Does Christianity align with US values?

Grafix

" ... you have to acknowledge now that the first 3 commandments are incompatible with the first amendment, because if you follow the first commandment then you can not say, practice Islam because that is (arguably) a different god. Likewise, freedom of speech guarantees that I can say "God damn it" All I please, or go to work on a Sunday if I want, because it's a free country. Thus they are not US values, in fact they are Un-American."

I do?  Who says so?  I don't agree with you at all on this.  I repudiate that claim strenuously and have already stated why.  The law does not agree with you, either.  The law repudiates your interpretation.  Show me the Statute or Common Law which provides the Government with ANY power to enforce, impose or dictate any one of the first three Commandments, in fact ANY of them?  When you can do that, your gibberish may begin to approach a modicum of logic. The Amendment expressly FORBIDS the government from doing so.

So who do you think is going to impose these beliefs, (religious laws) upon you that you are so afraid of?  The Catholics, The Anglicans, The Presbyterians, the Islamics, the Calathumpians, the Amish?  How can they?  They have no legislative powers.  If you don't like their beliefs, you are not compelled to join their congregations. That's precisely what you have done, yet you rail against the very law which protects your freedom to do so?  If you lived in the Middle East you could not do that at all, without threat of your life and I think you know that very well.  Teqiyya, huh?  If what you claim were fact, then atheists like yourself would be rounded up and incarcerated, as also would be Islamics, Calathumpians, pagans and devil worshippers, but I don't see that happening, do you?  

What part of an INSTRUMENT OF THE PEOPLE don't you understand?  It means the entire Constitution is there for the people to use AGAINST the government and not the other way around.  You are trying to turn this on its head - arse up as I said before. The Government can make no law which abridges the Constitution.  Not a single one.  It is brilliant.  The smartest piece of lawmaking in the world and makes America the strongest nation in the world.  America's enemies know that, the reason our enemies never cease in their attempts to destroy our Constitution.  Are you one of them? If you value your freedom DEFEND the Constitution.  If you will not and do not, then you can only be an enemy of we the people.  I am beginning to see this in you.  Teqiyya, huh?

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the creation story in genesis is literally false, it's supposed to be understood metaphorically. Unless you are one of those nut cases who thinks evolution isn't real and world is flat... If you want to assume it is true, that is your prerogative. However, science still says that it's not so you would have to deny reality to believe this. No one can prove anything in the bible is literally true any more than they can prove Harry Potter is true.

See?  There is your despotism, autocratic Communism again or is it atheistic or desert fascism?  Same thing.  You pose a question which in and of itself, acknowledges Christianity's existence, the core of the question, in fact, but then when Christianity's defence proves you wrong, you say, Sorry bud, your Christianity doesn't exist.  Really?  Yeah right.  It does exist and you even said it does in your question, to the point of suggesting it is a threat to you, so go stuff that up your back pipe Mr. KGB or is it Mr. Sand Groper?  At least rebut my reply, but no, instead you crawl up your own phallus to hide.  Despicable deceit. Teqiyya, huh?  I see you - straight through you. He who would criticize our strengths.  He who hates the U.S. Constitution because it is our strength making it impossible for he who seeks to dominate us.  Any who will not defend liberty, freedom and justice as laid out in the Constitution, shows who he truly is.  You have done that once too often.  I now know what I am dealing with here.  Now defend yourself and not with scurrilous lies.  Teqiyya, huh?  I'm done here, before I write something i shouldn't.  I'll come back to the rest of your dereliction, after I gather my composure.  At the moment I am too outraged to look at the duplicitous filth you write.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ; I agree with you that the government has no power to enforce the first 3 commandments, that is the point I have been making this whole time.

The point about theocracy is also the point I am trying to make, I agree, why do you disagree with yourself?

Let me explain it to you like this...If the US was founded on the ten commandments, the first amendment might read like this: (changes in bold)

 "Congress shall make laws to enforce respect of the establishment of the Christian religion, and  exercise thereof; and prevent taking the lords name in vain, in the press; and in the right of the people  to assemble, and not to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't say anything like this, thus we can conclude that it isn't based on the ten commandments in any way, shape, or form. By suggesting that the ten commandments are a "moral framework" for the founding fathers, you violate the constitution and become the very thing you revel against, a dirty authoritarian theocrat.

Did I say that Christianity doesn't exist? No I did not! What I said is that what is written in the bible is literally false and perhaps metaphorically true.

Oh, and before you go another round of ad hominem, (the only thing you write competently)  I want you to ask yourself what exactly you are trying to prove with your empty and meaningless threats.

Grafix

Next.  Moving right long ...

"We have Sumerian texts that are older than the Hebrew tribes. It just happens to be the text from which Noah's ark was ripped off from."

HOW without evidence of the oldest original first peoples on earth, can anyone PROVE that these texts pre-date the Hebrew Tribes?  Where's the evidence of that?  An absence of evidence is not evidence of a positive.  It is merely what it says - unknown in terms of archaeological evidence in existence to date..  Show me this absent evidence, then.  Anti-Semitic and Anti-Christian scholars merely claim it, based on the subterfuge that  these are the oldest known texts.  That does not translate to mean that nothing can possibly ever be found or to have existed which pre-dates them. Claiming that it does is propaganda.

Logic wins every time, for the simple reason that if Adam and Eve were the first Hebrews and the Christian doctrine holds that the Hebrews are the Genesis of the human race, then obviously they handed down the Judeo-Christian ethos, to their descendants, right through to the Messiah whom their seed spawned.  Adam's genealogical tree is fully detailed in the Biblical text, with historically proven identities appearing in it.  So how CAN anyone claim that other cultures are older, without producing evidence which proves that?  They can't factually or honestly do so.

Archaeology has already proven the authenticity of Noah's Ark, the relic already discovered, found resting on the Mountains, [plural] of Ararat in Turkey, as opposed to on Mt.Ararat itself.  The Turkish Government, its scientists, archaeologists and Dept. of Antiquities went to the site after its discovery.  Dating of samples, knowledge of geological upheavals, soil testing, measurements, etc. have all been appropriately done by qualified personnel.  It's length and breadth fits EXACTLY with the Biblical dimensions and God's instructions to Noah on how to construct it.  Samples of fossilised animal droppings taken from the lower decks of many species of animals have been lab tested and authenticated.

The Turkish Government has acknowledged the discovery as authentic and declared the surrounding region a National Park in order to protect the site. It would hardly be doing so voluntarily, being an anti-Christian, anti-Semitic autocratic theocracy, unless the wider global scientific scholarship demanded it by bringing pressure to bear upon that government.  The anchor stones attached to the Ark have also been discovered in the same region.  These bear inscriptions.  They've also discovered a nearby village known as the "Village of Eight".  This is significant, given that only eight humans are purported in the Biblical text, to have sought protection from the Great Flood on the Ark - Noah, his wife and their three sons, each with his wife - monogamy evident even back then.  

I'll make a separate post dealing with your other points.

  

Dee

@Grafix


***** Archaeology has already proven the authenticity of Noah's Ark, the relic already discovered, found resting on the Mountains, [plural] of Ararat in Turkey, as opposed to on Mt.Ararat itself.  


Ha,Ha,Ha just when I thought your B S just couldn’t get any worse you don’t disappoint by posting up yet another pile of nonsense to go with your previous nonsense , read on even one of your own Andrew A. Snelling thinks it’s B S .....

BTW wheres your news snippet from the “Christian infomer” ?


Snopes ......

