The End Of Christian America

[Stelakh]

Here we have the left insisting that america was never a christian nation but at the same time insisting that Christian inspiration gave the government the incentive justification to tax in order to help the poor through wealth redistribution. This is a double standard by exploiting Christianity to justify the welfare state.

They will always say: Jesus was the inspiration for charity contributions from everyone to the government. This is the liberal God state, prevalent in the early twentieth century but watch how enraged they all become when it is historically pointed out that the people of america were always predominately Christian within their Christian nation.

Something being an inspiration isn't the same as that something being what the inspiration was.

But here's the most important part of whether or not we're a Christian nation, because we're not.

I'm going to ignore the blindingly obvious arguments that you won't accept anyway because you live in an echo chamber.

But I'm going to throw this out there as irrefutable truth that the United States of America is not, has not been, will not be, and never has been a Christian nation.

To do that, I need make only one reference.

On November 4, 1796 (then in Algiers on January 3, 1797), the Treaty of Tripoli was signed between the United States of America and Tripolitania - eight years after the Consitution of the United States of America was ratified.

It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, was ratified unanimously by the United States Senate on June 7, 1797, and was signed into law by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.

Why do I keep mentioning John Adams? Because he co-wrote the Constitution, and he signed the Treaty after it was ratified by the Senate.

And the version of the treaty he signed, the one in English, contained Article 11, which reads:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, -as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The entirety of the treaty's English text was read aloud in the Senate prior to its ratification, and when signing it as President, John Adams said this:

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

So there it is. President of the United States of America, John Adams, who co-wrote the Constitution, states clearly that he accepts, ratifies and confirms every part of the treaty, which includes Article 11 that says the US "...is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

You're wrong. Again. Unless you'd like to argue with one of the men who comes right out and says you're wrong AND happens to be one of the people who wrote the Constitution.

Don't you have a challenge to accept or decline?

 

[Stelakh]

They can't have it both ways, can they lol.

All 'Christan nation' means is we are a predominantly Christian people, since a nation is a people which share a common border and the like. Secularists are threatened by that, for some reason. They're a confused and conflicted lot.

The citizenry of this nation is made up of many faiths. While it is predominantly Christian, that doesn't make it a Christian nation.

In order to be a Christian nation, we would need to be ALL Christian.

And I think you'll find it's not just secularists who may feel threatened by people who insist, incorrectly, that we are a Christian nation.

Ask a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, Shintoist, Hindu, Pagan, Wiccan, Jainists, Sikhs, Taoists, Confuscianists, Gnostics, Atheists, and other religious "ists" and you may find some of them feel threatened by those who believe we are (and/or should be) a Christian nation. And, I feel I should point out, aside from the Atheists, none of those are secular.

 

[iolo]

So your saying there must be a blend between religion and government to suppress evil capitalism for every one's benefit?

Do you understand the double standard I'm pointing out here, dear friends?

You are extraordinarily naïve. Capitalists run the Government, silly boy.

 

[evince]

history plainly shows that well fettered capitalism works great

 

[Stelakh]

Secularists are threatened by that, for some reason. They're a confused and conflicted lot.

I wanted to handle this particular comment separately, because it seems like you're trying to indicate that non-Christians in this country (secularists and people of other religions) don't have a reason to be concerned about the Christian push to be a Christian nation. I don't think you are. I think you understand full well why people are concerned by that, and are just playing devil's advocate, there. But just in case, and for those who actually don't understand it, here comes a somewhat long-winded post.

Human history is replete with the kind of destruction, bloodshed, bigotry, hatred, jealousy, war, persecution, death and oppression that religion has wrought since the moment one human said to themselves, "Hey, there's a bright, shining warm ball up there that lets me see and warms me up. I can't explain it, so it must be some kind of supernatural being."

It was perfectly understandable, in a time when science was utterly unknown. People didn't understand how things happened, and as a species we all struggle to understand the why of things. But "how" and "why" are two different things, and "in the beginning" we weren't capable of understanding the "how" and could only ascribe to things the "why." And if we were unable to come up with a causality that could be attributed to ourselves, then it must have meant some other person caused it.

So we made the great leap from self to deity as the causation - why did we have that earthquake? Because someone else with the power to cause earthquakes was angered by us. Not because, as we now know, techtonic plates moved and the resultant waves of energy became an earthquake.

As the years went by, people began to question and discover the "how" things worked and not just the "why."

