The Lavishing Left and their Rejection of God...

AR,...I can only guess. The word of God will make many feel uncomfortable about their own lives. Ridicule is the easiest way out. When the fire of truth hits you...stop drop and pray.

This seed may not be here very long.

Since Christianity has been around since the beginning of time

first off, no it hasn't, only 2000 years. actually a little less than that.

secondly, not all who have positioned themselves on the left of center reject god.

How typical to assume that liberals don't believe in God. From where I sit, it is the right that will have some 'splaining to do when they cross over. You seem to have no idea how you are going against the spirit of the Bible and what Jesus taught. Worship of the almighty dollar? Greed? Callousness instead of love and compassion for fellow man? Political ideology over everything else? If this is what you consider righteous I want no part in it. I do pray one day you will see the light, because you don't seem to at the moment.

It is 2011 and there is no evidence for any kind of god or anything else supernatural, THAT is why people are rejecting superstition. Personally I am a good person without any religious nonsense...so I don't think the world will be worse if we throw off the shackles of ancient mythology. Many countries in the world have more non-believers than believers and they are doing very well (Northern Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc.)

Whatever it is, I hope we can find some true anwsers as to why people just reject him.

I believe people are rejecting due to the sanctimonious hypocrites that keep profession their belief and then spew the exact opposite, Pat Robertson and the like. Acting like judges of everyone and that they have the right to tell everyone how they should act and behave. Maybe it's because they lack real morals and values and support lies put out all the time about groups of people they disagree with.

Since Christianity has been around since the beginning of time

But it isn't. It's less than 1500 years old, and is loosely based on a lot of older religions.

I don't reject god, I just haven't seen enough evidence to believe he exists. And if he DOES, I'm 100% certain it is not in the xtian construct. I DO reject xtianity, along with most other major religions, outright.

"Our Country was found on the word God."

No it wasn't.

"Since Christianity has been around since the beginning of time, why is it now an issue?"

No it hasn't.

"Why has the Left and some Democrats taken it to a whole other level?"

I guessing that why religion has suffered so much damage is because some on the right believe they have exclusive access to it, even though they have the hardest time living up to it's set standards. Your article implies that Americans having differing opinions from yours cannot be considered christians. Good luck explaining that "judge not lest ye be judged" to St. Peter, hypocrite. And it must really be difficult to type on your keyboard with your flag wrapped so tightly around yourself while holding that big cross.

AR,

your an American by choice not by birth?

It appears that english is not your first language. Then again..don't immigrants have to pass a civics test?

Our Country was found on the word God.

I assume you meant founded, but either way you'd be totally incorrect. But don't take it from me, take it from one of our founding fathers:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

The above was written by George Washington in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, and ratified by both congress and the senate in 1797.

Let's continue...

Since Christianity has been around since the beginning of time, why is it now an issue?

Christianity hasn't been around since the beginning of time. Christianity started with Christ, Time goes back much farther than Christ's lifetime, and there are several religions that are much much older.

Now, if you're willing to start out with multiple lies... how then do you suppose anything else you do here is going to be a good work for God?

Why has the Left and some Democrats taken it to a whole other level?

They haven't... they have kept it at the same level, while you have been increasing in your extremism... we see above how willing you are to discard the truth for lies in your religious fanaticism... They only appear to be farther from your position due to your position having shifted.

Why do those reject something that is good and pure, and for the sake of Mankind?

Why do you reject trush which is good and pure, and for the sake of mankind? Don't bother answering it... your headline to this article tells me that you do it as just another Political scheme to get ahead in the race... I think that's what's called HYPOCRISY!

Perhaps when those people who CLAIM to be Christians start acting like actual Christians they won't be rejected so much.

AmericaRepublic

Whatever it is, I hope we can find some true anwsers as to why people just reject him.

when people become educated they tend to reject myths.

the biblical construct of god , made in mans image , displays anger and jealousy ... 2 petty human emotions based in fear and insecurity. why would a perfect god need to feel such ? because it isn't much of a god.

Jesus says more than once he only came for the Jews . that gentiles were dogs ... as was the jewish belief in the first century. He was a jew. didn't come for gentiles.

Paul changed that.

so was Jesus wrong in Matthew by saying he only came for the lost sheep of Israel ? ( gentiles btw are not the lost sheep ) ? did he make a mistake ? didn't understand God ?

obviously the bible is nothing more than a rehash of older beliefs. Many messiahs before jesus and after , the same miracles , stories , ... his myth stuck. but all myths eventually pass. People out grow them

Slow but already proof of such ..

we don't stone adulterers

we don't kill bratty kids

we eat shellfish

ect....

you get the idea.

all myths , and all religions are exactly that , fall .

I can destroy the hole concept of their GOD with two words.

Pantheism
Solipsism

However, the article is one giant ignorance fishing rod without any real bait to attract even the most ignorant.

He died for our sins, and this is what we do, reject him?

Along with the picture, you have a desperate plea for emotion. As if A God that has himself killed to which can't be killed is magically a sacrifice. Worse yet, the whole charade is just psychologically messed up.

Live and let live just makes sense. I believe, but it doesn't matter to me that others don't. Many reject God because God doesn't make sense to them. That's fine.

KYPIAKOC,

I agree. Theism or Atheism is really irrelevant, but most of the problems arrive when you get into religions that are Theocritus.. The belief in a GOD really has no relation to religion as it requires no religion to be a belief. Religion is mans professing to know the will of a GOD, and that is inherently where most of the problems come from. I've told people before that theism and atheism are just differences of opinion even if an entity of sorts did exist to which some would or could call GOD. It's irrelevant really. So if you want to get to the root cause, it's mostly in what we call "religion", especially when it becomes dangerously Theocritus.

America, my friend, you do know how to start a @!$%# storm.. LOL I am Catholic, I am Christian.. I am not perfect by any means, but especially in that I do not have any desire to convert or convince or attempt to educate the ungodly, though I am told to do so. I have no desire to pray for them, either, and I frankly don't care what they believe or don't believe as long as they do not disrespect my God in my face and then deny me my right to oppose their views. Hey, burning in hell is a choice for them, more room in Heaven for us.. burn, baby, burn.... ;)

In other words you are one of those like at the Church of Sardis a nominal Christian or on ein name only.

Another shining example of someone who claims to be a Christian then openly admits that he does not follow the teachings of Christ..

blah, blah... don't care what you ungodly types think, IMPO, not worth my energy to do so. You bitch when Christians preach to you and you bitch when we don't. Simply, you bitch, what else is new? LOL

blah, blah... don't care what you ungodly types think, IMPO, not worth my energy to do so

Truett Collins is one of the most Christian-oriented commentors on NV. I believe you were chastized for not converting, praying for, denouncing the ungodly!!

We all work in our own ways... those who chastise others such as Truett does perhaps should be careful in doing so. To be human is to be imperfect. Truett included.

I never claimed to be perfect....I simply question how you claim to be Christian while not following Scripture......A Christian follows the commands of the New Testament....if not they they are claiming to be something that they are not living......

I am a left winger. I believe in God. I believe in the Bible. I don't however believe in American Christians who sit in judgement of everyone and make excuses for their own sins.

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle, that is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

DC Talk

Why would unbelievers want to follow people who call themselves believers who are motivated by hate?

Christianity has been around since the beginning of time

No it wasn't. It's what they want you to think and believe. Church and Religion is about having control over the people.

The Bible: written by man

God: created by man

Church and Religions: created by man

Religious people are getting m,ore and more upset because people have seen church and religion for what it truly is. A scam, and a business that profits off the poor and the ignorant. Now that people are seeing all these charlatans living in their big homes, driving their expensive cars and whatnot, they have seen the true light on what these people are all about that preach to them. They have opened their eyes and see them for the conartists and thieves they are.

I have a jar with god's soul in it. You can't open it, but it's in there. Starting bid, 150K. /s

Truett, I can be Christian and not perfect. At least I don't pretend or lie, I am honest, like it or not. Some of us are not preachers, we work in other ways. It would seem that you are judgmental, which 'usually' means you think that you are better. You actually know very little about me.

You are welcome, America! :)

Kreepy... Wow, that post is 'memorable' (trying to be at least kind here). You obviously know nothing of the bible and you know nothing of God. You have a jar with God's soul in it, do ya? You categorize Christians, you obviously know nothing about Christians, the bible or God. Spew away, as it is your right to do so.

Dear Kreepy-Krawler,

I hope you like fire.

Sincerely,

Spartan-101

(P.S.)

God Bless

kamkmcc . first I don't pretend nor lie...second show where I have been "judgemental" or is it that I have simply held things up to scripture and allowed scripture to show their error.....

c'mon Truett.... re-read your own post (1.21).. who are you (special in your own mind?) to hold up scripture and yet judge, though you would deny that you judge? Just be honest and admit that you judge.

The bible encourages righteous judgment in Leviticus 19:15 “ Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.”,

Also notice Isaiah 61:8 “For I the Lord love judgment:

Ephesians 5:10-11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them, reprove means to expose and it requires judging to determine what evil and wrong doing is , the verse that you provided which can be found in.

Matthew 7:1 is simply emphasizing correct your own faults before you judge, it is not a blanket statement against judging only emphasizing correct your own faults before you apply righteous judgment.

Amos 5:14-16 “Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken. Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph”,

Micah 3:8-9 “But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin. Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity”

Malachi 3:18 “Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.”

John 7:24 “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”, 1 Corinthians 2:15 “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.”

Many of these scriptures emphasize the importance of judging and the terrible consequences when it is not done, and how wickedness flourishes when it is not done, so to judge is a requirement and does not dictate that the person who does it in righteousness is in fact guilty of the same thing that he is exposing, only doing what they are required to do you don't know understand or properly accurately interpret scripture. and if you were really a true christian you would understand these most basic biblical truths, but you are not a christian and are more than likely a homosexual masquerading as a christian to secretly garner support for your filthy cause.