The initial investigation of the site found no evidence of an ark and reported that the object of interest appeared to be nothing more than a natural formation, but a number of scientific-sounding articles nonetheless still tout findings supported by “visual evidence,” “ground-penetrating radar” and laboratory analysis of “artifacts retrieved from the ark” as documenting the presence of Noah’s ark at the Durupinar site. However,

geologists from Andrew A. Snelling of Answers in Genesis to Lorence G. Collins of California State University Northridge’s Department of Geological Sciences have debunked the notion of Durupinar site as containing anything more than a completely natural geologic rock formation. The former, particularly, has published a point-by-point refutation of numerous claims made about the site, summarized briefly as follows:

Claim: Metal detector surveys found a regular pattern of ‘hot spots’ which could be joined to reveal a regular pattern of ‘lines’ lengthwise and across the inside of the formation only. 

Reality: A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) indeed found ‘hot spots,’ but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines.

Claim: Metal detecting surveys using a ‘molecular frequency generator/discriminator’ mapped out these ‘iron lines,’ which represent longitudinal and cross beams containing iron nails and /or brackets.

Reality: Qualified scientists have been independently consulted about this gadget, which is generally advertised in treasure-hunting magazines, not scientific journals. They are unanimous that there are no scientific principles employed.

Claim: The pattern of ‘iron lines’ that was located by the metal detecting surveys and marked out by plastic tape was duplicated and verified by other subsurface techniques including ground penetrating, or subsurface interface, radar surveys.

Reality: This claim is utterly false, yet it has been persistently used to give credence to diagrams purporting to show the internal structure of a boat, namely Noah’s Ark.

Claim: In the walls that define the outline of the boat-shape is evidence of a former ship’s ribs, presumably the timbers that formed part of the original keel structure/hull.

Reality: These walls are simply hardened mud, containing boulders of the various local rock types. They contain no petrified wood holding in the mud in any way reminiscent of the outer planking of a wooden hulled vessel.

Claim: There are trainloads and boatloads of petrified wood out there and it is all in the boat structure.

Reality: No trained scientist of the many who have visited the site has ever seen any sign of these ‘trainloads’ of petrified wood. Geologist Dr. Bayraktutan has collected one or two small fragments of semi-petrified wood which in his opinion have flowed on to the site within the mud from elsewhere. He confirms that none of the regular rock types of the site are petrified wood. 

Claim: Soil samples from the site indicate the residue of a decayed wooden vessel with sophisticated metals used for bracing

Reality: It is true that the samples contained iron, aluminum, titanium and carbon, but such elements are always to be found in soils.

Claim: Some pitch has been found (pitch was used to cover the inside and outside of the Ark’s wooden structure) at the site.

Reality: No sample containing pitch has been openly produced and submitted for proper scientific analyses.

Claim: A rusted metal bracket and other fittings and metal artifacts, including a ‘petrified rivet’ and ‘washer structures,’ have all been located ‘on the site.’

Reality: Results do not show any evidence of exotic metallurgy.

Claim: Rocks found within the formation have a high manganese content and an appearance that suggests that they were probably ‘tailings’/’slag’ from metal smelting/refining production by Noah and family.

Reality: No microscope thin section has been produced to show whether the samples collected and claimed to be slag do in fact have the internal texture and mineral composition of a true slag.


Claim: Positively identified animal coprolite (fossilized animal dung), animal hair, and ‘animal antlers’ are all reported from the site and are thus further confirmation that this site contains the remains of Noah’s Ark.

Reality: The finding of such animal residues in association with the site is hardly surprising when one considers that animals are likely to have roamed across these Turkish hillsides for thousands of years.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Dee put your Noah's ark is for real claim to bed nicely, so I won't bother reiterating why you are wrong about that.

Instead I will ask a question:

How do you know that everything written in the bible is true?

Is there a test we can perform that will show that it is in fact accurate?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot -  Next, moving right along ...

"Adultery was illegal in many older cultures, many of which pre-date all Hebrew texts. Thus it falls into the grey region and not the red and is insufficient to satisfy the challenge."

Same answer as before.  There is no material evidence, archaeological or otherwise, that the Hebrews are NOT the oldest race on earth, zero which proves that they DON'T pre-date all other races.  As explained in my previous text, evidence merely in existence to date does not exclude evidence not yet found.  It merely says what it says, that it is not known who is the oldest race on earth, because the proof of that has yet to be established.  The discovery of Noah's Ark pre-dates the Sumerian civilisations, which is pretty good proof of one thing, that they pre-date the Sumerians as far as known evidence goes.  Sumerian records begins in the time of Abraham, who lived in Ur, Mesopotamia, aka "Uruk", today's Iraq, where the Sumerians also were.  You have so far proved nothing about which pre-dates the other.  The Ark is the strongest evidence which supports the Biblical text.

Grarix wrote: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods" -"It means to use any illegitimate means to obtain the possessions of another, which could be by extortion, bribery, illegal soliciting, blackmail, swindle, bondage or threat. "

Happy Killjoy replied:  "Yeah... I think you are making a bunch of dots and connecting them... Anyways, all of the things you mentioned can be found in other cultures so they still wouldn't count.  You can revel against reality to your hearts content but you will still be wrong."

This kind of response from you validates my criticisms of your failure to rebut or debate.  It says absolutely nothing, apart from demonstrating dimwitted arrogance.

FINALLY:

The ten commandments were not the foundation for the US in any way, those who say different blatantly disregard reality

To the now innumerable number of statements made by me rebutting this scurrilous claim, I add yet again another - always the same response, that I have never claimed that, so why do you persistently, consistently and doggedly propagate this lie? I get it.  You have no defence. 

In your duplicity you are now conflating "the U.S." with the "Founding Fathers" in citing my past comments.  The evidence, which I've pointed you to, clearly documents that the Founding Fathers' decisions and conclusions in how they would frame the founding documents and the laws to protect the people from wrongs, while preserving their rights were all influenced  by their  moral compass, it founded upon  the Ten Commandments.  That says nothing about the U.S. itself.  It says nothing about the "moral compass" of the "U.S.", if it could possibly posses one.  It merely characterizes the founding fathers themselves.  That's ALL it does.  It says nothing about religious law appearing in any of the founding documents.  You just make that up to serve your own foul stench of duplicity.

The same response goes for the dumb duplicitous meme you put up at the bottom of your comment.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You are asking me to prove a negative here, you are literally saying "we cant prove it isn't true therefore it is" well to that I say, we can't prove that the cupcakes didn't come alive and wright the bible when we weren't looking, so that is what happened. See how this type of thinking is a problem?

Dee destroyed your ark theory.

Grafix: "you can't debate, this PROVES it"
Me: "So, uh, are you going to make a point or not?"

To the now innumerable number of statements made by me rebutting this scurrilous claim, I add yet again another - always the same response, that I have never claimed that, so why do you persistently, consistently and doggedly propagate this lie? I get it.  You have no defence. 

You did in your first comment. Here it is again:

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - There isn't an argument in a so-called list, as such, but there is a foundational argument in law and it is this:

The "Western" culture was imported from Israel.  Every "Western" culture identifies with a single ethos, the Judeo-Christian ethos.  The U.S., like Israel, like Canada, like the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Western Europe all share this common precept.  What then IS the Judeo-Christian ethos?  I suppose you could call it a "list" in a way, a list of laws certainly, but also a spiritual and moral embodiment of values enshrined in firstly our system of law and secondly in our Western culture.  The system of law which every Western nation adopted is based on the original laws which created the Judeo-Christian ethos in the first place and these  are:

Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, (lie), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods, thou shalt not covet they neighbour's wife.

