government to not harm the citizens, in fact the 10 amendments were to protect citizens more than ordinary.

These days, Government is created in the image of Democrats who by design set up government as your ruler. They BS when they claim they are for freedom.

Pretty soon, expect them to take over your internet.


I follow till you say Dems because both Dems and Reps are for the most part statists.


In addition to amendments prhibiting government, religion and other social institutions stand between us and government.

[Common Sense]

I am corrected.

Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Religion in the United States is characterized by a diversity of religious beliefs and practices. Various religious faiths have flourished, as well as perished, in the United States. A majority of Americans report that religion plays a "very important" role in their lives, a proportion unique amongdeveloped countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-pewreligion-2)The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-pew2012-1) According to the American Religious Identification Survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_Secularism_in_Society_a nd_Culture#American_Religious_Identification_Surve y_.28ARIS.29) (ARIS) of 2008, 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, with 51% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant or unaffiliated, and 25% professing Catholic beliefs.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-ARIS2008-3)[4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-uscensus2012-4)

Wikipedia

...but you said you had done research????

[texan]

Our founders based it on Christian principles and this is a Christian Nation no doubt. Doesn't matter how many times the people in this thread try to rewrite history.

[donttread]

Are our principles, values, governance based on Christianity or are we a secular nation free to practice the faith of our choosing?

Simple yes or no.

Poll is non-public.

NO! Hence the separation of church and state

[Common Sense]

Our founders based it on Christian principles and this is a Christian Nation no doubt. Doesn't matter how many times the people in this thread try to rewrite history.

They actually based the country on Enlightenment principles.

[Polecat]

They actually based the country on Enlightenment principles.

The church of Satan.

[Chris]

They actually based the country on Enlightenment principles.

Enlightened principles of limited government. We're far from that now.

[donttread]

They actually based the country on Enlightenment principles.


Some of them were Deist

[Calypso Jones]

Some of them were Deist

that's funny for people to argue that. Do you know what a deist is. It's probably not what you think it is. They believe in God but that he has created and now sits back to watch how we screw it up.

[ace's n 8's]

Some of them were DeistThat is 100% correct, some of them were.

[Common Sense]

that's funny for people to argue that. Do you know what a deist is. It's probably not what you think it is. They believe in God but that he has created and now sits back to watch how we screw it up.

They believe in "nature's god", but they reject religious dogma. They believe in reason. Locke, Hume etc...

[ace's n 8's]

They actually based the country on Enlightenment principles.Would you care to explain that?

[ace's n 8's]

They believe in "nature's god", but they reject religious dogma.Also 100% correct.


They believe in reason. Locke, Hume etc...They wholeheartedly believed in the sense ''INDIVIDUALITY''.

[kilgram]

Enlightened principles of limited government. We're far from that now.
It is relative.

The Liberals of the Enlightenment had very different opinions in many aspects like Hume, Smith and one that I've forgotten the fucking name that Chomsky makes a lot of references to him. A German one.

I am terrible with names :(

[Chris]

that's funny for people to argue that. Do you know what a deist is. It's probably not what you think it is. They believe in God but that he has created and now sits back to watch how we screw it up.

Right, no personal God, no, as Johnny Cash sings, personal Jesus, whom they, like Jefferson, considered a great moral philosopher like Socrates. But back then, Christians and Deists got along, there was little contention.

[Calypso Jones]

They believe in "nature's god", but they reject religious dogma. They believe in reason. Locke, Hume etc...

If that were the case why did most of them fund bible disbursements to schools and Indians. In particular your head Deist Thomas Jefferson.

Partial List:

John Adams

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESThe general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN1)
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.2 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN2)
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.3 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN3)
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!4 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN4)
I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.5 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN5)

John Quincy Adams
SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION” My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.6 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN6)
The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” .7 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN7)
In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.8 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN8)

[I]Samuel Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; “FATHER OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION”; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTSI . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.9 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN9)
The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither the righteous flee and are safe [Proverbs 18:10]. Let us secure His favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at length receive us to a better.10 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN10)
I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace.11 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN11)

He also called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . .

the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind.12 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN12)
we may with one heart and voice humbly implore His gracious and free pardon through Jesus Christ, supplicating His Divine aid . . . [and] above all to cause the religion of Jesus Christ, in its true spirit, to spread far and wide till the whole earth shall be filled with His glory.13 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN13)
with true contrition of heart to confess their sins to God and implore forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Savior.14 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN14)


Josiah Bartlett
MILITARY OFFICER; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRECalled on the people of New Hampshire . . . to confess before God their aggravated transgressions and to implore His pardon and forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ . . . [t]hat the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ may be made known to all nations, pure and undefiled religion universally prevail, and the earth be fill with the glory of the Lord.15 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN15)

Gunning Bedford
MILITARY OFFICER; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; FEDERAL JUDGETo the triune God – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost – be ascribed all honor and dominion, forevermore – Amen.16 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN16)

Elias Boudinot
PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINTLet us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.17 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN17)

