NationStates Jolt Archive

It always makes me laugh to watch the 700 Club. Well, I was flipping through the channels on tv and I saw how the show had a thing on the American Revolution, and how it was a Christian struggle, and all this. Well, I want to use the New Testament and see how much the Revolution falls in line with "Christian values"

1) Taxation without representation! -This is one of the ideas that helped spark the revolution. The colonials said that they didn't have to pay taxes without being represented in the government. Lets what's Christ would say about this manner: "And he said to them, "whose image is on this?" And they replied Caesar's. And Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." So, you see, Jesus is an advocate of paying taxes, even when they were unfair. So thats one strike against so called American Christian Values

2)The Revolution itself. -People wanted freedom, and all those "God given" rights. So they rebelled against the tyrant of Britain, and voila! a new nation is born. Christian leaders point to these people are being godly men and women, and how they were founding the nation on Christian values. Well, what would the NT say about the actual revolution? Jesus was not for war. He said that those that live by the sword will die by the sword, and that we should love our enemies and turn the other cheek if attacked. Paul says in Romans 13, that we should be subject to authorities. Furthermore, if you look at the first church, before an councils or anything, the Christians were not trying overthrow the Romans, although they suffered unprecedented persecution, they didn't start a revolution to try and free themselves from the evil tyrants of Rome. Not only that, but if we go by the life of Christ as our example for being good Christians, shouldn't we realise that even he surrendered to the earthly powers as we was being persecuted and hung on the cross? Therefore, shouldn't we surrender to the powers that be, in order to be more like Christ?

So, those are only two of the points I want to make. However, there are countless more. So why can't right wingers see that America is not Christian, both in founding, and in current practice, as by law?

Nearly everything the "Christian right" stands for is against their religion. I guess its just convenient to their wallet and bigotry.

Edit: Here's the exact quote:
“As the government is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” John Adams, Excerpt from Treaty of Tripoli

I have the text of the relevant part of the Treaty of Tripoli somewhere. I'll post it. For the record, it was ratified unanimously.

Edit: Damn, can't find it. It was in a snazzy image macro, but I lost the password to my ImageShack account.

I have the text of the relevant part of the Treaty of Tripoli somewhere. I'll post it. For the record, it was ratified unanimously.


I like to bring it up a lot. Some how righties like to say that it doesn't count. Like playing a sports game, getting scored on but saying that the goal doesn't count. Silly fools

The U.S. wasn't founded on the Christian faith. I forget where I read this, but quite a few of them weren't Christians, or weren't very devout one's. I think this includes Franklin and Jefferson, but I could be wrong. I do know the majority of them were not Christians or were not very devout ones. If they had wanted a Christian state, they wouldn't have speerated Church and State. They did however all think religion was a good thing.

Perhaps you read to much into what that show said. By your words you said they called it a "Christian Struggle" and well, that is quite a broad term is it not? Yet you managed to narrow it to only 2 areas of thought/discussion.

And you can be very strong in a faith and still respect others by giving them their dues.

Perhaps you read to much into what that show said. By your words you said they called it a "Christian Struggle" and well, that is quite a broad term is it not? Yet you managed to narrow it to only 2 areas of thought/discussion.

And you can be very strong in a faith and still respect others by giving them their dues.

It was a secular struggle, and created a secular state. There is no Christian to it.

Invariably the Myth of Pilgrims is raised by the same people. I am still waiting for them to explain how grave robbing and execution of the aboriginals are Christian values.

Invariably the Myth of Pilgrims is raised by the same people. I am still waiting for them to explain how grave robbing and execution of the aboriginals are Christian values.

I'm sure they can use like three words in a verse out of exodus or something to justify it, like the usually do to justify anything. :rolleyes:

The U.S. wasn't founded on the Christian faith. I forget where I read this, but quite a few of them weren't Christians, or weren't very devout one's. I think this includes Franklin and Jefferson, but I could be wrong. I do know the majority of them were not Christians or were not very devout ones. If they had wanted a Christian state, they wouldn't have speerated Church and State.
They were deists (all of them I think).

They did however all think religion was a good thing.
No more "good" than anything else really. It was viewed simply as a choice everyone was free to make (thankfully).

I'm sure they can use like three words in a verse out of exodus or something to justify it, like the usually do to justify anything. :rolleyes:

You seem to have issues with the religious right. It should be good for you to know that the majority of Christians are moderates, though, don't believe every crazy preacher you hear now :rolleyes:

They were deists (all of them I think).


No more "good" than anything else really. It was viewed simply as a choice everyone was free to make (thankfully).

Most were deists, but not very devout one's, some probably borderlined agnostic or atheist, even.

A choice, but they also thought it made people do better things and think better of themselves, but yes, they believed it was a choice, the Reformation and Inqustion were over by now, thankfully.

