America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamentalism

I agree with Fonz here - it's not semantics. There is considerable difference between the wording (and these were sharp, educated, legal minds here) of:

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
and "They are endowed by God with certain unalienable Rights"

"Their creator" - is wide open, "God" is very very specific.

But the point is still the same. I never said that the Founders intended for America to be Christian. But in the same vein, they never intended it to be secular. The presence God or the Creator (whatever you want to call it) is central to limiting the power our government has over the people, and that is why I am so ardent about not creating a "wall" between religion (God) and politics.

I don't want America to be a theocracy ruled by a specific religion. But we need religion. The government cannot be the Almighty, and that's why the Framers included the "Creator" in the Declaration. They didn't just do it because it sounded cool.

in addition there is a difference between "endowed by" and "granted"

endowed: To equip or supply with a talent or quality
granted: to accord as a favor, prerogative, or privilege:

Nice catch.
 
Werbung:
But the point is still the same. I never said that the Founders intended for America to be Christian. But in the same vein, they never intended it to be secular.

From everything I've read on the people who framed our constitution (and I'm not a scholar) - the following points came out strongly:

- they were predominately the product of "The Enlightentment" - a period in which religious authority over man was questioned and refuted and a time in which traditional forms of governance were being rejected.

- the idea, that man could govern himself with out a king, either earthly or heavenly was very heretical at the time and definately went against prevailing religous thought.

- my impression of the seperation of church and state that they advocated was along the lines of "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" and to me, that implies a fairly strict doctrine of non-interference by the government in church affairs and by church in government affairs.

The presence God or the Creator (whatever you want to call it) is central to limiting the power our government has over the people, and that is why I am so ardent about not creating a "wall" between religion (God) and politics.
I don't want America to be a theocracy ruled by a specific religion. But we need religion. The government cannot be the Almighty, and that's why the Framers included the "Creator" in the Declaration. They didn't just do it because it sounded cool.

We need religion - but not in the government, not in our legal system, and not - if choose not to want it - in our private lives.

The idea that God is central to limiting the power of government is absolutely in opposition to what the founding father's had in mind. It is the power of the PEOPLE that limits government - not the almighty.
 
Please provide evidence of this.
None of the first currency minted in the United States contained any mention of God; no godly images, no religious mottoes, nothing.

[SIZE=-1]First American Coin[/SIZE]
The first coin minted in America did not use the motto "In God We Trust." Instead we find Benjamin Franklin's motto, "Mind Your Business." Even the Pagan references appear hidden. However the sundial, invented by the ancient Egyptians suggests its Pagan origins.



coin.gif




Not until the late 1700s do we finally find any image of a deity on currency and medals and what deity do we find? An image of Allah? The god of Moses? Jesus Christ? NO! Instead we find our Pagan Goddess of Liberty!

[SIZE=-1]"1776" Libertas Americana medal[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This 1775 early American medal showing a woman with flowing hair depicts the Goddess of Liberty (also called Lady Liberty) and refers to the Roman Goddess Libertas.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Benjamin Franklin conceived the idea of the Libertas Americana medal and suggested the motifs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]The opposite side shows Minerva (Goddess of wisdom) clad in breastplate and plumed helmet, holds a shield bearing the fleur de lys of France. The infant Hercules (representing the new American nation) kneels in the protective shadow of Minerva's shield, grasping a strangled serpent in each tiny fist. The reptiles represent the defeats of General "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne (17 October, 1777) and General George Cornwallis (19 October, 1781). The British lion stands, forepaws upon Minerva's shield. Its tail is between its rear legs, a heraldic signal of cowardice or defeat, as, indeed, it may also be in nature.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]
libertas.jpg
[/SIZE]

Liberty%20coin.gif


The 1794 American half-cent, above, shows the Goddess Liberty on one side and a wreath on the other. The wreath depicts a Pagan kotynos, an olive branch worn by Olympian champions and Pagan Roman emperors. The idea of putting the image of Goddess Liberty on coins comes from the ancient Romans who depicted Gods and Goddesses on many of their coins throughout the Roman era.

