What do Christians Mean by "Restoe our Nation?"

[Drich]

your obviously not trying to right a wrong either.. It seems to me you want to look down your nose at the actions that put you on top in soceity, you are not willing to give up that position either by given back what was taken.

Douche

Lol...i'm an interracial working female.  I'm not "on top" of anything.

And I'm all for righting wrongs...but it doesn't follow that turning over all land rights back to the Native Americans and getting rid of everyone else is the necessarily the best way to do it.

What I do know is that I have zero interest in going back in time to the place the poster that I was responding to described.

And by the way, I wouldn't even use a douche...they're very bad for the vag.

Lead with the race card, and back it with gender, you do all 'interracial people' very proud. Here's an idea. Let your thoughts stand on their own merit, unless your specific race or mix is being discussed? what does it matter if you are one race verse another or a mix of them? and if it doesn't matter why mention race or gender at all?

You opened with your race and gender and from there it had absolutely nothing else to do with the topic other than serve as a stop sign to all who feel as if you are owed something.

As far as righting wrongs, the wrong committed was the taking of Indian lands. the land is still here, if the goal is to right the wrong, then the solution is simple and really the only one available. give the land back.

[Drich]

James Madison - who wrote the constitution -

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).

Curiously, there were no Establishment Clause case decisions by the supreme court until 1879.  So well understood was the concept of the wall between church and state early on that it took a mormon shitwit to challenge the anti-bigamy law as an infringement of his religious rights.  He lost.  Fuck him.

You are engaging in revisionist history, drippy.  And since you don't know shit about history to begin with you are on very thin ice.

If I am the revisionist then why are you cherry picking from this madison letter? why not post the whole thing? Oh, that's right it changes the meaning, and invalidates your claim.

You are a broken old fraud. Everything you post is first altered for 'propaganda correctness.'

Here is the full letter:


JAMES MADISON TO F. L. SCHAEFFER  

Montpellier, Dec. 3rd ,1821
Revd Sir,--I have received, with your letter of November 19th, the copy of your address at the ceremonial of laying the corner-stone of St Matthew's Church in New York.
It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with pure benevolence and of a cordial attachment to a particular creed, untinctured with sectarian illiberality.

(what th bold portion means: "this is a good example of people of a specific denomination, unmolested by people of other sects, and or bigoted bias/as with the state sponsored church of England squashing all non state sponcered attempts to build a different denominational church" I encourage you to look these words up and read them with fresh eyes rather than just assume you know what is being discussed.)

 It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations.

(Again here if Madison were advocating the elimination of God then why promote the ability to offer up the obligations of both God and ceasar? Clearly Madison/by mentioning the teachings of Martin luther -vs- the church of england he supports 'luthern' world view and knew of a time and or place where he could not previously express it as he Just Did! So again if Madison was advocating a Complete separation between ALL Churches and Goverment, then why did he just advocate the teaching of Martin Luther?  No, What Madison wanted was separation of the state and the church. Meaning he did not want to live nor we should live under the rule of a single state sponsored church/denomination.)

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to  political prosperity.

(The Unlined portion completely supports what I just said about his desire for a separation of a state mandated church. His own words in this letter proves that his intentions were not to take God himself out of goverment.)

In return for your kind sentiments, I tender assurances of my estaeem and my best wishes.

(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: To F. L. Schaeffer from Madison, December 3, 1821. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 242-243).

[Foxaèr]

Actually what they want are for the niggers to go to the back of the bus like the good old days.

Where I live, they like to sit in the back of the bus anyway, as though Rosa Parks accomplished absolutely nothing.

[Drich]

The treaty of tripoli:

For all who want to know was a 1797 treaty between the US and the muslim nation of Tripoli. The treaty was to pacify the government so our trade ships would stop being attacked by 'pirates.' articals 1-10 outline intent and tributes, the famous artical 11 is the one that does indeed say that the United States was not a Christian nations... The problem? we don't actually have the copy that was actually ratified in English. we only have Barlow's hand written suggestion of how the treaty should be written to pacify a Muslim nation.