A letter to his daughter:
You have been instructed from your childhood in the knowledge of your lost state by nature – the absolute necessity of a change of heart and an entire renovation of soul to the image of Jesus Christ – of salvation through His meritorious righteousness only – and the indispensable necessity of personal holiness without which no man shall see the Lord [Hebrews 12:14]. You are well acquainted that the most perfect and consummate doctrinal knowledge is of no avail without it operates on and sincerely affects the heart, changes the practice, and totally influences the will – and that without the almighty power of the Spirit of God enlightening your mind, subduing your will, and continually drawing you to Himself, you can do nothing. . . . And may the God of your parents (for many generations past) seal instruction to your soul and lead you to Himself through the blood of His too greatly despised Son, Who notwithstanding, is still reclaiming the world to God through that blood, not imputing to them their sins. To Him be glory forever!18 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN18)
For nearly half a century have I anxiously and critically studied that invaluable treasure [the Bible]; and I still scarcely ever take it up that I do not find something new – that I do not receive some valuable addition to my stock of knowledge or perceive some instructive fact never observed before. In short, were you to ask me to recommend the most valuable book in the world, I should fix on the Bible as the most instructive both to the wise and ignorant. Were you to ask me for one affording the most rational and pleasing entertainment to the inquiring mind, I should repeat, it is the Bible; and should you renew the inquiry for the best philosophy or the most interesting history, I should still urge you to look into your Bible. I would make it, in short, the Alpha and Omega of knowledge.19 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN19)

Jacob Broom
LEGISLATOR; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION
A letter to his son, James, attending Princeton University:
I flatter myself you will be what I wish, but don’t be so much flatterer as to relax of your application – don’t forget to be a Christian. I have said much to you on this head, and I hope an indelible impression is made.20 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN20)
Charles Carroll
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; U. S. SENATOROn the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.21 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN21)
Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2d day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer.22 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN22)
I, Charles Carroll. . . . give and bequeath my soul to God who gave it, my body to the earth, hoping that through and by the merits, sufferings, and mediation of my only Savior and Jesus Christ, I may be admitted into the Kingdom prepared by God for those who love, fear and truly serve Him.23 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN23)

Congress, 1854The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.24 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#FN24)

Go to Wallbuilders: quotes by founding fathers on God, Jesus, Christianity to see the whole list of ACTUAL quotes. Well here. On second thought maybe I'd better find the exact link for anyone who still believes the public school propaganda because they wouldn't be able to find it on their own.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

[Common Sense]

Would you care to explain that?

Well, one could write a thesis on it...but briefly, elements of the Constitution borrow heavily from Enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Montesquieu. Ideas like checks and balances, innocent until proven guilty, the idea of consent of the people, natural rights and the separation of church and state.

[Chris]

It is relative.

The Liberals of the Enlightenment had very different opinions in many aspects like Hume, Smith and one that I've forgotten the fucking name that Chomsky makes a lot of references to him. A German one.

I am terrible with names :(

Hume and Smith were friends. I don't follow Chomsky, not even in linguistics. Kant? Hume influenced him.

[ace's n 8's]

If that were the case why did most of them fund bible disbursements to schools and Indians. In particular your head Deist Thomas Jefferson.Is that a fact,, or just your opinion?

[Calypso Jones]

Well, one could write a thesis on it...but briefly, elements of the Constitution borrow heavily from Enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Montesquieu. Ideas like checks and balances, innocent until proven guilty, the idea of consent of the people, natural rights and the separation of church and state.

oh come on....you can do it. Give it a shot.

[Chris]

Well, one could write a thesis on it...but briefly, elements of the Constitution borrow heavily from Enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Montesquieu. Ideas like checks and balances, innocent until proven guilty, the idea of consent of the people, natural rights and the separation of church and state.

Yes, basically the idea of framing a government around contention, rather than the modern day desire for compromise.

[Common Sense]

If that were the case why did most of them fund bible disbursements to schools and Indians. In particular your head Deist Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was far from head deists. He didn't even identify himself as a Deist. He was influenced by deism, that can be seen in his interpretation of the bible where he removed all the "miracles".

[Ethereal]

It's hard to separate the founding of the USA from the culture of Christianity that pervaded American society at the time.

[Common Sense]

It's hard to separate the founding of the USA from the culture of Christianity that pervaded American society at the time.

Which was more influential, Enlightenment thought, or Christianity? Which had a greater influence on the founding documents and principles?

[Calypso Jones]

Jefferson was far from head deists. He didn't even identify himself as a Deist. He was influenced by deism, that can be seen in his interpretation of the bible where he removed all the "miracles".

you're changing your mind now or do you simply have to resort to word games.

Define deist.

[Max Rockatansky]

Are our principles, values, governance based on Christianity or are we a secular nation free to practice the faith of our choosing?

Simple yes or no.

Poll is non-public.

I put yes since the vast majority of our Founders and current citizens are Christian, but our government was designed to be and should remain secular.

Is Thailand a Buddhist nation? Yes, since most Thais are Buddhist but its government is a Constitutional Monarchy.

England? Christian nation at 59%, but it also has a state religion of Anglicanism even though only about 20% of Englanders are Anglican.

While many European, and American, moral principles are founded in Christianity and many of our leaders are Christian, that doesn't mean our government should recognize Christianity above all other religions. In fact, the Constitution prevents that from happening.

[Max Rockatansky]

you're changing your mind now or do you simply have to resort to word games.

Define deist.
Believes in God but not a personal God as many modern Christians tend to believe. Meaning God is aware of us, knows what will happen, but doesn't interfere with our lives.

I lean that way myself. God doesn't answer prayers for red bicycles.

[Common Sense]

you're changing your mind now or do you simply have to resort to word games.

Define deist.

How am I changing my mind???

Look to a dictionary if you're confused.

[Mister D]

Which was more influential, Enlightenment thought, or Christianity? Which had a greater influence on the founding documents and principles?

The "Enlightenment", such as it was, occurred in the context of a Christian society. That was neither accident nor coincidence.

