Mormons

[crowTrobot 2]

This is a very flawed opinion of the purpose of the Declaration of Independance. The wording implied much more a desire to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government.

in terms of public policy you can't have one without the other. i didn't say the purpose was to cleans government of all religious culturalism.

Hard to say they wanted all aspects of religion our of government service when they instituted prayer in the beginning of ALL government and judicial gatherings. And the person doing the praying was usually a paid government employee. Litle side note, but they still do this at the opening of congress and our President still places his hand on a Bible when sworn in.

again prayer in congress is trivial to the claim being made that the values that make america great are specifically christian.

[Balloon guy 158]

in terms of public policy you can't have one without the other. i didn't say the purpose was to cleans government of all religious culturalism.again prayer in congress is trivial to the claim being made that the values that make america great are specifically christian.

You made the arguement that the intent of the D of I was to seperate the church and the state. I am showing you why you are wrong. Even the original phrase seperation of church and state was in regards to a government being kept out of church affairs, not the other way around.You are making a faulty conclusion about what the founding father's attitude towards religion and their dependance on Christian values in thier life. I am using the facts of how they incorporated religious observances and Biblical practises into the very start of our country. You have much better arguments for your side in other areas of debate. You are wasting your time trying to imply the country was not heavily indebted to Christianity in its inception.Or I can trot out countless prayers written by our fore fathers such as:George Washington's Prayer JournalOr how about Jefferson not only allowing church services to be held in public buildings, he attended them?

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

[Balloon guy 158]

Most of the founding fathers were deists, many (including probably Ben Franklin) were agnostic, few were probably Christian in our sense of the word

Then how do you explain this speach he made to congress on Thursday, June 28, 1787, Philadelphia, PA?

Mr. President: The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other -- our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own wont of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.

[Balloon guy 158]

i was raised christian, studied it all my life. don't short change me bro

I was raised to ignore God, funny how things work out

[crowTrobot 2]

You made the arguement that the intent of the D of I was to seperate the church and the state. I am showing you why you are wrong. Even the original phrase seperation of church and state was in regards to a government being kept out of church affairs, not the other way around.

maybe i worded something wrong in a previous post. to make clear the intent of the DI was to break from british tyranny and establish a new philosophy of human rights - including that no specific theology should be in control of public policy. that's pretty clear if you study the philosophical background the authors of the DI based it on. i was not saying that the purpose was to keep all religious cultural tradition out of government affairs. obviously that wasn't the case.

I am using the facts of how they incorporated religious observances and Biblical practises into the very start of our country.

yes because they were religious. trivial to the point - does not imply that the concepts of human rights our country was founded on are innately christian.

[Balloon guy 158]

maybe i worded something wrong in a previous post. to make clear the intent of the DI was to break from british tyranny and establish a new philosophy of human rights - including that no specific theology should be in control of public policy. that's pretty clear if you study the philosophical background the authors of the DI based it on. exactly the opposite, they made sure that no public policy would impose on our religious liberties that's pretty clear if you read what they wrote and follow it with what they did.i was not saying that the purpose was to keep all religious cultural tradition out of government affairs. obviously that wasn't the case.yes because they were religious. trivial to the point - does not imply that the concepts of human rights our country was founded on are innately christian.

So then you are saying the make up of the man doesn't get credit for the quality of his works?Their being Christian doesn't count in regards to what they did?See you can say that the fact they were religious doesn't mean that values only come from religion, but until you can point to a decidely non-religious country that has better human rights records than Christian ones, then you are just making blanket judgements that are not grounded in facts.

[crowTrobot 2]

exactly the opposite, they made sure that no public policy would impose on our religious liberties that's pretty clear if you read what they wrote and follow it with what they did.

i'm not seeing how that is opposite of what i wrote. if they intended public policy to be based on a specific theology it would impose.

So then you are saying the make up of the man doesn't get credit for the quality of his works?Their being Christian doesn't count in regards to what they did?

all i'm saying is that the philosophical concepts of human rights they formed were not derived from the bible. i haven't really studied what their individual motivations were.

See you can say that the fact they were religious doesn't mean that values only come from religion, but until you can point to a decidely non-religious country that has better human rights records than Christian ones, then you are just making blanket judgements that are not grounded in facts.

that's why i brought up western europe. sam harris likes to point out that the most atheistic country in the world (sweden) has better quality of living and better public contentment/happiness than the USA by virtually any standard you can measure. i'm not saying that's entirely due to them having a secular government, but it should indicate that being a christian country isn't a prerequisite for having a high standard of human rights.

[jmkiser 0]

So, trial and error but in both instances strong " christian " leadership is what won the battle. If the leaders were circus clowns I suspect circus clowns would be a highly respected public office. You would be in this very forum praising them.