Now when you say you are Christian but do not follow the instructions in scriputre according to John in his letter to the Church of Sardis they know all the right things to do, to say, etc. But they are nominal or Christian in name only.

Truett, you attempt to justify for, yourself, your judgement of another Christian. You can post links till the 'sheep' come home. You do not impress me, personally, with your Christianity, as I don't impress you with mine; guess we are even in that end. I prefer to be judged by my God, not by an imperfect human that is self-righteous, such that you are.

TruettCollins

John 8:7 "Let him who is without sin cast the First Stone."

Since we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, wouldn't it be incumbent upon us to withhold judgment until we can honestly claim to be sinless?

Oh, I know I am a sinner.....the only judgement I hold is to hold it up to God's word....if one does not like their actions as seen in that mirror then it is up to them to change the reflection...not me.

Actually, not quite so, Truett (#1.35).. you questioned my Christianity, you did not merely post references to God's word. You judged me and I called you on it as I know you are not perfect; therefore, I believe like drbacon, that you should not judge. You are not more special than I am or drbacon is. You seem to believe you know more regarding the word of God, yet you miss much. I don't personally have a huge problem with my 'reflection'. I am definitely not perfect, I am definitely human and I do get disappointed with myself and when I do, I try to do better. Perhaps you would get further in your quest if you did not come off as so judgmental, because when you go there, you will more times than not, fail miserably.

Rev 3:1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works,that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
5. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Matthew 12:50For whosoever shall do the willof my Father which is in heaven, the same ismy brother, and sister, and mother.

Now if as you said that you don't have any desire to convert or convince or attempt to educate the ungodly then you are not doing his will....remember the command to

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" i

f you are not following his will in this then according to scripture (not me) you have the name but not the spirit and it is time to renew your walk with the spirit...that is not for me to judge but in accordance with scripture.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

I love how you godly types pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to follow and which parts you want to ignore. Like, you follow that to the letter but I doubt you follow this one:

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

I often wonder if some of these people don't put their faith in the word of men (men wrote the Bible), rather than in God. The way the Bible gets touted, you'd think that's what's being worshipped.

I love it when people show their ingnorance of scripture by failing to understand the difference in the Jewish History (Old Teatament) and the law of Grace (New Testament).

Oh, you want New Testament? Allow me:

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

So, you're all for that huh?

There are, as I'm sure you know, countless others. The bible is full of stupid crap, in both the new and the old testament.

Using scripture to condemn another Christian is petty and juvenile. It also represents a lot of what's wrong with blind faith in a 2000 year old book.

I love it when people show their ingnorance of scripture by failing to understand the difference in the Jewish History (Old Teatament) and the law of Grace (New Testament).

I guess you would have to include your Jesus for failing to understand that difference.

Matthew 5:17-19

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Thank you MWeaver... for your post (1.42) and your comment about the condemning of another Christian as being petty and juvenile and using scripture to justify this judgmental behavior. I agree with you.

Truett, you obviously miss that though you tout to be Christian, you turn people off in the manner of which you 'preach'. I am a Christian and you turn me off. Each has their own way; mine is not to preach to others, I have no desire to do so. This does not make me less Christian than you. I could have a photographic memory of the bible and state it verbatum, this would not make me more Christian. For all that you turn off with your style of preaching, I may be encouraging in my ways. I would think that God would prefer the encouraging rather than the turning off... just saying. Sometimes in taking the bible too literally and picking and choosing those areas of the bible that suit the point you are trying to make, you actually do a dis-service to God, IMO.

As I said....but you over look...not me judging....but holding it up to scripture so that you can see the reflection and make your choice....

2 Timothy 3:15 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

MWeaver . please give your reference and your "translation" can't find that in any of my 12 translations....

Really, you couldn't find it? Don't tell me the Atheist knows more about the bible than the bible thumper.

Deuteronomy 23:1

No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.

And as I said, Truett, I have my own way. If you would get even slightly past your need to be judgmental (because you want to believe God commands you to be; mostly, I think, because you just want to be) you might actually succeed in doing God's will. I will never believe that God wants us to be judgmental, as this type of attitude/behavior does not win people over. There is righteousness and there is arrogance, don't confuse them.

Sometimes I wish there was a god for one reason, and one reason only: so when all you "believers" died you would come face to face with someone else's god and find out You're F@#$%D!

I would LOVE to see your faces at that moment. But alas, it is never to be because there is no god for anyone to see.

May your dog lift his leg and bless all over you. Damn dyslexia got me again?!?!?!?

Oh well. rAmen!!

'MWeaver .... Oh my mistake....you said

"Oh, you want New Testament? Allow me:"

So I was looking in the New Testament......I didn't know they had moved Deuteronomy......

I am thinking a lot more than dyslexia got you, Scuba. You seem kind of hateful to those who know their God and you disrespect us and our God. Obviously, your right to do so with free speech. I personally have no desire, whatsoever, to convince you of my God. I do, however, think it is rather uncool to post as you did... just my opinion and my freedom of speech thing.

kamkmcc

I am thinking a lot more than dyslexia got you, Scuba. You seem kind of hateful to those who know their God and you disrespect us and our God. Obviously, your right to do so with free speech. I personally have no desire, whatsoever, to convince you of my God. I do, however, think it is rather uncool to post as you did... just my opinion and my freedom of speech thing.

Guilty... to a point. To you, I will apologize for offending. I actually respect the overwhelming majority of your posts. You come across more as a "live and let live" type of person and I fully respect that and sincerely apologize for offending you.

Yes, I do not capitalize any reference to "god" because I will show little to no "respect" to the "other" type of "christian." A prime example of the other type: Those that, despite my "non-believer" status, simply want to further fuel a fire by wanting to "Pray for" me and end with "dog bless you" (Yes, intentional). That is not a "loving" or "respectful" comment at that point. It is a further intentional escalation. That type is the target of my remarks. If you'd really like to know how I generally feel, visit my coumn and read my article posted there. It's been there for more than a year now and makes a pretty clear statement of my stance. I'm not asking for comments there, I kinda like that the number ended at 911.

I never claimed to be perfect....

Why don't you try being honest for once.

If honesty were a part of the COH almost every post would be deleted. lol

Our Country was found on the word God. Since Christianity has been around since the beginning of time, why is it now an issue?

This article is premised on a flaw (several flaws, actually), so please follow this closely.

In no sense in this country founded on the Word of God or the Christian religion. On the part of the Founders of this great nation, this was both specific and intentional. The REASON for this was made abundantly clear through a number of documents and correspondences, all of which may be traced back to original, primary source documents on file at the Library of Congress, or similarly reliable sources: The primary Founders of this nation understood that government and religion could not be combined or blended, in any way, without the risk of either one corrupting the other.

This is the reason that both Jefferson and Madison spoke to the "separation of Church and State." They understood that the two must be kept mutually exclusive, as much as possible, to preserve both to the fullest extent possible.

• The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (James Madison, in a letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
• History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).

These sentiments, which speak directly to the Founder's intent when constructing the U.S. Constitution, are supported by the known writings of other Founders:

• Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. (George Washington, in a letter to Sir Edward Newenham, Oct. 20, 1792)
• That Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence, and therefore all Men have an equal natural and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society ought to be favored or established by Law, in Preference to others (The Papers of George Mason, Vol. 3, p. 1071, 1119)
• The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes (John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814).

NOW, that having been said, these men were not in opposition with religion itself, but rather, with the religious establishment. Religion, they felt, was a matter between each person and Deity, and the value of that religion perceived by the quality of the person practicing it; "...that they be good Citizens." But in churches and priests they had little respect, and were specifically critical of those priests/sects/churches who clearly demonstrated self-interest.

So ultimately, to them, the best way to defeat unscrupulous priests, to condemn tyrannical churches, but also to preserve the purity of the churches which they respected and/or attended, was to put as much distance between the two as is possible.

Also, we have it on good authority, John Adams himself, that the framers of the U.S. Constitution did not base their work on Christianity or any other religion. In his book, "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), he clearly states:

• The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Ah, but this is no mere claim, This is not just mentioned-in-passing. Adams goes further:

• As Copley painted Chatham, West, Wolf, and Trumbull, Warren and Montgomery; as Dwight, Barlow, Trumbull, and Humphries composed their verse, and Belknap and Ramzay history; as Godfrey invented his quadrant, and Rittenhouse his planetarium; as Boylston practised inoculation, and Franklin electricity; as Paine exposed the mistakes of Raynal, and Jefferson those of Buffon, so unphilosophically borrowed from the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains those despicable dreams of De Paw — neither the people, nor their conventions, committees, or sub-committees, considered legislation in any other light than ordinary arts and sciences, only as of more importance. Called without expectation, and compelled without previous inclination, though undoubtedly at the best period of time both for England and America, to erect suddenly new systems of laws for their future government, they adopted the method of a wise architect, in erecting a new palace for the residence of his sovereign. They determined to consult Vitruvius, Palladio, and all other writers of reputation in the art; to examine the most celebrated buildings, whether they remain entire or in ruins; compare these with the principles of writers; and enquire how far both the theories and models were founded in nature, or created by fancy: and, when this should be done, as far as their circumstances would allow, to adopt the advantages, and reject the inconveniences, of all. Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it.

For roughly three paragraphs, John Adams emphasizes that the U.S. Constitution was NOT a religious undertaking.

Respectful regards

Scuba, thank you for your comment (1.51). Apology accepted. :)

It has become abundantly clear over the past decade that many on the Right actually worship Satan.

AR old buddy,

You know I lean left on some issues and right on others. Generally, I am more left of center, but always willing to listen with an open mind if someone wants to take the time to explain their position. I've got to say though that not all those who reject Christianity are left-leaning. I can also attest that although fiscally, for example, I am definitely left-leaning, I am still (I hope) a decent Christian - as are other who do not support the current GOP.