Culturally that same Judeo-Christian ethos was also adopted with Thou shalt have no other gods before me., (The Western culture is identified as a monotheistic society, unlike a pagan society of many gods). Thou shalt make no graven image of worship, (idolatry).  Thou shalt not take the Lord thy God's name in vain, (blasphemy). Honour thy Father and thy Mother, (respect authority), love thy neighbour, (respect fellow citizens), keep holy the Sabbath, (regularly reinforce the spiritual moral code of the Christian Western culture).  You could say it is a list of 10 values upheld by Christianity - The Ten Commandments, but also upheld by our legal system and cultural norms.

We see this confirmed on the facade of our Court Houses, particularly in the English-speaking nations with the words: "In God We Trust" engraved on the exterior of every Court House and also inside our Court rooms with these same words set on the wall behind the Judicial benches.  As well, over centuries, handed down by the Western system of governance, the custom has always been to take an Oath, both inside and outside of the Courts, including when accepting an office of governance, by placing our right hand on the Christian Bible and swearing to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God".

Christianity is not a moral framework, it is a mind parasite masquerading as a viable means of thought. Christian values and ideas have been nothing but a hindrance to our nation, and they need to be shed and forgotten. There comes a time to put away Childish things, and for more and more people that time has come. You do not need religion to be moral, nor does having a religion make you a more moral person.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Now to deal with the rest of your hit job -

I agree with you that the government has no power to enforce the first 3 commandments, that is the point I have been making this whole time.
The point about theocracy is also the point I am trying to make, I agree, why do you disagree with yourself?

Well then, are you afraid of?  It is you who now contradicts your previous arguments, not the other way around.  I have at no time expressed fear of either the Constitution or our Christian religious law.  It is you and you alone who expressed those fears, by virtue of the very question you put at the top of this topic.  I have argued your fears are ridiculous.  You have argued they are not, so you contradict yourself right here.  It's just more duplicity from you, indicative of textbook Marxist Alinsky  Jihad.  I see you - straight through you.  Taqiyya, huh?  

Let me explain it to you like this...If the US was founded on the ten commandments, the first amendment might read like this: (changes in bold)

But the U.S. wasn't founded on the Ten Commandments so why even go through the hypothetical?  If it were, the U.S. would be a theocracy.  What part of that don't you understand? Our national identity simply REFLECTS the influence of these religious laws, via the Founding Father's moral compass, apparent in the outlawing of killing, lying stealing, adultery, polygamy and the requirement to swear Oaths on the Christian Bible.  The religious laws have been adopted in our culture - celebrating holidays at Christmas, (Christ Mass), Easter vigils, (crucifixion of Christ), Communion (Last Supper), Sunday a religious holiday, (holy day) set aside as a day of worship, baptism and marriage in churches, etc.  Even though this demonstrates our inheritance of the Judeo-Christian ethos, it's religion is not enshrined in our law, Statutes, Common Law or Government powers, so are you worrying about?  The religious beliefs are voluntary, posing no threat. To try to deny the influence of the Judeo-Christian ethos in the system of law and our national identity is abject ignorance.  It's precisely what defines us as "Western". I've gone to great pains to explain that this "Western" definition is ESTABLISHED scholarship.

 "Congress shall make laws to enforce respect of the establishment of the Christian religion, and  exercise thereof; and prevent taking the lords name in vain, in the press; and in the right of the people  to assemble, and not to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't say anything like this, thus we can conclude that it isn't based on the ten commandments in any way, shape, or form.

Precisely, my argument all along if Congress had that power.  We would be living in a theocracy and we aren't.  You are finally getting it.

 By suggesting that the ten commandments are a "moral framework" for the founding fathers, you violate the constitution and become the very thing you revel against, a dirty authoritarian theocrat.

LOL!  So, finally seeing the error in your previous opinion, you now grasp at a strawman argument, to save face.  LOL!  I'll give you one thing, the Frankfurt Marxists or the Desert Autocrats trained you well in the weasel words of the propaganda.  It takes some dissembling to sift out the fraud, the duplicity and the politic of stealth buried within it. But they are the original masters, so I should hardly be surprised.

I never used the phrase "moral framework" at all.  True to form, you use the stealth of words akin to what I said, as opposed to what I actually said.  Their was no "moral framework", only a personal moral compass based upon the Judeo-Christian ethos, which each Founder recognised and used to guide his decisions and conclusions - according to records.  Proof of that is in the fact that they argued and debated long and hard.  Each one's moral compass took no shape in an agreed  "moral framework" to be implemented in a formally agreed structure in the process of their lawmaking at all. The ethos simply guided their decisions on right from wrong and the rights of the people they sought to protect.  I don't know how many times I must REPEAT that last sentence to you.

Did I say that Christianity doesn't exist? No I did not! What I said is that what is written in the bible is literally false and perhaps metaphorically true.

Although you summarize it accurately here's what you wrote in response to my proving you wrong -:

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the creation story in genesis is literally false, it's supposed to be understood metaphorically. Unless you are one of those nut cases who thinks evolution isn't real and world is flat... If you want to assume it is true, that is your prerogative. However, science still says that it's not so you would have to deny reality to believe this. No one can prove anything in the bible is literally true any more than they can prove Harry Potter is true.

You used this to adroitly side-step the argument of the Biblical text, which claims the Hebrews as the oldest race on earth, that they are the originators of certain laws and beliefs, seen later in the Sumerian and other civilisations.  In other words the very values we are discussing in this topic, were adopted by other cultures and not inherited by the Hebrews from them, but from God. Having no argument to rebut that, you resorted to dismissing Christianity in general as myth-based, despite so much material proof of its identities bulging out of archaeological digs, including the historical figure of Christ.  In so claiming you weaponised the concept that it's not reality, therefore warrants no rebuttal. It's the same as claiming it doesn't exist, therefore pointless rebutting the argument.  That was your line - a complete wimpy cop out. 

Oh, and before you go another round of ad hominem, (the only thing you write competently)  I want you to ask yourself what exactly you are trying to prove with your empty and meaningless threats.

Look up the definition of ad hominem.  It pertains to the person, specifically the personal persona.  Those valid remarks of mine address criticisms to the content of your text and the tactical strategy you engage and conduct. That's not ad hominem.  If it were we could write no reviews of movies, literature or even politics or criminal conduct of others. Criticisms of opinions and conduct are not threats.  Again, you deploy textbook Alinsky Marxism, Karl. I see you - straight through you.  I'm sure I don't need to school you in it.  You are good at it, but for the benefit of the readers, it goes like this:

Select a target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.  Then paralyse the target's mental processes and persuade it - weaponize everything - definition of Marxist inculcation and destruction. 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You still don't understand that there are no Christian laws. That is what the first amendment is all about. No religion in government, no laws based on religion, and no foundation on religion.

But the U.S. wasn't founded on the Ten Commandments so why even go through the hypothetical?

So we agree then.

Our national identity simply REFLECTS the influence of these religious laws, via the Founding Father's moral compass, apparent in the outlawing of killing, lying stealing, adultery, polygamy and the requirement to swear Oaths on the Christian Bible. 

No it doesn't in any way whatsoever. You don't have to swear an oath on the bible, and you can't prove these ideas didn't come from elsewhere, so maybe they did. Who knows?

Precisely, my argument all along if Congress had that power.  We would be living in a theocracy and we aren't.  You are finally getting it.

I've been making this argument from square one, I'm not the one who is finally getting it.

 I'll give you one thing, the Frankfurt Marxists or the Desert Autocrats trained you well in the weasel words of the propaganda.

