Obama's America 2016

[Jonathan Whatley]

I invite you to provide evidence of your statement and say why you think that America was founded as a secular nation.

From what I've researched, that is not the case. Please note, that the following historical evidence, I've listed are just a few of the myriad of evidences.

From the very foundation:

[Colonial charters are quoted.]

Is it me or is it expansive to cite 17th century Kings of England, by or for whom the colonial charters were written, as founding fathers of the nation born of a fierce revolution against their successor?

From the Founding Fathers:

[Long list of Christian founding fathers.]

Publius, would a list of leaders of the Democratic Party who profess Christianity prove that the Democratic Party has a Christian intent for the nation? It would start at the top and I think it would include a large majority.

[Jonathan Whatley]

(continued)
From throughout the founding of the nation:

Benjamin Rush, a founding father said:

“I sat next to John Adams in Congress, and upon my whispering to him and asking him if he thought we should succeed in our struggle with Great Britain, he answered me, “Yes—if we fear God and repent of our sins.” This anecdote, will I hope, teach my boys that it is not necessary to disbelieve Christianity or to renounce morality in order to arrive at the highest political usefulness or frame.”

This is touching and well-said.

John Adams, on the day after separating from Great Britain wrote to his wife:
“[This day] will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival.”

Not only did Adams foresee this, but he also wrote to his wife in what manner it should be commemorated.
“It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

But it sounds like politically he was renouncing the colonial charters, above, in favor of the Revolution.

When Congress approved the Declaration, it appointed John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to create a draft for the seal to characterize the spirit of the new nation. Look at the two desist proposed:

Franklin suggested:
Moses lifting up his wand, and dividing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh in his chariot overwhelmed with the waters. This motto: ‘Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

Jefferson proposed:
The children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of ire by night.

So (a) Moses, author of the Torah and a prophet of all Abrahamic religions, and (b) the Israelites he led. These are outstanding historical and moral figures, and essential and integral to Christianity, I know. But they're not exclusive to Christianity and can't prove Christian intent.

October 12, 1778 Congress issued the following act:
“Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness: Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby earnestly recommend to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.”

This is a good citation, though it strikes me that "true religion" seems hard for anyone at all to disagree with.

[sanantone]

Jefferson's quote was poetic in nature. He didn't think very highly of Christianity.

[submissiongrappler]

Uh.. I guess I'll post real quick as I have some free time to kill.

A good read: America's Christian Hertiage

For many Americans, official recognition of anything is found in the Supreme Court. So what has the highest court in the land determined? In 1892, the Supreme Court declared, in a case of The Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, that America was a Christian nation from its earliest days, After examining a full range of historical documents, Associate Justice David J. Brewer concluded that Americans are "religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation." In 1931, Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland reviewed the 1892 decision and reaffirmed that Americans are a "Christian people." As late as 1952, even the liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas declared that "we are religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." In addition to writing the opinion in the Holy Trinity case, David Brewer wrote The United States: A Christian Nation, a series of lectures that were published in book form in 1905 while he was still a member of our nation's highest court. In it, Brewer reiterates the history behind the 1892 Trinity case and states clearly that America was founded as a Christian nation, as the following citations from his book indicate: "This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world."

"In the case of the Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that court, after mentioning various circumstances, add, 'these and many other matters which might be noticed, add volume of official declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.'"

"[W]e constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation - in fact, as the leading Christian nation in the world. This popular use of the term certainly has significance. It is not a mere creation of the imagination. It is not a term of derision, but has substantial basis - one which justifies its use."

"In no charter or constitution is there anything to even suggest that any other than the Christian is the religion of this country. In none of them is Mohammed or Confucius or Buddha in any manner noticed. In none of them is Judaism recognized, other than by way of toleration of its special creed. While the separation of church and state is often affirmed, there is nowhere a repudiation of Christianity as one of the institutions as well as benedictions of society. In short, there is no charter or constitution that is either infidel, agnostic, or anti-Christian. Wherever there is a declaration in favor of any religion, it is of the Christian."

"You will have noticed that I have presented no doubtful facts. Nothing has been stated which is debatable. The quotations from charters are in the archives of the several States; the laws are on the statute books; judicial opinions are taken from the official reports; statistics from the census publications. In short, no evidence has been presented which is open to question.

"I could show largely our laws and customs are based upon the laws of Moses and the teachings of Christ; how constantly the Bible is appealed to as the guide of life and the authority in questions of morals."

David Brewer's conclusion? - "This is a Christian nation."

It is what it is, as we say.


sanantone,

There have been advances in the Big Bang Theory made in quantum physics and the String Theory. It's actually pretty interesting and goes beyond the average person's understanding of the theory just because hardly anyone actually reads up on it. I'm a Christian by the way.