Well, I've got your back, AR. You and I are exactly in synch on this topic.

Hopefully some truth can come out of all of this....

What "truth" would that be? So far, all I've seen here are lies, particularly the claim that America was founded on god. Or that Christianity has been around since the "beginning of time." Another lie! Shall I continue?

You also seemed to turn this into a Republican vs. Democrat debate as well. Or the fallacious claim that god is "being taken out of everything." I see that one fly around quite a bit. Makes me laugh everytime too.

also you turned this into a right (conservative) and Left (liberal) issue. Some of the most liberal people I know are devout believers in god and christ.

as for rejecting "something that is good and pure, and for the sake of Mankind" I actually believe that religion and in some circumstances belief in a deity is not good, not pure, and is harmful to mankind.

Gordy just can not stand the fact that America was founded on Christian principles.....

Certainly those throughout America’s history were not timid about this fact.

The Legislature of New York declared in 1838:
"This is a Christian nation. Ninety-nine hundredths, if not a larger proportion, of our whole population, believe in the general doctrines of the Christian religion."

It was the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in the year 1892 that declared in the court’s opinion the United States was a "Christian nation."

Our nation’s twenty-eight president, Woodrow Wilson in his famous address, "The Bible and Progress," stated the following,

"America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture." (Refer to APB pg. 1278)

1) Plymouth Charter says the Colony was established: "To advance the enlargement of the Christian religion to the glory of God Almighty."

(2) Delaware Charter defines the purpose of their Colony, "To further propagate the Holy Gospel."

(3) Virginia Charter assures the right for people to live in "Christian peace" and instructs the people to: "Propagate the Christian religion to such people who yet live in ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God."

(4) The Rhode Island Compact: "We submit our persons, lives, and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords."

On July 4, 1776 Continental Congress signed the "Declaration of Independence" which states their belief in Creator God. Before signing they called the signers to prayer and fasting to the God of the Bible.

Gordy just can not stand the fact that America was founded on Christian principles.....

These "Christian principles" would be... ?

Certainly those throughout America’s history were not timid about this fact.

I find it most telling that your support for a 'founding' in Christianity jumps to decades after for justification.

Or that you have to turn to a state legislature making a rather unsupported and general statement about the religious makeup of the state... as though it has anything to do with the founding of the nation.

1) Plymouth Charter ... (2) Delaware Charter ... (3) Virginia Charter ... (4) The Rhode Island Compact:

As far as I can tell, these were all done to establish the Colonies. The Virginia Charter was granted by King James of England. So... they have very little to do with the founding of America, which was an act done after specifically breaking and overriding all such agreements with England.

On July 4, 1776 Continental Congress signed the "Declaration of Independence" which states their belief in Creator God.

The "Christian principles" would be where in this?

Truett, I swear I don't know why you (and other fundamentalists) have to try and hijack everything. America was founded by rebels and refugees and that foundation is based on religious freedom. Freedom of religion is considered by many as the fundamental human right in America. People in America enjoy more religious freedom than people in most countries. Fundamentalists distort history and heritage and make it a divisive topic. That divisiveness alienates people. It's the sort of thing that had puritans hiding in Massachusetts, Maryland was safe for catholics, Rhode Island was sanctuary for baptists, and Pennsylvania a haven for quakers and mennonites.

Most of the influential founders of this country were deists but respected the rights of followers of other religions. You should follow their example and stop being elite and alienating.

Gordy just can not stand the fact that America was founded on Christian principles.....

What I can't stand are people (like you Truett) who make such an erroneous claim and do not back it up with anything original or valid, or otherwise disregard facts contradictory to that claim (like you Truett), as well as continuing to spread that claim despite contradictory proof (like you Truett), which is as good as lying.

The Legislature of New York declared in 1838:
"This is a Christian nation. Ninety-nine hundredths, if not a larger proportion, of our whole population, believe in the general doctrines of the Christian religion."

Mere personal expression and opinion. Does not override the Constitution or the Founding Fathers.

It was the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in the year 1892 that declared in the court’s opinion the United States was a "Christian nation."

I assume you are referring to the SCOTUS case: Church of the Holy Trinity v. US (1892), which you didn't even bother to reference (I wonder why). What you fail to realize is that this decision was passed under the soft plain meaning rule, which means it is not to be taken literally or cannot divert from its ordinary meaning . Justice Brewer, one of the SCJ in that case, later clarified his point about the exclamation that the US is a "christian nation," stating:

But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

Can the meaning be any more clear?

Our nation’s twenty-eight president, Woodrow Wilson in his famous address, "The Bible and Progress," stated the following,

"America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture." (Refer to APB pg. 1278)

A personal expression of faith, which otherwise has no bearing on our laws, the Constitution, or the founding of this country.

1) Plymouth Charter says the Colony was established: "To advance the enlargement of the Christian religion to the glory of God Almighty."

Predates the drafting of the Constitution and has no weight or bearing in the law.

2) Delaware Charter defines the purpose of their Colony, "To further propagate the Holy Gospel."

Predates the Constituton.

3) Virginia Charter assures the right for people to live in "Christian peace" and instructs the people to: "Propagate the Christian religion to such people who yet live in ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God."

Predates the Constitution.

4) The Rhode Island Compact: "We submit our persons, lives, and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords."

Predates the Constitution.

So far Truett, all of your examples of official colonial fealty to christianity predate the actual founding of this nation and become null and void with the ratification of the Constitution, especially with the passing of the 14th Amendment. Do you really think you're the first to try to pass off such tripe as "proof" that America was founded on christian principles? You are either ignorant of actual, factual American History, or you are purposely lying about it. Which is it?

On July 4, 1776 Continental Congress signed the "Declaration of Independence" which states their belief in Creator God. Before signing they called the signers to prayer and fasting to the God of the Bible.

NO! The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, thatall men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

Note the pronoun use: "Their Creator." It does not state "A Creator," or THE Creator," or even the Judeo-christian Creator." It states "their Creator." The term "creator" is an ambiguous one in this case and is meant to apply to the individual's belief system, if applicable. It does not apply to the nation as a whole. To assume it specifically refers to the christian god is both ignorant and arrogant!

The DoI establishes our sovereignty as a nation and lists our grievences with the King of England. The DoI does not establish our system of law or government. That belongs to the Constitution, which makes NO REFERENCE to god, christianity, or a "creator, or any religious ideology.

Truett, why do you even bother? You've been proven wrong and a liar many times now by myself and others, both on this thread and others. Your willful disregard for historical facts in order to favor a religious agenda is both dishonest and disingenous, not too mention obvious too.

Gordy

On what planet did you earn your PHD in history? Or are your letters more in the field of law. You sound just like a lawyer twisting the words of a document around to say what YOU want it to say. For instance, read that first part of the Declaration again. It is one sentence which also includes the phrase, "That all men are created equal," then comes, in the same sentence, "That they are endowed by THEIR creator....." The word "their" obviously refers to "All men"

The thirteen colonies were established by people of Christian faith, mostly those fleeing the autocracy, and demands of the Church of England. They wanted to be free of that controlling, mandated religion and free to establish their own "Christian" beliefs. When you study 18th century history you have to look at it from the point of view of those living in the 18th century. You cannot learn anything about the 18th century people or their style of writing by comparing it to the 21st century.

Perhaps many don't realize or remember that the Declaration of Independence was really nothing more than a letter sent from the colony's to King George of England Notifying him that the colonies no longer would be under the rule of the King or the Church. It was the Constitution that established the laws governing those colonies and making them sovereign states. On religion the constitution says only this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". There is no such phrase in the constitution that says "freedom of religion" although that might be implied. Equally there is no such phrase as "freedom from religion". The government can not make any law restricting, forbidding, or taking control of any religion. However, it seems that people like you would like to see Congress take your phrase, "freedom from religion" and do just that.

Perhaps you should re read Justice Brewer's comment again. I think you missed something there. Perhaps if I highlight a few important words.

But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it

Can the meaning be any more clear? There is a big difference in saying that the US was founded on Christian principals and saying that Christianity is the "established" religion of the US.

In Truett's quoting from charters of different colonies you could only comment, "Predates the Constitution". We are not talking about the constitution here, we are talking about the founding fathers and the beliefs of practically every man that occupied the colonies. And that strong Christian influence can be clearly seen in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Like it or not, the United States is still primarily a Christian nation. Though the percentage of Christians has dropped some since those founding years, Christians still make up around three Fourths of the nations population. The Constitution simply gives you the freedom to choose or refuse to believe however you choose.

Thank you Truett. You certainly do seem to know many of the facts about the founding of this country. And please, continue to "bother"

Fundamentalist Christians, Republicans, Tea Party members, FOX News care very little about facts when the make an argument. Hell, even George Washington declared that America is not a Christian nation. Now the KKK and Aryan Nations support the position of the fundamentalists.

For instance, read that first part of the Declaration again. It is one sentence which also includes the phrase, "That allmen are created equal," then comes, in the same sentence, "That they are endowed by THEIR creator....." The word "their" obviously refers to "All men"

The Declaration of Independence is not the document which establish the law of this country. Sheesh. Even a 5th grader should know that. And they do not mention a Christian "Creator" by the way bucko. Many religions claim a creator.

In Truett's quoting from charters of different colonies you could only comment, "Predates the Constitution".

Which is the document that establishes the law of the land. Discussion of anything else is plain ass ignorant.

We are not talking about the constitution here,

Well you should be.

we are talking about the founding fathers

Umm - you do realize the original settlers were dead and long gone when the Founding Fathers wrote the DoI and the Constitution, don't you? Jamestown was setlled in 1607 and the DoI was written in 1776. That's 170 years later. The people who came over and established the Jamestown colonies as well as those who came over on the Mayflower were NOT the Founding Fathers. You get your U.S. History from a Cracker Jack box or from the batch of a match cover?

and the beliefs of practically every man that occupied the colonies.