If you think the bible is a moral framework then it is you who is following desert autocrats and weasel words of propaganda.

 Their was no "moral framework", only a personal moral compass based upon the Judeo-Christian ethos, which each Founder recognised and used to guide his decisions and conclusions - according to records

We are talking about the same thing, you just use more words. "moral compass based upon the Judeao-Christian ethos" = moral framework. You make no point here.

Did I say that Christianity doesn't exist? No I did not! What I said is that what is written in the bible is literally false and perhaps metaphorically true.

Although you summarize it accurately here's what wrote in response to my proving you wrong -:

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the creation story in genesis is literally false, it's supposed to be understood metaphorically. Unless you are one of those nut cases who thinks evolution isn't real and world is flat... If you want to assume it is true, that is your prerogative. However, science still says that it's not so you would have to deny reality to believe this. No one can prove anything in the bible is literally true any more than they can prove Harry Potter is true.

All of these things a consistent. You can read right?
The Sumerians pre-date the Hebrew people and heavily influenced both their religion and culture. This is historic fact.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2030/2030-h/2030-h.htm

Look up the definition of ad hominem.  It pertains to the person, specifically the personal persona.  Those valid remarks of mine address criticisms to the content of your text and the tactical strategy you engage and conduct. That's not ad hominem.  If it were we could write no reviews of movies, literature or even politics or criminal conduct of others. Criticisms of opinions and conduct are not threats.  Again, you deploy textbook Alinsky Marxism, Karl. I see you - straight through you.  I'm sure I don't need to school you in it.  You are good at it, but for the benefit of the readers, it goes like this:

Select a target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.  Then paralyse the target's mental processes and persuade it - weaponize everything - definition of Marxist inculcation and destruction. 

Would you like me to go back and give you a count of how many ad hominem attacks you have passed off as good arguments? Just in your last comment I count 7:

 It is you who now contradicts your previous arguments, not the other way around

 It's just more duplicity from you, indicative of textbook Marxist Alinsky  Jihad.
 I see you - straight through you.  Taqiyya, huh? 
 I'll give you one thing, the Frankfurt Marxists or the Desert Autocrats trained you well in the weasel words of the propaganda. 
True to form, you use the stealth of words akin to what I said, as opposed to what I actually said
You used this to adroitly side-step the argument of the Biblical text
hat was your line - a complete wimpy cop out. 

You seriously have to stop. You don't win debates by attacking the other person. If you are wondering why you are losing debates so often I think I might be able to give you a clue.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot ;

Do your Atheist values align with US values? 


Meaning that they wouldn't conflict, with any parents taking their kids to any religious building?


Meaning that if you see a Cross on someone's private property, while you're driving down a road somewhere, that you wont hesitate to go to a local attorney to file a lawsuit, against that Cross, on someone's private property?  


Would you respect those Religious parents right to pursue their religious freedoms with their kids, by going inside of any religious building, if they weren't infringing on your right to being an Atheist?


Would you respect that private citizens right to have a religious symbol on their property, if they weren't infringing on your right to being an Atheist? 

Grafix

@Dee - Snopes is a Marxist fraud, presenting itself as some kind of (unregistered, unapproved, unacclaimed, unaccredited, no journalistic quals, unknown source) authority.  With all of those "UNs"  it is precisely why it is a fraud.  It is a lefty bakehouse, designed to brainwash wee peas in cranial boxes, which some call a brain.  End of credits.

Why would any logical, thinking educated person turn to such a low-brow, Mom and Pop backyard shop for confirmation of anything?  Huh?  When we have highly qualified journalists, and many investigative journalists, foreign correspondents who've studied for years, been professionally trained in the craft of collecting, sourcing, vetting and authenticating fact from fiction?  But, sigh, some think Snopes is real.  LOL!  Give me a break.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Snopes is considered to be a reliable and highly trusted fact-checking website. If you are claiming they are unreliable, then you had better have some strong evidence to back it up, unless you have some kind of fascist, Orwellian, 1984, totalitarian, media control, anti-liberal, alternate facts, source denying, anti-USA, bigoted, agenda.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot ;

I asked those questions, because your Atheist rights don't have anyway of infringing on my Freedom of Religion rights because, I don't see any reason to allow them to.

So yes Christianity does align with US values. 


Christianity is pro kids, family, community, and pro United States of America. 

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB Is the US pro Allah?

Dee

@Grafix


**** Snopes is a Marxist fraud, presenting itself as some kind of (unregistered, unapproved, unacclaimed, unaccredited, no journalistic quals, unknown source) authority.  

Right got ya , Snopes quoted an article directly from that other “Marxist fraud “ of a magazine called  National Geographic did you ever hear of it? Incidentally their was a link supplied linking to the creationist scientist who also said its  

*****With all of those "UNs"  it is precisely why it is a fraud.  It is a lefty bakehouse, designed to brainwash wee peas in cranial boxes, which some call a brain.  End of credits.

Okkkkkkay glad you got that off your chest so it appears you’re very annoyed that H K made mincemeat of you but all your doing now is demonstrating what a sore loser you are.


*****Why would any logical, thinking educated person turn to such a low-brow, Mom and Pop backyard shop for confirmation of anything?  Huh?  

I know “intellectual powerhouses”  like you think The National Geographic is low brow and illogical yet you believe a guy called Noah built an Ark and 2 of every animal on the planet marched along a gangplank onto an Ark to ride a storm out caused by an angry god Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

****When we have highly qualified journalists, and many investigative journalists, foreign correspondents who've studied for years, been professionally trained in the craft of collecting, sourcing, vetting and authenticating fact from fiction?  

You mean like the newspaper article you posted from the “ Christian Informer”? 

****But, sigh, some think Snopes is real.  LOL!  Give me a break.

Some think Noah’s Ark is real LOL 


I note with amusement also you couldn’t answer even one of my previous questions you can get help off your preacher / mum / dad if you wish or do you want me to ask you easier questions? 

piloteer

In the United States it is:

•legal to commit adultery. 

•legal to have an abortion. 

•legal to use the Lord's name in vain. 

•legal to use greed as a self governing moral compass. 

•legal to worship Gods other than Yahweh.

•legal make embarrassing images of the Lord for fun.

•legal to not keep the Sabbath holy.

•legal to be envious of others, or be proud of yourself.  

•legal to disown your parents.

All of these things were made legal by the US constitution, and they don't seem very much influenced by Christian ideals. The US constitution made it legal to live contrary to Christian ideals. Christian ideals and the US constitution do not align!!!    

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Is it against the Law in the United States to be a Muslim, or to believe in Allah?

I'm a U.S. citizen, just as you are.

So can you educate this American on what law specifically states, that Allah, or Islam isn't protected by the Freedom of Religion?

"@TKDB Is the US pro Allah?"

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB Is Christianity pro Allah?

TKDB

@piloteer

And your opinion suits your non Religious standard to a tee.

Just as I stated to @Happy_Killbot

Your Atheist rights don't have anyway of infringing on my Freedom of Religion rights because, I don't see any reason to allow them to.

So yes Christianity does align with US values. 

Christianity is pro kids, family, community, and pro United States of America. 
 

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Prove that it's not?

(You asked the question, so please feel free to Google your own question?

"@TKDB Is Christianity pro Allah?"

Why can't Christianity be pro Allah?

Your Atheist way of thinking, has zero effect on my U.S. Christianity values.

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB The first commandment:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

means that it is not. If you are a Christian you can not be pro Allah.

So then the US is pro Allah and Christianity is not.