1) Taxation without representation! -This is one of the ideas that helped spark the revolution. The colonials said that they didn't have to pay taxes without being represented in the government. Lets what's Christ would say about this manner: "And he said to them, "whose image is on this?" And they replied Caesar's. And Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." So, you see, Jesus is an advocate of paying taxes, even when they were unfair. So thats one strike against so called American Christian ValuesI really don't have time to address all that is wrong with you argument. It's late and I'm tired.

Luke 20:19-26

[19] The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.

[20] Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. [21] So the spies questioned him: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. [22] Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

[23] He saw through their duplicity and said to them, [24] "Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"

[25] "Caesar's," they replied.

He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

[26] They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent. You should have put the passage in context. By not doing so you left out several key elements. The Jewish rulers were trying to trap Jesus with there question. If Jesus had agreed that Roman taxation was right they could have tried to reduce his influence with the Jewish populace. If he had said not to pay taxes the Sanhedrin could have portrayed him as a rebel against Roman rule. You gotta remember that the men who asked him the question were working for the people who collected the taxes as well.

To say that taxation without representation was the only reason the colonies revolted is dead wrong. I'm interested to hear what the rest of your argument is.

Oh I hate the 700 Club as well. Pat Robertson makes Christians look like a bunch of idiots.

I really don't have time to address all that is wrong with you argument. It's late and I'm tired.

You should have put the passage in context. By not doing so you left out several key elements. The Jewish rulers were trying to trap Jesus with there question. If Jesus had agreed that Roman taxation was right they could have tried to reduce his influence with the Jewish populace. If he had said not to pay taxes the Sanhedrin could have portrayed him as a rebel against Roman rule. You gotta remember that the men who asked him the question were working for the people who collected the taxes as well.

To say that taxation without representation was the only reason the colonies revolted is dead wrong. I'm interested to hear what the rest of your argument is.

Oh I hate the 700 Club as well. Pat Robertson makes Christians look like a bunch of idiots.

Its not the only reason. As I said they wanted freedom from tyranny, which involved rebelling against the gov't at the time. And as I pointed out, thats not what the Bible tells us to do. Even in the OT, which many conservatives use to justify anything, it says that Rebellion is a form of sorcery and God hates it.

You seem to have issues with the religious right. It should be good for you to know that the majority of Christians are moderates, though, don't believe every crazy preacher you hear now :rolleyes:

If most are moderate then why do the wackos have such a strong hold on the faith?

It was a secular struggle, and created a secular state. There is no Christian to it.

Never said it was but only that his aparent distain for the Christian religion voided his argument because it was all based on biased feeling instead of sound reason and research as well as what seems to be a basic ignorance of the Christian religion. Hell I'm not anywhere close to religious and I can point out some major errors in his argument. It's all one Ad Hominem ... try again please.

They were deists (all of them I think).


No more "good" than anything else really. It was viewed simply as a choice everyone was free to make (thankfully).Out of the 55 delegates 49 were affiliated with Christian denominations.

If most are moderate then why do the wackos have such a strong hold on the faith?

Go ask the same to Muslim fanatics the same. You people are picking and choosing who you wanna pick on instead of denouncing all fanatics of all religions. Just because someone holds a strong faith in something doesn't make them a wacko.

Out of the 55 delegates 49 were affiliated with Christian denominations.
I thought we were talking about the founding fathers?

Its not the only reason. As I said they wanted freedom from tyranny, which involved rebelling against the gov't at the time. And as I pointed out, thats not what the Bible tells us to do. Even in the OT, which many conservatives use to justify anything, it says that Rebellion is a form of sorcery and God hates it.Maybe it does say that I'm not sure could you point out some passages for me?

Maybe it does say that I'm not sure could you point out some passages for me?

1 Samuel 15:23

It looks like i might have misquoted. It says in my NKJV that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, not quite the rebellion is witchcraft as I said. But I think its close enough that the point can stand.

Never said it was but only that his aparent distain for the Christian religion voided his argument because it was all based on biased feeling instead of sound reason and research as well as what seems to be a basic ignorance of the Christian religion. Hell I'm not anywhere close to religious and I can point out some major errors in his argument. It's all one Ad Hominem ... try again please.

disdain for Christianity? Read my sig ;)

I thought we were talking about the founding fathers?Generally I consider those who participated in the 1787 constitutional convention founding fathers. Unless you narrowing it down to only Franklin, Adams, Washington, and Jefferson.

1 Samuel 15:23

It looks like i might have misquoted. It says in my NKJV that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, not quite the rebellion is witchcraft as I said. But I think its close enough that the point can stand.Once again you have to look at in context. Samuel is rebuking Saul for disobeying (aka rebelling) against what God had commanded him to do. In that case I would suppose, yes, rebelling is as the sin of witchcraft.

I always find it funny when Liberals cherry pick the bible and use quotes theu clearly don't understand to try to paint a false picture of american history. Classic.


You can't cherrypick the bible zilam, to understand it you have to read the whole chapter and in some cases the whole book to understand in what context it was meant. Nice try anyway, but you can't sum up all of america's founding values in 2 paragraphs. If this was a college course you would get an F!


