Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet the founders state it over and over again and even clarify WHERE they are getting those principals. Read the quotes.
If you want to contest as you seem to claim to be, please provide me with some quotes and the original sources as I have done for you.
our form of government is a continual work in progress.. it is designed as such.. by the founding fathers.. while chrisitan principles are in our history.. it does not reflect the principles of the society that exists today.. we were given a system that is able to bend with change.. to ensure freedoms and liberties.. with a multicultural society... there is NO WAY for the governemnt to endorse any religious doctrine, NOT while they are taking taxes from people who do not believe in that endorsed religious doctrine.. that is merely the same state in which the puritans were in while in england.. thus causing them to flee...
don't you think there are certain implied logics here? if you fail to realize it.. then I guess that's your prerogative...
fair enough.. lets endorse christian principles.... which christian faith will it be?
*chuckle* Those are doctrines you speak of. The same thing Jefferson was talking about where you get your "separation of church and state" claim.
The founders refer to the bible, not doctrines. They protect the people from doctrines. That is how to worship, what ways, and at what times. Those are doctrinal aspects. Also, since the government has no power to enforce, it means little in terms of power.
Thou shall not kill, steal, covet thy neighbors wife, etc... are all basic moral guides. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and so on. Those and many of the teachings of Christ few if any would rebel against.
Those are the strong moral guides we send to our government in hopes that it continues to protect the people under those moral teachings.
I had a friend who was atheist. He told me he would rather live in a Christian society that holds to strong moral values than an atheist form of government and society any day. I asked him why and he said that in a society where moral values are left to the whim of man, anything can be right, any act just simply by the rule of the majority and he said frankly it scared the hell out of him.
our form of government is a continual work in progress.. it is designed as such.. by the founding fathers.. while chrisitan principles are in our history.. it does not reflect the principles of the society that exists today.. we were given a system that is able to bend with change.. to ensure freedoms and liberties.. with a multicultural society... there is NO WAY for the governemnt to endorse any religious doctrine, NOT while they are taking taxes from people who do not believe in that endorsed religious doctrine.. that is merely the same state in which the puritans were in while in england.. thus causing them to flee...
don't you think there are certain implied logics here? if you fail to realize it.. then I guess that's your prerogative...
Actually wrong. Madison stated very clearly in the Federalist No. 10 (as well as many of the founders) that a pure democracy is the bane of a successful society. He spoke of it with great fear. Even some of the time referred to it as system of the devil.
You can not trust the liberties of the people to the behavior of the mob. That is, a pure democracy. Without checks and balances, that is a system that attempts to curb the wild behavior of the mob, injustice can spread and oppress anyone who does not meet the current majorities perception.
The constitution was not meant to be a "living and changing document". Its amendments were only to "clarify" as needed, not change with the will of the people. Those protections are not protections if they can be ruled away by the moods of the mob. The founders warned us very clearly of this.
*chuckle* Those are doctrines you speak of. The same thing Jefferson was talking about where you get your "separation of church and state" claim.
The founders refer to the bible, not doctrines. They protect the people from doctrines. That is how to worship, what ways, and at what times. Those are doctrinal aspects. Also, since the government has no power to enforce, it means little in terms of power.
Thou shall not kill, steal, covet thy neighbors wife, etc... are all basic moral guides. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and so on. Those and many of the teachings of Christ few if any would rebel against.
Those are the strong moral guides we send to our government in hopes that it continues to protect the people under those moral teachings.
I had a friend who was atheist. He told me he would rather live in a Christian society that holds to strong moral values than an atheist form of government and society any day. I asked him why and he said that in a society where moral values are left to the whim of man, anything can be right, any act just simply by the rule of the majority and he said frankly it scared the hell out of him.
well lets start sending adulterers to jail... and while we're at it.. gay people.. the bible says....
you're missing the point.. I don't discredit christian principles being the driving force at the time of our nations founding.. but you cannot instill those same principles on today's society... not everyone is christian.. and not everyone believes in the bible.. so to force them to pay taxes to a government that forces their children to adhere to bible principles.. is NOT democratic...(going against the federalist No. 10 principles you tout so freely) it would have seemed democratic in their time.. because 100% of the people were christian.. and those that weren't were just burned at the stake...
the issue is... what level of endorsement is appropriate for our government? the purpose of this thread is not whether it existed.. its a matter of why should it exist in the levels people say it should.. such as prayer in school.. and teaching creationism?
are you kidding me... look up the federalist document.. it clearly talks about the government NOT being partisan...AT ALL.. what you're saying is right.. but it is in direct context to religion.. not to PROTECT religion within our governemnt.. give me a break...
look.. I use to be a church goer.. and I realize that people at the pulpits like to include historical documents of our nation into their doctrines.. in some attempt to validate themselves and their importance to america.. it just isn't true.. the kind of spin you're putting on it.. is absurd..
jefferson was a deist.. meaning he believed in a creator.. NOT necessarily christianity.. in fact many people of his time denounced him as fit for public office.. for being secular in his beliefs.... to sit here and insult everyone's intelligence by claiming what you claim about him.. is not acurate nor is it truth... you're implying way too much in an attempt to support your argument...
well lets start sending adulterers to jail... and while we're at it.. gay people.. the bible says....
you're missing the point.. I don't discredit christian principles being the driving force at the time of our nations founding.. but you cannot instill those same principles on today's society... not everyone is christian.. and not everyone believes in the bible.. so to force them to pay taxes to a government that forces their children to adhere to bible principles.. is NOT democratic... it would have seemed democratic in their time.. because 100% of the people were christian.. and those that weren't were just burned at the stake...
the issue is... what level of endorsement is appropriate for our government? the purpose of this thread is not whether it existed.. its a matter of why should it exist in the levels people say it should.. such as prayer in school.. and teaching creationism?