Do you see the problem then?

piloteer

@TKDB

Hey TKDB, how are you? I haven't spoken with you in a while, I hope all is well with you. Good to hear from you. You make a good point. So good that I won't address it. Thanks  

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

I'm not the one with a discrimination problem, or has an issue over Religion, you are.

And I refuse to let you affect my values.

So you can continue to preach from pulpit of your individual Atheist standard:

"@TKDB The first commandment:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

means that it is not. If you are a Christian you can not be pro Allah.

So then the US is pro Allah and Christianity is not.

Do you see the problem then?"

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB If you are a Christian and you accept Allah, then you violate the ten commandments and commit a sin, for which you will be damned to eternal hellfire.

If you do not accept Allah, then you violate the first amendment to the constitution, and you stand against US values.

You can pick one or the other, but not both.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot

Dee put your Noah's ark is for real claim to bed nicely, so I won't bother reiterating why you are wrong about that.

But she didn't really.  She just flew a kite and hoped it would fly.  The Israeli Dept. of Antiquities, the Turkish Dept. of Antiquities, the American Society of Archaeologists, The British Museum, The National Archives and Historians' Institute of the Netherlands and a heap of others all helped to fund the authentication process, the lab tests, the forensics, the dating, the equipment, etc. etc. of the project after the discovery of the Ark and also funded the Museum, since built near the site which displays the artefacts taken from the relic, all of which have been authenticated by laboratory testing, scientific data, dating, forensics, etc. etc.  I doubt these esteemed Institutions would invest in such an endeavour if they thought it was a croc show.  But Hey!  Let's just relegate all of them to the dustbin and put a Mom & Pop backyard-no-show up on a pedestal, so we can claim a bucket load of scientists, archaeologists, historians, government officials are real prawns, debunk them all, because it suits our political and religious prejudices and bigotry . Way to go America!

 My reply is below to Dee's nonsense, she pasted and copied from the unaccredited, uneducated, zero credentials, no journalistic accreditation, no academic education, Mom & Dad Pop shop Snopes on the Slopes of Socialist shills, paid to search and destroy all Conservative and Christian info' on the internet which threatens the Marxist paradigm, just follow the money.  It reveals all we need to know.

@Dee - Snopes is a Marxist fraud, presenting itself as some kind of (unregistered, unapproved, unacclaimed, unaccredited, no journalistic quals, unknown source) authority.  With all of those "UNs"  it is precisely why it is a fraud.  It is a lefty bakehouse, designed to brainwash wee peas in cranial boxes, which some call a brain.  End of credits.
Why would any logical, thinking educated person turn to such a low-brow, Mom and Pop backyard shop for confirmation of anything?  Huh?  When we have highly qualified journalists, and many investigative journalists, foreign correspondents who've studied for years, been professionally trained in the craft of collecting, sourcing, vetting and authenticating fact from fiction?  But, sigh, some think Snopes is real.  LOL!  Give me a break.

From Happy Killjoy:

Snopes is considered to be a reliable and highly trusted fact-checking website. If you are claiming they are unreliable, then you had better have some strong evidence to back it up, unless you have some kind of fascist, Orwellian, 1984, totalitarian, media control, anti-liberal, alternate facts, source denying, anti-USA, bigoted, agenda

So you now have some evidence that no-one else has?  Clever you.  Like to show it to us, namely, that Snopes has journalistic credentials, a degree in the craft, a proven record in journalism, has paid journalists on it's staff, is not a Mom & Dad backyard Pop shop?  Is not paid by George Soros and Jeff Besoz to discredit properly sourced journalism, and only journalism which threatens the Marxist paradigm?  When you can produce all of these credentials I shall agree with you.

Dee 

@Grafix 

You mean like the newspaper article you posted from the “ Christian Informer”? 

I mean like it was first published by the Turkish Government-owned newspaper, then picked up,.translated and re-published by Al Jazeera and that picked up by a heap of Western news outlets, when you were probably still a wee kitten in nappies.

Grafix wrrote: But, sigh, some think Snopes is real.  LOL!  Give me a break.

Dee wrote: Some think Noah’s Ark is real LOL 

Some have viewed live footage of the scientists and archaeologists on the site of the relic of the Ark with their equipment and teams working on the project all footage available to the public online, including the live coverage of the Turkish Government laying the memorial for its discovery with the teams and media present.  Some consider that is REAL.  Some think a no-show, fictitious Mom & Pop jock shop called Snopes which can't produce any journalistic credentials, accreditations, academic or professional people working for it, let alone trained in the craft is REAL journalism.  Some rate this backyard outfit above Government scientists, government officials, archaeologists and historians.  Some think the physical and visual reality of a relic on a hillside in a real place, with live footage is REAL, while others can't believe their eyes, because it hurts their political and religious sensibilities and unadulterated bigotry to believe it.  Sad.

Question From Happy Killjoy:

How do you know that everything written in the bible is true?
Is there a test we can perform that will show that it is in fact accurate?

It's a double-sided coin.  The first side is called faith. That faith is rewarded with an intrinsic and insightful discernment, a quiet confidence and trust that cannot be explained to anyone who doesn't experience it, because it comes from the Holy Spirit.  There is nothing "earthly" about it. You just know it.  Those who've experienced this inner surety and quiet conviction of trust, never go back. It doesn't happen without hard work, though.  It  must start with a commitment to God to read his teachings regularly.  It happens slowly, provided we remain faithful. That's why there's a long history of Christians slaughtered for their faith.  No other faith in the world has such a record.  Christians slaughtered for their faith is now in the billions with thousands still being slaughtered every year to this day, simply for refusing to renounce their God. 

The second side of the coin is putting all of that aside, and simply witnessing the plethora of historical evidence, archaeological evidence, manuscripts, artefacts, buildings, monuments, stele, excavation discoveries, ancient tombs, street names, rivers, records, ancient maps, writings and documents and Roman history records, wars, famous leaders, which corroborate and confirm the historical record documented in the Bible.  Not one archaeological find has ever disproved it, ever.  Every new one consistently supports its account.  Historians regard it highly as a source of details for all of the above historical data.  Only the charlatans try to knock it, but they fail, because the evidence is quite simply against their noxious claims.  They prey on ignorance and some of that resonates in society.  It is a battle for hearts and minds.  Satan -v- God.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Oh, I get it, you're here to Judge the non Atheists with sentiments like this Standard of Atheist thinking, from your own brain?

"@TKDB If you are a Christian and you accept Allah, then you violate the ten commandments and commit a sin, for which you will be damned to eternal hellfire.

If you do not accept Allah, then you violate the first amendment to the constitution, and you stand against US values.

You can pick one or the other, but not both."

@Happy_Killbot YOU DON'T get to tell me, how to THINK.

So you can stop with your Atheist indoctrination efforts. 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix The article about the discovery of Noah's ark is fake news, get over it. It is irrelevant anyways. I don't know why you would trust a bunch of Turkish Theocrats over American free enterprise anyways, unless you actually are anti-American, as I suspect.

So you bring up faith as the reason your book is correct. Suppose there is someone from a different religion, say a Muslim, who has faith in the Quran and has experienced the inner surety and quiet conviction of trust, and will never go back. Would that make the Quran true?

Suppose there was an expert in history, archeology, ancient manuscripts, Artefacts, buildings, monuments, steel, excavation discoveries, ancient tombs, street names, rivers, records, ancient maps, writings and documents and Roman history records, wars, famous leaders, who proved to your satisfaction that all of it was a lie and that only Islam was correct. Would you still believe in any of it? 

