Founding Fathers Mixed on "Christian Nation"

[Thaddeus]

We all saw Newsweek. I think we should all examine some facts about the founding fathers. I saw heard sean talking about our "Christian Nation" which I'm not disputing. Most were not explicitly Christian, George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, on and on and on. Thomas Jefferson, we all know how we embody his words and thoughts, wrote "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" which strips the miracles and religious doctrine, it has Jesus' words and teachings, it's about 40-50 pages. This I think is more what the founding fathers had in mind, not all this back and forth trying to force religious values and doctrine on everyone who has a different set of values. We can all live our lives how we like. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for ALL. There is no room for interpretation or exclusion.

[Jim C.]

When President Obama spoke of the USA as NOT a Christian nation, could he have been speaking for himself and his administration?

[Canman8418]

No, I think he has said that he is a christian. I think the part of the speech which continually is left out is that we are nation with great ideals. I think what he was trying to say that we are not a nation with only one religion, which we aren't and should not be. This statment seems to me to be the essence of the seperation of church and state. I understand that we were founded on Judeo Christian ideals, but that does not mean we can't also adopt other view points as valid. I think this proposition will make the country better as a whole. I know this isn't what the conservatives wanted to read, but hey maybe you should open your mind just a little bit to other points of view. You might just learn something provided you actually want to.

[sosbillncarolyn]

I actually think it is his administration and its well wishes of possibly establishing Islam as the main religion in America,,,
Remember he is a "closet" muslim. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[biggles53]

When President Obama spoke of the USA as NOT a Christian nation, could he have been speaking for himself and his administration?

He would have been merely echoing the views of your founding fathers, who likewise saw your country as NOT a Christian nation....

[fjccommish]

"I understand that we were founded on Judeo Christian ideals, but that does not mean we can't also adopt other view points as valid."

Nope. Holding values, such as the Christian values held by the founding fathers and which served as the foundation for this country, does not allow accepting other values as valid.

The Islamic values of belittling women, attacking other religions, ruling states through religion is counter to the values on which the founders created this nation. What they most disliked about religions such as Catholicism was their desire to control people, dictate how they lived and worshiped. But the Christian ideals of love thy neighbor and others were, according to the founders, natural tenants that came from the creator rather than from an organization's interpretation of god.

We aren't a Christian nation in that this nation is not ruled by Christianity or any other religion. But we follow, and were created with, Christian ideals, not Islamic ideals.

President Obama referred to Islamic influences in shaping this nation. There were none, other than a constant battle against Islam. As Thomas Jefferson said "They (Muslims) are barbarians bent on destroying the very foundation of this nation which we have created."

[Antrel]

Oh dear.

[kaks]

wallbuilders.com, David Barton, American Heritage series for the truth about our forefathers and their true beliefs.

[AutoRacer55]

From the Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The treaty was unanimously ratified on June 7, 1797.

Why would we be founded on Christian ideals if only 21 years after the Declaration of Independence, this treaty was unanimously ratified?

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

We all saw Newsweek. I think we should all examine some facts about the founding fathers. I saw heard sean talking about our "Christian Nation" which I'm not disputing. Most were not explicitly Christian, George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, on and on and on. Thomas Jefferson, we all know how we embody his words and thoughts, wrote "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" which strips the miracles and religious doctrine, it has Jesus' words and teachings, it's about 40-50 pages. This I think is more what the founding fathers had in mind, not all this back and forth trying to force religious values and doctrine on everyone who has a different set of values. We can all live our lives how we like. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for ALL. There is no room for interpretation or exclusion.

*Bold and Italics are mine:

Being an Adams of that line/ancestory..I beg to differ with you making the assertions that my family and it's ancestry were not/are not Christian. We are not Catholics...but that is not a proclamation of anti Christian beliefs. Quakers and their beliefs are where my family started....mostly becoming solid Protestants. You may wish to further educate yourself with facts instead of throwing such garbage out there for mass consumption.

John was for freedom of religion...not a forced state religion or powerful religion that had a strangle hold upon the peoples freedoms and it's government. (ie read Rome and the Pope) Again, you may wish to further educate yourself on John Adams before making such ridiculous assertions.

As to Ben Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson...all where pious men who claimed one form of christianity or another. That they each celebrated in their own ways and views is what they all fought so hard for. Each man and woman having the freedom to choose what to believe in and what not to believe in with a government who treated each equally regardless their religious choices.

Again, education...a terrible thing to waste.

~Mysty

[Rorus Raz]

The Islamic values of belittling women, attacking other religions, ruling states through religion is counter to the values on which the founders created this nation.Yeah, belittling women never happened in this country for over a century.

[DPRosenman]

From the Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The treaty was unanimously ratified on June 7, 1797.

Why would we be founded on Christian ideals if only 21 years after the Declaration of Independence, this treaty was unanimously ratified?
thank you.

[LoneStarHero]

From the Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The treaty was unanimously ratified on June 7, 1797.

Why would we be founded on Christian ideals if only 21 years after the Declaration of Independence, this treaty was unanimously ratified?

How dare you let little things like facts get in the way of Evangelical chest thumping.

[Marleysdaddy]

*Bold and Italics are mine:

Being an Adams of that line/ancestory..I beg to differ with you making the assertions that my family and it's ancestry were not/are not Christian.

No one said anything about your presently living family, or any of your ancestors, save Adams.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

No one said anything about your presently living family, or any of your ancestors, save Adams.

Ya Marleysdaddy....the OP did insinuate and insult my family...ancestors and current. My family is Adams...that specific line of Adams...all the way
back before most of your families even thought to come to this land. I chose to respond to the false allegations of the OP.
Somehow my response was enough to warrant your smarmy comment? Wow...maybe you need a hobby huh? Instead of judging what I can and can't comment on? hmmmmm? Would that be ok with you? [/sarcasm off]

~Mysty

[slick_trip]

the exclusion of any specific religious doctrine from the framework of our gov't proves the founding fathers didn't see us as a 'christian nation'. which in entirely independent from the fact that the majority of the population identifies themselves as christian - including many of the founding fathers.

[Marleysdaddy]

Ya Marleysdaddy....the OP did insinuate and insult my family...ancestors and current. My family is Adams...that specific line of Adams...all the way
back before most of your families even thought to come to this land. I chose to respond to the false allegations of the OP.
Somehow my response was enough to warrant your smarmy comment? Wow...maybe you need a hobby huh? Instead of judging what I can and can't comment on? hmmmmm? Would that be ok with you? [/sarcasm off]

~Mysty

1) What gave you the impression my comment was "smarmy"...it was a simple declarative sentence.
2) Can you show me where in the OP a comment insulting your currently living family members appears?
3) I in no way stated explicitly or implicitly anything about the things on which you could or couldn't comment...you made that up.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

1) What gave you the impression my comment was "smarmy"...it was a simple declarative sentence.

Your so called declarative statement that was designed to or imply that my response was without merit. I happen to disagree with your statement...and stated clearly why I disagree. In my opinion, it was 'smarmy' in it's affect to cease my responses along the vein of comment I had posted.

2) Can you show me where in the OP a comment insulting your currently living family members appears?

By specifically naming John and his family which by extension of time and generations is my family, the OP unwittingly grouped the entirety of our family into a false statement on our belief system. In no way has John's line ever claimed anything but Christian morals and ethics within the foundation of our family's framework. A framework that has extended through time and generations to present day.

3) I in no way stated explicitly or implicitly anything about the things on which you could or couldn't comment...you made that up.

Your statment was most certainly a passive aggressive attempt to shut down the response I had to the OP's assertions. That's not made up, that's reality. ;)

~Mysty

[Marleysdaddy]

Your so called declarative statement that was designed to or imply that my response was without merit.
You are seeing things that aren't there. I made a simple statement that in no way reflected on the merit of your response.

By specifically naming John and his family which by extension of time and generations is my family, the OP unwittingly grouped the entirety of our family into a false statement on our belief system.
That's where the confusion originated. The OP did not specifically name John and his family...just John.
I think we should all examine some facts about the founding fathers. I saw heard sean talking about our "Christian Nation" which I'm not disputing. Most were not explicitly Christian, George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, on and on and on.

Your statment [sic] was most certainly a passive aggressive attempt to shut down the response I had to the OP's assertions. That's not made up, that's reality. ;)


It was not an attempt to shut down anything - it was a clarification, nothing more.

[captusa]

When President Obama spoke of the USA as NOT a Christian nation, could he have been speaking for himself and his administration?

What about when John Adams said it.

[captusa]

"I understand that we were founded on Judeo Christian ideals, but that does not mean we can't also adopt other view points as valid."

Nope. Holding values, such as the Christian values held by the founding fathers and which served as the foundation for this country, does not allow accepting other values as valid.

The Islamic values of belittling women, attacking other religions, ruling states through religion is counter to the values on which the founders created this nation. What they most disliked about religions such as Catholicism was their desire to control people, dictate how they lived and worshiped. But the Christian ideals of love thy neighbor and others were, according to the founders, natural tenants that came from the creator rather than from an organization's interpretation of god.