Oh and that turn the other cheek line is always taken out of context, it means if you slap me backhanded on one cheek, turn the other so atleast you respect me. Get it right.

Once again you have to look at in context. Samuel is rebuking Saul for disobeying (aka rebelling) against what God had commanded him to do. In that case I would suppose, yes, rebelling is as the sin of witchcraft.

And in the case of the Revolution, they are disobeying God, by disobeying the people he puts into power.

Oh and that turn the other cheek line is always taken out of context, it means if you slap me backhanded on one cheek, turn the other so atleast you respect me. Get it right.

That's not what it means. Turning the other cheek would force the person to use their off-hand to strike you, which would allow you to strike back. When you say "Get it right", you should, you know, get it right.

I always find it funny when Liberals cherry pick the bible and use quotes theu clearly don't understand to try to paint a false picture of american history. Classic.


The same could be said for the Christians who "cherry pick" the Koran.....

I always find it funny when Liberals cherry pick the bible and use quotes theu clearly don't understand to try to paint a false picture of american history. Classic.


You can't cherrypick the bible zilam, to understand it you have to read the whole chapter and in some cases the whole book to understand in what context it was meant. Nice try anyway, but you can't sum up all of america's founding values in 2 paragraphs. If this was a college course you would get an F!


Oh and that turn the other cheek line is always taken out of context, it means if you slap me backhanded on one cheek, turn the other so atleast you respect me. Get it right.Agreed.

I really don't have time to address all that is wrong with you argument. It's late and I'm tired.

You should have put the passage in context. By not doing so you left out several key elements. The Jewish rulers were trying to trap Jesus with there question. If Jesus had agreed that Roman taxation was right they could have tried to reduce his influence with the Jewish populace. If he had said not to pay taxes the Sanhedrin could have portrayed him as a rebel against Roman rule. You gotta remember that the men who asked him the question were working for the people who collected the taxes as well.

To say that taxation without representation was the only reason the colonies revolted is dead wrong. I'm interested to hear what the rest of your argument is.

Oh I hate the 700 Club as well. Pat Robertson makes Christians look like a bunch of idiots.

Well considering that the colonies had about as much representation as about 95% of the British Populace did(In reality, most people were horridly represented, if at all), and actually had a tad bit more influence than most British areas.

Although taxation was a major role, the whole "representation" part was just a silly rally cry. The only people really affected by the taxes levied were rich merchants trading with the french in the west indies(Actually, the other part was that they wanted to trade illegally with it, and England started cracking down on it). Everyone else was pretty much unaffected by the incredibly small taxes(They were much, much smaller than those of other British citizens). So, meh.

I always find it funny when Liberals cherry pick the bible and use quotes theu clearly don't understand to try to paint a false picture of american history. Classic.


You can't cherrypick the bible zilam, to understand it you have to read the whole chapter and in some cases the whole book to understand in what context it was meant. Nice try anyway, but you can't sum up all of america's founding values in 2 paragraphs. If this was a college course you would get an F!


Oh and that turn the other cheek line is always taken out of context, it means if you slap me backhanded on one cheek, turn the other so atleast you respect me. Get it right.

:rolleyes: I'm not a liberal. And I'm not cherry picking. Im giving full chapters (romans 13) and such. Read anything in the NT, it shows submission to authority, to God first, and then to those on earth. If you cannot see that in the their, then you are blind.

:rolleyes: I'm not a liberal. And I'm not cherry picking. Im giving full chapters (romans 13) and such. Read anything in the NT, it shows submission to authority, to God first, and then to those on earth. If you cannot see that in the their, then you are blind.



No you are not, you are cherry picking parts of those chapters. You have to read more than you provide to understand the context, and FYI, millions interpet the bible in a different way.

And in the case of the Revolution, they are disobeying God, by disobeying the people he puts into power.Well what happens when the government becomes a terror not just to evil criminal citizens but to good law abiding citizens? What happens when you're afraid of your own government? Then I would say that God didn't ordain these rulers.

Hosea 8:4, "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not."

No you are not, you are cherry picking parts of those chapters. You have to read more than you provide to understand the context, and FYI, millions interpet the bible in a different way.

Read the stupid chapter i showed you, there is no other way to take it.

Help us Yeshua!

Well what happens when the government becomes a terror not just to evil criminal citizens but to good law abiding citizens? What happens when you're afraid of your own government? Then I would say that God didn't ordain these rulers.


Paul was a good law abiding citizen of the Roman Empire,yet he was executed by Nero. Did you see him ever say that we should rise up and take up arms against the empires of the world? No, in fact, read 2nd timothy, you'll see how he was happy with the persecution that he received. Jesus was also a good citizen, helping poor and sick, and yet he was crucified. And again, Jesus said that if his kingdom was of this earth, he'd have his followers rise up to save him. But he didn't which shows us the type of attitude we need to have. Not worrying about anything temporary, which is here on earth, but only caring about things of eternity.