But you do not have to take my word for it. Here is Purdue universities very own Frank Lambert:

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[14]

In short what we promise in a trade treaty does not mean it's national policy.

[Divinity]

No matter how fucking bad you want this to be a Christian nation, it isn't. Go move to the Vatican if you want a Christian Nation for fucks sake.

[FatAndFaithless]

Or, y'know, Uganda.

[Drich]

That's not the point. The point is, if the founding fathers had wanted the country to be governed in some religious manner, they would have explicitly included a religious test for office, or at least they would have not mentioned it at all. Instead, they explicitly said that there will not be a religious test...that's important!

Well, no.. that was the point. They did not want an official religious form of worship, yes but The artical also specifically states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

this means it is up to us when, where, how we choose to exercise our religious freedoms. This is not limited to private citizens but extends to people in public office as well. Our history is littered with examples of this. to say a government offical can not express a religious view or hold a religious right or cermony while in his office is indeed 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Literally Congress is saying you do not have the freedom to practice your religion under certain conditions.. which has been prohibited for congress to do, by the 1st amendment.

Ideally intention of this amendment is that if we elect a Methodist president, he should not have to conform to 'state sanctioned religious practices.' Meaning if his beliefs include a specific set of prayer times or ceremonial openers, to a speech pattern. then he should not be made to comply with the state mandated outline you suggested. Rather he take the time he needs to do what he need do and say what he needs to say according to his religious beliefs..

(I've watched the video, I will respond to it lower down).

Good!

Agreed, but again, if the founding fathers wanted the country to be governed in some religious manner, why would they not make that religion the official religion of the USA? Why would they instead go the complete opposite route and declare that Congress could never do that?

Because they understood as I do and teach here, their is no one true form of Christianity. this fact is contrary to the doctrines of state sponcered churches. Otherwise why have a state sponsored church? That we should be able to express our creeds or religious beliefs anyway our hearts tell us we need to do that. For someone like Jefferson who did not subscribe to any mainstream denomination this was paramount. He still worship God, it's just his worship evolved past the constraints of traditional religion of his time. That was the whole reason for this establishment clause. The foreFathers knew what place religion should have in our lives, but at the same time saw the dangers of putting a cap on how far we can grow with God as Christians by making a state mandated church. We once understood the the church is a tool for us to develop a personal relationship with God, which can yeild a far deeper understanding than found in most state mandated religions. But, as with many tools they can be used to build up or tear down/destroy. State religion generally creates people who check religious boxes/robots who go through the motions. The forefathers did not want that.

This little bit here.. Also keeps people from telling government officials they can not exercise their religion even in an official capacity.

No argument here. Elected officials are free to practice their religion, even base their decisions off of their religious faith, but they cannot force religion onto people, nor can they create laws which favor one religion over another.

Agree 100% but at the same time if a government official or employee prays or leads a prayer this is not the same as making a law or forcing people to do anything.
Other than feel left out, which is not a law either.

If that were even remotely true then why is their so much history that shows religion specifically a generic form of Christianity being up held through out our nations history right up to the last 30 or 40 years?

Again watch the video.

That's an easy question to answer: because for that time, Christianity was the major religion and the vast majority of the population were Christians. What happened in the last 30 / 40 years is that people became less religious, or converted to other religions, and then started to point out that some aspects of government were in violation of the Constitution (for instance, mandatory school prayer).

But, here's the thing.. Congress never made a law mandating school prayer. When the constitution was written it was never intended to govern on a state level. the individual states had their own charters and constitutions. None of which were restricted from making their own religious rules or laws. The federal government at the time was not to medal in state affairs, so long as they did not go outside the bounds of the constitution.

Now again if you were to actuall look at the establishment clause of the first amendment it says that the federal goverment has no business telling people what they can and can not do concerning religion. Meaning congress can not make a law demanding or forbidding the practice of religion/their can't be a national order one way or another (unlike how it is now, where congress has forbidden the practice of religion)

You see to have the cause and effect backwards.

do i?
Or do you? again I just point out how the law reads, and shown an example where congress has made a law forbidding the practice of religion by citizens of the united states.. which again the artical reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The founding fathers didn't set up a Christian government which then later became less Christian. The founding fathers set up a secular government, in an overwhelmingly Christian country, and which remained overwhelmingly Christian until a few decades ago.