We aren't a Christian nation in that this nation is not ruled by Christianity or any other religion. But we follow, and were created with, Christian ideals, not Islamic ideals.

President Obama referred to Islamic influences in shaping this nation. There were none, other than a constant battle against Islam. As Thomas Jefferson said "They (Muslims) are barbarians bent on destroying the very foundation of this nation which we have created."

I am unfamiliar with Jefferson condemning Moslims in general.
Could he have been referring just to the Barbary pirates ?
Benjamin Franklin offerred the use of his tabernacle in Philadelphia to Moslims.

[BillyBobUSA]

"I understand that we were founded on Judeo Christian ideals, but that does not mean we can't also adopt other view points as valid."

Nope. Holding values, such as the Christian values held by the founding fathers and which served as the foundation for this country, does not allow accepting other values as valid.

The Islamic values of belittling women, attacking other religions, ruling states through religion is counter to the values on which the founders created this nation. What they most disliked about religions such as Catholicism was their desire to control people, dictate how they lived and worshiped. But the Christian ideals of love thy neighbor and others were, according to the founders, natural tenants that came from the creator rather than from an organization's interpretation of god.

We aren't a Christian nation in that this nation is not ruled by Christianity or any other religion. But we follow, and were created with, Christian ideals, not Islamic ideals.

President Obama referred to Islamic influences in shaping this nation. There were none, other than a constant battle against Islam. As Thomas Jefferson said "They (Muslims) are barbarians bent on destroying the very foundation of this nation which we have created."


Pretty much nails it.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[BillyBobUSA]

*Bold and Italics are mine:

Being an Adams of that line/ancestory..I beg to differ with you making the assertions that my family and it's ancestry were not/are not Christian. We are not Catholics...but that is not a proclamation of anti Christian beliefs. Quakers and their beliefs are where my family started....mostly becoming solid Protestants. You may wish to further educate yourself with facts instead of throwing such garbage out there for mass consumption.

John was for freedom of religion...not a forced state religion or powerful religion that had a strangle hold upon the peoples freedoms and it's government. (ie read Rome and the Pope) Again, you may wish to further educate yourself on John Adams before making such ridiculous assertions.

As to Ben Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson...all where pious men who claimed one form of christianity or another. That they each celebrated in their own ways and views is what they all fought so hard for. Each man and woman having the freedom to choose what to believe in and what not to believe in with a government who treated each equally regardless their religious choices.

Again, education...a terrible thing to waste.

~Mysty


But it does not fit with current secular-uber-alles ideology.

So your ancestors are being recast as heroes of anti-Christian boobs to suit the current politically correct needs.

BTW, what did you think of the TV series on John Adams?

[BillyBobUSA]

Ya Marleysdaddy....the OP did insinuate and insult my family...ancestors and current. My family is Adams...that specific line of Adams...all the way
back before most of your families even thought to come to this land. I chose to respond to the false allegations of the OP.
Somehow my response was enough to warrant your smarmy comment? Wow...maybe you need a hobby huh? Instead of judging what I can and can't comment on? hmmmmm? Would that be ok with you? [/sarcasm off]

~Mysty


It is the atheist tag-team going after anyone resisting the historical revisionism intended to bleach Christianity from significant positive symbols and characters.

You spoke up and so are getting side-swiped by a third party to the discussion.

Thats how these guys play.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

But it does not fit with current secular-uber-alles ideology.

So your ancestors are being recast as heroes of anti-Christian boobs to suit the current politically correct needs.

A voice of reason in a sea of revisionist history...I thank you for the clarity your words offer. :redface:

BTW, what did you think of the TV series on John Adams?

When I first heard that Paul Giamonte (sp?) was going to portray John...I was skeptical. After watching the first offering, my skepticism was laid to rest. Paul did a fabulous job in not only portraying the political figure that was John Adams...but did a stellar job in portraying the private/personal John Adams.

Laura Linnie (sp?) portrayed Abigale perfectly. She was one amazing woman to be sure. Many of the stories I grew up with as told by my Grandmother were referenced or portrayed in that series. My heart swelled with pride and a new understanding hit me as I watched the series of not only where I come from...but why I'm so darn mouthy and strong headed...lol.

My families deep seeded love of our faith was set before John and Abby...yet these two figures that the rest of our nation knows only through histories most certainly relied on that faith and stayed the course of that faith. It has remained so in my family even into this present day.

On a side note: John fought for all mens (read equality for men and woman of this new nation) rights to vote, own property, and be fully recognized citizens of these Untied States. He was shut down repeated by Jefferson, Washington and Franklin for holding such views. One could say that John was the first feminist, and the first founding father to be color blind. All those facts seem to get swept under the carpet when some yahoo needs to twist the facts to meet a present day ideal. It's frustrating to say the very least.

~Mysty

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

What about when John Adams said it.

When taken out of it's original context, John's words can be misconstrued and warped to fit a current thought or ideology.

In a political forum, John made it clear that no government had the right to place upon it's people what religion, if any, must be adhered too by it's populace. It is one of the largest points that opened the exodus from England by our ancestors...ie a State sanctioned religion.

As a private man, John and Abby as well as generations of Adams after them are most certainly Christian with Christian ideals that are inlaid in our very day to day lives. It has always been so...and God willing, always will be so.

John understood freedom verses fake piety. For our founding fathers to impress and make law that only Christians were welcomed in this new land would have made them no different then the oppressive England they left behind. With this in mind, and with great understanding of what religious freedom was, John ensured any American could worship as he or she wished without reprisal from it's governing body. To which, your post becomes relevant in what he stated for the whole of the nation...not as a personal stance on his own personal faith.

~Mysty

[slick_trip]

i think, except for the founding fathers who wore their religion on their sleeve, it's silly to discern the religious beliefs of the individual.

as a group - when the time came to put pen to paper - they specifically removed any 'religious' text and used generic terms. they did not want religion, any religion, to be written into the framework of our gov't.

then saw fit to secure the right to express yourself, and your religious beliefs, first and foremost.

to me this defines the difference between being a nation with a majority of christians and being a christian nation.

[captusa]

But it does not fit with current secular-uber-alles ideology.

So your ancestors are being recast as heroes of anti-Christian boobs to suit the current politically correct needs.

BTW, what did you think of the TV series on John Adams?


No one arguing that this country is not a Christian Country has said anything derogatory about any of the founding fathers.

Benjamin Franklin was one of the greatest minds in history and many of the prominent revolutionaries were brilliant men.
Most of them showed extreme courage and integrity.
The fact that many of them dared to express some politically unpopular religious viewpoints is further proof of their principles.
BTW The musical 1984 was extremely good history.

[captusa]

When taken out of it's original context, John's words can be misconstrued and warped to fit a current thought or ideology.

In a political forum, John made it clear that no government had the right to place upon it's people what religion, if any, must be adhered too by it's populace. It is one of the largest points that opened the exodus from England by our ancestors...ie a State sanctioned religion.

As a private man, John and Abby as well as generations of Adams after them are most certainly Christian with Christian ideals that are inlaid in our very day to day lives. It has always been so...and God willing, always will be so.

John understood freedom verses fake piety. For our founding fathers to impress and make law that only Christians were welcomed in this new land would have made them no different then the oppressive England they left behind. With this in mind, and with great understanding of what religious freedom was, John ensured any American could worship as he or she wished without reprisal from it's governing body. To which, your post becomes relevant in what he stated for the whole of the nation...not as a personal stance on his own personal faith.

~Mysty


[ http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html ( )

John Adams
Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."
In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:
"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.
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

[BillyBobUSA]

A voice of reason in a sea of revisionist history...I thank you for the clarity your words offer. :redface:



When I first heard that Paul Giamonte (sp?) was going to portray John...I was skeptical. After watching the first offering, my skepticism was laid to rest. Paul did a fabulous job in not only portraying the political figure that was John Adams...but did a stellar job in portraying the private/personal John Adams.

Laura Linnie (sp?) portrayed Abigale perfectly. She was one amazing woman to be sure. Many of the stories I grew up with as told by my Grandmother were referenced or portrayed in that series. My heart swelled with pride and a new understanding hit me as I watched the series of not only where I come from...but why I'm so darn mouthy and strong headed...lol.

Yes, I liked it too, but then, not being a descendant, I guess I am easier to please in these matters.

Glad to hear you liked it.


My families deep seeded love of our faith was set before John and Abby...yet these two figures that the rest of our nation knows only through histories most certainly relied on that faith and stayed the course of that faith. It has remained so in my family even into this present day.

On a side note: John fought for all mens (read equality for men and woman of this new nation) rights to vote, own property, and be fully recognized citizens of these Untied States. He was shut down repeated by Jefferson, Washington and Franklin for holding such views. One could say that John was the first feminist, and the first founding father to be color blind. All those facts seem to get swept under the carpet when some yahoo needs to twist the facts to meet a present day ideal. It's frustrating to say the very least.

~Mysty

Adams was overshadowed by Washington and Jefferson, but he is definately an awsome patriarch of this Republic and we were fortunate to have him in that time of crisis.

[BillyBobUSA]

No one arguing that this country is not a Christian Country has said anything derogatory about any of the founding fathers.