This argument is flawed. There are plenty of " christian " scientist that contribute monumental works and discoveries to the advancement of our knowledge on evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with Christianity. And NEITHER does this government have anything to do with Christianity. The founding fathers made that PERFECTLY clear in quite a few famous quotes.Congratulations, many of them were Christian.... so is Hillary Clinton.I still don't see how it is monumentally important that they were. Just as what I wrote got ignored, it's still one of the most important realizations in this entire discussion.No one calls Handel a one-sided musician because of his use of major chords. It's just what you did during those times. The pilgrims in the northeast were ESCAPING religious persecution. Yes, they were Christian themselves AND it was one of their top values to keep religion out of government. The founding fathers that established this country continued those ideals.

[Balloon guy 158]

Congratulations, many of them were Christian.... so is Hillary Clinton.

Wait a minute...you're lying. Please say you're lying

[crowTrobot 2]

Wait a minute...you're lying. Please say you're lying

she's probably in church right now and you're not

[jmkiser 0]

Jm, you guys are not being misunderstood. We actually are very clear that you don't believe. We were not on the fence about your belief that there is no God. I wasn't letting everyone know that I am atheist... I was continuing on the topic started by Pele, I believe, and representing why many of us are atheists. And also, don't you recall the deleted thread I started about no one being able to "disprove" god? It's impossible and I wouldn't waste my efforts. Therefore, I definitely wouldn't say there definitely is no god. I would say that, by the evidence we have, I think it is pretty obvious that a god-figure, especially the Christian version, is unlikelyThe problem is that this was a specific topic about a specific religion, and in come the athiest trying to shout out the fine points and say all religions are bad.In coming the atheists, eh? You act like we were planning an aerial attack strike. It starts by someone pointing out a flaw in logic and then suddenly it's "omg, teh atheists are at it again!!111". We don't all think the same things the same ways just as there are many many differences among Christians. I think you guys are fine at pointing out why Mormonism is crazy. I also understand why you don't apply those same standards to yourselves (your beliefs are your truths). I think it's wrong that you don't, but that's a different discussion.But you guys don't get that when it comes to the differences in religion, you guys are at best 3rd graders. I have a much better udnerstanding of mormonism than all of you, so why would you feel the need to lump them all together and treat all religions as one?Did someone finally get to you so that we deserved the 3rd grader attack? And then the blanket statement of claiming supreme knowledge on Mormonism over us :: bows to your ultimate intellect :: We lump every religion together that makes claims without evidence... especially the ones that defy the laws of nature. Are they all different? Of course... The christian god doesn't throw lightning bolts... at least I don't recall he does. But does that matter? It's like comparing a unicorn to a leprechaun in our minds. You group those two things together yourself. You can't act like we're not justified.This may come as a shock, but the definiation of most religions does make it necessary to place values on them. A religion that teaches racism is much worse in any and all value charts than one that teaches loving your neighbor. For you guys to equate them makes you look militant. If you can't step away from your hatred for religion, than your voices are just the chants of a radical.Sure, some religions do much worse things then others and some do much better things then others. I don't group them together in a group because of what they do, I do it because of what they claim to be... And again with the blanket statements... "Hatred of religion"? We hate the bad things that religion causes. And some of the worst events on this planet relate to religion. Sure, it's great that a church will pick a homeless guy off the street and help him out. I like you guys for that, but don't act like you deserve special treatment for it. Plenty of people do plenty of good things regardless of whether they are religious or not. I, also, have no bigotry for religious people yet you treat me like I do. White racists were never black, but I have a strong background in Christianity.If you guys can't step away from the "all religion is bad" mantra for a minute to look at whether a mormon is differnt than a Christian then you guys are the ones with blinders on, not us.You act as if that's what we claim. You speak as if you understand what we're saying, but then you say things like this. We relate each religion in the ways that they are easily relatable (is that a word?).... we're not comparing apples to fighter jets... we're comparing a red apple to a green apple and merely commenting that it's interesting that the red feels they can deservedly bash the green. Both the red and green can be delicious and both can be infected with worms.And by the way, Huckabee is a fine man, but his tax policies are bad, so I probably won't vote for him, Mitt is a fine man, but his religion is extremely far from normalcy so I probably cannot vote for him. Rudy is way too far left, although he would be a fine match up for Hillary. I'm probably voting Obama, even though his pastor is a rascist.haha, obama? ORLY?!?!?! If everyone ::cough:: just tried ::coughcough:: voting for the candidate that couldn't win ::coughcough:: then maybe ::cough:: that candidate could win. VOTE RON PAUL!!!!

[jmkiser 0]

doublepostaments+1 !

[jmkiser 0]

Then how do you explain this speach he made to congress on Thursday, June 28, 1787, Philadelphia, PA?

Lighthouses are more helpful then churchesThe way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.Ben friggin' Franklin ;)We all knew that he was a deist, not a Christian.And since we're on the topic of him.............................................. his most important quotesThey that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.

[speedz99 145]

This shows what I mean about not knowing Christianity. We give God the glory not because we are thanking Him for being so good at catching footballs, or thinking up laws. We give God the glory because He deserves it. The football player is ackoweding that God is the only one worthy of the admiration that the crowd is giving him, what He did for us makes any of our accomplishments as dirty rags.

You have to look at what I said in context of what I was replying to. We're actually saying the same thing. That thanking God doesn't mean God is the one that made it happen.So I guess I do know Christianity, eh?