And is completely irrelevant to the principles that this country was founded upon.

Like it or not, the United States is still primarily a Christian nation.

No it is not. Like it or not. It is a country that has a large number of Christians (most of whom can not agree what being a "real:" Christian is) along with large numbers of a lot of other religions. That does not make this a Christian nation. Your desire to make it so does not make it so.

Though the percentage of Christians has dropped some since those founding years, Christians still make up around three Fourths of the nations population.

Big deal.

The Constitution simply gives you the freedom to choose or refuse to believe however you choose.

Bingo. Making this NOT a Christian nation.

"That they are endowed by THEIR creator....." The word "their" obviously refers to "All men"

Do you base that interpretation on your PhD in history? Or is that your opinion?

The thirteen colonies were established by people of Christian faith, mostly those fleeing the autocracy, and demands of the Church of England. They wanted to be free of that controlling, mandated religion and free to establish their own "Christian" beliefs.

The colonies predate the founding of this country and the ratification of the Constitution. They wanted to have their own religious beliefs, although some colonies were equally intolerant of differing beliefs as England was of theirs. But their independent beliefs in no way mandated a belief system for the country once it was founded.

You cannot learn anything about the 18th century people or their style of writing by comparing it to the 21st century.

BUt the Constitution, as well as the intentions and writings is still applicable in the 21st century. Besides, what mankes you an authority on such matters?

Perhaps many don't realize or remember that the Declaration of Independence was really nothing more than a letter sent from the colony's to King George of England Notifying him that the colonies no longer would be under the rule of the King or the Church.

Did I not just say that in my post above?

There is no such phrase in the constitution that says "freedom of religion" although that might be implied. Equally there is no such phrase as "freedom from religion".

Funny, you question my knowledge of history or law, when you seem to know so little of it yourself, especially given your myopic view of the Constitution. The 1st Amendment most certainly implies freedom of religion, as well as freedom of religion. The Free exercise Clause itself menas an individual has the right to follow any religion they choose, without government interference.

Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779):

No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Basically, he's saying there is a freedom of religion and the 1st Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that freedom.

However, it seems that people like you would like to see Congress take your phrase, "freedom from religion" and do just that.

Now who's "twisting words" here?

There is a big difference in saying that the US was founded on Christian principals and saying that Christianity is the "established" religion of the US.

Yes, And I stand by my previous assertion. By all means, show me where in the Constitution itself it says this country is founded on christian principles!

In Truett's quoting from charters of different colonies you could only comment, "Predates the Constitution". We are not talking about the constitution here, we are talking about the founding fathers and the beliefs of practically every man that occupied the colonies.

The Constitution is the heart and founding document of this country, and overrides all others. You seem to want to ignore the constitution in favor of a religious preference. Individual colonial proclamations of faith or religious fealty are null and void with the ratification of the Constitution. So the Constitution is most certainly what we're talking about here and is valid to this discussion. Your attempt to obfuscate the issue is neither convincing or honest.

And that strong Christian influence can be clearly seen in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Specify exactly where!

Like it or not, the United States is still primarily a Christian nation.

Like it or not, the Us is not a christian nation. I defy you to provide one piece of valid, orginial documentation which states otherwise!

Christians still make up around three Fourths of the nations population.

Your point is based on an argumentum ad populum. Just because the majority of the population professes to be christian does not make us a "christian nation" by default. If the Ford Focus was built by Christian workers, does that make the Ford Focus a "Christian car?"

The Constitution simply gives you the freedom to choose or refuse to believe however you choose.

Yes, and it also prohibits any national, legal, or political fealty to any partiucular religion. It does provide a separation of church and state. That concept alone negates any claim that this is a chirstian, or any other religiou, nation. We are a secular nation with a religiously neutral government, which happens to have many christians in it. But that doesn't make us a christian nation by default.

Thank you Truett. You certainly do seem to know many of the facts about the founding of this country.

Not even close! Twisting the facts to suit a religious agenda is both ignorant and dishonest.

So according to you no one in the coloniescan be considered as being included in being a one of the founders of this nation..... I see now....only those "founders" who you agree with were founders....anyone else was not..... So I guess you believe that we should still own slaves, women should not vote....and the natives are savages....

So according to you no one in the coloniescan be considered as being included in being a one of the founders of this nation

The Founding Fathers are considered those who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or otherwise made some significant contribution to the founding of this nation.

I see now....only those "founders" who you agree with were founders....anyone else was not..... So I guess you believe that we should still own slaves, women should not vote....and the natives are savages....

I see you're being obtuse again and trying to twist an argument around, while not acctaully addressing any point made, much less refuting mine. You think your opinions and agenda is more valid and relevant to actual facts. Predictable and pathetic Truett. But then, I expect nothing less from you!

The founding fathers were all those who fought, built, and worked for this nation....not just the ones who put their name to paper.....what point....the point that only those you consider founding fathers to have contributed to the founding of this nation......all I have to say to that point is BULL....

The founding fathers were all those who fought, built, and worked for this nation....

The founding fathers are those who founded the Republic. If there was no Republic founded, we'd all still be British citizens, which is what all the original settlers were.

So those original settlers who took up arms and laid down their lives for freedom had nothing to do with founding this nation.....You both sound like the type that think the Generals are the only ones who fight the wars, or put their lives on the line..... or most likely more your speed....the quarter back is the only one responsible for the win or loss of a football team.

The founding fathers were all those who fought, built, and worked for this nation....not just the ones who put their name to paper.....

I already explained what constitutes a founding Father. Your opinion otherwise is irrelevant.

....the point that only those you consider founding fathers to have contributed to the founding of this nation......all I have to say to that point is BULL....

Your opinion is meaningless, as it doesn't change the facts.

So those original settlers who took up arms and laid down their lives for freedom had nothing to do with founding this nation

That's essentially correct. If they didn't sign our founding documents or otherwise make some significat contribution to the actual founding of this nation, they are not considered a founding father.

I see you are also attempting to deviate from the topic at hand as well as avoiding previous points made. Your credibility, such as it is, is severely lacking and supported only by your own opinion, which isn't saying much.

gordy327 . points? All I have seen is your opinion.

AmericaRepublic . gladly accepted....

All I have seen is your opinion.

"Opinion" backed by cited valid references and/or historical/legal facts. Your opinions however, are a different matter. In fact, you've pretty much ignored all rebuttals to your "opinions" and continue to spew the same tripe and misinformation as you always do. You certainly have not offered anything valid or logical which refutes anything I've said or pointed out, much less supports your own position in light of presented facts.

So those original settlers who took up arms and laid down their lives for freedom had nothing to do with founding this nation.

So, do you contend that the original settlers in 1607 took up arms and fought the British for their freedom from England?

So those original settlers who took up arms and laid down their lives for freedom had nothing to do with founding this nation.....

Gets the most stupid @!$%#ing ignorant comment of the day award.

- foodbaby-

as for rejecting "something that is good and pure, and for the sake of Mankind" I actually believe that religion and in some circumstances belief in a deity is not good, not pure, and is harmful to mankind.

Really? Harmful to mankind?

Wait, wait, wait...

So you're saying that belief in God, Jesus Christ, the savior of our souls and race, is harmful to mankind?

Let me school you...

Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
2 Timothy 1:8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Harmful to mankind... Perhaps in the way people put God before their country...

Wait... Didn't the Bible say that too?

"But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."

Matthew 6:33 ESV

So I'll tell you what; you believe whatever you want to believe. And you'll go where you deserve to go.

But the proof is right there.

God Bless...

harmful to humanity? ABSOULTELY! How many wars, murders, thefts, and other dispicable acts have been done in the name of a diety? how many havebeen done in the name of "god"? How many have been done in the name of "christ"?

School me?? by using your bible to school me?? LMAO use something other than your religious dogma and cannons to prove your point then you can "school me" lo

by the way. hand me your bible andi will show you that its just words printed on a piece of paper.

As long as to you it is just words printed on paper, thats all they will ever be...to others who have applied those words they are uplifitng, and the best blueprint for life there is...but again only if they are applied....as for your wars, murders, thefts, etc.....those are the decisions of men, made by men in spite of their religion...not by the religion.

So only those who signed the Declaration or wrote the US Constitution should have fought in the Revolutionary war since they are the only true founders.

Gordy, your comments seem to leave the impression that you are trying to compare apples to oranges here.

So only those who signed the Declaration or wrote the US Constitution should have fought in the Revolutionary war since they are the only true founders.

I already addressed this in my post 2.14 above. Do I have to keep repeating myself? I thought I was pretty clear.

Gordy, your comments seem to leave the impression that you are trying to compare apples to oranges here.

No. My comments present facts and expose lies and misinformation. Your comment seems to leave the impression that you cannot logically refute any of my posts or cited references.

So I'll tell you what; you believe whatever you want to believe. And you'll go where you deserve to go.

Such sanctimonious BS! I would tell you where you can go, but that might be a CoH violation.

Gordy just can not stand the fact that America was founded on Christian principles

No. You Truett can't stand the fact that America was not founded on Christian principles and America is not a Christian country.

America is not Christian by decree. the constitution forbids the declaring of any religion as the nations religion. The original settlers were mostly Christian but with there own different belief systems. But all these people agreed on one principal, that men should be free to believe as they wished without a state imposed religion. It was on this principal that the United States was founded. Thanks to those early Christens we have the freedom to believe or not believe as we please.

The original settlers were mostly Christian but with their own belief systems. But all of these people agreed on one principle, that men should be free to believe as they wished without state imposed religion.