Grafix

Huh?  You're the one who introduced Noah's Ark into the debate to use it as an argument against Christianity. Now you suddenly don't want to talk about it or see anyone else use it in their argument? Not going your way?  Toddler tantrums?  A "bunch of Turkish Theocrats" only?  LOL!  A whole raft of Western Specialists did ALL of the investigations.  The Turks were only invited in at the conclusion, to see for themselves and confirm it for themselves. They had zero to do with the science, the discovery, the archaeology, the specimens the lab testing, the samples, etc.  The Turkish government, after confirmation, then set up the National Park and then applied to UNESCO for it to be a heritage listed site. Such a closed mind to new information will not serve your knowledge base or intellectual growth.  Watch the videos at the end of my post.

This discovery is irrelevant?  Really?  It's relevant for all the reasons I list below.  As an aside, it's evidence that proves there had to be an enormous flood of some kind.  How else would a monstrous 515 foot long ship end up on a hillside in a mountain range 6,300 feet above sea level?  A good question?  .It also proves that ....

1. The Biblical account is spot-on, dead accurate, regarding size, length, design of the Ark and the place where it came to rest, in spite of having occurred nearly two and half millennia ago.  Moses wrote Genesis approx. 1,300 years after Noah's time. That kind or accurate recording is astounding given the time elapsed and the fact that writing wasn't invented for much of that time.  The Bible itself claims it is written by the Hand of God, is His word.

2.  Monogamy was practised even back then by the Hebraic religion, which was unique to them for thousands of years and is unique to our Western culture.. Another proof of our connection.

3.  The structure and design of the Ark fits exactly to the instructions God gave Noah, as recorded in the Biblical text and subsequently used advanced methods to build an advanced craft.

4.  The metallurgy found in the beams, rivets and other metal fixtures are alloyed metals not even known to us 300 years ago.  Again advanced knowledge not known to be in use at that time, according to modern historical assessment.  Way ahead of your Sumerians.

5.  The Hebrews had advanced maths, advanced engineering and advanced carpentry knowledge.  All of the beams in the structure were laminated, something modern man did not begin to use for heavy load-bearing structures  until last century. 

6.  The knowledge is older than the Sumerian knowledge we have on record to date. 

7. The Hebrews received their Judeo Christian laws from God and not from other cultures.  It proves the Hebrews had them before the Sumerians  These were unique to the Hebrews, particularly monogamy and monotheism. 



VIDEOS:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoTkguzRaCU  and  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_BNdXeWAvE&feature=youtu.be 

WEBSITE:  .http://www.arkdiscovery.com/dtimes-1.htm
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Noah and the myth of the flood is irrelevant to this debate, and it is that, a myth Dee debunked it, sorry you lose, lets stop talking about it here, or start a new debate.

1. Noah's ark is still not relevant
2. The bible explicitly declares polygamy acceptable in the old testament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity
3. Noah's ark is still not relevant
4. Noah's ark is still not relevant
5. Noah's ark is still not relevant
6. Noah's ark is still not relevant
7. The Hebrews were heavily influenced by other cultures and the Sumerians in particular: http://www.tanqueverdeschools.org/downloads/trads36to47.pdf

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot ; It's no myth that America was founded as a Christian Nation by Christians and the hand of God. You are simply the victim of naivete, hate for my God, historical revisionism and the insanity of atheism. No one who is true to history can deny that our Founder's laid the genesis of this Nation at the feet of God, Jesus Christ. You're simply suffering from wilful prejudice and abject ignorance of truth.

Sovereign authority of God, not sovereignty of the state, or sovereignty of man	Mayflower Compact, Declaration, Constitution, currency, oaths, mention of God in all 50 state constitutions, Pledge of Allegiance	Ex. 18:16, 20:3, Dt. 10:20, 2 Chron. 7:14, Ps. 83:18, 91:2, Isa. 9:6-7, Dan. 4:32, Jn. 19:11, Acts 5:29, Rom. 13:1, Col 1:15-20, 1 Tim. 6:15
Existence of objective moral values, Fixed standards, Absolute truth, Sanctity of life	Declaration ("unalienable" rights—life, etc., "self-evident" truths)	Ex. 20:1-17, Dt. 30:19, Ps. 119:142-152,  Pr. 14:34, Isa. 5:20-21, Jn. 10:10, Rom. 2:15,  Heb. 13:8
Rule of law rather than authority of man	Declaration, Constitution	Ex. 18:24-27, Dt. 17:20, Isa. 8:19-20, Mat. 5:17-18
All men are sinners	Constitutional checks and balances	Gen 8:21, Jer. 17:9, Mk. 7:20-23, Rom. 3:23, 1 Jn. 1:8
All men created equal	Declaration	Gen. 1:26, Acts 10:34, 17:26, Gal. 3:28, 1 Peter 2:17
Judicial, legislative, and executive branches	Constitution	Isa. 33:22 (See Madison)
Religious freedom	First Amendment	1 Timothy2:1-2
Church protected from state control (& taxation), but church to influence the state	First Amendment	Dt. 17:18-20, 1 Kgs. 3:28, Ezra 7:24, Neh. 8:2, 1 Sam. 7:15-10:27, 15:10-31, 2 Sam. 12:1-18, Mat. 14:3-4,  Lk. 3:7-14, 11:52, Acts 4:26-29
Republican form of government and warnings against kings but in favor of Godly rulers	Constitution	Ex. 18:21, Dt. 1:13, Jud. 8:22-23, 1 Samuel 8, Pr. 11:14, 24:6
Importance of governing self and family as first level of governance	First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments	Mat. 18:15-18,  Gal. 5:16-26, 1 Cor. 6:1-11, 1 Tim. 3:1-5, Tit. 2:1-8
Establish justice	Declaration	Ex. 23:1-9, Lev. 19:15, Dt. 1:17, 16:19-20, 24:17-19, 1 Sam. 8:3, 2 Sam. 8:15,  1 Kings 3:28, 10:9, Mic. 6:8, Rom. 13:4
Fair trial with witnesses	Sixth Amendment	Ex. 20:16, Dt. 19:15, Pr. 24:28, 25:18, Mat. 18:16
Private property rights	Fifth Amendment	Ex. 20:15-17
Biblical liberty, Free enterprise	Declaration	Lev. 25:10, Jn. 8:36,  2 Cor. 3:17, Gal. 5:1, James 1:25, 1 Peter 2:16
Creation not evolution	Declaration	Gen. 1:1
Biblical capitalism not Darwinian capitalism (service and fair play over strict survival of the fittest)	Anti-trust laws	Ex. 20:17, Mat. 20:26, 25:14-30, 2 Thes. 3:6-15, 1 Pet. 2:16
Importance of the traditional family	State sodomy laws, few reasons for divorce	Ex. 20:12-14, Mat. 19:1-12, Mk. 10:2-12, Rom. 1:18-2:16, 1 Cor. 7:1-40,
Religious education encouraged	Northwest Ordinance	Dt. 6:4-7, Pr. 22:6, Mat. 18:6, Eph. 6:4,
Servanthood not political power	Concept of public servant	Ex. 18:21, Rom. 13:4, Php. 2:7,
Sabbath day holy	"Blue laws"	Ex. 20:8
Restitution	Restitution laws	Lev. 6:1-5, Num. 5:5-7, Mat. 5:23-26

To understand why some of these passages above are applicable to our laws, one has to go back to the formative era of our nation and to America's culture and thinking at the time. The leaders of the various colonies, states, and ultimately the Founding Fathers themselves were steeped in biblical thinking. They drew from the Bible examples and looked for confirmation of ideas for government in Scripture.