[Balloon guy 158]

she's probably in church right now and you're not

I am ashamed how true this is.

[Balloon guy 158]

You have to look at what I said in context of what I was replying to. We're actually saying the same thing. That thanking God doesn't mean God is the one that made it happen.So I guess I do know Christianity, eh?

Wait...What?

[Balloon guy 158]

Lighthouses are more helpful then churchesBen friggin' Franklin

I do find it funny that you don't realize I am always right. Trust me it will make things much easier in the future.You know how sometimes guys get in arguements about whatever, then after a while they kind of forget and then realize there are better things they could be doing so they want to drop it?That's how I feel.

[jmkiser 0]

You know how sometimes guys get in arguements about whatever, then after a while they kind of forget and then realize there are better things they could be doing so they want to drop it?That's how I feel.

Yeah, I'm with you.I've got a week of backlogged episodes of Law and Order, L&O SVU, Angel, Southpark, and Scrubs to get watching on DVR.I'll see you guys back in this argument a while later

[Loismustdie 0]

i meant the fact that our founding fathers referenced god is trivial (unrelated) to your claim that christianity is what makes our nation great.

This makes no sense to me. If the founders were predominately atheists, and spoke of it, wrote atheist songs and atheist poems and speeches and referenced it throughout documents, giving credit to there belief in atheism, atheism would have been a driving force behind the country, period. Much like the fact that I was born a boy cemented my ownage of a penis. A large one. Anyway.... actually, I don't think it is like that at all, but if you guys were less intelligent I could win this with that statement. I just don't see how so much credit, and so much emphasis could have been put on something and have it be looked on as completely coincidental. I just don't. I don't care what it is, you talk about it enough during the creation of something and give it credit, the credit is due then and years later, especially when the thing that was given credit, well, the creation has characteristics of the credited. Does that make any sense? And, I agree with BG but I really want to understand you guys on this one. I believe I already do to a certain extent- general trivialization, the facts be damned, like what I do with say, evolution- I just don't see how you guys cannot see when you do the very thing that we do.

[Loismustdie 0]

You have to look at what I said in context of what I was replying to. We're actually saying the same thing. That thanking God doesn't mean God is the one that made it happen.So I guess I do know Christianity, eh?

God doesn't care about football. Ever. I really liked what Kathy Griffin did at that awards show-"Suck it, Jesus, this is my God now." Crass, and a bit over the top but it makes a valid point in the only way she knows how.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Much like the fact that I was born a boy cemented my ownage of a penis. A large one.

Now if God had just put it above your thighs and not your eyes you could be proud of it.

[crowTrobot 2]

This makes no sense to me. If the founders were predominately atheists, and spoke of it, wrote atheist songs and atheist poems and speeches and referenced it throughout documents, giving credit to there belief in atheism, atheism would have been a driving force behind the country, period. Much like the fact that I was born a boy cemented my ownage of a penis. A large one.

if you actually read the DI and study its philosophical underpinnings you would see that the aim was not to create a christian country or a christian government. the goal was freedom of religion for the individual and a secular democracy to maintain it. the inclusion of references like "endowed by the creator" and things like prayer in congress are incidental and reflect the general *culture* of the founding fathers - NOT their collective "driving force".and atheism isn't a "belief"

Anyway.... actually, I don't think it is like that at all, but if you guys were less intelligent I could win this with that statement. I just don't see how so much credit, and so much emphasis could have been put on something and have it be looked on as completely coincidental. I just don't. I don't care what it is, you talk about it enough during the creation of something and give it credit, the credit is due then and years later, especially when the thing that was given credit, well, the creation has characteristics of the credited. Does that make any sense?

no because christianity wasn't actually specifically given credit in the sense you are saying it was. the founding fathers represented a wide range of differing religious belief including several deists. again, a phrase like "endowed by the creator" is clearly general & incidental, and does not support your claim that they were motivated by christianity.

And, I agree with BG but I really want to understand you guys on this one. I believe I already do to a certain extent- general trivialization, the facts be damned

i think we are disputing your understanding of what are actual facts more than your reasoning (in this case lol).

[Vick07 0]

Then how do you explain this speach he made to congress on Thursday, June 28, 1787, Philadelphia, PA?

Yeah.. About March 1, 1790, [Franklin] wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion...: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)found that hereI said "probably Ben Franklin" because I think he probably was.. I think back then Christianity was more in the culture than in the soul. But obviously I won't pretend to know what he was for sure.. nor do i care. But didn't you say if it denies the divinity of Christ it is a cult? Poor Ben... I should have known......and records of them going to church has little to do with their core beliefs. Deists aren't THAT far from Christians.. main difference is they don't see Christ as divine and they see God as more distant than fundamental Christianity.

[Loismustdie 0]

Now if God had just put it above your thighs and not your eyes you could be proud of it.

Momma say that thing on my forehead makes me special.

[speedz99 145]

About March 1, 1790, [Franklin] wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion...: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)

Wow...I just gained a whole new level of respect for the guy. I like how concisely he answers and then dismisses the question as unimportant. Very cool find, thanks.