The second sentence is a patently false-the original settlers founded individual theocratic colonies (state imposed religion) with little or no tolerance for the other Christian religions, such as the Baptists-just ask Truett about that :)

It wasn't until the United States was founded, some 150 years or so later, that "the freedom to believe or not believe as we please" became closer to reality with the very First Amendment to the Constitution, and no thanks to those early theocrats.

Thanks to those early Christens we have the freedom to believe or not believe as we please.

Those "early christian" settlers were not very tolerant of other religions, much like the English crown was not tolerant of them (oh the irony). Fortunately, the Founding Fathers were wise enough to understand the necessity of allowing the individual to believe as they wished and set up a system of law and government to protect that right, not to mention making sure that government and religion do not mix.

WoW!! Has THIS ever gotten out of hand!

I'm just now seeing this for the first time, so I apologize in advance for for the response being quick and superfical (not to mention addressing posts in reverse order), but certain things obviously need to be said. I'll be on again later today, when I can expound and elaborate on some of my comments.

But all these people agreed on one principal, that men should be free to believe as they wished without a state imposed religion.

(1) Demonstrably false. With the exception of Rhose Island, every colony actively participated in religious discrimination of one form or another, primarily against non-Christians.

So only those who signed the Declaration or wrote the US Constitution should have fought in the Revolutionary war since they are the only true founders.

(2) Here, people are simply twisting the truth. The signers of the Declaration and framers of the U.S. Constitution are the rightful Founders of the nation. The individual state governments were poised to fail, and the Articles of Confederation demonstrably failed. It was the Philadelphia Convention who composed and established the foundation for government, unique to the rest of the world, and throughout history, which stays in force today, and which has been an example to civilized countries all over the world.

Indeed, every patriot who has spilled blood for this great nation should be lauded for their contributions to this nation's freedom, but to be considered a Founder is a very specific distinction.

So those original settlers who took up arms and laid down their lives for freedom had nothing to do with founding this nation.....

(3) The original settlers did not take up arms against England. The pledged their fealty to King James, and established their own pseudo-theocracies in the form of colonies.

...only those "founders" who you agree with were founders....anyone else was not.

(4) 'Round and 'round we go with this, eh Truett? Do you care to name a reputable historian who considers the people you list as founders, or are you going to just keep shooting your mouth off?

On what planet did you earn your PHD in history? Or are your letters more in the field of law. You sound just like a lawyer twisting the words of a document around to say what YOU want it to say.

(5) Starting out with an ad hom attack drbacon? Not a good start.

For instance, read that first part of the Declaration again. It is one sentence which also includes the phrase, "That all men are created equal," then comes, in the same sentence, "That they are endowed by THEIR creator....." The word "their" obviously refers to "All men"

(6) I'll be back to give you the grammar lesson for which you are obviously lacking, and explain the purpose of switching from a first-person to third-person narrative in mid-sentance. Gordy's assertion is correct, if the writers had meant a unversal concept for Deity, they would have said "Our Creator," but clearly, they did not. They deferred to the concept held by "them," that is, each individual's concept of a Creator. The Declaration of Independance does not hang on the concept or personification of a Deity, it hangs on the principle that men have rights as a resultant nature of the creation, without regard for the source of that creation.

There is a big difference in saying that the US was founded on Christian principals and saying that Christianity is the "established" religion of the US.

Regardless, neither are correct.

In Truett's quoting from charters of different colonies you could only comment, "Predates the Constitution". We are not talking about the constitution here, we are talking about the founding fathers and the beliefs of practically every man that occupied the colonies.

(7) Again, Gordy is correct. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to correct flaws contained within individual state constitutions, and Gordy's quote from the First Congress, recorded in the Annals of Congress, wherein they specifically state their intention to this end, is spot on.

And that strong Christian influence can be clearly seen in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

(8) John Adams thought differently (emphasis mine):

• Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses (John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" 1787-1788).

Like it or not, the United States is still primarily a Christian nation. Though the percentage of Christians has dropped some since those founding years, Christians still make up around three Fourths of the nations population.

(9) This, in itself, is not proof that the U.S. is founded on Christian principles. It's a fallacious arguement from popularity.

I'll be back later today, to reveal Truetts sources are lies, and not worthy of intelligent consideration.

Regards

I'll be back later today, to reveal Truetts sources are lies, and not worthy of intelligent consideration.

Ooh, I can't wait. This'll be good! LOL

Another slam dunk for you Pagan. Uber Kudos!

Gordy just can not stand the fact that America was founded on Christian principles.....

What a coincidence, I'm not exactly fond of lies without substance either.

Certainly those throughout America’s history were not timid about this fact.

Throughout history have been numerous religionists and would-be dominionists who would happily burn our Constitution and replace it with their Bible. Their fetid refuse needs to be weeded from the truth, just as your posts on the subject do.

The Legislature of New York declared in 1838:

I don't give a rat's ass what you think they declared. They did not establish the Constitution or the Foundation of this nation.

It was the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in the year 1892 that declared in the court’s opinion the United States was a "Christian nation."

Already handily and thoroughly debunked by Gordy, for which I thank him.

Our nation’s twenty-eight president, Woodrow Wilson in his famous address, "The Bible and Progress," stated the following,

Former president Wilson was entitled to his opinion, but that's all it ever was, and all it will ever be. He was no better than any other would-be dominionist. John Adams and the 5th Congress declared the U.S. "not a Christian nation." with the full force of Federal Law. A mere speech hardly holds precedent.

1) Plymouth Charter, 2) Delaware Charter, 3) Virginia Charter, 4) The Rhode Island Compact

All adequately dismissed as immaterial.

On July 4, 1776 Continental Congress signed the "Declaration of Independence" which states their belief in Creator God...

A laughable assertion proved erroneous on multiple occasions.

Before signing they called the signers to prayer and fasting to the God of the Bible.

Utterly false. By all means, provide a reputable source that says otherwise.

Truett, there is much you present which I've already told you, at one point or another, are entirely lies, and I've supported that with references to historic documents. That you continue to use such deceptive material speaks to your character. By all means, do what you choose to do. I hold you as a shining example of what it is to be Christian.

Regards

Already handily and thoroughly debunked by Gordy, for which I thank him.

You're welcome Pagan. Always a pleasure! :)

That you continue to use such deceptive material speaks to your character. By all means, do what you choose to do. I hold you as a shining example of what it is to be Christian.

Kind of ironic really, considering Truett is always espousing the bible and yet, continuously lies, which I understand the Big Guy upstairs is not fond of.

Name one of the principles that this nation was founded on that is not Christian......

Name one of the principles that this nation was founded on that is not Christian......

The Constitution!

Name one of the principles that this nation was founded on that is not Christian......

Your Christian religion demands that you turn men away from their inner thoughts, and toward God and the Bible. Your religion compels you to try to bring people into your religion, even if they resist. This is in direct contradiction with Constitutional principles which the Founders of this nation discussed while they were in session in Congress:

• "(to not) compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience," and "that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 page 758)

This is not a Christian principle. In fact, it runs counter to Christian principle.

Regards

Name one of the principles that this nation was founded on that is not Christian......

Can you name one that was?

thelopes

This is probably the only one, but he want mention it.

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

“
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

gordy327 . full of Christian Concepts....

Proud Pagan . my "religion" if you want to call it that...says only to give the message...not to force but to let men make their own decision...again a Christian Concept.

my "religion" if you want to call it that...

You may call it that, however, your original demand was...

• Name one of the principles that this nation was founded on that is not Christian......

You did NOT say...

• Name one of the principles that this nation was founded on that is not My Religion......

So, you can continue to "move the goalposts" if you wish, you will be proving nothing but the level of your honesty.

...says only to give the message...not to force but to let men make their own decision...again a Christian Concept.

Purely subjective. In theory, I can go to a public park, light my candles, burn my incense, and quietly chant my chants, openly worshipping my Pagan Goddess, and all with the approval and protection of the U.S. government. The claim that protection is sourced in a Christian principle, or based in such, is not only thoroughly hypocritical, it's entirely dishonest.

Regards

full of Christian Concepts

There's nothing Christian about the Constitution.

Proud Pagan since I am a follower of Christ I guess I am Christian.. but that is not "religion". Religion is man made trappings created to try to appease or please God...

You will find no where in the New Testament where the Christian is told to force religion on anyone...only to share the Gospel, in fact we are told that when the Gospel is reject to leave those who reject it to their own devises. As to the government the separation of Church and State is clearly taught in the New Testament.

Auteur....many of the concepts listed in the Constitution were concepts of Christianity long before there was a Constitution...including the separation of Church and State.

Now I am not saying that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation, however many of the concepts found in our documents from the founding were and are Christian concepts.

many of the concepts listed in the Constitution were concepts of Christianity long before there was a Constitution...including the separation of Church and State.

Not one concept in the constitution was obtained or based on anything pertaining to christianity or any other religion. The Founding Fathers, especially John Adams, made that abundantly clear. The Constituton is based on English Common Law (which predates christianity) as well as the principles of Enlightenment. Continuing to credit christianity for the constitution only shows your level of ignorance and dishonesty, especially since you have not cited one original and valid source to back up that claim. So your statement is a (demonstratably false) opinion at best and a flat out lie at worst!

Now I am not saying that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation

Explain your comment #2.5 then: "Gordy just can not stand the fact that America was founded on Christian principles....."

You are clearly making the suggestion or implication that America was founded as a christian nation. Now you're trying to backtrack in a obvious attempt to establish some credibility for yourself. Which is it? Once again, you are, as Proud Pagan correctly pointed out, "moving the goal posts" again and only showing your lack of honesty, integrity, and credibility in this discussion.

yadayadayada....English common law LOL....

The oldest written law currently in force is the Distress Act, part of the Statute of Marlborough, 1267 Then you have three sections of Magna Carta, originally signed in 1215 and a landmark in the development of English law.

Over a thousand years after the time of Christ….