[sachem]

To clarify, the question isn't asking if Christianity is the primary faith in the US. Hope that's clear.Nope. You asked two different questions. Is our government based on Christian principles? and Are we free to practice whichever religion we choose? Those are the questions in the OP. The actual poll question is different.

[Common Sense]

The "Enlightenment", such as it was, occurred in the context of a Christian society. That was neither accident nor coincidence.

The Enlightenment occurred despite Christianity. It sprung for philosophers, guilds and coffee houses or France and then it spread. The church fought tooth and nail against it.

[Common Sense]

The "Enlightenment", such as it was, occurred in the context of a Christian society. That was neither accident nor coincidence.

Your pal Joseph Marie, Comte de Maistre was one of the ones who fought against it...

[Ethereal]

Which was more influential, Enlightenment thought, or Christianity? Which had a greater influence on the founding documents and principles?

Many enlightenment ideals had a basis in Christian theology, so it's not that simple.

[Mister D]

The Enlightenment occurred despite Christianity. It sprung for philosophers, guilds and coffee houses or France and then it spread. The church fought tooth and nail against it.

This isn't about the church which, btw, became a center of humanist thought in the Latin countries by the 15th Century.

The Enlightenment sprang from men steeped in over 1000 years of Christianity and it occurred at least in part because of Christianity. You already admitted as much so I'm not sure why you've suddenly become resistant to the idea. For example, do you think the intellectuals of that time woke up one day and thought "hey, I'm an individual!"

[Mister D]

Many enlightenment ideals had a basis in Christian theology, so it's not that simple.

Precisely.

[Mister D]

Your pal Joseph Marie, Comte de Maistre was one of the ones who fought against it...

I would have too. not sure what your point is.

[Common Sense]

Many enlightenment ideals had a basis in Christian theology, so it's not that simple.

An argument can be made for that. A lot are based on Greek philosophies as well.

Which ideals do you think have specific connections to Christianity?

[Mister D]

An argument can be made for that. A lot are based on Greek philosophies as well.

Which ideals do you think have specific connections to Christianity?

Individualism for one which permeates all of western society.

[Common Sense]

I would have too. not sure what your point is.

Well that you contend that Christianity, the Chruch or the culture of Christianity was instrumental to the Enlightenment. I'm merely stating that many in the Church fought against it.

[Common Sense]

Individualism for one which permeates all of western society.

I'm not disputing it, but where specifically in the bible do they talk about individualism?

[Ethereal]

An argument can be made for that. A lot are based on Greek philosophies as well.

Which ideals do you think have specific connections to Christianity?

Things like free will and self-determination.

[Polecat]

I'm not disputing it, but where specifically in the bible do they talk about individualism?

Mostly throughout the Old Testament. It is spoken of being "stiff necked", prideful, vain, rebellious.

[Common Sense]

Things like free will and self-determination.

Plato and Socrates touched on Free Will....

[Redrose]

Certainly your Declaration and Constitution provided for a Christian foundation as it is based on Judeo-Christian premise, but you are not a Christian nation in the least.

Without Christianity there would be no United States in existence.


I agree with Paperback Writer The Founding Fathers based our Constitution on the tenets of the Judeo/Christian Bible as is used in Great Britian. The Anglican Church is the Church of England, with the Monarch as the head of the Church. References to God and country are peppered all thoughout the British Royal oath. They also based our judicial system on the British legal system. The FF used that basis for our new country. The religions of the FF were many, several Protestant sects, Catholic, so it was decided not to assign one particilar faith as the faith of the land, hence freedom of religion. I believe they assumed, incorrectly, that our population would always be Christian/Judeo with no major influx of Eastern religions. They also assumed immigrants would assimilate to our American culture not try to change America to their customs.

[Alyosha]

An argument can be made for that. A lot are based on Greek philosophies as well.

Which ideals do you think have specific connections to Christianity?


Greek philosophies such as misogyny and slavery were clearly present in the founding of the country, certainly. Is that the sort of thing we're looking for here?

:)

Of course we're not a Christian nation. Ask any Pakistani villager.

[Mister D]

Well that you contend that Christianity, the Chruch or the culture of Christianity was instrumental to the Enlightenment. I'm merely stating that many in the Church fought against it.

Common, the point is that the Enlightenment did not occur in a vacuum. It happened in a Christian society rather than a pagan society, a Jewish society, a Muslim society, a Hindu society...well I'm sure you catch my drift. It was infused with Christian ways of thinking about human life. Progress is another value that has Christian roots.

[Alyosha]

Plato and Socrates touched on Free Will....

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, there is only 1 real reference to it in the dialogue of Protagoras and that is abstract. The ancients believed that your fate was designed before you were born or at your birth.


Good read if you're into this type of thing.

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Origins-Ancient-Thought/dp/0520272668/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402586602&sr=1-1&keywords=Michael+Frede+A+Free+Will+Origins+of+the+ Notion+in+Ancient+Thought

[Mister D]

Greek philosophies such as misogyny and slavery were clearly present in the founding of the country, certainly. Is that the sort of thing we're looking for here?

:)

Of course we're not a Christian nation. Ask any Pakistani villager.

Ouch

[Polecat]

I agree with @Paperback Writer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=862) The Founding Fathers based our Constitution on the tenets of the Judeo/Christian Bible as is used in Great Britian. The Anglican Church is the Church of England, with the Monarch as the head of the Church. References to God and country are peppered all thoughout the British Royal oath. They also based our judicial system on the British legal system. The FF used that basis for our new country. The religions of the FF were many, several Protestant sects, Catholic, so it was decided not to assign one particilar faith as the faith of the land, hence freedom of religion. I believe they assumed, incorrectly, that our population would always be Christian/Judeo with no major influx of Eastern religions. They also assumed immigrants would assimilate to our American culture not try to change America to their customs.