Actually no they didn't. They set up a blank slate that allow the freedom for either a Christian or secular government to rule. Its about the will of the people. that's the reason I have not gone all Admiral Ackbar on everyone.

What they did not want is one side to forbid the other. If the intention was to set up a secular only government then why wasn't the verbiage of the Treaty of Tripoli used in this 1st amendment establishment clause?

we have clearly broken the first amendment by restricting the free exercise of religion by our government workers and officials.. unless they are Muslim of course then prayer, preaching all of that is cool.

Now, onto the video. I watched it, then I did some searching.

1) The claim that in 1782 the Congress printed the 1st English Bible is factually inaccurate at best.

In fact, Robert Aitken printed the 1st English Bible. He did this before even approaching Congress. In fact, Congress were looking to import Bibles from Holland at the time (due to a shortage of Bibles in the US). Aitken then approached Congress and asked them to review his version of the Bible and approve it's production. They did so, but here's the important part: they never paid for it, nor did they actually print it. Aitken did all the work, and just got Congress to approve the locally produced Bible as an alternative to importing them from overseas.

Moreover, the Bible was never intended by Congress to be used in schools. That was Aitken's idea, which he told to Congress in one of his letters, however there is no statement from Congress that affirms this was their intention.

so wait, let me get this straight...
The argument is the forefathers set up a secular government, and in the first line of your rebuttal you admit congress was sourcing bibles from Holland??? Please explain what a secular goverment is doing importing or commissioning bibles to begin with? Do you see what i am getting at? it's not about where they get the bibles but the fact that congress is sourcing them, and providing them to be used at all...

This lends itself to my argument that the forefathers did not set up a religious or secular government but a blank slate and the freedom to allow it's members to go as deep or as far from religion as they like.

2) The 1830 paintings cannot be said to be the founding fathers' idea, given that by 1830 most of the founding fathers were dead. According to Wikipedia, the last founding father to die was Madison in 1836.

that's a bit of a red herring isn't it? The movie clearly states that the 3 commissioned paintings were commissioned by the 1830 congress "to capture the span of Christian history of the United States." The movie does not say the founding fathers had anything to do with this or the events depicted.(The history spans far more time than any of them lived). What is depicted are the landing and dedication of Christopher Columbus and the naming of his discovery "San Salvador"/Holy Savior, the Baptism of pokahauntus, The embarkation of the Pilgrams coming to America, all praying for a safe journey/having a bible study.. So in that one generation removed from the establishment of the United States, the congress commissions paintings of a Prayer meeting a bible study and a baptism. So again, how is this an action (the religious subject matter of the paintings) commissioned by Congress, the acts of a secular nation? Clearly they could have commissioned other non religious apsects of these events. However in the case of each painting, the religious aspect is clearly in the forefront, because these paintings were meant to depict the common thread of Christianity from it's founding with Columbus till what was present day.

Again, Clearly we are not founded on one set of religious principles, but at the same time we do not forbid it even in public office till this last generation. Up until then we were free to express what we believed, even while holding a government position, and as per these painting use goverment resources to monument and enshrine our religious beliefs with government funds.

Otherwise why would congress commission these paintings?

3) The use of the Capitol building as a church is *mostly* true, however it's use is exaggerated in the video. The Capitol building did not literally "become a church" on Sundays. It was still the US Capitol building, still used for government work, etc. The Capitol building was never a church in any official respect.

Besides, the religious services were acceptable to Jefferson "because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary", not because he wanted the US to have an official religion.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...igious_use
[/quote]

IDK the Library of congress seems to have a completely different view..

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

I have no problem with wiki, unless something like the official record from the library of congress contradicts it. then I'd go with the official record..

Just to be clear, most atheist/theist arguments has the theist stating that the US is a christian nation. Again not my position. The first amendment clearly stops congress from making any laws period concerning religion, which means the effort of the founding Fathers was to make a neutral government that tolerated All religious and non religious views. which means one could preach and teach out of the bible from the oval office all the way down to the class room, or not.