No the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation, but it was founded by Christians, and many of the concepts were Christian concepts/principles...no moving of the goal post, you are both just to drunk to see straight.

Proud Pagan since I am a follower of Christ I guess I am Christian.. but that is not "religion". Religion is man made trappings created to try to appease or please God

...

I am inclined to agree with this

You will find no where in the New Testament where the Christian is told to force religion on anyone...

I quoted "compel," you say "force." Those are not the same thing.

And as I eluded to in my previous post; To defend and protect a person's civil right to practice a non-Christian religion is decidedly NOT a Christian principle. Shall we consider Mark 9:42?

in fact we are told that when the Gospel is reject to leave those who reject it to their own devises.

Irrelevant. Leaving someone "to their own devices" is a far cry from actively defending their decision."

As to the government the separation of Church and State is clearly taught in the New Testament.

Jefferson clearly establishes his inspiration for religious liberty to enlightenment thinkers such as Hume and Robspierre. Unless you can point to a source which proves that Jefferson or Madison was inspired by the Bible when they wrote that, it's a fallacious claim; post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Regards

While Jefferson may have pointed to Hume & Robspierre it does not change the fact that separation of church and state had been taught in churches long before that.....so the concept is still older than either of them.

...separation of church and state had been taught in churches long before that...

The early colonialists founded colonies with state-sponsored religion; they established suedo-theocracies. Each state religion fought to keep out all the other religions.

No surprise there, and it was a recipe for conflict. How ironic that many left England to seek religious freedom, and yet they were so intolerant of the other religions-just like back home in England. A case of becoming intolerant while at the same time deploring it.

Jefferson recognized all of this, and as a Founding Father, the Establishment Clause was amended into the Constitution so that the earlier mistake would not be repeated.

The oldest written law currently in force is the Distress Act, part of the Statute of Marlborough, 1267 Then you have three sections of Magna Carta, originally signed in 1215 and a landmark in the development of English law.

Nope, try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

you are both just to drunk to see straight.

Nice Christian comment to violate the CoH.

How ironic that many left England to seek religious freedom, and yet they were so intolerant of the other religions-

And that's exactly what they did. They left England to be free to practice their own personal brand of religion. They settled their own colonies and practiced their own religion. Fine, I guess until the time came to form these colonies into a Union. Thanks to founding fathers such as Tomas Jefferson, the first amendment was made a pennant part of the constitution.

Those early settlers didn't come here to find freedom of religion in the way we think of it today, that every one is free to believe as they please, But rather to find the freedom to practice their own particular religion and make that the official religion of the colony.

While Jefferson may have pointed to Hume & Robspierre it does not change the fact that separation of church and state had been taught in churches long before that.....so the concept is still older than either of them.

So now we're up to churches literally teaching the church state separation? I would surely like to see a copy or transcript of that sermon, or any other form of evidence to prove that you're not just pulling that out of your ... ::ahem:: ... repertoire. :-)

Regards

But rather to find the freedom to practice their own particular religion and make that the official religion of the colony.

AND (by the way), they practiced rampant discrimination against other religions, especially the Catholics and the Jews.

Regards

Artie-3438207 . Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

Do a little digging on the first three centuries of Christianity, study the Montanist," Tertullianists," "Novationists," "Paterines" amoung others and you find that they objected to any interference in the local Church be it the Government or even another Church. The study from the first marriage of Church and State in the 300's and the resulting killings of anyone who stood for the Church standing separate from Government....

Don Overton read a little and you would know we were talking English Common laws...of which your code has nothing to do.....

Truett you are really telling me that the Code had nothing to do with English Common Law. Do you really believe that or did you get that out of a Texas textbook.

Let's see....the Code of Hammurabi was unearthed in 1901 and translated in 1904. While English Common Law may have paralleled it somewhat it also paralleled Much of Jewish Law......

now you are backtracking. The code of which it was just one of the early codes has influenced laws before the advent of the 10 Commandments. Yet you don't think it influenced English Common Law. I suggest you begin a quest for knowledge starting at a good community or jr. college.

Do a little digging on the first three centuries of Christianity, study the Montanist," Tertullianists," "Novationists," "Paterines" amoung others and you find that they objected to any interference in the local Church be it the Government or even another Church.

WoW! talk about stacking the deck! You're talking about a whole different world, at an entirely different time, and about sects which died out, leaving little or no influence to present-day Pauline Christianity.

Now, they may have spoken of religious equality, at that time, but ONLY because they were the minority religion AND were routinely being oppressed by the Pagans. At the very least, once Charlemagne got hold of Christianity in the 700's, that was the end of THAT nostalgic notion. Since that time, the Christian church has not, now listen carefully, has NOT been a supporter of the church-state separation. History teaches us that, until the 18th century, it was demonstrably the opposite.

Regards

Let's see....the Code of Hammurabi was unearthed in 1901 and translated in 1904. While English Common Law may have paralleled it somewhat it also paralleled Much of Jewish Law......

Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814:

• For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

Letter To Major John Cartwright, from Monticello, June 5, 1824:

• ...that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed.

PLEASE, tell me how or why you are more educated in these matters than Thomas Jefferson.

Regards

The first evidence of Christianity in England is from the late 2nd century AD. (There may have been Christians in Britain before then, we cannot be sure).

http://www.britannia.com/church/bond1.html

Roman Catholic Church approached from the south, beginning with the mission of St.Augustine to Aethelbert, King of Kent, in 597.

No the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation

No it wasn't. The Christians stole America and the Christians destroyed America.

Over a thousand years after the time of Christ….

English Common Law predates the spread of christianity in England by about 200 years.

No the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation, but it was founded by Christians, and many of the concepts were Christian concepts/principles...

So now you're just assuming the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers automatically translates into the defacto religious belief of this country by default, is that it? Flawed argument. You have yet to provide one piece of orginial documentation which states the US is based on ANY christian concepts. On the other hand, Pagan and I have provided orginal sources by the Founding Fathers themselves which clearly shows under what circumstances the Constitution and the country was founded on, particularly my John Adams reference in my post 19.37 below, and of course, Proud Pagan's multitude of references. You have not offered anything which refutes these sources, much less backs up any of your dubious claims.

Now, kindly answer my or Pagan's challenges or sources! Or is "yadayadayada" the best rebuttal you can offer?

The first evidence of Christianity in England is from the late 2nd century AD. (There may have been Christians in Britain before then, we cannot be sure).

And what evidence is there that they influenced the law of the land?

Roman Catholic Church approached from the south, beginning with the mission of St.Augustine to Aethelbert, King of Kent, in 597.

And prior to the conversion of Aethelbert (since every king prior to him was Pagan), what evidence is there that Christians influenced the law of the land?

I hate to say it, but it's becoming dreadfully obvious that you're grasping at straws.

Regards

Truett, I was just reviewing some prior posts, and there is a small detail I overlooked.

While English Common Law may have paralleled it somewhat it also paralleled Much of Jewish Law......

Actually, there's a second reason that is quite impossible.

Do you even know what Common Law is? I'll give you a hint; Lex Non Scripta.

Regards

Gordy....well then it seems your god Thomas Jefferson had his dates wrong......

No Truett. It seems you're the one who has it all wrong, especially considering you have YET to provide any documentation to support your position, much less refute anything I and especially Proud Pagan have provided. But hey, keep shooting your mouth off if you wish. It only seems to serve to make you look more and more foolish with each post.

Gordy....well then it seems your god Thomas Jefferson had his dates wrong......

Truett, YOU quoted the mission of St. Augustine to convert the King of Kent in AD 597. Jefferson quoted his conversion having taken place in AD 598. Where is this inaccuracy of which you speak?

Mind you, Kent was just one county (shire) of Brittania, about one eighth of the continent. The conversion of the last King of the continent (Heptarchy) Jefferson quotes as AD 686. Since the settlement of Saxons, and thus the start of the period of Common Law, began around AD 450, that calculates to between 147 and 236 years of Common Law without the influence of Christianity. To average that to 200 years is hardly inaccurate.

Your evidence of Christianity in that area prior to the 4th century is scant and inconclusive. Not only can you not confirm WHAT that influence was, or the EXTENT of that influence, you can't even begin to tell WHICH Christians were in that area in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, since the first Council of Nicea wasn't until the 4th century. Not to mention, the Saxon resistance to conversion is well-recorded in history, Charlemagne having to slaughter the Saxons by the thousands (see massacre of Verden) to enforce conversions in the late 8th century.

But more to the point, influence to the law of the land can only be measured only by the influence to the monarchs, since it was they who appointed the judges and wrote the laws.

Regards

Jefferson stated that Christanity did not come to England till 598....when it was in England as early as the 2nd century if not sooner.

when it was in England as early as the 2nd century if not sooner.

Yeah you guys! Robin Hood's Friar Tuck was there! Of course he was drunk most of the time. At least that was what the movie showed. So there you have it. Some drunk Christian monk lost in England sometime around the 2nd century influenced English Common Law. In controvertible evidence such as is usually put forth by Truett.

(Since there is such a large gap between what is put down in writing and what is understood, I need to point out the above is sarcastic.)

Jefferson stated that Christanity did not come to England till 598...

Strawman argument, and once again, I'm having to point out your lack of honesty.

Jefferson said, "But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century;" He is clearly indicating "introduced" into the influence of laws, since A) that is the topic of the paragraph, and B) his sentence continues, "...the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598."

By all means, introduce your evidence that Jefferson is speaking to "any influence at all," or introduce your evidence that Christianity influenced Common Law prior to AD 598.

Further, when I mean "evidence," I mean information which can be supported by facts obtained from a reliable and impartial source, and NOT the answer, "Well I believe..." At the moment, I don't give a flying @!$%# what you believe; you are presenting a subjective opinion as if it were fact, and you will either support it, or you will make it plainly clear that you find the practices of sophistry and deception as being entirely acceptable to further a Christian agenda.