:lol:

Now that is very funny.

[BryanC]

Adams was overshadowed by Washington and Jefferson, but he is definately an awsome patriarch of this Republic and we were fortunate to have him in that time of crisis.

If you are interested, read Gordon Wood's Revolutionary Characters for a look into Adam's unpopularity as well as the intellectual milieu of revolutionary America.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

If you are interested, read Gordon Wood's Revolutionary Characters for a look into Adam's unpopularity as well as the intellectual milieu of revolutionary America.

Adams was very unpopular within the political forum...not well liked by his peers...and all around a opinionated go by the rules kind of guy that irked the likes of Jefferson and Franklin.

However, in law the man was above and beyond the rest in claiming a case and was tenacious to the very bone. He got the job done regardless the odds and took on tasks that many of his counterparts would simply run from. John had a sense of following the letter of the law like no other in his time. It made him very unpopular. Abby, his wife, was Johns calming voice..she was also his closest friend and dearest confident in all things. The two really where quiet the pair.

We have copies of some of their letters. The originals have gone to the Mass museum years ago now. But those letters truly speak to a man who would turn politics on it's ear in this present day.

~Mysty

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

[ http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html ( )

John Adams
Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."
In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:
"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.
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

I understand and have read your post. What your missing is I never claimed John to be a Calvinists. I claimed our family from John not to be catholic..and we were/are protestant in our faith. Now anyone can pick about 50 separate faiths that fit into that category in these present days.

Your also missing the type of faiths that were common in Johns days. To which you posted above...any belief in a mystic or superstitious faith was nonsense to John. Is that so odd? Do not most of us reject superstitious faith and mystic beliefs?

John understood the difference between forming a nation of free people under one law and personal faith and belief in a religion. Was he a bible thumping frothing at the mouth Calvinists? No...he wasn't. But in his day there were plenty to be had in every day situation that wished to pervert and twists laws to fit in with their beliefs. (Like England and Islam today)

I understand what your saying...but you must be able to understand the difference between John the private man and John the founder. What John spoke to pre formed law and what John wrote or spoke too in a personal life situation are two almost totally different human beings. You'd have to truly study and understand the times and John himself to understand.

~Mysty

[captusa]

Originally Posted by captusa
No one arguing that this country is not a Christian Country has said anything derogatory about any of the founding fathers.


:lol:

Now that is very funny.

Which of those of us that realize this is not a Christian country has said anything derogatory about any of the founding fathers ?

[BillyBobUSA]

Adams was very unpopular within the political forum...not well liked by his peers...and all around a opinionated go by the rules kind of guy that irked the likes of Jefferson and Franklin.

However, in law the man was above and beyond the rest in claiming a case and was tenacious to the very bone. He got the job done regardless the odds and took on tasks that many of his counterparts would simply run from. John had a sense of following the letter of the law like no other in his time. It made him very unpopular. Abby, his wife, was Johns calming voice..she was also his closest friend and dearest confident in all things. The two really where quiet the pair.

We have copies of some of their letters. The originals have gone to the Mass museum years ago now. But those letters truly speak to a man who would turn politics on it's ear in this present day.

~Mysty

I think it speaks volumes that he defended the British soldiers in their trial after the Boston Massacre, and also was chosen to be ambassador to Britain. I think his raport with the Brits helped us stave off war with Britain for some time.

[BillyBobUSA]

Which of those of us that realize this is not a Christian country has said anything derogatory about any of the founding fathers ?


:lol:

Your killing me, cptusa

[captusa]

Originally Posted by captusa

Which of those of us that realize this is not a Christian country has said anything derogatory about any of the founding fathers ?
:lol:

Your killing me, cptusa

I take that NONE of us that realize this is not a Christian country has said anything derogatory about any of the founding fathers

[BillyBobUSA]

i take that none of us that realize this is not a christian country has said anything derogatory about any of the founding fathers

roflmao

:)):)):)):))

[PyramidBuilder]

I think it's pretty great that a republic defends everybody equally while demanding that everybody live up to their own values. This country will never be a Christian nation in the sense of everybody believing in the same god, nor in the establishment of a state religion, but it doesn't need to be.

Things have changed a great deal since the time of the founders but I like to think they'd be happy with our belief in individual liberty if they saw our time (once they got up to speed, of course). I'm sure they had their own prejudices and weaknesses but ultimately created a nation built on principles stronger than themselves. Sometimes we live up to those principles and sometimes we don't. Making sure we do is probably more important than worrying about which label we apply to ourselves.

[Marleysdaddy]

It is the atheist tag-team going after anyone resisting the historical revisionism intended to bleach Christianity from significant positive symbols and characters.

1) Is there a particular reason that you continue to ignore my actual comments and instead label me as an atheist?

2) I have made no comments in this thread regarding Adams' beliefs - my only contributions prior to this post have been responses to Mystic's posts that the OP claimed her currently living relatives were not Christian. That appeared nowhere in the OP.

[Dreamy]

We are a secular government with a majority of the citizens calling themselves Christians.

The Freedom to Worship or not is all I care about it.

[BillyBobUSA]

We are a secular government with a majority of the citizens calling themselves Christians.

The Freedom to Worship or not is all I care about it.


Exactly.

Good post.

Can you explain it to Marly?

[Marleysdaddy]

Exactly.

Good post.

Can you explain it to Marly [sic]?

1) She's probably not old enough to understand that, though she can sign 'food', 'all done', 'more', and 'please'

2) What gave you the impression that I didn't understand that "we are a secular government with a majority of the citizens calling themselves Christians"?
ETA - http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=52551971&postcount=175

[BillyBobUSA]

1) She's probably not old enough to understand that, though she can sign 'food', 'all done', 'more', and 'please'

:lol:

I was using synecdoche for your account name; guess that really doesnt work, eh?


2) What gave you the impression that I didn't understand that "we are a secular government with a majority of the citizens calling themselves Christians"?
ETA - http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=52551971&postcount=175

Other than the simple fact that you cannot agree that we are a Christian nation, as Indonesia is a Muslim nation?

[EdWood]

The fact that we have freedom of religion proves that we are not a "Christian" Nation. Sure, most of us might claim to be Christian, but the fact that Jews, athiests, agnostics, Muslims, Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, etc, can all worship (or not worship) by their choosing means we are not a Christian Nation.

Look at Iran. They are a religious nation. It's all Islam. Many other countries who are Islamic nations are the very same nations that we decry.

Our laws are founded on morality, and many of those come from yep, the 10 commandments.... but not all of them. That's why we don't have a law against
1) coveting your neighbor's property
2) having a graven image of God.
3) You shall have no other Gods before Me.
4) Taking the Lord's name in vain.
5) and most states do not have a law against adultery.

So there, the 10 holiest of holy laws, and half of them aren't in our nation's law books.

We are not a Christian Nation. Great to everyone who's a Christian, but having the freedom to be or not to be, is what America is all about.

[BillyBobUSA]

The fact that we have freedom of religion proves that we are not a "Christian" Nation. Sure, most of us might claim to be Christian, but the fact that Jews, athiests, agnostics, Muslims, Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, etc, can all worship (or not worship) by their choosing means we are not a Christian Nation.

That is ridiculous.

Being a Christian nation does not in any way preclude minority religions.


Look at Iran. They are a religious nation. It's all Islam. Many other countries who are Islamic nations are the very same nations that we decry.

So what?


Our laws are founded on morality, and many of those come from yep, the 10 commandments.... but not all of them. That's why we don't have a law against
1) coveting your neighbor's property
2) having a graven image of God.
3) You shall have no other Gods before Me.
4) Taking the Lord's name in vain.
5) and most states do not have a law against adultery.

Except for adultry, which we only recently abandoned in this country, those are religious commands that were not often enforced then and never in this country.

That, once again, has absolutely zip to do with our nation being a Christian nation.


So there, the 10 holiest of holy laws, and half of them aren't in our nation's law books.

But since we are speaking of the nation here and not the government, your point is totally irrelevant.


We are not a Christian Nation. Great to everyone who's a Christian, but having the freedom to be or not to be, is what America is all about.

Having Freedom of Religion does not prove this nation is not Christian.

It only proves that our government is not formally committed to enforcing Christianity which is not relevant to the question of whether we are a Christian nation or not.

[adair]

Obama's quote referred to this nation being a secular nation, as has already been posted here. Hannity's constant hammering and spinning about Obama's comments, taken out of context, only distort the real meaning of his quote. This is not the first time this has happened, of course.

President Obama referred to a nation where all faiths, or no beliefs, can be practiced freely, without fear of retaliation or persecution by government or individuals. If this were a Christian nation, this would make us a theocracy, which is defined as: "A government ruled by or subject to religious authority, or
a state so governed." See Iran, or Saudi Arabia, for example.

Our Constitution's opening phrase is "We the people". The first Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We are a secular nation, founded on moral values, based on religious principles. Christians, Jewish, Hindus, Islam/Muslims, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Orthodox, Mennonites, Amish, all practice their faith freely in this great nation of ours. We are all American citizens, so saying that America is a Christian nation, is to disenfranchise a large percentage of the population, who are law abiding citizens, and who deserve to be treated and counted as such.