MercuryDime.gif



Although we call it the Mercury dime, the official designation refers to it as "Winged Liberty Head." It actually depicts Goddess Liberty wearing a Phrygian cap (typically worn by freed slaves during the Roman Empire), symbolizing freedom of thought. The "In God We Trust" motto (put on coins long after the establishment of our government), must then refer to our Pagan deity Liberty!

The United States Trade dollar depicts the Pagan emperor, Vespasian. Vespasian ruled (AD 69-79) during the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem and had charge of the suppression of the Jewish Revolt, which of course put him at odds with the Jews and the Christians.


They are, as a matter of fact.
http://www.floridabruce.com/scripture_in_washington_dc.htm
Forget what they're writing and just look at the pictures.
In the first place, Moses does not sit alone on the Supreme Court Frieze. Moses sits next to two Pagans-- Confucius and Solon:

This also appears on the back of the Supreme Court Building (the east side), not the main entrance, where you would expect him to appear if the sculptor intended him to hold a special place. Moses sits next to Confucius and Solon holding two blank tablets. These fellows represent three lawgivers from the East, thus they appear on the east side of the building. Characters from the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare also appear on this frieze (go figure).

Moreover, Christians don't tell you that figures of 17 other lawgivers appear on the Supreme Court building. Notorious pagans such as Hammurabi, Menes, Lycurgus, Draco, Augustus, and Justinian also appear among the lawgivers. Even Mohammed holding the Koran appears on the building! (Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if U.S. Muslims declared that Constitutional law derived from Allah and the Holy Koran?) Friezes appear on all four sides of the building and on the inside. The Moses statue appears no larger than any of the other lawgivers. According to the Curator's office, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes, a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law. (bold characters, mine).

Also in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court building, one will find ornamental metopes which include some our beloved Pagan Gods and Goddesses (Minerva, Zeus, Mercury, and Juno). Not a single Judeo-Christian God appears anywhere.

As for the main entrance to the Supreme Court, Moses does not appear there at all. Instead, we see on the main door, relief panels that depict Pagan reflections such as the Shield of Achilles, the Justinian Code, the Magna Carta, Etc. (Click here for graphic details).

And what do we find on the main entrance frieze to the Supreme Court building? No depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments appear at all, on the main entrance. The three central figures describe Pagans that represent Order, Liberty Enthroned, and Authority. The other figures represent American justices and the sculptor of the pediment, Robert Aitken. The Supreme Court literally reeks of magisterial Paganism.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court building came into existence between 1932 and 1935, long after the establishment of the United States government. It can't possibly represent the founding principles of the U.S. government, simply because it got built well after its formation. Nor should we use the art of obscure sculptors who's aim went toward establishing historical references for artistic sake only, as a bases for our law establishment.

The Constitution is an organizational document that is meant to be read in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which details where the individual rights of the Bill of Rights came from.
I reject your biased interpretation of the Declaration.

I failed to find any references to paganism in the Constitution. It is, like I said, an organizational document and as such it sticks more to the "what" than the "why."
the Declaration of Independence, describes Nature's God, a Deist Pagan concept, not the God of Jesus , Moses, or Mohammed.

The Constitution reflects an exclusion of religion with no reference to a Judeo-Christian god at all. Yet it does indirectly refer to our Pagan Gods, Janus, Mars, Sunne by using the calendar words "January," "March," and "Sunday."

This really has to be a joke. You know we didn't have our first non-Protestant President until 1961? Or that one of the most central figures of American politics from the late nineteenth/early twentieth century was William Jennings Bryan, the man responsible for the prosecution in the Scopes Monkey Trial?
You really didn't read what I said did you? The UNited States being recognized as a Christian nation, didn't happen until the mid 20th century, around the time of the Red Scare.