Because the principals are sound, you even agree to an extent.
Also, if you look at the bible at its core, man is free to live by their own choice. That is, people are free to choose or not choose Christ. The system was developed for primarily a Christian people. Most (there were some dissenters who were secularist) agreed these core principals were needed in order to insure justice among the people.
The fact that many "doctrines" attempt to attack does not discredit the teachings at the heart of the Bible. Even though a large majority were various forms of Christians, there still existed many different religions in the US at that time. Many different faiths lived under the core design of that system and flourished. Yes, some were targeted, but not by the government and not by the teachings of the government, but taken into the hands of those various groups who pushed their doctrines.
For instance, the Mormons had a very hard time due to this prejudice of the times. That again was society's influence, not the governments and even those who were persecuted by some in society still believed in the principals to which the country was founded.
People could worship as they decided to. Something that they had not been allowed to do in England.
As the founders believed, morals are needed in order to keep a sound government and society. With no moral compass, a society will crumble. A society can not support ALL religions and their practices because some are at complete odds with each other.
The Yamomamo Indians have a system of religion that specifically appoints men as absolute and superior in all ways. That is, the religion specifically points out women are nothing more than property to be discarded at will. Now you can say Christianity was the same, but the core of the Bibles teachings does not support that. Again, that was "mans" interpetation for its own benefit. A "doctrinal" belief.
So how do we respect the Yamomamo Indians when they beat and kill their women? Is this ok? Does relativistic thought justify that behavior and what authority gives you the right to claim otherwise? Would you not be infringing on their religious beliefs to refuse them of their traditions? What of their protections?
What of many other tribal religions that believe in cannibalism or have customs that dictate "right and wrong" in much different ways? As I said, in the Yamomamo Indians beliefs, the man has every right to see a woman walking down the street and he can rape her or kill her, yet he only need pay for damages if she belongs to another.
So what gives you or the government authority to dictate what religon is acceptable and what is not? Public majority? Is only the will of the mob needed to define right and wrong? What happens if that mob decides to accept principals that you feel are completely inhumane? If the mob decides that as long as a child is over the age of 12, they can be treated the same as the Yamomamo Indians believe, yet you are to be compensated, what right do you have to object? Are not the rights of people determined by the masses?
are you kidding me... look up the federalist document.. it clearly talks about the government NOT being partisan...AT ALL.. what you're saying is right.. but it is in direct context to religion.. not to PROTECT religion within our governemnt.. give me a break...
look.. I use to be a church goer.. and I realize that people at the pulpits like to include historical documents of our nation into their doctrines.. in some attempt to validate themselves and their importance to america.. it just isn't true.. the kind of spin you're putting on it.. is absurd..
jefferson was a deist.. meaning he believed in a creator.. NOT necessarily christianity.. in fact many people of his time denounced him as fit for public office.. for being secular in his beliefs.... to sit here and insult everyone's intelligence by claiming what you claim about him.. is not acurate nor is it truth... you're implying way too much in an attempt to support your argument...
You object to my use of the information, make claims of "facts", yet provide no sources yourself? By what information do you come to your conclusions and mind you, don't quote me "sites", go read the originals yourself. If you feel you are so correct in your claim, you can by all means provide me with proof of your claims, from the "originals".
I suggest putting your revisionist text books aside and start looking at the actual facts. Jefferson supported Christianity on many accounts. Those are the facts. Your claims are unsupported.
Now if you want to argue over philosphical reasoning, such as we have here and there concerning "why" morals are needed of a collective. You can do so without bringing anything to the table but your logic and reasoning.
If you want to keep claiming "facts" about the founders, I suggest you do some research at the Library of Congress. You had better quote me originals on this subject though as there is a LOT of misinformation on the subject (both sides) and some are down right forgeries.
You object to my use of the information, make claims of "facts", yet provide no sources yourself? By what information do you come to your conclusions and mind you, don't quote me "sites", go read the originals yourself. If you feel you are so correct in your claim, you can by all means provide me with proof of your claims, from the "originals".
I suggest putting your revisionist text books aside and start looking at the actual facts. Jefferson supported Christianity on many accounts. Those are the facts. Your claims are unsupported.
Now if you want to argue over philosphical reasoning, such as we have here and there concerning "why" morals are needed of a collective. You can do so without bringing anything to the table but your logic and reasoning.
If you want to keep claiming "facts" about the founders, I suggest you do some research at the Library of Congress. You had better quote me originals on this subject though as there is a LOT of misinformation on the subject (both sides) and some are down right forgeries.
One thing about "homosexuals". While the Bible does speak of it and does call it a sin, it is a sin of the flesh and one of the person to themselves. Since the Bible affords the freedom of people to choose, people can live as homosexuals if they choose. The constitution reflects this and affords people the right to choose their own lifestyle.
Adultery is a sin and under old law the sentence was death by stoning. Remember though when Jesus said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" though? The point is, the old laws were fulfilled by Christ. People now live by grace and are free to choose to accept him or not, follow his ways or not.
The morals are still taught, the punishment is not served as it once was. Still, certain moral teachings are set and those protect the people. Stealing, Murder, etc... and even freedom of choice.
I hold to no doctrine at all, only the Bible. Too many doctrines today serve man, not God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