We had an atheist visit our site and expressed a good bit of displeasure with some of the above citations. We responded that he should relish the freedom of expression that a Christian culture put in place for him. And that he should be thankful that our culture was not founded on atheism, given the horrible result of atheistic governments in the past (such as Communist Russia, etc.).

Jesus did not usher in a political kingdom. But Christianity has been the single largest influence on western society. America's Founding Fathers had the benefit of thousands of years of history to draw on when establishing their government. They could see what had failed in the past. There had been times when the state had absolute authority and persecuted the church. At other times the church had effective control of the state. The founders saw that neither of these extremes were ideal. They developed a system that stood the test of time. Observers everywhere generally agree that American's Founding Fathers achieved a solid balance between church and state, one consistent with biblical concepts.

In a ten-year study undertaken at the Univesity of Houston, researchers examined 15,000 documents from America's founders and determined that 34% of their quotations came from the Bible, the highest by far of any source.

But many people today reject the notion that the Bible should be used as a basis for law. "Narrow minded and outdated!" they say. Ideas have consequences. Let's examine the implications if the Bible is or is not the standard for society and its legal system.

Without an objective standard of truth upon which to base society, the result is that whoever gains the most political power will dominate. Christians believe that the Bible offers ultimate, objective, and absolute truth—as opposed to relative "truth" (i.e., arbitrary "absolutes"). There was a general consensus on this point in America from the earliest settlers until only very recently.

Founding Father and educator Noah Webster (1758-1843) had this to say: "The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

So it was natural for the early Americans to turn to the Bible for guidance as to how to make civil law. This was the standard for law beginning with the Mayflower Compact all the way through the constitutions of all 50 states. By the way, what was the stated purpose of the Pilgrims as expressed in the Mayflower Compact? Contrary to revisionist history, their purpose was not to find religious freedom—they already had found religious freedom in Holland. Their purpose is clearly stated as being for the "Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith." The Pilgrims were missionaries.

The first state constitution was the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639). You may read this document at http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/orders.html. The framers of this document desired that every aspect of it be based on the Bible (See DeMar's book listed below, America's Christian History, pgs. 57-58). This document was a model for other constitutions, including the U.S. Constitution which followed. The above table outlines the widespread influence of biblical thought on America's legal system. See also the link at the bottom entitled Puritans and the Bible.

Biblical absolutes enshrined into law offered a consensus that meant freedom without chaos. One aspect of this is that, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, there exists "unalienable rights" of men. Rights were unalienable because they were given by God. This is very significant because in most societies up until that time (and indeed even today), rights are only conferred by whoever is in power at the time.

Because the American consensus was that the Bible was TRUTH, the tyranny of a few or even the tyranny of the majority could be overcome by one person standing up and appealing to the Bible. The freedom of expression in general in America is a result of our biblical system. Those people who feel free today to condemn the Bible are, ironically, among those who benefit most by the freedoms inherent in our biblical system!

An important aspect of our system of government is that it is based on the Rule of Law. This concept is a direct descendant of Hebrew law and the Ten Commandments. Together with the concept of unalienable rights from God, these concepts helped ensure a way of life that respected the dignity of every individual. The combination of these biblical concepts is a foundation of our government that helps subjugate political power of potential tyrants. One only has to notice how every tyrant has a practice of changing the country's constitution to suit himself (or to butter the bread of those who put him in power).

It is helpful to contrast the American Revolution of 1776 with the French Revolution of 1789. While the American revolution began with an appeal to the sovereignty of God, the French Revolution was founded on the sovereignty of man. The French movement was a product of Voltaire's philosophy which specifically attempted to replace biblical Christianity with man's reason as the ultimate standard.

But the French revolution was a disaster. Anarchy and tyranny reigned with 40,000 people being murdered, the favorite method being the guillotine. Their new constitution only lasted 2 years. Indeed, France has had 7 constitutions during the time that America has only had one.

Another important aspect of America's constitution is that it has as its basis the distinctly Christian idea that man is basically sinful. Every one of our founding fathers understood this truth. It has been said that the 16th century Protestant reformer John Calvin, who is the theologian most associated with the biblical doctrine of man's "depravity," was the single most influential person to our Constitution. The result was that the founders built into the Constitution an elaborate system of checks and balances. This is evident in the horizontal plane of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It is also evident in the vertical plane of federalism—states' powers versus federal powers.

Again, let's look at the evidence by contrasting the American system with other systems. Other systems are based on the idea that man is basically good, or at least perfectible by law and education. This is the basis for communism as well as the religious states of Islam. But states based on these utopian ideas are always failures and particularly repressive to their citizens. These governments end up as a police state and take away the rights of the citizens.

It has been said that America has never been a Christian nation, or that our founders were a bunch of atheists, agnostics, and deists. But consider the facts. At least 50 of the 55 framers of the U. S. Constitution were Christians (see M. E. Bradford's book listed below). Every American president has taken his oath on the Bible (except John Quincy Adams and Theodore Roosevelt) and referencing God in his inaugural address is standard (Oath). Every one of the 50 state constitutions calls on God for support. The Supreme Court, in 1892 after a an exhaustive 10-year study of the matter, said: "This is a religious people. This is a Christian nation." See Holy Trinity Decision. Even today, the Supreme Court opens each session with the verbal declaration, "God save the United States of America."

Perhaps the most famous statement in America's Declaration of Independence is, "All men are created equal." The concept of universal human rights and equality comes exclusively from the biblical ideas that all people are created in the image of God and from Jesus' sacrificial death for all. This concept was unkown in history outside of biblically based cultures.

There are, however, two areas in which the American system can be faulted— (1) racial slavery and (2) compassionateless wealth. But both of these flaws are failures to implement biblical Christianity, rather than being caused by it.

A few comments about slavery are important because so many people throw it in the face of Christians. Racial slavery is not a biblical ethic. Yes, a form of slavery—indentured servitude— is condoned in the Bible. But this was a method in which people could pay off debts and was not what we think of as racial slavery (Bible and Slavery). In fact, the Bible specifically condemns the slave trade (Exodus 21:16; 1 Timothy 1:10). The Bible offers a unique framework for people as being equals: We were all are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and we are all equal in God's sight (1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28). Race, interestingly, is never even mentioned in the Bible.

Historian Glenn Sunshine in his book Why You Think the Way You Do explains that, "Christians were the first people in history to oppose slavery systematically. Early Christians purchased slaves in the markets simply to set them free." 

Most people are under the false impression that America's Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly in favor of slavery. For the truth about this see Barton on Slavery.

Professing Christians who held slaves prostituted the Bible by letting culture influence their faith (just as some unfaithful Christians today have abortions). Yet, the abolition movement was primarily a Christian movement. Slavery was stopped in England largely as a result of the tireless efforts of an evangelical Christian by the name of William Wilburforce. Through his work in Parliament, England stopped the slave trade in 1807 and abolished slavery totally in 1833. Unfortunately, there was no such early dynamic abolitionist leader in America. But the "created equal" standard in our Declaration of Independence was in time honored fully into law.

The other problem in western culture has been unredistributed wealth. Neither the Bible (Mark 14:7) nor the American system seeks to have all people have equal outcomes. We are all created equal and we all have an equal opportunity to pursue our dreams, but we are not expected to all achieve equally.

Yet, the industrialization of the West brought great wealth to a few, while some were victimized. It can be argued that the working class was victimized to a degree in the early days of the industrial revolution. Fortunately, laws are now in place that protect the worker.