I'm sorry, Fonz, but the religious roots of this country are undeniable.
Wrong again. Only by revising history and cherry picking can you come to this conclusion. Our founding fathers never intended our country to reflect religious principles. They formed a secular government in order to separate religion from politics.
 
Fascinating description of the Supreme Court building. It sounds quite beautiful. Ironcially in all the years I used live near DC, I never examined it even though, to me - the Supreme Court represents the primary guarantor of our rights and constitution in this country.
 
The idea that God is central to limiting the power of government is absolutely in opposition to what the founding father's had in mind. It is the power of the PEOPLE that limits government - not the almighty.

Okay, I feel like I'm going in circles here. I know it's the people that limit government -- that's the Lockean philosophy that influenced them so much, but the people get their power from the Almighty, not from the government which made it unique. If they were so opposed to God, then why include it in the Declaration?
 
I'd like to thank Fonz and Coyote for bringing objective thought to this board. it's a breath of fresh air.
 
Okay, I feel like I'm going in circles here. I know it's the people that limit government -- that's the Lockean philosophy that influenced them so much, but the people get their power from the Almighty, not from the government which made it unique. If they were so opposed to God, then why include it in the Declaration?


I am not sure what you mean by the statement "people get their power from the Almighty". Is that in relation to "divine law" vs. "natural law"? Or...don't people get their power from the "consent" of those governed? To be honest - I'm very sketchy on philosphy/political theory. All the things I should have learned and didnt'.

I don't think it's that they are so opposed to God per se - but rather that any particular religion or that religious law should be part of our governing body because they came from a background where state and religion were one.
 
I am not sure what you mean by the statement "people get their power from the Almighty". Is that in relation to "divine law" vs. "natural law"? Or...don't people get their power from the "consent" of those governed? To be honest - I'm very sketchy on philosphy/political theory. All the things I should have learned and didnt'.

The words "endowed by their Creator" means that the Creator endows the people with their inalienable rights, of which includes the power to reform or replace governments that have abandoned the wishes of the people. It's to ensure that future governments didn't think they were the ones who gave citizens their inalienable rights and thus they had the ability to take them away. That is why it is so important to preserve the notion of God in our republic.

I don't think it's that they are so opposed to God per se - but rather that any particular religion or that religious law should be part of our governing body because they came from a background where state and religion were one.

Definitely, I'll agree with that. They ddin't want a theocracy, just as much as they didn't want a secular democracy.
 
The words "endowed by their Creator" means that the Creator endows the people with their inalienable rights, of which includes the power to reform or replace governments that have abandoned the wishes of the people. It's to ensure that future governments didn't think they were the ones who gave citizens their inalienable rights and thus they had the ability to take them away. That is why it is so important to preserve the notion of God in our republic.



Definitely, I'll agree with that. They ddin't want a theocracy, just as much as they didn't want a secular democracy.


But they specifically referred to "their Creator" -- they could have used the word "God" but chose not to. Why? If our inalienable rights came from something higher then us - that something is not defined.

The idea of maintaining "God" in our goverment as opposed to private life and churches implies a theocracy of sorts. I think our founders set up a secular democracy and - really - what is wrong with it? It allows all religions to flourish, protected from interference by government entities and taxes.
 
But they specifically referred to "their Creator" -- they could have used the word "God" but chose not to. Why?

Because they didn't want to discriminate against any specific religion. Like I said, they didn't want a theocracy ruled by religion. But they wanted a non-denominational religious presence to ensure that government would not assume excessive power. Because they used the word "their" instead of "the" doesn't change the fact that the entire purpose of adding the word "Creator" was to reiterate that these inalienable rights are not endowed by the government.

I'll ask again, if you don't accept my explanation, why would they include the words "their Creator"?

If our inalienable rights came from something higher then us - that something is not defined.

...which is exactly how they wanted it. They wanted to make it clear that this something higher was giving us our inalienable human rights, not the government.