What you're missing is the fact that Free Masons formed a country in a land that was occupied by Christians. With that in mind they played to their audience.

[Chris]

I agree with Paperback Writer The Founding Fathers based our Constitution on the tenets of the Judeo/Christian Bible as is used in Great Britian. The Anglican Church is the Church of England, with the Monarch as the head of the Church. References to God and country are peppered all thoughout the British Royal oath. They also based our judicial system on the British legal system. The FF used that basis for our new country. The religions of the FF were many, several Protestant sects, Catholic, so it was decided not to assign one particilar faith as the faith of the land, hence freedom of religion. I believe they assumed, incorrectly, that our population would always be Christian/Judeo with no major influx of Eastern religions. They also assumed immigrants would assimilate to our American culture not try to change America to their customs.


A Constitution that failed to mention God? Preachers at the time thought the failure would bring about the end of the world. Madison, Jefferson and others were condemned from the pulpit for leaving God out. What tenets?

[Redrose]

Pakistani villiger, oh yes. In NYC hailed we a cab with a Danish relative to go back to Long Island. She told him in English with a heavy Danish accent where we needed to go. He goes up to midtown from the village and starts to follow the signs to the Holland Tunnel to New Jersey. The exact opposite direction. We (foreigners) were heading for a $300 cab ride. In my strongest NY accent I told him to go to the 59th Bridge toward Long Island. Right away he started apologizing saying "oh sorry, sorry, you New York, you New York".
We got to LI in 20 minutes. Many of these immigrants come to to take advantage of people here.

[Mister D]

I'm not disputing it, but where specifically in the bible do they talk about individualism?


There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


Galatians 3:28. I don't have time for a bible study but modern individualism as well as the ideal of equality come directly from the Christian belief in the equality of all souls before God and a man's persoal relationship with is maker. The latter gained impetus with Protestantism.

[Chris]

Galatians 3:28. I don't have time for a bible study but modern individualism as well as the ideal of equality come directly from the Christian belief in the equality of all souls before God and a man's persoal relationship with is maker. The latter gained impetus with Protestantism.

From which protestantism, Enlightened Deism follows with its impersonal God, individualists who replaced faith with reason.

[Alyosha]

Galatians 3:28. I don't have time for a bible study but modern individualism as well as the ideal of equality come directly from the Christian belief in the equality of all souls before God and a man's persoal relationship with is maker. The latter gained impetus with Protestantism.

People tend to raise the Greeks and Romans because they hear "Democracy" and "Republic" and forget that those concepts of democracy and republic were only for free men and in most cases free men who were property owners. The Greeks were one of the most misogynistic cultures of the ancient world, surprising considering that Athena was the patron saint of the world's first democracy, but there's that ambiguity again.

I'd remind those that idealize them too much to ask themselves were the slaves of the Greek and Roman nobility "free"? Slavery only became abolished because of Christians pushing their values on others and reminding people repeatedly that slavery was unChristian.

Did the Greeks or Romans believe we were in charge of our own fate and destiny? Even Julius Caesar worshiped the goddess Fortuna, first, as he believed she had command of his life.

[Polecat]

A Constitution that failed to mention God? Preachers at the time thought the failure would bring about the end of the world. Madison, Jefferson and others were condemned from the pulpit for leaving God out. What tenets?
The preachers were right as it turns out. It has taken a few hundred years of slow maneuvering but if your eyes work you can see that for yourself.

[Chris]

The preachers were right as it turns out. It has taken a few hundred years of slow maneuvering but if your eyes work you can see that for yourself.

Yes, in many ways that's true, albeit a few hundred years off the mark.

[Polecat]

People tend to raise the Greeks and Romans because they hear "Democracy" and "Republic" and forget that those concepts of democracy and republic were only for free men and in most cases free men who were property owners. The Greeks were one of the most misogynistic cultures of the ancient world, surprising considering that Athena was the patron saint of the world's first democracy, but there's that ambiguity again.

I'd remind those that idealize them too much to ask themselves were the slaves of the Greek and Roman nobility "free"? Slavery only became abolished because of Christians pushing their values on others and reminding people repeatedly that slavery was unChristian.

Did the Greeks or Romans believe we were in charge of our own fate and destiny? Even Julius Caesar worshiped the goddess Fortuna, first, as he believed she had command of his life.

The Greeks lusted for knowledge. Any kind of knowledge. For them it was a religion. The quest for knowledge and attainment of god status through knowledge has been at the root mankind's struggles since the beginning.

[Alyosha]

A Constitution that failed to mention God? Preachers at the time thought the failure would bring about the end of the world. Madison, Jefferson and others were condemned from the pulpit for leaving God out. What tenets?

Jefferson wasn't at the convention which created the Constitution because he didn't think it was needed. In the Declaration he mentioned God.

[Chris]

People tend to raise the Greeks and Romans because they hear "Democracy" and "Republic" and forget that those concepts of democracy and republic were only for free men and in most cases free men who were property owners. The Greeks were one of the most misogynistic cultures of the ancient world, surprising considering that Athena was the patron saint of the world's first democracy, but there's that ambiguity again.

I'd remind those that idealize them too much to ask themselves were the slaves of the Greek and Roman nobility "free"? Slavery only became abolished because of Christians pushing their values on others and reminding people repeatedly that slavery was unChristian.

Did the Greeks or Romans believe we were in charge of our own fate and destiny? Even Julius Caesar worshiped the goddess Fortuna, first, as he believed she had command of his life.