The improbable statement of belief that all matter that is in existence was always in existence is tantamount to the improbable statement of belief that a God that is in existence was always in existence.

b. The impossible statement of belief that matter is capable of spontaneous existence is less than tantamount to the improbable statement of belief that a God that is in existence was always in existence, being that it would defy the 1st law of Thermodynamics: {scientific specific terms} “The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.” {layman terms} Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms.

c. Presuming the improbable statement of belief that all matter in existence, which simply always existed, happened to be singularly concentrated in one location, is less probable than presuming the improbable statement of belief that all matter in existence, which simply always existed was scattered abroad an infinite vastness without concentrated location. The improbable belief of a singular specific location, as apposed to scattered location, when there is a infinite vast emptiness of equal vacuum would therefore dictate either logic, intellect, effort, and/ or work done (being that gravity could not be part of the equation (see 7g)).

d. A uni-mass would defy 2nd law of thermodynamics: Should all the matter of the universe be concentrated in one location of the universe, for the uni-mass to self destruct would dictate a severe entropy in the concentration which would self nullify its existence at all being that nothing could self generate or accumulate into a contradictory form which needs to break down. So for this belief to work in agreement with the laws of physics it would have to either gather or exist in its most base stable concentrated form or it would have to exist in its smeared out form as in 7c. It could never defy entropy to fulfill entropy. It could never gather or simply exist as a “bomb” waiting to explode.

e. Should all the matter of the universe actually explode the necessary magnitude of force would be need to be greater than half the nuclear discharge of literally every star in the universe which does exist in order to move the stars (being that stars cannot move because of their omni-directional thrust factor).

f. Should any motion have been created by this theoretical colossal force, being that the 1st law of mechanics: inertia being that “an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon an outside force, and an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.” (being that gravity could not be part of the equation (see 7g)) it would dictate that all matter in the universe would still be traveling at that colossal speed (greater than the speed of light) and no planet could be near any proximity of any star.

g. Gravity by all measures of scale and theory has a minuscule measure of force in ratio comparison being that its measurement is of force weaker than the weakest magnet of the same proportional measurement comparison. Like magnets the force decreases as the distance between objects increase.

Conclusion: Any reason of logic, unless you wish to contradict every law of thermodynamics, it is 100% impossible for there ever to be a big bang.

I remember back when I was 15 I did the mathematical calculation in regards to the big bang and the numbers just didn't add up. I'm sure there is even more evidence against it if you simply do a google search.

[Jonathan Whatley]

[Passage from the web page America's Christian Heritage, mostly quoting the 1892 Supreme Court decision in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States.]

It looks like the modern Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor, all Christian and going from fairly to arch-conservative, think the Holy Trinity case was terribly decided.

They seem to be saying the way in which 1892 Court in Holy Trinity read in their broad interpretations of history over the actual text of legislation represented "an invitation to judicial lawmaking" (Scalia), a doctrine that could "allow judges to substitute their personal predilections for the will of the Congress… so self-evident… as to require no further discussion of its susceptibility to abuse" (Kennedy joined by Rehnquist and O'Connor).

As a conservative, don't you agree with the call of Scalia, Rehnquist, and their colleagues against judges making laws, substituting "their personal predilections for the will of Congress?" Because it's pointed straight at the finding in Holy Trinity.

[OtherSyde]

...

As I said, these are just a few of the many examples that the founding of America was not just religious in general, but Christian specifically. I could go on and on, and continue to provide examples, but until someone would like to proved contrary evidence, this should suffice. I didn't even start on all the calls to prayer that States would issue, and the mountain of other evidences. You and all America can try and take this nation down whatever path you wish. However, one thing people can't do is erase our Nations heritage, our religious heritage, our Christian heritage. Many people realize they can't erase it, so they try to cover it up, hide it. Reinvent it. Anything but expose the truth about our founding. 52 of the 55 signers of Deceleration of Independence weren't just "religious" but orthodox or evangelical Christians! When was the last time a public school taught that?

Yes, I know the founding fathers were mostly religious themselves to some extent, and practiced their religion openly. However, because of the rigid nature of the regime they were escaping, they wanted to specifically avoid any "official" American religion, so they incorporated that into the Constitution. And yes, pretty much everbody in the early days of America was Christian, but strictly by choice. It was just the zeitgeist of the time. I hate copying and pasting really long quotes into posts because it quickly becomes off-putting and tl;dr for most people, so here are a few links...

Council for Secular Humanism

The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

Was America founded as a Christian nation or as a secular nation?

The Christian Nation Myth


And even if you read none of those, and even if every single one of those is wrong and America really was actually founded on Christianity, it is still meaningless today. Now America is a hugely multi-racial and mixed-religious country, not a bunch of stoic, pious white guys who basically all believe the same things. Which renders most of those things irrelevant, since nothing in religion can be proven. It was once an overwhelming majority preference, which was the only real claim it ever had, but even that is gradually fading.