[BillyBobUSA]

Obama's quote referred to this nation being a secular nation, as has already been posted here. Hannity's constant hammering and spinning about Obama's comments, taken out of context, only distort the real meaning of his quote. This is not the first time this has happened, of course.

President Obama referred to a nation where all faiths, or no beliefs, can be practiced freely, without fear of retaliation or persecution by government or individuals. If this were a Christian nation, this would make us a theocracy, which is defined as: "A government ruled by or subject to religious authority, or
a state so governed." See Iran, or Saudi Arabia, for example.

You seem confused about what a nation is. Lets look at the ole dictionary a second:

na⋅tion 
–noun
1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.
2. the territory or country itself: the nations of Central America.
3. a member tribe of an American Indian confederation.
4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.

Wow, the form of government is no where included in any of that.

So we are a Christian nation (since like 90%+ of us are Christian) while still having a secular government. Having a secular government does not make us a secular nation.

Capice?


Our Constitution's opening phrase is "We the people". The first Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We are a secular nation, founded on moral values, based on religious principles. Christians, Jewish, Hindus, Islam/Muslims, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Orthodox, Mennonites, Amish, all practice their faith freely in this great nation of ours. We are all American citizens, so saying that America is a Christian nation, is to disenfranchise a large percentage of the population, who are law abiding citizens, and who deserve to be treated and counted as such.

Saying that we are a Christian nation is simply to observe obvious facts about the people of our nation.

It does not disenfranchise anyone to state simple facts about the world around us.

If you would learn the difference between a nation and the government of a nation you would not be so confused on the subject.

[LSBeene]

Yeah, belittling women never happened in this country for over a century.

Oh you poor wittle oppwessed victim.

Men AND women were belittled, as were Poles, Mics, Wops, Slants, Jews etc.

Each group denigrated the other and there was no great "patriarchal conspriacy" despite what you may delude yourself into thinking or may have heard.

A woman argued a case before the Supreme Court in the mid-late 1800's - BEFORE the Suffragettes got involved.

Many founding members of the women's movement didn't want to link freedom from slavery because it was not their issue (so much for egality and equality).

Women during WWI used shaming tactics to get MEN to go fight (White feather campaign) while carrying on about how they could not vote, and no feminist organization of note wants women to have to sign up for Selective Service.

And don't get me started on how our gov't panders to women in this country. The most entitled, empowered, and listened to group of women in HISTORY and you're whining.

Go talk to the uneducated. Or debate me. The egg on your face is up to you.

(Google this: voting rights land ownership)

As you will see, some WOMEN were allowed to vote before some men were.

Gotta love Publik SKool education.

[adair]

To BillyBobUSA:

I appreciate your vocabulary lesson. It made me get out my Thesaurus and my Unabridged Webster's. According to Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus (2nd Ed - p. 539), synonyms for "nation" are as follows: body politic, commonwealth, community, democracy, domain, dominion, empire, land, monarchy, people, populace, population, principality, public, race, realm, republic, society, sovereignty, state, tribe, union. (At least 4 forms of government are listed here as synonyms for "nation")

The definition of "nation" in Webster's is quite extense, and covers pretty much what you cover in your definition. But, since, you seem to be such a perfectionist, I did some further research, and your definitions 3 and 4 pertain to a nation-state, just FYI.

Looking at the synonyms, it seems that "nation" and people are really one and the same. And, if we go by synonyms, if democracy, monarchy, republic, are all synonyms of "nation", then government, people and nation are all the same.

I remain firm in my belief that ours is a secular nation, officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices, where all citizens are treated equally regardless of religion, without giving preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions.

We are predominantly Christian as a people, but we cannot say that we are a Christian nation.

[BillyBobUSA]

To BillyBobUSA:

I appreciate your vocabulary lesson. It made me get out my Thesaurus and my Unabridged Webster's. According to Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus (2nd Ed - p. 539), synonyms for "nation" are as follows: body politic, commonwealth, community, democracy, domain, dominion, empire, land, monarchy, people, populace, population, principality, public, race, realm, republic, society, sovereignty, state, tribe, union. (At least 4 forms of government are listed here as synonyms for "nation")

The definition of "nation" in Webster's is quite extense, and covers pretty much what you cover in your definition. But, since, you seem to be such a perfectionist, I did some further research, and your definitions 3 and 4 pertain to a nation-state, just FYI.

Looking at the synonyms, it seems that "nation" and people are really one and the same. And, if we go by synonyms, if democracy, monarchy, republic, are all synonyms of "nation", then government, people and nation are all the same.

I remain firm in my belief that ours is a secular nation, officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices, where all citizens are treated equally regardless of religion, without giving preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions.

We are predominantly Christian as a people, but we cannot say that we are a Christian nation.

A thesaurus gives all related usages one might find, not primary meanings whether the usage is correct or not. For example, I remember one thesaurus that gave possible as a synonym for probable, though they have distinctly different meanings.

Our language is being muddied by this idea that words should mean what people use them for, correctly or not, which over time reduces the clarity of the language.

But as to the use of 'nation' as a synonym for a form of government, this thread is proof enough that it is often misused to mean 'government'.

The misuse of the word 'nation' does not overide the primary meaning of the word which is 'people', hence it is still correct to say that the American nation or people are Christian.

It is a matter of identity that will not be abandoned by us.

[Haplo]

A thesaurus gives all related usages one might find, not primary meanings whether the usage is correct or not. For example, I remember one thesaurus that gave possible as a synonym for probable, though they have distinctly different meanings.

Our language is being muddied by this idea that words should mean what people use them for, correctly or not, which over time reduces the clarity of the language.

But as to the use of 'nation' as a synonym for a form of government, this thread is proof enough that it is often misused to mean 'government'.

The misuse of the word 'nation' does not overide the primary meaning of the word which is 'people', hence it is still correct to say that the American nation or people are Christian.

It is a matter of identity that will not be abandoned by us.Then in the interest of being precise y'all should say we're a majority Christian nation. That's without getting into the arguments over whether this group or that group are "real" Christians that spawn over and over on the religion forum.

Lastly the question needs to be asked "so what?" Our government at all levels should remain uncommitted to any religion regardless of the personal feelings of its members. That is separation of church and state in a nutshell

[BillyBobUSA]

Then in the interest of being precise y'all should say we're a majority Christian nation. That's without getting into the arguments over whether this group or that group are "real" Christians that spawn over and over on the religion forum.

No thanks; we are a Christian nation still.


Lastly the question needs to be asked "so what?" Our government at all levels should remain uncommitted to any religion regardless of the personal feelings of its members. That is separation of church and state in a nutshell

Yes, by the Grace of God do not do to our Christian churches what the Euro-peons have done to theirs, bringing them under the thumb of the state.

Independent churches must not be bridled under the mirage of 'state support' or endorsement.

The state should keep out of church business above all else.

[Haplo]

No thanks; we are a Christian nation still.You're on the one wanting to be precise about word usage so why not be more precise in statements too? Without adding some kind of disclaimer such as "for the most part" you do the same kind of erring by simply saying we are a Christian nation.

Yes, by the Grace of God do not do to our Christian churches what the Euro-peons have done to theirs, bringing them under the thumb of the state.

Independent churches must not be bridled under the mirage of 'state support' or endorsement.

The state should keep out of church business above all else.For the same reason please never let our government at any level come under the thumb of your religion or any others.

[Marleysdaddy]

Our language is being muddied by this idea that words should mean what people use them for, correctly or not, which over time reduces the clarity of the language.


If you think this is unique to "our language" at this current time, you should take courses in Philosophy of Language and Linguistics.

[captusa]

........
The state should keep out of church business above all else.

AND the church should keep out of state business above all else.

[adair]

It seems that this discussion has come down to semantics. The definition of the word nation, or its synonyms, is perhaps at the core of the issue here.

Alternatively, perhaps, there is a preconceived idea that if the majority of the population believes in something, then the entire population is automatically marked by that belief. Saying that we are a Christian nation because the majority of our population has Christian beliefs is like saying that San Antonio, Texas, for example, is a Hispanic city because almost 62% of its population are of Hispanic descent. The correct assertion is that, San Antonio is an American city where the majority of its citizens are of Hispanic descent.

Let me make something clear here. I am a Christian. Nevertheless, I want every US citizen who is not a Christian to have the right to call themselves Americans. To say that this is a Christian NATION negates that right from those whose religious beliefs are other than Christianity. Our government is a secular government, so we ARE a secular nation.

A secular government is the only form of government where true freedom of religion can be exercised. It should not be an insult to anyone’s religious beliefs or sensitivities to call our nation a secular nation. We should be proud of the fact that under our Representative Democracy, we can exercise those beliefs freely. This mantra of “Christian nation” sounds like someone is wishing for this country to become a theocracy. We all know how dangerous these types of governments can be!

[Marleysdaddy]

Very thorough and succinct adair :clap:

[BillyBobUSA]

If you think this is unique to "our language" at this current time, you should take courses in Philosophy of Language and Linguistics.