Indeed, classical Greek democracy was nothing like the modern popular one. And many, like Plato, were against even the uprise of their aristocratic version.

[Chris]

It's my understanding that the notion of rule of law, where all, including the king, are subject to the same laws, comes from Judaism.

[donttread]

You can find the basis for our most basic of our laws in virtually any religion or society including stone age cultures

[Green Arrow]

There is no such thing as a "Christian" nation. We are, however, inarguably established on Judeo-Christian ethics.

[Chris]

Jefferson wasn't at the convention which created the Constitution because he didn't think it was needed. In the Declaration he mentioned God.

Yes, I know, but people knew he and Madison corresponded. Condemnation as atheists came when he ran for President.


Declaration mentions Creator which refers to the earlier Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. Very Deist.

[Alyosha]

You can find the basis for our most basic of our laws in virtually any religion or society including stone age cultures

Define "our most basic of laws" please.

[Polecat]

Define "our most basic of laws" please.

Treat others as you would have them treat you. Covers just about everything.

[southwest88]

All of Western Civilization is sort of a product of Christianity. That being said, if Christianity didn't exist, something else would have filled the void. I don't know how much different the world would be today.

(My bold)

No, the Greeks & Romans (& others, even in the West) long predate Christianity. You can argue that Christianity's desacralization of the World & the endless quest for power/dominance in Europe led to the incessant squabbling among nearly evenly matched forces that in Britain eventually led to inclusive politics & economics. (See Why nations fail : the origins of power, prosperity and poverty / Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. The making of prosperity and poverty : how prosperity and poverty are determined by the incentives created by institutions, and how politics determines what institutions a nation has.)

[Chris]

Treat others as you would have them treat you. Covers just about everything.

Natural law, that, shares by most all peoples, cultures, you couldn't have had division of labor, specialization and trade without trust in that to maintain reputation. But what about posited law, even the notion of the state, which was probably non-existent in stone-age cultures.

[southwest88]

...
What I said is that we in the west are where we are now, with the culture we have precisely because of Christianity, not in spite of it.

(My bold)

Provisionally, yes - but of course there were other forces @ work too. The spice trade brought Chinese inventions - printing, gunpowder, glasses, pasta, paper, ceramics - a nearly endless list. Greece & Rome were factors, as well as the Phoenicians, Carthage, Islam (they preserved a lot of Greek & Roman literature, in originals & in translation), Jews, the adoption of agriculture, domesticated animals. Basically, history on the template of the Tigris-Euphrates valley, with all that went with it. There was also an endless movement of tribes & peoples into & across Europe, & the pressures that put upon the existing peoples in the areas where the newcomers moved in.

[Chris]

(My bold)

No, the Greeks & Romans (& others, even in the West) long predate Christianity. You can argue that Christianity's desacralization of the World & the endless quest for power/dominance in Europe led to the incessant squabbling among nearly evenly matched forces that in Britain eventually led to inclusive politics & economics. (See Why nations fail : the origins of power, prosperity and poverty / Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. The making of prosperity and poverty : how prosperity and poverty are determined by the incentives created by institutions, and how politics determines what institutions a nation has.)


Nations fail because they try to create and manage social institutions. Look at the damage done to economies, religions, and other natural social orders.

[Peter1469]

Nations fail because they try to create and manage social institutions. Look at the damage done to economies, religions, and other natural social orders.

That is what people do.

I will let you know when they decide to go nationless. :shocked:

[southwest88]

If that were the case why did most of them fund bible disbursements to schools and Indians. In particular your head Deist Thomas Jefferson.

Partial List:

John Adams

...


David Barton & Wallbuilders? I don't have time to read all the errata sheets. He typically improves or simply fabricates quotes to suit his purpose. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author)

Who else have you got?

[Mister D]

Natural law, that, shares by most all peoples, cultures, you couldn't have had division of labor, specialization and trade without trust in that to maintain reputation. But what about posited law, even the notion of the state, which was probably non-existent in stone-age cultures.

Louis Dumont argued for a distinction between ancient natural law and the modern conception of such. In the ancient conception, a social order in harmony with the state of nature provides the ideal beginning point for any theory of positive law. It presupposes man's social nature. In the modern (Thomist) conception, "natural law does not involve social beings but individuals i.e. men each of whom is self-sufficient, as made in the image of God and as the repository of reason".

[Chris]

That is what people do.

I will let you know when they decide to go nationless. :shocked:

Yes, for a brief, failing time. Social institutions like family, religion, economy predate government. And it's not people generally, but an elite few central planners who think they know better.

[donttread]

There is no such thing as a "Christian" nation. We are, however, inarguably established on Judeo-Christian ethics.

Muslim ethics and the ethics of many stone aged tribes were similar. It turns out that certain basic laws are fundamental to society

[southwest88]

Nations fail because they try to create and manage social institutions. Look at the damage done to economies, religions, and other natural social orders.

(My bold)

Why nations fail argues that it's the nature of the political & economic basis of nations that makes them fail or thrive. They make a compelling case - Argentina, for instance, looked much more promising than the US @ the moment of their inception. But Argentina fell into worse & worse economic/political arrangements, because it made more sense for the political elite to place a stranglehold on the economics of the country. & so they ensured their own place @ the head of a rapidly deteriorating polity, instead of working to raise everyone's standard of living. Even still today, the elites of Argentina would rather shuffle the deck furniture on the Titanic, rather than implement policies that would eventually save them all.

It's a worthwhile read, one I recommend.