I always find it funny when Liberals cherry pick the bible and use quotes theu clearly don't understand to try to paint a false picture of american history. Classic.

Indeed - and so unlike Christians in other debates. Christians after all would never sink as low as to using false arguments, misrepresentation of facts or outright lies, just to promote their religion. Those are devilworshipper tactics after all.

So.. lets talk about the history of the USA (and things like the theory of evolution in other topics) in an honest manner now, shall we ?

Like I said before Zilam it says in the Bible that God clearly does not ordain all governments. Take like I said governments that are a terror to good law abiding citizens. The Bible clearly doesn't advocate unlimited obedience to the government.

Romans 13 is a treatise by Paul and the Apostles on the institution of model government. As we rightly divide the word of truth and take this passage in its total context, we will discover seven truths:

1. Good government is ordained by God.

2. Government officials are to be good ministers who represent God.

3. We the people must obey good and godly laws.

4. As we relate Romans 13 to America, our Constitution is the higher power -- not the IRS tax code.

5. Good government is not to be feared.

6. In America, we are to pay honor and custom and constitutional taxes to whom it is due.

7. Government is to protect the righteous and punish the wicked.

As a result, we have a practical, historical and biblical mandate to fervently disobey any unconstitutional laws and all government officials who cease to be good ministers of Jesus Christ. God almighty is the only power that deserves unlimited obedience. Also you can look at biblical examples:

Daniel disobeyed Darius and went to the lions den. The three Hebrew children broke the law for not bowing. The parents hid baby Moses from Pharaoh. Rahab lied to protect the Hebrew spies. The Apostles went to prison for preaching Christ in the authority of Heaven. Paul and his followers in Acts 17 did contrary to all the decrees of Caesar in order to make Jesus the King. Even Jesus lived in direct opposition of the political religious leaders of his day and went to the cross for us.

Edit: I hope this helps you Zilam.

So how is rebelling against Britain, the largest Christian nation of the time, and through their empire (not justifying it, just saying) the biggest spreading of Christendom the world over spreading christian values?

Read the stupid chapter i showed you, there is no other way to take it.

Help us Yeshua!



A little tense are we? And where does it state I have to take it your way? Your way isn't the only way to see something.



And no, I will not waste 5 seconds reading that garbage again. Once was enough. It gave me a migrane and quite honestly reading the bible is what convinced me NOT to become a christian on any level. I have no intentions on going thru that torture again.

Christian values is not something American most Chirstians sellectively follow their beliefs to suit their needs. In America and many other western nations, Christianity is just a tool to compliment their political ends.

I really don't see why we have to keep eviscerating the Bible with political craft-knives when it says everything right there in the Treaty of Tripoli. In any case, the revolution was a good thing in the end, but it's starting reasons weren't what many people think. The franchise in Britain was small, so only a few plantation aristocrats would have had represntation. People make it sound like they were fighting for Truth, Justice, and Freedom from the word go, because "death to somewhat unfair taxation compensated by freedom for military responsibility and rather reasonable native land purchase laws!" doesn't sound so good.

It may have created a great democratic nation, but it was, at the start, a riot. And Britain wasn't exactly the Evil Empire. They should've tried being French.

"No taxation without representation, an end to conscription, limits to noble priveledge, and the abolition of outmoded absolutist institution running our country into the ground!"

The colonies had nothing to complain about that the metroploitan French peasent couldn't match.

Article 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 tranquillity, 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.*nods*

'Just remember, while you're being inundated with this July 4th patriotic brouhaha this year what you're really celebrating.... that around 225 years ago, a bunch of aristocratic, white, slave-owning males didn't want to pay their taxes.'

-Dazed And Confused

I always find it funny when Liberals cherry pick the bible and use quotes theu clearly don't understand to try to paint a false picture of american history. Classic.

I find it funnier when conservative "values" Christians do that, personally. What with the irony and all.

I have the text of the relevant part of the Treaty of Tripoli somewhere. I'll post it. For the record, it was ratified unanimously.

Edit: Damn, can't find it. It was in a snazzy image macro, but I lost the password to my ImageShack account.

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7169/255gg3.jpg

It always makes me laugh to watch the 700 Club. Well, I was flipping through the channels on tv and I saw how the show had a thing on the American Revolution, and how it was a Christian struggle, and all this. Well, I want to use the New Testament and see how much the Revolution falls in line with "Christian values"
[snipped]
so... let me get this straight... you were just 'flipping' though the channels and you watched a near complete segment of the 700 club.

I've noticed alot of people who complain about "Christian indoctrination', Fox News, etc and yet they always seem to be the ones glued to those stations/websites/etc...

it's like they secretly LIKE to watch those shows and do so religiously.

No wonder they do sooo well. ;)

so... let me get this straight... you were just 'flipping' though the channels and you watched a near complete segment of the 700 club.