Of course it is not unique.

Almost all languages eventually decay into a mess of nearly meaningless terms, which is why they die off and get replaced by backwoods dialects that become their own languages like Spanish, French and Italian did when the Romans fell into barbarism.

[BillyBobUSA]

AND the church should keep out of state business above all else.

Agreed, but the people still ahve the right to elect officers that share their own values and in that way the church indirectly affect the polity of any government.

[BillyBobUSA]

It seems that this discussion has come down to semantics. The definition of the word nation, or its synonyms, is perhaps at the core of the issue here.

Alternatively, perhaps, there is a preconceived idea that if the majority of the population believes in something, then the entire population is automatically marked by that belief.

'Marked'? My what a technical term.

The people of this antion are Christian and have always been Christian and will stay Christian, even while the government becomes controled by heathn that use it to try and exterminate the Biblical church, this nation will remain Christian.

Those who are in the minority in regards to faith are just that - the minority - and do not set the norm for the nation.

In the US of America, the norm is still Biblical Christian.



Saying that we are a Christian nation because the majority of our population has Christian beliefs is like saying that San Antonio, Texas, for example, is a Hispanic city because almost 62% of its population are of Hispanic descent. The correct assertion is that, San Antonio is an American city where the majority of its citizens are of Hispanic descent.

Lol, anyoen from Texas knows that San Antonio has long been a Hispanic city from its founding. But it is still Texan and American.


Let me make something clear here. I am a Christian. Nevertheless, I want every US citizen who is not a Christian to have the right to call themselves Americans. To say that this is a Christian NATION negates that right from those whose religious beliefs are other than Christianity.

Let me make this perfectly clear to you, your assertion is a bald faced twisting of the facts.

NOTHING IS NEGATED by asserting that this nation is Christian as we have, from the founding of this country, long welcomed other people of other faiths even when this nation was 99% Christian.


Our government is a secular government, so we ARE a secular nation.

Nope, it is Christian and will REMAIN CHRISTIAN.


A secular government is the only form of government where true freedom of religion can be exercised. It should not be an insult to anyone’s religious beliefs or sensitivities to call our nation a secular nation.

It is not an insult to say so, but it just is not true.


We should be proud of the fact that under our Representative Democracy, we can exercise those beliefs freely. This mantra of “Christian nation” sounds like someone is wishing for this country to become a theocracy. We all know how dangerous these types of governments can be!

It sounds that way to you because you have no respect for the facts of the matter, and apparently prefer a Babylon of confusion tothe general consensus of Christian faiths that we have today.

But it does not matter; hope all you want, this nation will still be Christian long after the Democratic party is dead and gone.

[BillyBobUSA]

Very thorough and succinct adair :clap:

Not hardly; he merely shares your bigo.... preference to deChristianise our nation.

[slick_trip]

The people of this antion are Christian and have always been Christian and will stay Christian, even while the government becomes controled by heathn that use it to try and exterminate the Biblical church, this nation will remain Christian.

i believe this to be the only pertinent aspect to your post - and it defines entirely why you're wrong.

i, and many other, am not, never have been - and i expect, never will be - christian. i have always been, and expect i always will be, a person of this great nation.

you can not make the assertion you just did and truly believe we are a nation of people endowed with the right to choose our religion (or not).

[Haplo]

'Marked'? My what a technical term.

The people of this antion are Christian and have always been Christian and will stay Christian, even while the government becomes controled by heathn that use it to try and exterminate the Biblical church, this nation will remain Christian.

Those who are in the minority in regards to faith are just that - the minority - and do not set the norm for the nation.

In the US of America, the norm is still Biblical Christian.





Lol, anyoen from Texas knows that San Antonio has long been a Hispanic city from its founding. But it is still Texan and American.




OOOOOOO, let me make this perfectly clear! oooooooo

lol

Let me make this perfectly clear to you, your assertion is a bald faced twisting of the facts.

NOTHING IS NEGATED by asserting that this nation is Christian as we have, from the founding of this country, long welcomed other people of other faiths even when this nation was 99% Christian.




Nope, it is Christian and will REMAIN CHRISTIAN.




It is not an insult to say so, but it just is not true.




It sounds that way to you because you have no respect for the facts of the matter, and apparently prefer a Babylon of confusion tothe general consensus of Christian faiths that we have today.

But it does not matter; hope all you want, this nation will still be Christian long after the Democratic party is dead and gone.I imagine such a black and white view must be quite comforting to those who have it. Self delusions generally are.. :boohoo:

[teresamerica]

As much as Obama wants to deny the foundation of this nation, It was founded on Christian principles and is still a Christian nation today.

Obama and liberals want to take our right to freedom of religion away from us. They like to twist the Constitution to fit their own ideals or agendas. Liberals misinterpret the seperation of Church and State clause as well as freedom of religion. They think the statement means freedom from religion. The seperation of Church and state means no organized religion shall be adopted by our government and that was because of the religious persecution that the colonists fleed from in Britain. Our founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew how Democrats and Liberals are abusing and misrepresenting the Constitution.

Let us conservatives bring back honour, dignity, morality, and civility to our nation that was founded on Christian principles.

[adair]

Billy Bob: I have refrained from using sarcasm and mockery, as I think this denigrates any civilized exchange of ideas. If that is your style, suit yourself.

On the Christian nation issue, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Where has the idea come that heathens control this government? President Obama is a man of faith, a Christian, he has expressed it repeatedly, he can discuss and interpret the Bible with any scholar, and still, there are many who deny his faith. And, please, those who are reading this, and who are ready to start typing that Obama is a closet Muslim, please spare me. I have read it and heard it ad nauseum.

President Obama taught Constitutional Law for 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School, so when he talks about the Constitution, or matters related to it, he knows what he is talking about.

Also, since when are Democrats atheists? This is what we hear on conservative talk. This kind of generalization is irresponsible and unfounded. It is just thrown out there to see if it sticks, with no basis in reality. There might be atheists who are Democrats, as I am sure there might be atheists who are Republicans, or atheists who are Independents. We don’t know who they are, so why speak for them, or generalize on one group or the other, just because someone says so, and we all start repeating it? Can we say that all Republicans are Christians? I would say not. I’m sure there would be many Jewish Republicans (or any other non-Christian religion) that would be offended if they were generalized in this way.

Billy Bob, you say I have no respect for the facts of the matter. You sir, have no respect for the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you, as illustrated by your response to Marleysdaddy about his comment about my post. (Thank you, M.daddy) By the way, I am female. To be fair, there is no way of telling by my user name. You call me a bigot who prefers to de-christianize the nation. According to the dictionary, which you love to refer to, a “bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own.” Through my posts, I have shown tolerance of all religions, hence my defense of Obama’s remarks. Is tolerance not allowed in your world?

To teresamerica: I do not know how liberals misrepresent freedom of religion, as you say. I cannot wrap my brain around this statement. How can seeing a nation made up of citizens of all religions be the same as seeing no religion? The separation of Church and State is there to prevent abuse and preferential treatment, in other words, for government not to interfere based on faith. This is not a liberal agenda. It is a constitutional mandate.

[BillyBobUSA]

i believe this to be the only pertinent aspect to your post - and it defines entirely why you're wrong.

i, and many other, am not, never have been - and i expect, never will be - christian. i have always been, and expect i always will be, a person of this great nation.

you can not make the assertion you just did and truly believe we are a nation of people endowed with the right to choose our religion (or not).


And if you lived in Tunisia, you would n ot be Muslim, but would still be living in a Muslim nation with a secular government.

We have long had the freedom to choose our faith in this country, from its very first day of existance, and from that same moment and before have also been a Christian nation.

Just because you dont like it does not make it not so.

[BillyBobUSA]

I imagine such a black and white view must be quite comforting to those who have it. Self delusions generally are.. :boohoo:


:lol:

So I must be deluded because I think the facts are clear on the matter?

ROFLMAO

[BillyBobUSA]

As much as Obama wants to deny the foundation of this nation, It was founded on Christian principles and is still a Christian nation today.

I think this is not true in terms of our government or the philisophical approach it was founded on. The school of thought that came from the Enlightenment's John Locke and Adam Smith really tried to form principles based on Reason independent of religious dogma.

Now the legal philosophy they used was part of Christian culture, but they tried to free their philosophy from being Christian by definition. They did not appeal to Christ as they made their arguments for thei ideas; just the facts as they knew them.

I think this is the sort of thing that libruls are thinking of when they say that this nation is not Christian as they are thinking of its form of government and the rationale behind it.

On that I would have to agree with them, though I doubt that this form of government would ever have sprouted from a Muslim nation or people of just about any other faith.

Obama and liberals want to take our right to freedom of religion away from us. They like to twist the Constitution to fit their own ideals or agendas. Liberals misinterpret the seperation of Church and State clause as well as freedom of religion. They think the statement means freedom from religion. The seperation of Church and state means no organized religion shall be adopted by our government and that was because of the religious persecution that the colonists fleed from in Britain. Our founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew how Democrats and Liberals are abusing and misrepresenting the Constitution.