[ace's n 8's]

After viewing the Poll results, I will need to say that there are 5 uninformed forum members on this site.

[Chris]

(My bold)

Why nations fail argues that it's the nature of the political & economic basis of nations that makes them fail or thrive. They make a compelling case - Argentina, for instance, looked much more promising than the US @ the moment of their inception. But Argentina fell into worse & worse economic/political arrangements, because it made more sense for the political elite to place a stranglehold on the economics of the country. & so they ensured their own place @ the head of a rapidly deteriorating polity, instead of working to raise everyone's standard of living. Even still today, the elites of Argentina would rather shuffle the deck furniture on the Titanic, rather than implement policies that would eventually save them all.

It's a worthwhile read, one I recommend.


Rather it speaks to man's nature being incapable of being knowledgeable and reasonable enough to design, manage and otherwise centrally plan social institutions.

I'll take a look at the book. For you I recommend some Hayek.

[texan]

John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

[ace's n 8's]

John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

Can you say ''Koran''

[Chris]

"If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists." ~Geo Washington

[southwest88]

Rather it speaks to man's nature being incapable of being knowledgeable and reasonable enough to design, manage and otherwise centrally plan social institutions.

I'll take a look at the book. For you I recommend some Hayek.

(My bold)

I'll take a look, but it won't be soon. There's lots of stuff on the list right now.

[donttread]

Define "our most basic of laws" please.

Don't murder, don't steal, don't assault people. Just some examples

[Chris]

Don't murder, don't steal, don't assault people. Just some examples

Ask Alyosha about NAP.

[donttread]

Ask @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) about NAP.

NAP? I assume your not referring to what I did after thanksgiving dinner?

[Chris]

NAP? I assume your not referring to what I did after thanksgiving dinner?

LOL, no, Non-Aggression Principle. Encompasses your list, the golden and silver rules, etc.

[Common Sense]

LOL, no, Non-Aggression Principle. Encompasses your list, the golden and silver rules, etc.

The Golden Rule predates Christianity by close to 2000 years.

[Chris]

The Golden Rule predates Christianity by close to 2000 years.

Right, it's fairly universal. Earliest man engaged in trade, you can't do that without trusting cooperation.

[Paperback Writer]

The Golden Rule predates Christianity by close to 2000 years.

And then it was promptly lost to legalistic religions such as that of the Jews, Romans, and later Muslims. Of the remaining religions of the world only 3 remain which adhere to that rule: Christianity, modern wicca (some branches) and some forms of Buddhism.

Is it any wonder that when Rome adopted Christianity it's practitioners went from unbathing hippy/pikey types to those who could pay tithe. It really was an unusual religion for its time, even among other mystery religions.

It doesn't get credit for its uniqueness or beauty because of our own familiarity to it and sometimes our loathing of its adherents. We often look away from what is nearest to us for truth because we're bored with what we know.

I thought America would be some answer for me, and it wasn't. Then I thought a trip across South Asia would do me good, and to an extent that helped because the more I was away from England and Scotland the more I realised how beautiful and rich places they were. I walked quite a bit through rabid atheism cos my experience with Christianity was all the neutered experience of the Church of England. It wasn't until I went to Africa and experienced Christian Churches there that I picked up the Bible and read through the Gospels again for meaning.

I still don't believe in the Holy Trinity so i can't be a Christian, but I am a great fan of Jesus.

[Polecat]

Right, it's fairly universal. Earliest man engaged in trade, you can't do that without trusting cooperation.

You also can't ignore that trade gave rise to great empires. And great empires grow until they collapse. Shake & repeat.

[donttread]

The Golden Rule predates Christianity by close to 2000 years.

Likely by more than that in tribal cultures

[donttread]

Ask @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) about NAP.

OK , Alyosha , how does Non Aggression Policy work?

[Mister D]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, there is only 1 real reference to it in the dialogue of Protagoras and that is abstract. The ancients believed that your fate was designed before you were born or at your birth.


Good read if you're into this type of thing.

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Origins-Ancient-Thought/dp/0520272668/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402586602&sr=1-1&keywords=Michael+Frede+A+Free+Will+Origins+of+the+ Notion+in+Ancient+Thought

This is a good point. We sometimes say such and such philosopher mentioned this or that and ignore popular piety or what everyday religion was actually like.

[Chris]

You also can't ignore that trade gave rise to great empires. And great empires grow until they collapse. Shake & repeat.

Trade didn't do that, trade is essentially cooperative. Creation of the state did, the notion that instead of trading property, some could take it by coercive force. Based on violence, if for no other reason, the state is bound to fail.

[Peter1469]

Trade didn't do that, trade is essentially cooperative. Creation of the state did, the notion that instead of trading property, some could take it by coercive force. Based on violence, if for no other reason, the state is bound to fail.

And be replaced by another state....

[Chris]

And be replaced by another state....

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

[Polecat]

Trade didn't do that, trade is essentially cooperative. Creation of the state did, the notion that instead of trading property, some could take it by coercive force. Based on violence, if for no other reason, the state is bound to fail.

Trade creates wealth. Wealth sparks ambitions. Ambitions breed control freaks. Control freaks wreck it from there. You point your finger at the state but can't see that without trade a state would never occur. It has always been a vicious cycle with humanity.

[Chris]

Trade creates wealth. Wealth sparks ambitions. Ambitions breed control freaks. Control freaks wreck it from there. You point your finger at the state but can't see that without trade a state would never occur. It has always been a vicious cycle with humanity.


For most of man's existence trade has existed without the state. Most primitive tribal societies, thought they trade, resist the state.