I've noticed alot of people who complain about "Christian indoctrination', Fox News, etc and yet they always seem to be the ones glued to those stations/websites/etc...

it's like they secretly LIKE to watch those shows and do so religiously.

No wonder they do sooo well. ;)

Sun Tzu is the reasonable answer.

The truthful answer for me is that when I'm channel surfing, sometimes something so inane and/or outrageous catches my eye/ear and makes me stop to watch it.

I caught one episode where they were talking about the horrors of modern paganism. Showing pictures of roleplaying games and college students partying around giant bonfires. They brought out some woman who claimed to have been raised from birth to be a wiccan high priestess, claiming she saw baby sacrifice and other nonsense. Unfortunately, she couldn't even answer simple questions on what wiccans believe.

Much more entertaining than a rerun of Happy Days.

*nods*

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 tranquillity, 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.
actually, if you read that, it only states that the Government of the United States of America is not founded on the Christian Religion in the way that it is not Hostile and Intolerant of any laws, Religion, or Tranquility of Mussulmen.

nor have they entered any war or hostile act against Mahometan Nations for Religious Reasons.

also that Religious Opinions shall not produce any interruption of the peace between the two countries.

it does not say that the United States of America is NOT founded on the Christian Belief. only that it is not founded on the Christian belief in regard to Christian Attitude towards the Religion of Mussulmen (Muslims).

so yes, it's correct. The United States of America was not founded by any Muslim Hating Christian Religions.

but it doesn't say that the United States of America was NOT founded by any Christian Belief or any religious belief at all.

Sun Tzu is the reasonable answer.

The truthful answer for me is that when I'm channel surfing, sometimes something so inane and/or outrageous catches my eye/ear and makes me stop to watch it.

I caught one episode where they were talking about the horrors of modern paganism. Showing pictures of roleplaying games and college students partying around giant bonfires. They brought out some woman who claimed to have been raised from birth to be a wiccan high priestess, claiming she saw baby sacrifice and other nonsense. Unfortunately, she couldn't even answer simple questions on what wiccans believe.

Much more entertaining than a rerun of Happy Days.
I'm not saying that channel surfing will not allow one to hit something interesting... but this is more to those that rib on Fox News/700 club one day then post three articles from those shows/sites the next saying how they got it wrong.

as long as Fox News, 700 club, etc... gets their viewers/hits, they're happy. :p

actually, if you read that, it only states that the Government of the United States of America is not founded on the Christian Religion in the way that it is not Hostile and Intolerant of any laws, Religion, or Tranquility of Mussulmen.

nor have they entered any war or hostile act against Mahometan Nations for Religious Reasons.

also that Religious Opinions shall not produce any interruption of the peace between the two countries.

it does not say that the United States of America is NOT founded on the Christian Belief. only that it is not founded on the Christian belief in regard to Christian Attitude towards the Religion of Mussulmen (Muslims).

so yes, it's correct. The United States of America was not founded by any Muslim Hating Christian Religions.

but it doesn't say that the United States of America was NOT founded by any Christian Belief or any religious belief at all.

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

Reading comprehension.

Reading comprehension.
yep... and you only posted ONE part of the sentence. in other words... you only read ONE PART of the whole thing that fits YOUR definition and used ONLY that.

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 tranquillity, 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.

bolded is what you emphasised. funny, there's much more to it after your much edited section... as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, 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.

Why the statement about the characteristic of enmity against Muslims?

Why the statement about the characteristic of enmity against Muslims?

One could argue that statement refers to the government of the United States.

Why the statement about the characteristic of enmity against Muslims?

Because emnity against Muslims is not necessarily related to Christianity? The two are separate clauses. The first clause states that the United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion. It can stand on its own. The semicolon shows you that. The second clause states that the United States is not an enemy of Muslims. It's basic grammar.

One could argue that statement refers to the government of the United States.

yes one could. it could also be argued that the qualifier was put it to say that as Christians, the USA did not hold any emnity towards Muslims either as a people or as a religion.

Because emnity against Muslims is not necessarily related to Christianity? The two are separate clauses. The first clause states that the United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion. It can stand on its own. The semicolon shows you that. The second clause states that the United States is not an enemy of Muslims. It's basic grammar.

Basic grammar, where people are focusing on one clause, and calling it the whole, without taking into account the rest of the sentence, of which includes all the clauses.

basic grammer, where people are focusing on one Clause, and calling it the whole without taking into account the rest of the sentence. of which includes all the clauses.

You don't need the remaining clauses, because the semicolon shows that they do not modify the first clause. The first clause uses the words "in no way". There really shouldn't be a debate. This is basic reading comprehension and grammar. If you can't grasp that, there's really nothing more I can do.

To my knowledge the Founding Fathers were mostly deist, classical liberals. If anything those were the values out of which it arose. Christianity can be used to justify many divergent political systems, quite honestly. Why should it be so important that the US was founded on Christian values? I certainly would not want to live in a nation founded upon those.