I completely and totally agree with you on this point and it warms my heart to see people are realising this very important set of points.

Let us conservatives bring back honour, dignity, morality, and civility to our nation that was founded on Christian principles.

To that I also agree, as long as we are clarifying that by the term 'nation' you do not refer to our government.

[BillyBobUSA]

Billy Bob: I have refrained from using sarcasm and mockery, as I think this denigrates any civilized exchange of ideas. If that is your style, suit yourself.

Well, yes, it is my style, as you put it when it seems that no arguments or facts are penetrating, but that is due to my relative immaturity at the age of 51 and my continuing contempt for those who are so stubborn that they cannot accept the Truth of a matter when the facts are plainly against them.

But I should not have been that way with you as you did post a very reasonable, though incredibly flawed post, IMO.

Please accept my appology for being a jerk.

I editted out the lines I think that offended you. If I didnt get all that you were refering to, just let me know.


On the Christian nation issue, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

That is the beauty of this country; freedom to agree and disagree on those things not yet enshrined into the librul canon of secular revelation.


Where has the idea come that heathens control this government?

1. The use of our tax dollars to fund abortion, which deeply violates the conscience of a great many Americans and a form of tyrany that Thomas Jefferson himself damned in no uncertain terms.

2. The antagonism displayed by the Washington DC leadership to any form of Biblical values systems.

3. The way in which proChristian politicians have been purged from Washington DC leadership though they were not guilty of major crimes. Men like Tom deLay, and Senators Stevens and Craig, whatever their personal behavior, did champion the causes most dear to Biblical Christians and they were run from office while known criminals and convicted felons still retain their offices.

etc, etc, etc, etc.


President Obama is a man of faith, a Christian, he has expressed it repeatedly, he can discuss and interpret the Bible with any scholar, and still, there are many who deny his faith. And, please, those who are reading this, and who are ready to start typing that Obama is a closet Muslim, please spare me. I have read it and heard it ad nauseum.

I dont deny his faith at all, but it is plain that he does not base his religious values primarily on a Biblical set of axioms but on secular values that have infested the main line Protestant denominations.



President Obama taught Constitutional Law for 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School, so when he talks about the Constitution, or matters related to it, he knows what he is talking about.

He is a scholar on the subject, true, but that does not make him right on everything nor does it make him objective. Plenty of scholars have sacrificed their independent judgement on the altar of partisanship and ideology.

For example, Obama says that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right, and I agree, but somehow he thinks the DC handgun ban is completely harmonious witht he 2nd amendment.

This kind of mental contortion artistry betrays his deeper contempt for the right of Americans to self-defence.

His use of money taken from the public with the threat of force to fund abortion by giving it in a fungible form to groups that perform abortions is not only heathen but heinous and as Thomas Jefferson would say, it is tyranical.

That is a small start and I apologise for not going further due to lack of time.


Also, since when are Democrats atheists?

They are dominated and led by atheists with philosophies composed and long championed by atheists.

If it walks like a duck....


This is what we hear on conservative talk. This kind of generalization is irresponsible and unfounded. It is just thrown out there to see if it sticks, with no basis in reality. There might be atheists who are Democrats, as I am sure there might be atheists who are Republicans, or atheists who are Independents. We don’t know who they are, so why speak for them, or generalize on one group or the other, just because someone says so, and we all start repeating it?

I dont think any of this would stick if there werent a perception (justified in my opinion) that there is something to them.


Can we say that all Republicans are Christians? I would say not. I’m sure there would be many Jewish Republicans (or any other non-Christian religion) that would be offended if they were generalized in this way.

I am not saying that each and every Democrat is an atheist. That is absurd.

Many of them just dont bother to think through all their beliefs and live with Cosmic amounts of cognitive dissonance on a daily basis.

Worse they make themselves fellow travelers for those who are at war with Biblical Christianity and dont realise it and actively search for ways to continue in their delusions.


Billy Bob, you say I have no respect for the facts of the matter. You sir, have no respect for the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you, as illustrated by your response to Marleysdaddy about his comment about my post. (Thank you, M.daddy)

I do have respect for those who disagree with me in a resonable way, but I have little patience when we have gone over and over basic facts and definitions and people still insist on presenting absurd things.

If we have an abstraction here it might help.

Assertion A says that an object qualifies to be described as 'blue' if it meets any of a dozen definitions.

Assertion B is that a specific object meets several of these definitions and is therefore qualified to be considered 'blue'.

Counter-Assertion C is that no, this object is not 'blue' because it does not meet one of the definitions for 'blue'.

Defense-Assertion D is that by the argument addressed in assertion A, the object does not have to meet each and every definition but only one to qualify as 'blue' and unless the counter-argument can be shown to disqualify said object from each and every definition, then it can be legitmately said to be 'bleu'

Counter-Assertion E simply repeats C, and continues to do so repeatedly without enhancement or ammendment.

I assert that this American people can be described as a 'Christian nation' because the vast majority of us are Christian. This is demonstrated to be a legitmate claim based on several definitions of the term nation.

Some people continue to contradict the validity of the assertion by asserting that there are some definitions of the term 'nation' that imply more than the phrase is ever intended to be used by me.

It is unreasonable to insist that a statement be true by every possible permutation of phrase and meaning and is simply illustrative of a deeper hostility to the simple fact as presented.

Why is that?

I think it is because these people detest the Christian nature of this nation and want to destroy the self-image that the nation has of itself as being a Christian nation.

I think the posts of this thread bear this out, especially when one searches out other posts by the most adamant opponents to the fact that we are a Christian Nation.


By the way, I am female. To be fair, there is no way of telling by my user name. You call me a bigot who prefers to de-christianize the nation.

Actually, I was very tempted to assert that, but I think I managed, by a nearly mirculous intervention by some nearly cosmic force to refrain at the very end.


According to the dictionary, which you love to refer to, a “bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own.” Through my posts, I have shown tolerance of all religions, hence my defense of Obama’s remarks. Is tolerance not allowed in your world?

Yes, it is, but not to all opinions.

For example, I am not tolerant of opinions that assert we should turn this nation into a formal theocracy as I think that this would be fatal to the church.


To teresamerica: I do not know how liberals misrepresent freedom of religion, as you say. I cannot wrap my brain around this statement. How can seeing a nation made up of citizens of all religions be the same as seeing no religion? The separation of Church and State is there to prevent abuse and preferential treatment, in other words, for government not to interfere based on faith. This is not a liberal agenda. It is a constitutional mandate.

And entirely irrelevant to the simple fact that we are a Christian nation.

[Haplo]

As much as Obama wants to deny the foundation of this nation, It was founded on Christian principles and is still a Christian nation today. Is slavery a Christian principle? Is the attitude and actions towards the indigenous peoples of this continent an example of a Christian principle? Is not only allowing but promoting a diversity of beliefs a Christian principle? The last certainly goes smack again the "no other gods..." command.

Obama and liberals want to take our right to freedom of religion away from us. They like to twist the Constitution to fit their own ideals or agendas. Liberals misinterpret the seperation of Church and State clause as well as freedom of religion. They think the statement means freedom from religion. The seperation of Church and state means no organized religion shall be adopted by our government and that was because of the religious persecution that the colonists fleed from in Britain. Our founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew how Democrats and Liberals are abusing and misrepresenting the Constitution. Freedom of religion MUST allow the option of choosing to follow no religion and not being expected to participate in government lead prayer to the god of the majority.

It's just like how seperation of church. Many fundies like the idea of keeping the state from controling the church but ignore the fact that it also does and should keep the church from controling the state.

Think of a restraining order. Person A has one against person B. Now that means person B isn't allowed to come around person A. That however doesn't allow person A to deliberatly go around person B.

Please stop supporting double standards if you want true freedom and equality in this country.

Let us conservatives bring back honour, dignity, morality, and civility to our nation that was founded on Christian principles.Many conservatives are certainly trying but find they must identify themselves more and more as either indepenants or moderate democrats. Why you ask? Because they have the balls to violate the #1 unwritten law of the RNC...that being you must be a professed Christian.

I'm one who has grown disgusted with the republican party due to twisted interpretations of those terms you brought up. Particularly the "morality" one. To them you can't be a non-Christian and be moral.

[BillyBobUSA]

Is slavery a Christian principle?

No, while it was tolerated initially and an attempt to make it mor humane made, it was the Christian church that was the first community to realize that it could not be tolerated consistently with the principles of love and humanity as taught by Christ and then banned it.

As Christianity has weakened in its leadership of the West, defacto slavery in the form of debt slavery and even underground, black market indentured servitude has returned to the West.


Is the attitude and actions towards the indigenous peoples of this continent an example of a Christian principle?

You mean the conversion of them from darkness and sin? Then yes.

Do you mean thier enslavement by some? No, and that was a cultural outgrowth from an early modern Europe that still had a lot of growing to do morally.

Is not only allowing but promoting a diversity of beliefs a Christian principle?

No, and there is no obligation for any religion to promote its rivals.

The last certainly goes smack again the "no other gods..." command.

Yes, it does.