It's not trade that's the problem, even with ambition for wealth, if you limit yourself to trade, you gain what you value only in exchange for what others value. As Adam Smith put it: "Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of." It's ambition for power, over others, that creates the problem, the state.

[Adelaide]

I do not think the US is a Christian nation and I do not think it's what the founding fathers would have truly wanted.

[Peter1469]

I do not think the US is a Christian nation and I do not think it's what the founding fathers would have truly wanted.

It isn't in the sense that people must be Christian or go to church or anything like that.

It is in the sense that you can't remove the influence that Christianity has had in shaping Western society.

[Polecat]

For most of man's existence trade has existed without the state. Most primitive tribal societies, thought they trade, resist the state.

It's not trade that's the problem, even with ambition for wealth, if you limit yourself to trade, you gain what you value only in exchange for what others value. As Adam Smith put it: "Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of." It's ambition for power, over others, that creates the problem, the state.

Prosperity will always be targeted. If not by a state then by marauders. Just how it is. If you can freeze time in an era you like then you have omnipotent power above any state that has existed.

[Chris]

Prosperity will always be targeted. If not by a state then by marauders. Just how it is. If you can freeze time in an era you like then you have omnipotent power above any state that has existed.

There's really no difference between the state and marauders. The state is just that, though some seem to have romanticized notions of it.

I don't want to freeze time but let things evolve, naturally.

[Polecat]

There's really no difference between the state and marauders. The state is just that, though some seem to have romanticized notions of it.

I don't want to freeze time but let things evolve, naturally.
Well sit back and enjoy the ride. Things have evolved naturally to right where we are. And they will continue to do so. South America is littered with the ruins of what was not too long ago great civilizations that arose from simple trading. Same with the rest of the planet. Your dream of free trade is like a broken clock. It is right twice a day. The rest of the time it is not. I don't disagree with your philosophy's merit, I'm just saying it is not possible to maintain it.

[Bob]

I do not think the US is a Christian nation and I do not think it's what the founding fathers would have truly wanted.

If you polled every American, and asked them if they either
A. Believe Jesus lived on earth and is our savior, or B
B. Jesus is a myth

You would get well into the 75 percent range who believes in Jesus.

Government clearly is not any religion in the USA

The public however is.

[ace's n 8's]

If you polled every American, and asked them if they either
A. Believe Jesus lived on earth and is our savior, or B
B. Jesus is a myth

You would get well into the 75 percent range who believes in Jesus.

Government clearly is not any religion in the USA

The public however is.That's correct, the U.S. does not have a 'legal' religion, nor does the U.S. have a 'legal' language.

[Chris]

Well sit back and enjoy the ride. Things have evolved naturally to right where we are. And they will continue to do so. South America is littered with the ruins of what was not too long ago great civilizations that arose from simple trading. Same with the rest of the planet. Your dream of free trade is like a broken clock. It is right twice a day. The rest of the time it is not. I don't disagree with your philosophy's merit, I'm just saying it is not possible to maintain it.


The state is not natural. It is designed and centrally planned. That's what's got us into this mess. The majority of tribes in South America resisted the state, only a few adopted it--see Pierre Clastres' anthropological study Society against the State.

The notions of maintaining and free market are contradictory. When you try to maintain it, manage it, manipulate it, control it, design it, is when it fails. The communists tried to do that in the Soviet Union.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Polecat http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=857750#post857750)
Trade creates wealth. Wealth sparks ambitions. Ambitions breed control freaks. Control freaks wreck it from there. You point your finger at the state but can't see that without trade a state would never occur. It has always been a vicious cycle with humanity.


For most of man's existence trade has existed without the state. Most primitive tribal societies, thought they trade, resist the state.

It's not trade that's the problem, even with ambition for wealth, if you limit yourself to trade, you gain what you value only in exchange for what others value. As Adam Smith put it: "Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of." It's ambition for power, over others, that creates the problem, the state.

While i hate leaping into the middle of such statements without having read hundreds of prior statements, so be it.

Some look at trade as A engages with B for good X.

Trade is much more complex in the USA.

A engages B is fine on a tiny island or a village in Africa, but where you can interact with thousands on one item, it fails.

I pencil explains it very well.

I shall conclude my comments then post the link.

Trade of Apples for Eggs engages not only the owner of the apples, but his many workers. The egg producer's workers are also dismissed.

But the employment produced adds many multiples to trade. Worker A at the egg ranch uses cash for clothes. Those trades are not mentioned nor are trades resulting in a home for workers and so forth.
IMPress Polly and even Alyosha have a false idea of how this economy works as do most posters. I say most posters since I see a lot of disagreement. If we agreed, we could perhaps convert most to understanding economics.

They understand them getting a paycheck since that is their life experience. They know nothing about producing a full blown company able to employ thousands. The idea that the company produces so much prosperity for tens of thousands is totally out of their minds.

They see some fat cat whom they assume has green eyes and a desire to rob them. When we buy products at the stores, is that what we think of the clothing industry or the home industry or the auto industry?

They fight each other using legal completion to attract us to their products. That new car smell you enjoy is part of the package. They probably test all glues used to find out customer reaction to the glues. How long can they keep your new car smelling new?

Commerce tries to sell you peaches by an attractive display. You don't find them in gunny sacks at the store, they are handsomely displayed.

I can go on all day long but the mesage of I pencil is it takes thousands merely to make your ordinary pencil with the eraser.

So many fail in business when they try because they fail to understand the actual nature of commerce and approach it as if the public owes them a living. Sooner or later the public sends them the message, other commerce pleases me, you do not please me, thus go fail.