As an example, here are "how" and "why" questions on the same subject.

How are we here? According to science, billions of years ago the conditions were right for the formation of the first organic compounds, which eventually came together to create life through the process of abiogenesis. Without going through an excruciatingly long description of the beginnings of life on earth, suffice to say that science tells us that once life began on earth, it evolved and spread, culminating in what we have today.

Why are we here? Because.

Which I admit is really an oversimplification. I'm trying to be as brief as possible, becuase this is going to be a long post, but it gets the point across, I think.

And it leads into my first point with regard to the "why" of why many people feel threatened by religion in general and Christianity in specificity when it comes to the US and claims that we're a "Christian nation."

One of the issues - especially for secularists and Atheists - is the attempt by Christians to insert the teaching of unscientific belief as scientific truth or an "alternative" to what is scientifically known. The best example is the teaching of Creationism in public schools. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have at least some schools where Creationism is taught as an alternative to science and evolution.

The trouble is that Creationism is not, despite the best efforts of some, a theory, or even a hypothesis. It's a religious belief that requires faith that someone (in this case God) simply wished or magicked the universe and everything in it into existence, and it's a belief that has been forced into science classes as an alternative "theory" for the creation of earth and the life on it, by lawsuit.

This is just one example of the religiously faithful attempting to (and succeeding in) force their beliefs into an area where they do not belong - in this case a public school science class, where what should be taught is science, not dogmatic belief that requires no evidence.

Yet another example is the flap over same-sex marriage. The entire foundation of the fight against same-sex marriage is religiously based on six scriptures in the bible.

The story of Soddom and Gemorrah in Genesis 19 refers to the threat of gang rape. If you actually read that story, no homosexual acts are committed, and the infraction is that the men of the city threaten gang rape on the angels (who were, albeit, disguised as men).

Then there's Leviticus, where God twice condemns homosexuality. But there's a sting in that tale, and it comes in Romans, where Jesus says he's here to fulfill the law (we've had this argument in another thread already, and I've made my position on what Jesus did or didn't do pretty clear there, but the argument Christians use here is negated by Romans, which Christians also use to claim the Old Testament laws are null and void, so I thought it worthwhile to mention).

It's interesting that Jesus says he's "fulfilling" the old laws but then in Romans homosexual acts are condemned again.

But that's really all there is to it. Six times homosexuality is condemned in the bible, and that has been the foundation upon which centuries of hatred, bigotry, bloodshed and murder of homosexuals have been allowed to flourish.

There are even some (remember that little ballot proposition in California last year?) who believe homosexuality should be punished by death.

Fast-forward to the Supreme Court's ruling on what really was 14th Amendment protections and not really same-sex marriage. The old religious arguments against homosexuals were used right up to the Supreme Court in order to attempt to use the Constitution as a weapon of bigotry against an entire group of people - all for those of a religious bent to condemn others while claiming to be Christian.

It's also very taboo to speak out against religion, and it shouldn't be.

Religion, while responsible for a lot of good, has also been responsible for countless acts of barbarism and violence (need I dredge up ISIS, the Crusades or Cotton Mather?), and yet any criticism of it is immediately tamped down. Even today criticism of religion can mean death (ISIS and the middle east again), but why?

The main religions, especially Christianity, has rather a LOT to say when it comes to criticizing others - at least those others who do not belong to the same religion - and that's deemed right and proper. But if someone comes out against something a religion has done or said, that someone is shouted down by a righteous and angry mob of whatever the religion may be. And then others rise up who are NOT of the same religion with the general feeling of, "Hey, you can't talk about X religion like that!"

Religion gets a lot of leeway when it comes to criticizing others, but its followers don't give any when it comes to having their religion criticized.

Faith is defined as belief without evidence. You must be willing to set aside reason and logic in order to be "fully" faithful. Many of us aren't willing to do that - I'm certainly not, and am yet still a religious person. I'm just not "blindly" religious.

And it is the blindly religious who screech the loudest, who try with all their might to insert their own beliefs into the law, who want their religion to BE law.

I could go on for many hours about exactly why (AND how) so many people are threatened by religion - especially Christianity in this country.

I have put forward just a few of the reasons, and there are so many others. Those who understand will get it. Those who do not want to understand won't.

But you are not unintelligent, so it surprises me to see you say that people feel threatened "for some reason" by Christians who claim we're a Christian nation, or demand we be so.