You don't need the remaining clauses, because the semicolon shows that they do not modify the first clause. The first clause uses the words "in no way". There really shouldn't be a debate. This is basic reading comprehension and grammar. If you can't grasp that, there's really nothing more I can do.

the Semi-Colon joins two clauses and establishes a relationship between them. they work in place of conjunctions. so again, it shows that the United States is not in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion FOR at it has in itself no character of...

thus the relationship of the Lack of Enmity against Muslims is the qualifier of the type of Christian Religion that the United States of America is NOT founded on.

To my knowledge the Founding Fathers were mostly deist, classical liberals. If anything those were the values out of which it arose. Christianity can be used to justify many divergent political systems, quite honestly. Why should it be so important that the US was founded on Christian values?

I dunno. frankly, I don't really care. they could've been Pastafarians for All I know.

Just arguing the evidence. that's all. ;)

Basic grammar, where people are focusing on one clause, and calling it the whole, without taking into account the rest of the sentence, of which includes all the clauses.
:p

:p
I stand... er... sit corrected.

basic grammer, where people are focusing on one Clause, and calling it the whole without taking into account the rest of the sentence, of which includes all the clauses.

Basic grammar, where people are focusing on one clause, and calling it the whole, without taking into account the rest of the sentence, of which includes all the clauses.
:p

Our Founding Fathers were, variously, Rosicrucians, humanists, deists (you know, the watchmaker notion of deity), Freemasons and, only nominally, Christians.

So, those are only two of the points I want to make. However, there are countless more. So why can't right wingers see that America is not Christian, both in founding, and in current practice, as by law?

First of all, it isn't "right-wingers", but theo-cons you are talking about. Andrew Sullivan is a "right-winger", and he would be the first to jump on the notion of America being Christian.

The main response to you question is that that theo-cons in America are bending over backward not to divide their loyalty. A citizen is a person loyal to their government. A Christian is a person loyal to a particular interpretation of God. The Bible itself says that our first loyalty ought to be to God. Ergo, the only way to be loyal to our country while still being true Christians, something American theo-cons desperately want to be, is to make God = country in our analysis. Hence, God ordained the Constitution, which makes our loyalty to our country Godly and consistent with the First Commandment.

The fact that this is erroneous, and the whole point of the Constitution is that it was ordained by men and retained by men, matters not a whit, because if they took that seriously, then they'd have to choose between God and country, and even as a liberal, I can see how rending that kind of clash would be.

You know what a big debate was?

Whether or not to put the word "God" into the Declaration of Independence (Or possibly the Constitution. I think it may actually be both.) Plenty of people were against it.

You know what a big debate was?

Whether or not to put the word "God" into the Declaration of Independence (Or possibly the Constitution. I think it may actually be both.) Plenty of people were against it.

you sure? it wasn't about slavery?

For the record, Adams and Jefferson - the founders of the two dissenting political parties, Democratic Republicans (later Democrats) and Federalists - were both Unitarians. So were key early Revolution figures Thomas Paine (sometimes credited with starting the American Revolution) and Benjamin Franklin (creator of the common American ideology, the original American Dream [TM], etc.)

You might want to check out this list (http://www.famousuus.com/american.htm), which includes quite a selection of prominent early American politicians. (The list tapers off over time, after big-tent revivals really caught on as a marketing ploy.)

By the standards of many modern Trinitarians - i.e., baptists, evangelists, catholics, etc - no Unitarian is Christian, holding the belief as they did (and as most modern Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists do today) that Jesus was not divine. By the standards which most hold to define Christianity, America was clearly not founded a christian nation.

you sure? it wasn't about slavery?

Notice it says "a big debate" not "the big debate."

Don't be sarcastic if it'll make you look ignorant.

Notice it says "a big debate" not "the big debate."

Don't be sarcastic if it'll make you look ignorant.

what sarcasm? it's a question to clarify a point.

add to that your phrase
You know what a big debate was?
could be anything from taxes to God to Slavery.

now can you pull up the Contiential Congressional records to show this debate?

so answer the question politely, povide the evidence to back up your claim and stop seeing attacks where there isn't any.

For the record, Adams and Jefferson - the founders of the two dissenting political parties, Democratic Republicans (later Democrats) and Federalists - were both Unitarians. So were key early Revolution figures Thomas Paine (sometimes credited with starting the American Revolution) and Benjamin Franklin (creator of the common American ideology, the original American Dream [TM], etc.)

You might want to check out this list (http://www.famousuus.com/american.htm), which includes quite a selection of prominent early American politicians. (The list tapers off over time, after big-tent revivals really caught on as a marketing ploy.)

By the standards of many modern Trinitarians - i.e., baptists, evangelists, catholics, etc - no Unitarian is Christian, holding the belief as they did (and as most modern Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists do today) that Jesus was not divine. By the standards which most hold to define Christianity, America was clearly not founded a christian nation.
Nice point. but a question. (note ZARAKON a question, not SARCASM.)

the Unitarians still believed in God and the teachings of Jesus (if not Jesus' Divinity), so while America was not founded on a CHRISTIAN belief, could it still be founded and baised off of a Religous one?

