The Un-Christian America

[Polaris]

The treaties with the North African nations, I take with a grain of salt on their authenticity (as in the terms and language used) because it just seemed like a way to avoid a conflict we ended up getting involved with about five years later.

[libalchris]

They could have done that without specifically saying "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." And it was ratified unanimously. If it was a cop-out to avoid conflict, you'd think at least one person would have fought against it.

[Alternate]

(7th May 2012 23:05)DeeTee Wrote:  

Quote:America is still, culturally, christian.

I would disagree with that statement. One just has to read the news media to get a different perspective on what the nation is .

Do you get off on contradicting yourself or something? I've heard you state many times that America is a Christian country.

---

(18th May 2012 23:17)Polaris Wrote:  The treaties with the North African nations, I take with a grain of salt on their authenticity (as in the terms and language used) because it just seemed like a way to avoid a conflict we ended up getting involved with about five years later.

Oh, right. Since you deem a legally binding treaty to be worth a grain of salt, the treaty is invalid.

GUYS! Listen up! Polaris will now be deciding all American treaties from now until the end of eternity, because he is more competent than all of the (old-timey, and therefore not shitty and full of fundies yet) American government.

---

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion. . ."

Yeah. Christians just lost. That was ratified unanimously by the entire then-congress, which included many founding fathers. Face it, fundies, Faux News lied to you. The founding fathers were mostly deists, agnostics, or atheists. They didn't found a Christian country, they founded a secular country, and Christians are an un-American, moral-corrupting plague which presently infests this once-powerful land and are driving it into the ground as I type.

[Polaris]

(19th May 2012 02:08)Aegrus Wrote:  

(7th May 2012 23:05)DeeTee Wrote:  I would disagree with that statement. One just has to read the news media to get a different perspective on what the nation is .

Do you get off on contradicting yourself or something? I've heard you state many times that America is a Christian country.

---

(18th May 2012 23:17)Polaris Wrote:  The treaties with the North African nations, I take with a grain of salt on their authenticity (as in the terms and language used) because it just seemed like a way to avoid a conflict we ended up getting involved with about five years later.

Oh, right. Since you deem a legally binding treaty to be worth a grain of salt, the treaty is invalid.

GUYS! Listen up! Polaris will now be deciding all American treaties from now until the end of eternity, because he is more competent than all of the (old-timey, and therefore not shitty and full of fundies yet) American government.

---

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion. . ."

Yeah. Christians just lost. That was ratified unanimously by the entire then-congress, which included many founding fathers. Face it, fundies, Faux News lied to you. The founding fathers were mostly deists, agnostics, or atheists. They didn't found a Christian country, they founded a secular country, and Christians are an un-American, moral-corrupting plague which presently infests this once-powerful land and are driving it into the ground as I type.

Since when does "take with a grain of salt" mean the same as saying something is "worth a grain of salt?"

I was just suspicious of the reasons behind it. On whether they were actually honest about their intentions since governments tend to be so honest /sarcasm.

[Moros Synackaon]

(19th May 2012 04:03)Polaris Wrote:  Since when does "take with a grain of salt" mean the same as saying something is "worth a grain of salt?"

Because you mention this:

(19th May 2012 04:03)Polaris Wrote:  I was just suspicious of the reasons behind it. On whether they were actually honest about their intentions since governments tend to be so honest /sarcasm.

Which implies that, based on your characterization of long-dead men's honesty, said treaty was passed disingenuously and thus is an illegal, unjust legislation.

You can't have it both ways -- playing victim while suggesting precisely that the Treaty of Tripoli was passed in a way that invalidates such via intention et al.

[Polaris]

(19th May 2012 19:00)Moros Synackaon Wrote:  

(19th May 2012 04:03)Polaris Wrote:  Since when does "take with a grain of salt" mean the same as saying something is "worth a grain of salt?"

Because you mention this:

(19th May 2012 04:03)Polaris Wrote:  I was just suspicious of the reasons behind it. On whether they were actually honest about their intentions since governments tend to be so honest /sarcasm.

Which implies that, based on your characterization of long-dead men's honesty, said treaty was passed disingenuously and thus is an illegal, unjust legislation.

You can't have it both ways -- playing victim while suggesting precisely that the Treaty of Tripoli was passed in a way that invalidates such via intention et al.

I never said it was an illegal legislation, but it was unjust to the North African nations because it was a way of creating a false security for those nations against potential conflict with the United States. I just have to question the intentions of agreements between two parties that end up fighting a few years later. This has much more to do with politics than it has really anything to do with religion.

[Moros Synackaon]

(19th May 2012 19:10)Polaris Wrote:  I just have to question the intentions of agreements between two parties that end up fighting a few years later.

Of course you have to "question" it. What is that going to accomplish?

(19th May 2012 19:10)Polaris Wrote:  This has much more to do with politics than it has really anything to do with religion.

And what does that mean?

[Polaris]

(19th May 2012 22:13)Moros Synackaon Wrote:  

(19th May 2012 19:10)Polaris Wrote:  I just have to question the intentions of agreements between two parties that end up fighting a few years later.

Of course you have to "question" it. What is that going to accomplish?

(19th May 2012 19:10)Polaris Wrote:  This has much more to do with politics than it has really anything to do with religion.

And what does that mean?

It means religion does not matter in this case on the side of the United States (it obviously mattered to the Moslems because they pressed for the assurance that the US would not use Christianity as a means to go to war with the Moslems). They just wanted to avoid a conflict so they said what the potential adversary wanted to hear. It's just politics.

[kılıç_mehmet]

(18th May 2012 23:17)Polaris Wrote:  The treaties with the North African nations, I take with a grain of salt on their authenticity (as in the terms and language used) because it just seemed like a way to avoid a conflict we ended up getting involved with about five years later.

Well, so did our ancestors, friend. Read the memoirs of the famous Turkish corsair Barbarossa. The moors have always been untrustworthy allies, but not due to their moslem religion, but due to their fierce tribal associations, and love for loot and plunder.

[Justtristo]

Robert M Price observed a lot of Americans (including those who call themselves Evangelical Christians) actually subscribe to the civic religion of Americanism first and anything else second.

Indeed these people would be shocked if they understood what the New Testament actually preaches, such as total submission to all types of government (including dictatorships). Not to mention being required to pray for all leaders (including the President and certain congressional leaders).