 

[CFM]

history plainly shows that well fettered capitalism works great

Yet you show nothing to support another claim you make.

 

[evince]

you missed the thread?


should I bump it for you

 

[philly rabbit]

Something being an inspiration isn't the same as that something being what the inspiration was.

But here's the most important part of whether or not we're a Christian nation, because we're not.

I'm going to ignore the blindingly obvious arguments that you won't accept anyway because you live in an echo chamber.

But I'm going to throw this out there as irrefutable truth that the United States of America is not, has not been, will not be, and never has been a Christian nation.

To do that, I need make only one reference.

On November 4, 1796 (then in Algiers on January 3, 1797), the Treaty of Tripoli was signed between the United States of America and Tripolitania - eight years after the Consitution of the United States of America was ratified.

It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, was ratified unanimously by the United States Senate on June 7, 1797, and was signed into law by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.

Why do I keep mentioning John Adams? Because he co-wrote the Constitution, and he signed the Treaty after it was ratified by the Senate.

And the version of the treaty he signed, the one in English, contained Article 11, which reads:



The entirety of the treaty's English text was read aloud in the Senate prior to its ratification, and when signing it as President, John Adams said this:



So there it is. President of the United States of America, John Adams, who co-wrote the Constitution, states clearly that he accepts, ratifies and confirms every part of the treaty, which includes Article 11 that says the US "...is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

You're wrong. Again. Unless you'd like to argue with one of the men who comes right out and says you're wrong AND happens to be one of the people who wrote the Constitution.

Don't you have a challenge to accept or decline?

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

- John Adams

 

[USFREEDOM911]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

- John Adams

THAT'S going to leave a mark

 

[Stelakh]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

- John Adams

Here's the actual quote:

TO THE OFFICERS OF THE FIRST BRIGADE OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE MILITIA OF MASSACHUSETTS. 11 October, 1798. GENTLEMEN,

I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier. General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted.

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

An address from the officers commanding two thousand eight hundred men, consisting of such substantial citizens as are able and willing at their own expense completely to arm and clothe themselves in handsome uniforms, does honor to that division of the militia which has done so much honor to its country.

Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.

Taken in context, and if you know anything about Adams, you'll know that he was in fact using "morality" and "religion" as synonyms. If you actually read the back and forth between Adams and the militia, you'll see it was quite clear that he was in fact talking about fidelity to the country, not to religion.

But let's run with it, shall we?

Show me in your incomplete quote where he said the United States of America is, had been or ever would be a Christian nation, because THAT is your argument. You ARE aware that there's more than one religion, right? And that at the time Adams was working on the Treaty of Tripoli with Muslims whom he did not wish to piss off. Right?

You're wrong. Again.

Don't you have a challenge to accept or decline?

THAT'S going to leave a mark

You're wrong too, as usual. Not even a scratch.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Here's the actual quote:



Taken in context, and if you know anything about Adams, you'll know that he was in fact using "morality" and "religion" as synonyms. If you actually read the back and forth between Adams and the militia, you'll see it was quite clear that he was in fact talking about fidelity to the country, not to religion.

But let's run with it, shall we?

Show me in your incomplete quote where he said the United States of America is, had been or ever would be a Christian nation, because THAT is your argument. You ARE aware that there's more than one religion, right? And that at the time Adams was working on the Treaty of Tripoli with Muslims whom he did not wish to piss off. Right?

You're wrong. Again.

Don't you have a challenge to accept or decline?



You're wrong too, as usual. Not even a scratch.

Scratch this ------> "...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people..."

 

[christiefan915]

Jesus' ethical or moral teachings were almost exclusively directed at the individual. The Pharisees were the only exception I can think of. Liberals who try to use Jesus' moral instruction to justify wealth distribution are guilty of hijacking scripture.

Regarding the OP: America IS becoming less Christian and increasingly secular. But as long as the majority claim to be Christian we are still a Christian nation based on that metric. America was never a Christian nation in theocratic terms; was never intended to be and never will be, because 'Christian theocracy' is an oxymoron.

The founders knew this better than our modern secular liberal friends who bristle instinctively at the phrase 'Christian nation'.

Christians who preach the so-called Prosperity Gospel are hijacking scripture.

 

[CFM]

Christians who preach the so-called Prosperity Gospel are hijacking scripture.

Those hijacking scripture are the ones that claim mandated social welfare programs by the government are in line with the teachings of Jesus.