One thing I'll say, is I'm just as much against blindly believing in magic as you are. I'm sure. The only thing is, I don't "blindly" believe in Christianity or God. There are sound reasons and sense to believe and if you wish, I'd be more then happy to share some of these. Let me add, that for people who believe in things such as the Big Bang and the random rise of the this universe and humanity express a much larger amount of belief in "blind magic" as you put it.

I can concur on the whole point that believing in evolution and/or string theory, Big Bang theory, etc. is just as much religion to the common man as religion itself is. Can you look at one of those insane diagrams that Steven Hawking draws and make sense of it? It just looks like mathematical/geometric jibberish to me because I'm not a physicist. So I preach what Bill Maher preaches: The Gospel of I Don't Know. Because NO ONE KNOWS. It could ALL be fake for all most of us know.

If you're in a deprivation chamber, or in an intense dream, or in some sudden natural brain-chemical-induced hallucinogenic phenomena, you can't tell the difference between being spoken to by some all-powerful cosmic deity or simply being directly spoken to by your all-powerful base urges or subconcious. No one knows. That's why we can't justify basing a government, a society, its laws, or any major world decisions on either religion or speculative fringe science.

If you would, please, explain how a people are to be moral with out guidelines? What "realistic reasons" and "motivation" are referring to?

Realistic reasons = Empathy for other humans, the cognitive awareness of their pain being caused by the same things that cause your own pain; the golden rule. Also, social functionality, ethical egoism, psychological egoism, etc. A moral compass and moral guidelines can and do easily exist without the religion part. I know this because I cringe at the thought of injuring or torturing other people, don't steal because I hate being stolen from, etc., and I have no religion to base these things on; they're just self-evident truths to any sufficiently mentally capable person. You shouldn't need some archaic superstitious instruction manual for this, or have to be motivated by a warm fuzzy feeling or by the fear of some vengeful cosmic deity shaking a parental finger at you for questioning its alleged will.

As far as reasons to believe in God and Christianity, there are probably as many reasons as there are for any other religion or scientific ideation... That is, if you're looking for some sort of "reason" behind everything, or can't accept that there may well be no reason whatsoever. That's a fundamental flaw in almost all religions: The inability to accept that everything could just as easily have happened completely by chance, that there is just as likely no reason whatsoever for our existence, and it’s just as likely that we are a lonely blip on the cosmic radar with no meaning. Not saying that we are, just pointing out that there is absolutely nothing saying that we’re not, beyond humans' inability or unwillingness to comprehend or accept the concept.

[OtherSyde]

This was a Christian nation by the simple incidence that almost everybody was Christian, not by any matter of official policy. And as far as the Holy Trinity case, how can a case like that be properly decided by a bunch of obviously-biased Christians? Of course they'll just declare it a Win for themselves. Not to mention it was the 1800's; Everyone was Christian, and just sort of accepted the ruling without comment. That would never fly today, the whole thing with a branch of the federal government declaring that America is of one certain religion, or even concerning itself with religion at all. They were way out of line, obviously, and injecting their religion into the government and legal system, which is just straight wrong any way you look at it. I'd make some remark about how that ruling should be officially overturned on some kind of keep-religion-out-of-government grounds, but at this point it's already a forgotten whisper in history itself and so obviously flawed that it can't possibly be taken seriously by any modern, rational individual.

[Jonathan Whatley]

Yes, I know the founding fathers were mostly religious themselves to some extent, and practiced their religion openly. However, because of the rigid nature of the regime they were escaping, they wanted to specifically avoid any "official" American religion, so they incorporated that into the Constitution.

This is a good point.

• The King of England was styled "George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and so forth". He was head of an established Christian church, the Church of England. Claims to Christianity were wound up with his statements and governance at every level.

• The rebels, while mostly individually Christian, adopted – I agree, not a 100% consistent and universal refusal to mention Christianity or prayer in government documents and stuff: no one's claiming this! it would be a straw man – but they adopted what was overall, and especially by comparison, a radical pluralism. The Revolution clearly disestablished religion from the state. It was clearly rooted in Enlightenment philosophy. It had at its heart thought leaders like Paine and Franklin, political leaders like Jefferson and Madison.

Kind readers: Which side do you identify with more?

[Ace_King]

*Chomps on popcorn*

o_o

[sanantone]

Did anyone look at my links? I am now convinced that most of the participants in this thread are only concerned with giving "likes" to people who tell them what they want to hear and reaffirm their beliefs than hearing the actual truth. Do I (or any of the opposition) get any "likes" for actually being right? I said that some of the founding fathers thought religion was stupid and I proved that right without any refutation from anyone else. However, the person who was wrong and couldn't spend two seconds googling the other side gets "likes." This is pure anti-intellectualism and extremely saddening for a person of reason. On another note, the Treaty of Tripoli is an interesting read, but I doubt any of you will take the time to look that up.

If you want to understand more about the Big Bang Theory, read up on the Casimir Effect and quantum fluctuation.