I was watching a presentation of how the malls we grew up with are in decline. Stores we loved so much lost out to the internet. Even the top malls are being forced to totally change or they too will be eliminated.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

Let me present some of it to get you started. But the entire piece must use the link.

I, Pencil
My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. ReadRP.1

I am a lead pencil—the ordinary wooden pencil familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can read and write.* (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html#note1)RP.2

Writing is both my vocation and my avocation; that's all I do.RP.3

You may wonder why I should write a genealogy. Well, to begin with, my story is interesting. And, next, I am a mystery—more so than a tree or a sunset or even a flash of lightning. But, sadly, I am taken for granted by those who use me, as if I were a mere incident and without background. This supercilious attitude relegates me to the level of the commonplace. This is a species of the grievous error in which mankind cannot too long persist without peril. For, the wise G. K. Chesterton observed, "We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders."RP.4

I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that's too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple.RP.5

Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. This sounds fantastic, doesn't it? Especially when it is realized that there are about one and one-half billion of my kind produced in the U.S.A. each year.

[Max Rockatansky]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Now you understand. The Human Race, as a species, is insane.

[Chris]

Now you understand. The Human Race, as a species, is insane.

I've read scientists who seriously see us as a devolutionary digression. I doubt anything will miss us when we're gone.

[IMPress Polly]

Either this nation is secular or I've been breaking the law my whole life.

[ace's n 8's]

Either this nation is secular or I've been breaking the law my whole life.The Government is secular, the nation is not.

[Chris]

Just a thought here on those (including me) saying the nation or the society or the people are religious: Realize that that is a theoretical, statistical construct, iow, the majority are Christian, which can be broken down into all sorts of denominations, and--and this is key--the minority are everything under the sun including agnostic and atheist (like me, again).

Perhaps it's better to say the people are free to be religious, of any sort, or not at all, as their conscience dictates.

[Peter1469]

We aren't talking about individual religious views, Chris.

We are talking about society. The culture.

[Chris]

We aren't talking about individual religious views, Chris.

We are talking about society. The culture.



As was I, peter, as a society we are free to be religious, of any sort, or not at all. To abstract some statistical majority and say we are thus religious is to enter into theory land.

[Peter1469]

As was I, peter, as a society we are free to be religious, of any sort, or not at all. To abstract some statistical majority and say we are thus religious is to enter into theory land.

Point, completely over your head again.

[Polecat]

Now you understand. The Human Race, as a species, is insane.

Survival and perpetuation is on the the top of the list for every species on this planet except us. Our "civilization" allows us to put greed and avarice on the top. And most do that whether they realize it or not.

[Chris]

Survival and perpetuation is on the the top of the list for every species on this planet except us. Our "civilization" allows us to put greed and avarice on the top. And most do that whether they realize it or not.

That's what I was getting at above when I used devolve, though that's not the right word, evolving toward self-destruction is a better way to put it. I prefer the word materialism, we put that above all else. Which harkens back to we have "progressed" technologically but not morally.

[Polecat]

That's what I was getting at above when I used devolve, though that's not the right word, evolving toward self-destruction is a better way to put it. I prefer the word materialism, we put that above all else. Which harkens back to we have "progressed" technologically but not morally.

After looking a bit how the ancients behaved it is hard to say we have evolved at all. To my eyes it looks just like the exact same treadmill we still run. Technology today is synonymous with magic 3000 years ago. Same results different label.

[Chris]

There are a number of people here who would agree. Technology makes our lives better off, easier, healthier, safer, but can also be used for violence and war.

[Polecat]

Double edged sword. Use it for good to gain the support of the unwashed masses. Once we become dependent on it the other side of the blade comes to light.

[southwest88]

There are a number of people here who would agree. Technology makes our lives better off, easier, healthier, safer, but can also be used for violence and war.

(My bold)

Yah, technology is merely instrumental: It can be used for whatever human purpose. The problem - as noted earlier - is that we've progressed tremendously in technical achievements - agriculture, math, writing, science & technology - but our moral & ethical frameworks have barely budged in 1500 years.

Certainly if our moral/ethical achievements had kept pace with our technological development, we'd be near-angels by now. Yah, we need a moral genius, the ethical equivalent of a Stephen Hawking, or Descartes, or Newton or ...

Unless, of course, you actually need suffering, poverty, disease, etc. in order to generate an ethical genius. A fertilizer or a hothouse environment, more or less, for more refined ideals to blossom. Kinda like how all the mainstream religions seem to rise in deserts, not in penthouses among the perfumed princes. Something to think about, I suppose.

[Chris]

(My bold)

Yah, technology is merely instrumental: It can be used for whatever human purpose. The problem - as noted earlier - is that we've progressed tremendously in technical achievements - agriculture, math, writing, science & technology - but our moral & ethical frameworks have barely budged in 1500 years.

Certainly if our moral/ethical achievements had kept pace with our technological development, we'd be near-angels by now. Yah, we need a moral genius, the ethical equivalent of a Stephen Hawking, or Descartes, or Newton or ...

Unless, of course, you actually need suffering, poverty, disease, etc. in order to generate an ethical genius. A fertilizer or a hothouse environment, more or less, for more refined ideals to blossom. Kinda like how all the mainstream religions seem to rise in deserts, not in penthouses among the perfumed princes. Something to think about, I suppose.


As I said, "but can also be used for violence and war."

Socrates and Jesus were moral geniuses.

[Peter1469]

And yet Humans are on course for the Moon, Mars and beyond. Yes we are imperfect. That is life.