 

[The Dude]

Religion is poison
Comes in different flavors

 

[Phantasmal]

Those hijacking scripture are the ones that claim mandated social welfare programs by the government are in line with the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus was like the government, when the crowd was hungry, he took from those that had and distributed to those who didn't have in order to feed the crowd.

Jesus didn't say anything about how it was to be achieved, he just said to feed the poor.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Jesus was like the government, when the crowd was hungry, he took from those that had and distributed to those who didn't have in order to feed the crowd.

Jesus didn't say anything about how it was to be achieved, he just said to feed the poor.

BS - Your parents must be so ashamed of how you turned out.

 

[Irish]

Social decay has finally caught up to us.

 

[Darth Omar]

The citizenry of this nation is made up of many faiths. While it is predominantly Christian, that doesn't make it a Christian nation.

In order to be a Christian nation, we would need to be ALL Christian.

And I think you'll find it's not just secularists who may feel threatened by people who insist, incorrectly, that we are a Christian nation.

Ask a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, Shintoist, Hindu, Pagan, Wiccan, Jainists, Sikhs, Taoists, Confuscianists, Gnostics, Atheists, and other religious "ists" and you may find some of them feel threatened by those who believe we are (and/or should be) a Christian nation. And, I feel I should point out, aside from the Atheists, none of those are secular.

It's a kind of pointless argument whether neither side is really wrong because 'Christian nation' isn't a formal designation: it only means we are a predominantly Christian people; we celebrate Christmas etc. Your objection [we aren't 100% Christian, therefore we aren't a Christian nation] isn't wrong so much as trite. A 100% nation of anything is an impossibility lol.

Not to mention the fact it would lack diversity and would be kind of boring.

 

[Darth Omar]

I wanted to handle this particular comment separately, because it seems like you're trying to indicate that non-Christians in this country (secularists and people of other religions) don't have a reason to be concerned about the Christian push to be a Christian nation. I don't think you are. I think you understand full well why people are concerned by that, and are just playing devil's advocate, there. But just in case, and for those who actually don't understand it, here comes a somewhat long-winded post.

The 'push' is a reaction by Christians to the secular movement: it's part and parcel to the cultural wars. Over the years SCOTUS has taken to [mis] interpreting the establishment clause at the expense of the free practice clause. It used to be that public schools could *freely* lead students in prayer; they were *free* to likewise have an opening prayer at ball games; *free* to post the Ten Commandment at court houses...you get the idea.

Little or any of his was a problem till the secularists came along, and pushed first lol. So the Christians pushed back. It's the sort of thing you'll find in a healthy democracy.

Human history is replete with the kind of destruction, bloodshed, bigotry, hatred, jealousy, war, persecution, death and oppression that religion has wrought since the moment one human said to themselves, "Hey, there's a bright, shining warm ball up there that lets me see and warms me up. I can't explain it, so it must be some kind of supernatural being."

The human government is by far and away the most ruthless and efficient killer. It's not even close.

It was perfectly understandable, in a time when science was utterly unknown. People didn't understand how things happened, and as a species we all struggle to understand the why of things. But "how" and "why" are two different things, and "in the beginning" we weren't capable of understanding the "how" and could only ascribe to things the "why." And if we were unable to come up with a causality that could be attributed to ourselves, then it must have meant some other person caused it.

So we made the great leap from self to deity as the causation - why did we have that earthquake? Because someone else with the power to cause earthquakes was angered by us. Not because, as we now know, techtonic plates moved and the resultant waves of energy became an earthquake.

As the years went by, people began to question and discover the "how" things worked and not just the "why."

As an example, here are "how" and "why" questions on the same subject.

Which I admit is really an oversimplification. I'm trying to be as brief as possible, becuase this is going to be a long post, but it gets the point across, I think.

And it leads into my first point with regard to the "why" of why many people feel threatened by religion in general and Christianity in specificity when it comes to the US and claims that we're a "Christian nation."

One of the issues - especially for secularists and Atheists - is the attempt by Christians to insert the teaching of unscientific belief as scientific truth or an "alternative" to what is scientifically known. The best example is the teaching of Creationism in public schools. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have at least some schools where Creationism is taught as an alternative to science and evolution.

The trouble is that Creationism is not, despite the best efforts of some, a theory, or even a hypothesis. It's a religious belief that requires faith that someone (in this case God) simply wished or magicked the universe and everything in it into existence, and it's a belief that has been forced into science classes as an alternative "theory" for the creation of earth and the life on it, by lawsuit.