...when it was in England as early as the 2nd century if not sooner.

There is no proof, whatsoever, that Christianity existed in Britannia prior to the third or fourth century. Your, and your source's, claim is based on a theory which has never been proved.

You have also thoroughly failed to prove that any introduction of Christianity in that area influenced Common Law in any way.

Regards

Yeah you guys! Robin Hood's Friar Tuck was there!

DAMN! That's right! I forgot all about Friar Tuck, the bringer of Common Law and circumcision!

Egads!

"But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century;"

When there are 3rd and 4th century Christian Churches found in England....but then in your worship of Jefferson you try to make excuses for him.....

No it wasn't. The Christians stole America and the Christians destroyed America'

Auteur. Do you have any documented facts to back up that ridiculous statement or are you just blathering senselessly again?

When there are 3rd and 4th century Christian Churches found in England

You have thoroughly failed to prove that any introduction of Christianity in that area influenced Common Law in any way.

....but then in your worship of Jefferson...

You have thoroughly failed to prove that any introduction of Christianity in that area influenced Common Law in any way.

...you try to make excuses for him.....

You have thoroughly failed to prove that any introduction of Christianity in that area influenced Common Law in any way.

Twice now you've fallen back on mindless repetition, and ignored points I've raised in my posts.

You can bloody well start addressing those points, or leave people to be forced to conclude that, for all your bull@!$%# rhetoric, you don't have an ounce of actual evidence to support your ridiculous claims.

Regards

http://liberty-virtue-independence.blogspot.com/2008/12/foundation-of-english-common-law.html

http://ten-commandments.us/ten_commandments/biblical_common_law.phtml

Just a couple....man don't you get your panties in a knot when you are forced to resort to gutter language which I have found it always a sign that the one using it knows they are on the wrong end of the argument.

Just a couple....

A Blog is NOT a reliable or academic source. It is just someone else's opinion, and more bull@!$%# proving that you're desperately Googling anything you can find that might support your ridiculous argument.

Do I have to define what constitutes an academic source for you to understand?

The Fairy-tale supplied by ten-commandments.us is no less amusing, and every bit as insulting to one's intelligence. The only thing you've proved is that this reference comes from a Christian Revisionist web site. The history of the Molmutine Laws were studied by Flinders Petrie, an archaeologist of distinguished reputation, and well known in the academic world. He wrote (emphasis mine):

• The condition of pagan Britain is remarkably preserved in the laws of Dyvnal Moelmud. That these laws are certainly long before the tenth century is proved by the gulf that exists between the state of society shown by them and that of the laws of Howel fixed to AD 914. The laws of Howel show a highly complex and detailed condition of law, and an elaborate royal court, with the rights of officials minutely fixed. In the laws of Moelmud there is very simple law, always subject to proved custom and to adaptation to circumstance; there is no royal court, and very few officials, with no defined claims. Moreover, the laws of Howel refer back to Moelmud. What takes the laws of Moelmud at least to Roman times is that they are purely Pagan, and the only Christian allusion is an addition to the forms of legal oath, saying that 'In subsequent times the form of oath was given by the Ten Commandments, the Gospel of St. John, and the blessed Cross'
• This stamps the previous oaths and the rest of the laws as of the pagan period, and therefore at least of the third century, as British bishops attended the Council of Aries in AD 314. How much farther back these laws may date, towards the traditional time of Moelmud, the fourth or seventh century BC, we cannot now enquire. Probably they were of gradual accretion, but apparently no part comes under the influence of Christian usage. We can, then, at least accept the picture of society here shown as being that of the Britons under the earlier part of the Roman dominion.

And the citation for this reference is here: Neglected British History. Proc. Brit. Academy. 1917. Vol. VIII. pp. 1-28. THAT is what distinguishes an academic source from the rancid, fetid bull@!$%# you are peddling.

...man don't you get your panties in a knot when you are forced to resort to gutter language...

@!$%# NO! I started this little conversation civilized, but since you decided to @!$%# around with obvious bull@!$%# which is so easily proved worthless, you can bloody well deal with all the @!$%#ing ire it deserves.

...which I have found it always a sign that the one using it knows they are on the wrong end of the argument.

BULL@!$%#! It could not be more readily obvious that you are desperately listing whatever cock-and-bull argument you can find, without any regard for proper research or credibility.

You demand to be believed, you stake your credibility as a Christian on these arguments, and you still have not found one reliable source to prove that Christianity ever influenced Common Law.

I know it, you know it, and every person reading these posts now knows it.

Regards

I see you did what I expected after it was too late to edit my post....you looked at blog without looking into the links and post....typical.

You even failed to look into the link provided for Dr. F.N. Lee's book.

I see you did what I expected after it was too late to edit my post....

My apologies for being so @!$%#ing predictable.

you looked at blog without looking into the links and post....typical.

It is not an academic source. It is not up to me to research your pathetic and worthless references. Present something worth reading, and I'll read it.

You even failed to look into the link provided for Dr. F.N. Lee's book.

So what? I can name a half dozen Apologists / Revisionists / Dominionists off the top of my head who have written books. Which category does Dr. Francis Lee fit in best? He is not an objective source, ergo, unreliable. Instead of looking to Christian apologists, perhaps you could quote something from an actual historian?!?

Now, let's all sing this one together, shall we?

You still have not found one reliable source to prove that Christianity ever influenced Common Law.

Regards

Dr. F.N. Lee's book, is an "academic" source just because you reject off hand that any Christian can be academic does not make it so....I don't have the time to spend looking up everything for you I get on here for a few minuets now and then between working with PTSD victims, Men against Violence, Community against Violence, Habitat for Humanity, full time 911 dispatch job, then the demands of marriage counseling, working with AA, AL-ANON, people with gambling addictions, drug addictions....etc...I don't get the time I would like to spend here addressing your hate.

Dr. F.N. Lee's book,

"Common Law: Roots and Fruits" isn't even a book. It is unpublished. It is an essay.

...is an "academic" source just because you reject off hand that any Christian can be academic does not make it so....

No, it is not an academic source because it is not sponsored, recommended, or published by an accredited college or university. It's that simple

Not to mention, I already proved Dr. Lee's claims regarding Molmutine Laws as being utterly false. Your own source damaged it's own credibility.

I don't have the time to spend looking up everything for you...

And I don't have the @!$%#ing time for someone who makes unsupported claims, and then feeds me this bull@!$%# of "I don't have time to find proof." If you can't support your opinions and claims with something substantial, you shouldn't have made such claims in the first place. Such irresponsible practices are an insult to those who have spent real time, energy, and money on a genuine education.

I get on here for a few minuets now and then between working...

What the @!$%# is this, a plea for sympathy? I could care less about the demands of your time or what you do in your life. My only concern, here and now, is that you're posting personal opinions without factual support, and trying to pass them off as truth. If you don't have time for this, you should have let it go over a dozen posts ago.

I don't get the time I would like to spend here addressing your hate.

Do not even begin to cloud the issue with such bull@!$%#. The only things I hate are willful ignorance and intentional deception.

I defy you to prove RIGHT NOW that I've shown even one iota of disdain toward anyone or anything apart from what I stated.

And by the way, you have thoroughly failed to prove that any introduction of Christianity in England influenced Common Law in any way.

Regards

....I don't have the time to spend looking up everything for you

I doubt you spent anytime looking anything up. Certainly nothing which actually supports your position (which Pagan hasen't already refuted), much less answers or even refues anything Pagan has provided!

I get on here for a few minuets now and then between working with PTSD victims, Men against Violence, Community against Violence, Habitat for Humanity, full time 911 dispatch job, then the demands of marriage counseling, working with AA, AL-ANON, people with gambling addictions, drug addictions

Are we supposed to be impressed? Or is this some lame attempt to make yourself look more credible? It isn't even pertinent to the discussion in the least and is clearly a transparent attempt to distract or deviate from the topic at hand so people won't see how full of BS you are! Or maybe you're hoping to make yourself look good so we'll back off from giving you an intellectual smackdown and not show the NV community all your lies, misinformation, and complete lack of integrity you present in your posts?

Dr. F.N. Lee's book, is an "academic" source just because you reject off hand that any Christian can be academic does not make it so....

Just because you think it's a credible "academic" source doesn't make it so. It's hardly credible with actual historical facts. Why don't you actually try a real and credible historian for some facts rather than someone with a clear bias which happens to support your agenda? Otherwise, your accusation against Pagan is unwarranted (especially considering he always posts valid, verifiable, original sources), unsubstantiated, and plain juvenile!

I defy you to prove RIGHT NOW that I've shown even one iota of disdain toward anyone or anything apart from what I stated.

While you're at it Truett, why don't you answer Pagan's other challenges, rather than keep on avoiding it? At least the honest thing to do is admit you can't, nor can you actually support any of your claims and admit you're flat out wrong. Such dishonesty from someone who touts themselves as a good "christian." I guess that makes you a hypocrite as well as a liar!

common law, also called Anglo-American law, Body of law based on custom and general principles and that, embodied in case law, serves as precedent or is applied to situations not covered by statute.

common law, also called Anglo-American law, the body of customary law, based upon judicial decisions and embodied in reports of decided cases, that has been administered by the common-law courts of England since the Middle Ages.

The English common law originated in the early Middle Ages in the King’s Court (Curia Regis), a single royal court set up for most of the country at Westminster, near London. Like many other early legal systems, it did not originally consist of substantive rights but rather of procedural remedies.

The common law of England was largely created in the period after the Norman Conquest of 1066. The Anglo-Saxons, especially after the accession of Alfred the Great (871), had developed a body of rules resembling those being used by the Germanic peoples of northern Europe. Local customs governed most matters, while the church played a large part in government. Crimes were treated as wrongs for which compensation was made to the victim.