The idea of maintaining "God" in our goverment as opposed to private life and churches implies a theocracy of sorts.

No, because a theocracy is ruled by a specific religion. The Founders didn't want a specific religion, or religion at all, to be the guiding force behind our government. But they wanted it established that the government was not the almight power. It is the people, with their God-given inalienable rights, that rule.

I think our founders set up a secular democracy and - really - what is wrong with it? It allows all religions to flourish, protected from interference by government entities and taxes.

The problem arises when you have a system of government where the executive or the law makers own the rights of the citizens because it implies that since they gave them, they can also take them away.

All religions can flourish under our American-styled republic, which is why they said "their Creator".
 
Because they didn't want to discriminate against any specific religion. Like I said, they didn't want a theocracy ruled by religion. But they wanted a non-denominational religious presence to ensure that government would not assume excessive power. Because they used the word "their" instead of "the" doesn't change the fact that the entire purpose of adding the word "Creator" was to reiterate that these inalienable rights are not endowed by the government.

I'll ask again, if you don't accept my explanation, why would they include the words "their Creator"?

I don't see how using the words "inalienable rights endowed by their creator" necessarily goes on to mean they wanted a non-denominational religious presence to ensure that government would not assume excessive power. I don't see that at all....what I see is that yes - these rights are endowed independent of any government entity by something unspecified.

...which is exactly how they wanted it. They wanted to make it clear that this something higher was giving us our inalienable human rights, not the government.

Alright - I'll go with you on that.

No, because a theocracy is ruled by a specific religion. The Founders didn't want a specific religion, or religion at all, to be the guiding force behind our government. But they wanted it established that the government was not the almight power. It is the people, with their God-given inalienable rights, that rule.

That I actually agree with also.

The problem arises when you have a system of government where the executive or the law makers own the rights of the citizens because it implies that since they gave them, they can also take them away.

All religions can flourish under our American-styled republic, which is why they said "their Creator".

...agree....
 
Our founding fathers did not base this country off of Christianity, that being said. Your massive generalization of Islamic nations creating terrorists, women not being allowed to show their face, and religious wars would be somewhat offensive if I were a Muslim. Most middle east countries are relatively secular and just about all of them *gasp* allow women to show their face. What religious war has Indonesia or Malaysia started, both very muslim countries.
The conflicts in the middle east are more closely tied to the region and natural resources than any sort of religion.
And your statement that American christians haven't acted in the same manner is false. The past imperialist ambitions of this country were defended using Christianty, *ahem* Manifest Destiny.

I think you over-generalize as well. I love all those people that say our government was not based on Christianity. Well that's a straw man. Freedom of religion was the #1 reason for the Constitution. What most people mix up is the government and the people. The government is not religious, but the people are. Not a single Founder believed that atheism or adherence to a moral code differing from that in Christianity would allow our constitutional republic to survive. Religion is necessary among the people, because the fundamental essence of self-government was the individual governing himself. That governing was according to principles expressed in Christianity. Read the words of John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
 
Werbung:
I think you over-generalize as well. I love all those people that say our government was not based on Christianity. Well that's a straw man. Freedom of religion was the #1 reason for the Constitution. What most people mix up is the government and the people. The government is not religious, but the people are. Not a single Founder believed that atheism or adherence to a moral code differing from that in Christianity would allow our constitutional republic to survive. Religion is necessary among the people, because the fundamental essence of self-government was the individual governing himself. That governing was according to principles expressed in Christianity. Read the words of John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."


Our government was created for a predominately Christian people but that is not the same as saying it was "based on Christianity". It wasn't. It was based on the prevailing ideals of the Enlightenment, and the founding fathers dug deep into history to pull ideas from the Greeks, and others ancients to put together what we have now.

You mention: Religion is necessary among the people, because the fundamental essence of self-government was the individual governing himself.

However - the idea of self-governance (that people can control their own destiny and rule themselves) is absolutely antithical to Christian thought.
 
Back
Top