This is just one example of the religiously faithful attempting to (and succeeding in) force their beliefs into an area where they do not belong - in this case a public school science class, where what should be taught is science, not dogmatic belief that requires no evidence.

Then I would argue they should not teach abiogenesis in public schools. If there is compelling evidence in favor of the proposition that life can self-arrange [without DNA] out of lifeless matter I have yet to see it.

Or if they want to teach it, alternative *hypotheses* should be permitted out of fairness and so one side can't rightfully accuse the other of attempting to indoctrinate public school kids with their worldview.

That's the crux of the debate.

Yet another example is the flap over same-sex marriage. The entire foundation of the fight against same-sex marriage is religiously based on six scriptures in the bible.

The story of Soddom and Gemorrah in Genesis 19 refers to the threat of gang rape. If you actually read that story, no homosexual acts are committed, and the infraction is that the men of the city threaten gang rape on the angels (who were, albeit, disguised as men).

Then there's Leviticus, where God twice condemns homosexuality. But there's a sting in that tale, and it comes in Romans, where Jesus says he's here to fulfill the law (we've had this argument in another thread already, and I've made my position on what Jesus did or didn't do pretty clear there, but the argument Christians use here is negated by Romans, which Christians also use to claim the Old Testament laws are null and void, so I thought it worthwhile to mention).

It's interesting that Jesus says he's "fulfilling" the old laws but then in Romans homosexual acts are condemned again.

But that's really all there is to it. Six times homosexuality is condemned in the bible, and that has been the foundation upon which centuries of hatred, bigotry, bloodshed and murder of homosexuals have been allowed to flourish.

There are even some (remember that little ballot proposition in California last year?) who believe homosexuality should be punished by death.

Fast-forward to the Supreme Court's ruling on what really was 14th Amendment protections and not really same-sex marriage. The old religious arguments against homosexuals were used right up to the Supreme Court in order to attempt to use the Constitution as a weapon of bigotry against an entire group of people - all for those of a religious bent to condemn others while claiming to be Christian.

At least as far as the SCOTUS ruling in Obergefell went, religion was irrelevant. In Scalia's scathing dissent, he went on about how the court over stepped its bounds in redefining marriage; how marriage was universally understood to be rooted in a man and a woman for reasons having to do with biology [procreation] and NOT religion. Scalia was also rightly miffed that the Court shut down the debate---which the gays were winning. And how that could cause resentment against the gay movement.

As far as the debate went, religion was a strawman: the fundamental question was [still is, actually] who has the power to define what a marriage is: the people via their elected representatives or the courts?

It's also taboo to speak out against religion, and it shouldn't be.

It can get you killed in a lot of places, but not in this Christian nation.

Religion, while responsible for a lot of good, has also been responsible for countless acts of barbarism and violence (need I dredge up ISIS, the Crusades or Cotton Mather?), and yet any criticism of it is immediately tamped down. Even today criticism of religion can mean death (ISIS and the middle east again), but why?

The main religions, especially Christianity, has rather a LOT to say when it comes to criticizing others - at least those others who do not belong to the same religion - and that's deemed right and proper. But if someone comes out against something a religion has done or said, that someone is shouted down by a righteous and angry mob of whatever the religion may be. And then others rise up who are NOT of the same religion with the general feeling of, "Hey, you can't talk about X religion like that!"

Religion gets a lot of leeway when it comes to criticizing others, but its followers don't give any when it comes to having their religion criticized.

Faith is defined as belief without evidence. You must be willing to set aside reason and logic in order to be "fully" faithful. Many of us aren't willing to do that - I'm certainly not, and am yet still a religious person. I'm just not "blindly" religious.

And it is the blindly religious who screech the loudest, who try with all their might to insert their own beliefs into the law, who want their religion to BE law.

I could go on for many hours about exactly why (AND how) so many people are threatened by religion - especially Christianity in this country.

I have put forward just a few of the reasons, and there are so many others. Those who understand will get it. Those who do not want to understand won't.

But you are not unintelligent, so it surprises me to see you say that people feel threatened "for some reason" by Christians who claim we're a Christian nation, or demand we be so.

We are what we are lol.

 

[iolo]

Read the Sermon on the Mount and Acts sometime, and ask whether, in that light, any of the hate-and-spite merchants who support the Republicans, for instance, could ever reasonably call themselves Christians.