The Normans spoke French and had developed a customary law in Normandy. They had no professional lawyers or judges; instead, literate clergymen acted as administrators. Some of the clergy were familiar with Roman law and the canon law of the Christian church, which was developed in the universities of the 12th century. Canon law was applied in the English church courts, but the revived Roman law was less influential in England than elsewhere, despite Norman dominance in government. This was due largely to the early sophistication of the Anglo-Norman system. Norman custom was not simply transplanted to England; upon its arrival, a new body of rules, based on local conditions, emerged.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/128386/common-law/40224/The-origin-of-the-common-law

But then I guess you don’t consider Britannica as being academic either.

Christianity is part of the origin of the common law. Although Christianity is considered part of the origin of the common law, the courts did not regard it as controlling or imposing in nature while discussing a religious duty of any narrow view or things related to morality and decency. It was observed that even if Christianity is not a part of the law of the land, if it is the popular religion of the country, then an insult to it can disturb the public peace

http://commonlaw.uslegal.com/origins-of-common-law/

Also read www.constitution.org/cmt/hale/history_common_law.htm

common law, also called Anglo-American law, the body of customary law, based upon judicial decisions and embodied in reports of decided cases, that has been administered by the common-law courts of England since the Middle Ages.

This does not dispute anything I've presented.

The English common law originated in the early Middle Ages in the King’s Court (Curia Regis), a single royal court set up for most of the country at Westminster, near London. Like many other early legal systems, it did not originally consist of substantive rights but rather of procedural remedies.

This is wholly misleading. This is speaking to post-Norman conquest Common Law as English common law, distinguishing it from Anglo-Saxon Common Law. This same source even acknowledges the existence of the Witenagemot. which pre-dates the Curia Regis.

The common law of England was largely created in the period after the Norman Conquest of 1066.

"Largely created," does not refute that Common Law existed prior to AD 1066.

The Anglo-Saxons, especially after the accession of Alfred the Great (871), had developed a body of rules resembling those being used by the Germanic peoples of northern Europe. Local customs governed most matters, while the church played a large part in government. Crimes were treated as wrongs for which compensation was made to the victim.

You can bold whatever you like. I never disputed the church's involvement with government after AD 686.

For several posts, now, I have asked for proof of Christian influence on Common Law PRIOR to AD 598.

Now, let's consider this section:

This was due largely to the early sophistication of the Anglo-Norman system. Norman custom was not simply transplanted to England; upon its arrival, a new body of rules, based on local conditions, emerged.

For whatever reason, the author of this article gives Anglo-Saxon law only the briefest of nods, but nonetheless, it is clearly stated that Anglo-Saxon law remained influential.

But then I guess you don’t consider Britannica as being academic either.

Keep your snide remarks to yourself. I read your reference, NOW please read mine:

Anglo-Saxon Law from Northwestern University.

Oh, it also distinguishes Anglo-Saxon law from English Common Law, but it clearly establishes English Common Law as a continuation of Anglo-Saxon Law, as well as its influence on American Law.

Christianity is part of the origin of the common law...

Just like the rest of your claims, Truett, this falls flat. I have never claimed Christianity had no influence whatsoever.

I have stated, loudly and clearly, that Common Law existed prior to the introduction of Christianity to England, and nothing you've presented disputes that.

Regards

NOW please read mine:

Nice reference Pagan. I'll have to bookmark that one for future refernce. Thnx.

LOL.... Two dates in your....1066, then 1586...

I have never claimed Christianity had no influence whatsoever.

Really...to quote you....

You have thoroughly failed to prove that any introduction of Christianity in that area influenced Common Law in any way.

And well before your cut off date of 598...

Saxon churches. The Celtic and Roman churches, though not incompatible, certainly enjoyed differences of opinion and practice. The Celtic church was ascetic, fervent, based on monastic life, and more loosely organized. The Roman church was more conscious of structure, discipline, and moderation. They also celebrated Easter on different days. To resolve their differences they met at the Synod of Whitby in 664, where the Roman cause triumphed.

The church was a very important force in society; the only truly national entity tying together the different Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The early monasteries of Northumberland were vital centres of learning and the arts until they were scourged by the Viking raids of the 9th century.

http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Early_Christian_Britain.htm

In the 1st Century AD, Britain had its own set of religious icons: Pagan gods of the earth and Roman gods of the sky. Into this superstitious and violent world came a modern, fashionable cult from the east: Christianity.

We tend to associate the arrival of Christianity in Britain with the mission of Augustine in 597 AD. But in fact Christianity arrived long before then, and in the 1st Century AD, there wasn't an organised attempt to convert the British.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/uk_1.shtml

Archaeological evidence for Christian communities begins to appear in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

Recent archaeology suggests that the oldest church building so far positively identified in Britain, dates from approximately 140. We also know of domestic Christian remains of earlier date in the south of Britain. There is even evidence that the Romano - British elite used their villas as centres of worship. Within these villas, Christian symbols, fused with pagan images perhaps reflecting the variety of religions tolerated in the Empire at that time. The Roman historian Tertullian, in a tract written around 208, not only mentions the Church in Britain, but refers to it as having extended beyond the area of Roman rule.

http://anglosaxonanglicans.org/origins/anglo.htm

LOL.... Two dates in your....1066, then 1586...

Which proves what?!?

Really...to quote you....

You have thoroughly failed to prove that any introduction of Christianity in that area influenced Common Law in any way.

Which is 100% accurate for the post to which it referred, but you are right, I should have been more precise and more consistent from post-to-post. Nonetheless, it was established early on that we were discussing the period of time between AD 450 and AD 598.

Unless, of course, you're being dishonest and trying to play bull@!$%# semantics.

And well before your cut off date of 598...

Saxon churches.

Saxon churches were not Christian churches until some time after AD 630. Oh, You didn't know Saxon Pagans had churches? Gee, maybe you should have picked up a history book on Anglo-Saxon history.

The Celtic and Roman churches...

Celtic churches refer to Ireland. Wrong country.

And your other references to periods after AD 598 are being ignored, for obvious reasons.

In the 1st Century AD, Britain had its own set of religious icons: Pagan gods of the earth and Roman gods of the sky. Into this superstitious and violent world came a modern, fashionable cult from the east: Christianity.

We tend to associate the arrival of Christianity in Britain with the mission of Augustine in 597 AD. But in fact Christianity arrived long before then, and in the 1st Century AD, there wasn't an organised attempt to convert the British.

Gee, let's go down four more paragraphs from YOUR source:

• During the 4th Century, British Christianity became more visible but it had not yet won over the hearts and minds of the population. Pagan beliefs still abounded and Christianity was a minority faith.

Did you miss that part, or are you being intentionally deceptive?

Archaeological evidence for Christian communities begins to appear in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

And how does this prove that Christianity influenced Common Law? No, that was rhetorical, I'm gonna answer this one; it doesn't prove a @!$%#ing thing, and this is what? The third @!$%#ing time that you're repeating the same useless, pointless bull@!$%#!

Recent archaeology suggests that the oldest church building...

Again, you provide a religious site that cites no references. The information is useless since it cannot be established as being objective or accurate.

So since you like to play semantics, let me be precise about this: IN OVER A DOZEN POSTS, YOU HAVE UTTERLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT CHRISTIANITY INFLUENCED ANGLO-SAXON COMMON LAW PRIOR TO AD 597.

NOW Answer me one question,Truett, because I am truly curious: Are you deathly afraid that your religion (for lack of a better term) is going to crumble because a system of law existed that didn't require religious dogma?

Regards

LOL....at least I admit that Common Law was influenced by various beliefs (including pagan) secular, and what have you...but mention that Christianity also had influence on it and you go off the deep end and loose it.....

...but mention that Christianity also had influence on it and you go off the deep end and loose it.....

Are you deathly afraid that your religion (for lack of a better term) is going to crumble because a system of law existed that didn't require religious dogma?

but mention that Christianity also had influence on it and you go off the deep end and loose it.....

It's a pretty big leap to go from saying christianity had influence in Common Law to claiming our nation, including the Constitution and system of government and laws, were exclusively based on "christian principles."

Proud Pagan no, it is my belief that a belief in God has existed since the dawn of time on this earth, and will exist till the end of time on this earth....and that that belief in addition to "values" if you will that God instilled in every man has influenced every legal/political system in some way. But then with your belief of worship of the creation I can understand how you would see things different.

gordy327 I have never said that our nation/Constitution/government/laws are exclusively based on christian principles but that Christan principles did affect them.

No, it is my belief that a belief in God has existed since the dawn of time on this earth, and will exist till the end of time on this earth....and that that belief in addition to "values" if you will that God instilled in every man has influenced every legal/political system in some way.

Truett, I'm blown away! Given that this is a personal belief, and certainly there are those who would disagree, that is the most rational thing you've said so far. Thank you.

But then with your belief of worship of the creation...

I do not worship creation, I revere creation. There is a difference.

...I can understand how you would see things different.

Compared to the above-mentioned belief, my belief is not as different as you might think.

But where history is concerned, either the prevailing facts support a conclusion, or they do not. It's just that simple.

Regards

it is my belief that a belief in God has existed since the dawn of time on this earth, and will exist till the end of time on this earth....and that that belief in addition to "values" if you will that God instilled in every man has influenced every legal/political system in some way.

Belief is just that, a belief. But belief does not equal fact. What makes your "beliefs" any more valid or true than someone else with differing beliefs?

I have never said that our nation/Constitution/government/laws are exclusively based on christian principles but that Christan principles did affect them.

From your own post # 2.5: "Gordy just can not stand the fact that America was founded on Christian principles....."

You clearly make the implication that our nation is based on, and only on, christian principles. Then you try to post quotes to support just such a position. You did not say (much less prove) that christian principles only affected or even influenced the founding of this country. If anything, Pagans posts show just the opposite of your claims. Now it seems you're trying to backtrack.