Everybody knows that the USA started on a Ouija board, a ball of string and a sentient feather named Yankee Doodle.

Treaty of Tripoli, Art. 11 (divided into clauses):
(1)As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

(2)as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen;

(3)and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation,

(4)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.

actually, if you read that, it only states that the Government of the United States of America is not founded on the Christian Religion in the way that it is not Hostile and Intolerant of any laws, Religion, or Tranquility of Mussulmen.

Utter bullshit. The first clause is a complete thought in itself. The second clause about the US Government "has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen" does not modify the first clause.

The first three clauses are preambles they say (1) as X is true ("as the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"), (2) as Y is true ("as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen"), and (3)as Z is true ("and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation"), so (4) A is true ("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. "). Nowhere does Y modify X.

nor have they entered any war or hostile act against Mahometan Nations for Religious Reasons.

also that Religious Opinions shall not produce any interruption of the peace between the two countries.

it does not say that the United States of America is NOT founded on the Christian Belief. only that it is not founded on the Christian belief in regard to Christian Attitude towards the Religion of Mussulmen (Muslims).

so yes, it's correct. The United States of America was not founded by any Muslim Hating Christian Religions.

but it doesn't say that the United States of America was NOT founded by any Christian Belief or any religious belief at all

Again, this is bullshit. The first clause very clearly says that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Why that phrase "not in any sense" if they really meant is "founded on the Christian religion except in the sense that hostile towards Muslims"?

yep... and you only posted ONE part of the sentence. in other words... you only read ONE PART of the whole thing that fits YOUR definition and used ONLY that.

As much as you may wish otherwise, reading the whole sentence does not in any way diminish or change the meaning of the first clause.

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 tranquillity, 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.

bolded is what you emphasised. funny, there's much more to it after your much edited section... as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, 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.

Why the statement about the characteristic of enmity against Muslims?

Um. Because the context is a treaty with the Muslims. It doesn't in any way modify the first clause.

yes one could. it could also be argued that the qualifier was put it to say that as Christians, the USA did not hold any emnity towards Muslims either as a people or as a religion.

Except that it says the opposite of that. Tad inconvenient for you.

Basic grammar, where people are focusing on one clause, and calling it the whole, without taking into account the rest of the sentence, of which includes all the clauses.

But reading the whole sentence does not change the meaning of the first clause. Basic reading comprehension rebuts your claim.

the Semi-Colon joins two clauses and establishes a relationship between them. they work in place of conjunctions. so again, it shows that the United States is not in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion FOR at it has in itself no character of...

thus the relationship of the Lack of Enmity against Muslims is the qualifier of the type of Christian Religion that the United States of America is NOT founded on.

No. That is just bad grammar and poor reading comprehension. (Or, more likely, wishful thinking.)

It says what it says. Not "The US Goverment is founded on the type of Christian religion that is not hostile to the Muslim religion," nor "The US Government is found on the Christian religion, but is not hostile to the Muslim religion. To the contrary, it says plainly: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." (emphasis added)

It is hard to imagine how the authors could have more clearly stated that the Government of the USA is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

There is a distinction between the United States that began and the government that was founded.

The government was founded by mostly Deists, and they based the constitution not on the Bible but on the ideas of the Enlightenment. They probably weren't anti-Christian, but they certainly weren't about to make a theocracy.

However, the majority of people living in the United States were, and continue to be, Christian. To say the Christian religion did not influence American culture or even laws is ridiculous, there are too many to have no influence. A few years ago I heard a US Senator say that the United States is not a Christian nation, but it is a nation of Christians. I think that was a fairly good assessment, both then and now.

I heard a US Senator say that the United States is not a Christian nation, but it is a nation of Christians. I think that was a fairly good assessment, both then and now.

A nation of Christians = A Christian nation.

A nation with Christians would have been better. Not everybody followed Christianity then and now.....

You're all wrong.

The United States was funded on Illumaniti values, as all the enligh-educated people know.

Treaty of Tripoli, Art. 11 (divided into clauses):
(1)As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

(2)as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen;

(3)and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation,

(4)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. Yep, divided into clauses, not sentences, clauses.

Utter bullshit. The first clause is a complete thought in itself. The second clause about the US Government "has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen" does not modify the first clause.where in the second clause does it explicitly state THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. it says itself. which could as easily be referencing the state of Christianity viewed by the United States of America.

The first three clauses are preambles they say (1) as X is true ("as the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"), (2) as Y is true ("as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen"), and (3)as Z is true ("and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation"), so (4) A is true ("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. "). Nowhere does Y modify X.but the whole thing is read as ONE sentence. thus 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...

thus Article 11 is to be taken as a whole, not disected into parts, else the article would've been written in parts.