Freedom of religion MUST allow the option of choosing to follow no religion and not being expected to participate in government lead prayer to the god of the majority.

Yes, it does and no one expects nonbelievers to participate in a prayer that violates their beliefs. But that does not mean a prayer cannot be said in their presence.

Your lack of belief does not restrict my freedom to pray where and when I want to.


It's just like how seperation of church. Many fundies like the idea of keeping the state from controling the church but ignore the fact that it also does and should keep the church from controling the state.

They shouldnt ignore this as control by the state is a mortal flaw for any church.


Many conservatives are certainly trying but find they must identify themselves more and more as either indepenants or moderate democrats. Why you ask? Because they have the balls to violate the #1 unwritten law of the RNC...that being you must be a professed Christian.

That is simply a figment of your imagination.

There are plenty of Jews, Muslims and nonreligious people in the Republican Party.


I'm one who has grown disgusted with the republican party due to twisted interpretations of those terms you brought up. Particularly the "morality" one. To them you can't be a non-Christian and be moral.

Bull.

[captusa]

.........
1. The use of our tax dollars to fund abortion, which deeply violates the conscience of a great many Americans and a form of tyrany that Thomas Jefferson himself damned in no uncertain terms.

As long as abortion is considered a medical procedure is should not be specifically denied any more than any other medical procedures.
A Christian Scientist can object to the fact that tax money for any medical procedures and tax monies for medical research is a violation of their religious rights and the same form of tyrany you attribute the use of tax money for abortions.
Jehovah's Witnesses can make the same protest about their taxes being used for the military and Buddhist can protest the use of taxes for meat inspection since killing and eating animals violates the conscience of these Americans and a form of tyrany that Thomas Jefferson himself damned in no uncertain terms.

2. The antagonism displayed by the Washington DC leadership to any form of Biblical values systems.
I believe this is more imagination and paranoia than fact.

3. The way in which proChristian politicians have been purged from Washington DC leadership though they were not guilty of major crimes. Men like Tom deLay, and Senators Stevens and Craig, whatever their personal behavior, did champion the causes most dear to Biblical Christians and they were run from office while known criminals and convicted felons still retain their offices.

Do you believe a man should be judged by his deeds or his public position when they differ completely.
As for Sen. Craig, are you saying that propositioning men for homosexual sexual relations in public restrooms is a cause most dear to Biblical Christians?

I think not!

[captusa]

As much as Obama wants to deny the foundation of this nation, It was founded on Christian principles and is still a Christian nation today.

Obama and liberals want to take our right to freedom of religion away from us. They like to twist the Constitution to fit their own ideals or agendas. Liberals misinterpret the seperation of Church and State clause as well as freedom of religion. They think the statement means freedom from religion. The seperation of Church and state means no organized religion shall be adopted by our government and that was because of the religious persecution that the colonists fleed from in Britain. Our founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew how Democrats and Liberals are abusing and misrepresenting the Constitution.

Let us conservatives bring back honour, dignity, morality, and civility to our nation that was founded on Christian principles.

I keep asking this question and never receiving an answer.
Where and when has self-government or government by the people ever been expressed as a Christian principle.
The O.T. justified the divine rights of kings (since the kings of Israel were annointed by prophets under direction of YHVH).
And the N.T. statement of "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's....."

[Amillennialist]

We all saw Newsweek. I think we should all examine some facts about the founding fathers. I saw heard sean talking about our "Christian Nation" which I'm not disputing. Most were not explicitly Christian, George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, on and on and on. Thomas Jefferson, we all know how we embody his words and thoughts, wrote "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" which strips the miracles and religious doctrine, it has Jesus' words and teachings, it's about 40-50 pages. This I think is more what the founding fathers had in mind, not all this back and forth trying to force religious values and doctrine on everyone who has a different set of values. We can all live our lives how we like. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for ALL. There is no room for interpretation or exclusion.

Why did Jefferson "strip" them?

I read somewhere that he was preparing the document for the instruction of American Indians.

Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all referred to the Christian God/Christ, and each of the original 13 states had its own state religion.

The Constitution was for the federal government, not the individual states (a concept we need to get back to).

[Amillennialist]

I keep asking this question and never receiving an answer.
Where and when has self-government or government by the people ever been expressed as a Christian principle.
The O.T. justified the divine rights of kings (since the kings of Israel were annointed by prophets under direction of YHVH).
And the N.T. statement of "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's....."

The ideas of God-given, unalienable rights to Life and Liberty are definitely Biblical, as was the worldview of the Founders (minus Paine, but even he was influenced by it).

Israel began as a theocracy. When YHWH was rejected by Israel, He gave them kings. And you know how that went.

"Render unto Caesar" makes Christianity suitable for every form of government that does not mandate emperor-worship.

Our Republic is suitable only for an educated and moral people. That used to mean "Christians."

[soupdragon]

Hmm thought proving :think: I may have to get back to you next Tuesday week!

[Haplo]

No, while it was tolerated initially and an attempt to make it mor humane made, it was the Christian church that was the first community to realize that it could not be tolerated consistently with the principles of love and humanity as taught by Christ and then banned it.

As Christianity has weakened in its leadership of the West, defacto slavery in the form of debt slavery and even underground, black market indentured servitude has returned to the West.Funny how it was both defended and fought against in the name of the same god. Obviously Christianity isn't so black and white (no racial pun intended) after all.

You mean the conversion of them from darkness and sin? Then yes.This went way way beyond proselytizing and I suspect you know that. White man's burden it was called and applied to both blacks and indians.

Do you mean thier enslavement by some? No, and that was a cultural outgrowth from an early modern Europe that still had a lot of growing to do morally.How about the broken treaties by our government? Manifest destiny ring a bell?

No, and there is no obligation for any religion to promote its rivals.And there is no room for promoting any religion within our governmental structure. If John Doe decides to be a Christian that is his right. If I don't want to be expected to participate in your religion, that also is my right



Yes, it does.



Yes, it does and no one expects nonbelievers to participate in a prayer that violates their beliefs. But that does not mean a prayer cannot be said in their presence.In their presence? No. A group prayer led by a government employee on the clock that students are expected to participate in regardless of their beliefs? Yes.

Your lack of belief does not restrict my freedom to pray where and when I want to.Very true and I have no desire to stop you from your free exercise. Even if I wanted to, I wouldn't have the ability and neither does Obama or anyone else in this world either singular or combined.

Your Bible says "where two or more are gathered in my name, I am with them". If two Christian students get together at lunch or between classes to pray together in a public school then you'd have to believe your god is in that school. It's therefor impossible to "kick god out of our public schools" as the time tested fear mongering rant goes.

They shouldnt ignore this as control by the state is a mortal flaw for any church.To have the state controlled by the church would be just as damaging as the other way around.

That is simply a figment of your imagination.

There are plenty of Jews, Muslims and nonreligious people in the Republican Party.No, it is my personal experience. And yes I understand that's anecdotal evidence but it's true none the less.

Bull.Again it's my personal experience and has been confirmed over and over to me on this very board by any number of Christians.

[imme]

I dont agree that most of our founding fathers were christians. I dont believe most of this country were christians when this country was founded. Of course I wasnt around then so I can only choose to believe what I have read in books written by people who have suposedly studies history and diaries and letters .... That is why I use the word believe and am not saying I know for a fact. I am not disagreeing that they were religious. Yes they were. But believing in god doesn't make you a christian. Reading the bible doesn't make you a christian. I believe many people want us to think they were christians because that is their excuse to make us all conform to their beliefs. From what I have read the founding fathers were of different religions. Someone mentioned thomas jefferson. One of my personal favorites because we have him to thank for the bill of rights. Thomas jefferson is very well known for being anti christian. Ben franklin. Have you ever heard the term "deist"? I think I spelled it right. Many of our founding fathers were freemasons. George washington for example. There is alot of mixed information about him, but some early history writings describe him as a deist. It really is interesting, if you have never heard the term I encourage you to google it.

[BillyBobUSA]

As long as abortion is considered a medical procedure is should not be specifically denied any more than any other medical procedures.

So if the state started killing people in hospitals with lethal injections against their will and with no legal conviction of any kind, that would be OK to you as it would just be a medical procedure?

Your logic is shallow and flawed in the most basic way.


A Christian Scientist can object to the fact that tax money for any medical procedures and tax monies for medical research is a violation of their religious rights and the same form of tyrany you attribute the use of tax money for abortions. Jehovah's Witnesses can make the same protest about their taxes being used for the military and Buddhist can protest the use of taxes for meat inspection since killing and eating animals violates the conscience of these Americans and a form of tyrany that Thomas Jefferson himself damned in no uncertain terms.

Except that these fringe groups have never held the majority view, nor has their position been the legal position of US law.

Abortion is still regarded as immoral by the vast majority of Americans, and were it not for SCOTUS leftwing judicial activism, it would be illegal in most states today.


I believe this is more imagination and paranoia than fact.

Of course you do, and I hope it remains that way for you and everyone of your persuasion.


Do you believe a man should be judged by his deeds or his public position when they differ completely.

No.

They shold be judged by the legal code and that alone, otherwise one is over-riding the sovereign will of the people who elected them.


As for Sen. Craig, are you saying that propositioning men for homosexual sexual relations in public restrooms is a cause most dear to Biblical Christians?

Of course not, and you are being facetious to ask such a thing.

I am suggesting that the role of political leadership is to represent their constituency in the political system, not to be saints.

Were I living in Craigs district the question of whether he was a homosexual would not matter to me one whit as long as he championed the issue positions that concerned me.

I think not!

Nor would I ever accuse you of doing so.

[captusa]

So if the state started killing people in hospitals with lethal injections against their will and with no legal conviction of any kind, that would be OK to you as it would just be a medical procedure?

Your logic is shallow and flawed in the most basic way.
Involuntary lethal injections are not medical SOP.




[Originally Posted by captusa

A Christian Scientist can object to the fact that tax money for any medical procedures and tax monies for medical research is a violation of their religious rights and the same form of tyrany you attribute the use of tax money for abortions.


Jehovah's Witnesses can make the same protest about their taxes being used for the military and Buddhist can protest the use of taxes for meat inspection since killing and eating animals violates the conscience of these Americans and a form of tyrany that Thomas Jefferson himself damned in no uncertain terms.
Except that these kook fringe groups have never held the majority view, nor has their position been the legal position of US law.

I assume calling Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Buddhists kook fringe groups would not be tolerated.
I would advise youn to retract.
I'd miss you if you were totally banned.



Abortion is still regarded as immoral by the vast majority of Americans, and were it not for SCOTUS leftwing judicial activism, it would be illegal in most states today.

Most of the country is pro-choice.
The majority of the voting age residents of the White House Jan 20, 2001 through Jan 20, 2009 were pro-choice.


I am suggesting that the role of political leadership is to represent their constituency in the political system, not to be saints.

Were I living in Craigs district the question of whether he was a homosexual would not matter to me one whit as long as he championed the issue positions that concerned me.
Craig was not arrested for being a homosexual.
He was arrested for soliciting sexual activity in a public restroom which was a crime where he was apprehended and to which he pled guilty.
And championing banning actions that he himself engages in is hypocracy of the highest order.

[BillyBobUSA]

Involuntary lethal injections are not medical SOP.

Neither were abortions at one time.




A Christian Scientist can object to the fact that tax money for any medical procedures and tax monies for medical research is a violation of their religious rights and the same form of tyrany you attribute the use of tax money for abortions.


Jehovah's Witnesses can make the same protest about their taxes being used for the military and Buddhist can protest the use of taxes for meat inspection since killing and eating animals violates the conscience of these Americans and a form of tyrany that Thomas Jefferson himself damned in no uncertain terms.


I assume calling Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Buddhists kook fringe groups would not be tolerated.
I would advise youn to retract.
I'd miss you if you were totally banned.

:lol:

Sure you would.

Anyway, thanks for the tip; I did edit that out.

Most of the country is pro-choice.
The majority of the voting age residents of the White House Jan 20, 2001 through Jan 20, 2009 were pro-choice.

To say that most of the country is pro-choice is not to say that most of the country is not anti-Abortion. Most proChoice people I have met (I estimate at about 3-2 ratios) are personally opposed to abortion, but believe that to ban abortion would be to force their personal beliefs on others.

And even that pro-choice attribute is fairly truncated to the first trimester with most.

If prolife people would settle for half a loaf for the time being, I think we could get abortion legally restricted to the first 3 or 4 months of gestation where 80% of abortions take place.

But no, the fanatics want a complete victory or nothing at all, and some just want it as a wedge issue to keep religious people voting Republican and have no desire to see any genuine effective change at all.


Craig was not arrested for being a homosexual.
He was arrested for soliciting sexual activity in a public restroom which was a crime where he was apprehended and to which he pled guilty.
And championing banning actions that he himself engages in is hypocracy of the highest order.

It was alleged that Craig did some weird things that the vice cop describes as 'code' for soliciting sex.

However the complaints they ahd from earlier in the day supposedly were openly lewd solicitations, and not 'code' of any kind.

So there is nothing that proves Craig guilty of anything other than stupidity for plea-bargaining down to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

Craig had a lot of enemies trying to bring him down and I would not be surprised if the vice cop in question had not been bribed to set Craig up.

But in any case, even if Craig did solicit for sex in a public rest room, it is not a high crime worthy of impeachment or reversing the will of the people who elected him.

Had Craig been a Democrat, he would still be a Senator as the Dems dont throw their own overboard at the first whiff of powder in the air and they have convicted felons serving in Congress and many who have been publically accused of rape, molestation, bribery and theft.

Besides, if we were to throw out everyone in Congress that were hypocrits, would anyone be left to serve the people?

[who]

...

Had Craig been a Democrat, he would still be a Senator as the Dems dont throw their own overboard at the first whiff of powder in the air
Come again? Craig stayed in his Senate seat until the end of his term, and he did not run for reelection.

and they have convicted felons serving in Congress and many who have been publically accused of rape, molestation, bribery and theft.

Who are the convicted felons serving in congress?

...

[captusa]

Come again? Craig stayed in his Senate seat until the end of his term, and he did not run for reelection.



Who are the convicted felons serving in congress?

...

Several congressmen have served after being convicted for crimes.
I believe Adam Clayton Powell was re-elected while in prison.
I know Honey Fitz was re-elected mayor of Boston while under sentence.

[BillyBobUSA]

Come again? Craig stayed in his Senate seat until the end of his term, and he did not run for reelection.


My point is that the Republican leadership turned their backs on him and guarranteed he would lose re-election.

[Haplo]

Several congressmen have served after being convicted for crimes.
I believe Adam Clayton Powell was re-elected while in prison.
I know Honey Fitz was re-elected mayor of Boston while under sentence.
Speaking of politicians, don't forget the former Mayor of our nation's capital Marion Berry. Caught red handed both doing drugs and engaging in prostitution and he not only successful ran for re-election but received a larger percentage of the vote then he did before being busted.

[who]

Several congressmen have served after being convicted for crimes.
I believe Adam Clayton Powell was re-elected while in prison.
I know Honey Fitz was re-elected mayor of Boston while under sentence.
I thought he was referring to now.

Yes, I know there have been in the past some congressmen, but Powell is not a good example for Billy Bob to make his point.

He was shunned by the Democratic congress, stripped of his committee chairmanship and they even refused to seat him. It was a Supreme Court ruling that kept him there a bit longer, not the Dem congress. That was in the late 60's. And he was never a convicted felon.

A better, and more current example, would be the REPUBLICAN chucklenuts Jay Kim. He was a convicted felon serving in congress WITH AN ANKLE BRACELET.
Did the republicans shun him? Well, they didn't like talking about him, but our good ole buddy Newt Gingrich (you remember him, right Billy Bob? )
gave this felon - wearing an ankle bracelet in congress - after his grand scale thievery, ayup, a plum appointment in committee negotiating a colossal highway bill!

Kinda shoots a hole in Mr. Bob's pubbies' take out the trash rant.

[Marleysdaddy]

My point is that the Republican leadership turned their backs on him and guarranteed [sic] he would lose re-election.

I think the voters in his state guaranteed he would lose re-election.

[Amillennialist]

I dont agree that most of our founding fathers were christians. I dont believe most of this country were christians when this country was founded. Of course I wasnt around then so I can only choose to believe what I have read in books written by people who have suposedly studies history and diaries and letters .... That is why I use the word believe and am not saying I know for a fact. I am not disagreeing that they were religious. Yes they were. But believing in god doesn't make you a christian. Reading the bible doesn't make you a christian. I believe many people want us to think they were christians because that is their excuse to make us all conform to their beliefs. From what I have read the founding fathers were of different religions. Someone mentioned thomas jefferson. One of my personal favorites because we have him to thank for the bill of rights. Thomas jefferson is very well known for being anti christian. Ben franklin. Have you ever heard the term "deist"? I think I spelled it right. Many of our founding fathers were freemasons. George washington for example. There is alot of mixed information about him, but some early history writings describe him as a deist. It really is interesting, if you have never heard the term I encourage you to google it.

Jefferson wrote:

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others" (Bergh, Writings of Jefferson, Vol. X, p.380, letter to Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803).

Sounds "anti-Christian" to me.

Here's Franklin at the Constitutional Convention:

"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 and ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, some 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 presented 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? 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 the House they labour 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 become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be 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 the City be requested to officiate in that service.

And here's the Founders' reaction:

In response to Franklin's appeal, Virginia's Mr. Randolph offered a counter proposal. He recommended that a "sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence, & thence forward prayers be used in ye Convention every morning." One report has Washington leading most of the Convention delegates to the church, where James Campbell preached a sermon trusting in the wisdom of the delegates to establish a "free and vigorous government."

As it turns out, after the Convention, and nine days after the first Constitutional Congress convened with a quorum (April 9, 1789), they implemented Franklin's recommendation. Two chaplains of different denominations were appointed, one to the House and one to the Senate, with a salary of $500 each. This practice continues today, posing no threat to the First Amendment. How could it? The men who authorized the chaplains wrote the Amendment.