Again, this is bullshit. The first clause very clearly says that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Why that phrase "not in any sense" if they really meant is "founded on the Christian religion except in the sense that hostile towards Muslims"? because the phrase "Not in Any Sense" is in reference to any Christian Religion that holds emnity towards Muslims.

As much as you may wish otherwise, reading the whole sentence does not in any way diminish or change the meaning of the first clause.yes it does. the first clause by itself would support the claim that the USA is not a christian nation. but the second clause clearly defines the view of Christianity that the USA is not baised on.

Um. Because the context is a treaty with the Muslims. It doesn't in any way modify the first clause. so it could be just a statement to allay fears and not a statement of truth... after all, it would be difficult for a Muslim in Tripoli to verify the truthfulness of such a statement.

Except that it says the opposite of that. Tad inconvenient for you.err... no it didn't.

But reading the whole sentence does not change the meaning of the first clause. Basic reading comprehension rebuts your claim.yes it does. the first clause is defined by the second.

if the first clause is independant, then...
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 tranquillity, 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.

would've been re written to
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
Art. 11x As the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, 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.

and if read like the second sample, then it does take a whole new meaning. but it wasn't written that way.

It says what it says. Not "The US Goverment is founded on the type of Christian religion that is not hostile to the Muslim religion," nor "The US Government is found on the Christian religion, but is not hostile to the Muslim religion. To the contrary, it says plainly: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." (emphasis added) and you accuse me of wishful thinking.

the Semi-Colon can be used in place of both Period, or Comma.

Period = "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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen..."
ok, that supports the claim that the USA is not a chistian nation in any form.

Comma = "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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen..."
that specifies that it is not a Muslim hating Christian nation.

It is hard to imagine how the authors could have more clearly stated that the Government of the USA is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
perhaps with a period instead of a Semi-colon? Perhaps a seperate article stating that the USA is not a Christian Nation with no other clauses included? there are many ways to state it clearer that the USA is not a Christian Nation.

but with how the article was constructed, it's very possible that the statement is only to support the idea that the reader has already in their head. A usual tactic of Diplomacy.

Those who consider Christians "enemies" could read that the USA is not a christian nation. others who liken the USA to be a Christian Nation will read it as a Christian Nation who doesn't hate Muslims. it all depends on the mindset of the reader.

NOTE: I am not saying the USA was founded to be a Christian Nation. only that this neither proves or disproves that the USA is NOT a Christian Nation. the only way to prove that is to travel back to time and ask the Founding Fathers themselves... in a simple and plain language.

A nation of Christians = A Christian nation.

A nation with Christians would have been better. Not everybody followed Christianity then and now.....

"A nation with Christians" would have been better, but "a nation of Chrisitians is not the same as a Christian nation. A Christian nation suggests that the laws of the land are affiliated with Christianity, and they're not (at least not in the Constitution). A nation of Christians means a nations that is made up of Christians, and although not all people were Christians (as you said), enough are that Christianity has had the greatest influence on the culture, compared to other beliefs.

Wasn't it John Adams who said that Christianity helped with preservation of free governments like America? It should be noted that I agree with the Treaty of Tripoli. We need a strong separation of church and state. In countries were churches are controlled by the government they have to promote obedience to the government and its ideology. Churches should promote obedience to the teachings and example of Jesus. I do think however, that considering the fact that the majority of the founding fathers were Christians or closely affiliated with Christianity that it is wron to state that at the very least America was founded on Christian values such as morality and law.

If anything America was also heavily influenced by Freemasonry since such a large amount of the founding fathers were Freemasons.

Morality and law are no exclusively Christian values. It could just as easily have been founded on the morality and principles of the Unitarian faith that many of the Founding Fathers were.

At least two people have now mentioned the Founding Fathers were Unitarian. I am not an Unitarian myself, but I always understood it to be a denomination of Christianity. Am I wrong?

If I am wrong, please tell me why.:)

Wasn't it John Adams who said that Christianity helped with preservation of free governments like America? It should be noted that I agree with the Treaty of Tripoli. We need a strong separation of church and state. In countries were churches are controlled by the government they have to promote obedience to the government and its ideology. Churches should promote obedience to the teachings and example of Jesus. I do think however, that considering the fact that the majority of the founding fathers were Christians or closely affiliated with Christianity that it is wron to state that at the very least America was founded on Christian values such as morality and law.

If anything America was also heavily influenced by Freemasonry since such a large amount of the founding fathers were Freemasons.

Morality and law are no exclusively Christian values. It could just as easily have been founded on the morality and principles of the Unitarian faith that many of the Founding Fathers were.

Morality and law are no exclusively Christian values. It could just as easily have been founded on the morality and principles of the Unitarian faith that many of the Founding Fathers were.The majority were Christians though unless, like I said earlier, you consider the founding fathers to only be Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc. Besides Unitarianism is an offshoot of Christianity. Granted it's a heretical offshoot, but still it's an offshoot