Christianity is an important component of capitalism because it places a moral restraint on a person's activities. If a person feels that there is no consequence to his actions beyond civil law, he is less constrained to treat people fairly. But a Christian has a moral restraint because he believes that he his ultimately accountable to God for his actions, for his fair treatment of others.

The issue is unrestrained capitalism. From the earliest days of our nation, we enforced laws to protect property, enforce contracts, and protect against fraud. Later in our history, America instituted anti-trust laws and environmental laws. These laws can be seen as consistent with biblical capitalism ("Christian capitalism") as opposed to darwinian capitalism. Instead of capitalism based solely on the survival of the fittest, modern American capitalism uses law to make the playing field more equal and provide equal protection under the law—while still encouraging entrepeneurism. Appropriate and helpful laws assist free enterprise, placing moral boundaries around activities without hampering freedom or interfering with competition. (Antitrust laws are only valid if they truly enhance capitalism and free enterprise. Sometimes they have been used to restrain capitalism by protecting a large corporation.)

A free society must have an over-arching objective moral constraint upon its people. An absence of this moral constraint, as John Adams insisted (quote below) will destroy not only government but business as well. Politicians without such constraint will find ways to destroy the Constitution to suit their desire for power. It is such moral constraint that monitors business people to charge a fair price, pay a fair wage, not cheat customers or employees, to help the needy, etc. We once asked an applicant applying for a job whether he believed in moral absolutes. Reflecting the secular attitude of his business school background, he quickly replied, "No." We then asked him, "Then how do we know you won't cheat our customers?" He was stunned by the question and had no realistic answer.

As a general statement, it is an inherent truth of capitalism that in the long run people succeed in business if they provide services and goods that people want. Biblical capitalism—even more so—emphasizes service over strict selfish ambition.

It should be emphasized that capitalism has its roots in Christianity. Historian Glenn Sunshine in his book Why You Think the Way You Do points out that the work ethic in Christianity is rooted in the Bible. God himself works, so Christians have seen an inherent goodness in labor and productivity. We have heard of the concept, "the Protestant work ethic." The importance placed on work is an important reason for America's economic success.

As we write this today, America has fewer and fewer people in the work force, partly as a result of liberal welfare programs. People have become addicted to handouts. This is neither good for those involved, or for the economy as a whole. It is a major reason the America is sliding into mediocrity, and ultimately liberal policies could be the death of America. See The Dirty Little Secret of Liberalism.

Another key component of capitalism is property rights. The Old Testament focuses on rules for property ownership. Throughout history, societies influenced by Christianity have had a stronger emphasis on property rights than other cultures. The idea that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor, together with property rights and the rule of law, laid a firm foundation for capitalism and the tremendous economic success that America has enjoyed. Yes, we have had our ups and downs, like life itself, but we have always come back stronger than before because of our fundamentally successful system. But we are in danger of losing it all.

So again, the flaws in American society are not in biblical Christianity, rather in the failure to implement it. If the voluntary individual compassion of Christ were to dominate society, poverty—while it would never disappear (Mark 14:7)—would be lessened. The solution is not forced redistribution of wealth, which is tantamount to stealing. The solution is public emphasis on biblical ethics.

In summary, let's refer to our nation's creed—The Pledge of Allegiance—which sums up our way of life. It is a based on a three-legged stool of God, liberty, and justice. All three must be there. If God is not there, ethics and rights are defined by whoever has the most power. And in order to have liberty, we must have justice. The first role of government is to prevent evil (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-17) so that the rest of society can live in peace. Evil is only meaningful within a biblical context.

When our culture desperately needs what Christianity offers, the courts are foolishly removing the Bible. Liberty demands ethical obligation. We must have a common understanding of moral absolutes, or as John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

America is grounded in the idea of "self government." What does this mean? To say that self-government is only the ability of citizens to vote and to elect their representatives is to have an incomplete notion of self-government. Government in biblical thought is not just civil government. In fact, civil government is the least important aspect of government. Government is first that of the individual being able to govern himself. This is why religion must be encouraged, as John Adams noted. The founding fathers of America clearly understood this. The second most important level of government is the family. The third is the church. Last is civil government.

And within civil government, our Founding Fathers understood that local and state government was more important than federal government. Our Constitution specifically limits the powers of the federal government, even though this precept has been continually usurped.

The Founders referenced 2 Corinthians 3:17 in support of freedom above all else. This passage states, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." The Liberty Bell declares from Leviticus 25:10: "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."

Liberals and secularists have it backwards. They think that the federal government is the most important. This is consistent with totalitarianism, but not with the American concept of self-government. Big government socialism is not consistent with the Bible. Not only is the government inefficient in delivering most services, it more often than not hurts those it is intended to help. The welfare mess is a classic case in point, now proven over decades of failure. (See our Biblical Capitalism blog post.)

Finally, let us comment on the philosophy of libertarianism. This is the idea that our system of government should allow complete freedom except in the case when one person directly harms another. Many Christians today claim to be libertarians. We see numerous flaws in such an idea. We think that Christian libertarians have been duped into thinking like liberal secularists instead of thinking like Christians. Among the problems are these:

• This worldview is determined by a secular philosophy rather than a biblical worldview. Even Christians frequently quote Ayn Rand for support of their theory. The fact that Rand was an ardent atheist and hater of Christianity should give considerable pause. While libertarianism is not exclusively atheistic, a Christian that walks into that sphere is giving the devil a foothold, against which there is a strong commandment from Scripture (Ephesians 4:27).

 

• Libertarianism is ultimately arbitrary. It is an attempt to define morality without God. But as Dostoevsky said, "If there is no God, everything is permitted." Any view of government not based on an unchangeable objective standard (the Bible!) is subject to be altered at the whims of political power brokers. Christianity, on the other hand, is not arbitrary. Our website is dedicated to demonstrating through reason and evidence that Christianity is objectively true.

 

• Any philosophy (whether Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism, Darwin's Evolution, or Ayn Rand's Objectivism) that has a non-theistic foundation ultimately bumps into the problem of nihilism. This means, ultimately, no basis for meaning and purpose for life. (We come from nowhere, we go to nowhere, but somehow life in between has meaning?)

 

• Despite attempts to meld biblical Christianity with this political philosophy, libertarianism inevitably interferes with the individual Christian's reliance on his faith as the sole lens from which to see the world, moving him away from a biblical worldview. Libertarianism, at its core, is a non-religious philosophy. This thinking is a dangerous diversion for the Christian and can be insidiously damaging to his or her faith, indeed to the Christian's soul.

 

• Libertarians often define "harm to another person" too narrowly. Morality should be defined solely by the Bible. For example, while libertarians may support laws against abortion (many libertarians actually support abortion), they usually side with liberals who are against laws that define marriage as between one man and one woman. They think that mutual consent of sexual perversion does not fall within the definition of hurting someone. This utopian thinking has blinders on; it is naive. Homosexuality is devastating to those involved and to society at large. "Mutal consent" is a post-modern illusion that does not change the fact that people are hurt when immorality occurs. The Bible says, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil." (Isaiah 5:20-21) See our article Gay Rights.

 

• Libertarians fail to appreciate the huge positive influence Christianity has had on America. See our article The Impact of Christianity. America's success is not based on libertarianism, but on Christianity. We should not confuse true biblical Christianity with the modern distorted, liberal, or half-baked versions of Christianity. While Jesus was a not a political figure per se, there is no need to search for a political theory outside of Christian thought. We are commanded to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ--not just certain thoughts. (2 Corinthians 10:5)

 

• Libertarian Christians usually think that Christians can segregate their faith--their personal faith relegated to their private lives. This is falling for the secularist mentality! It's a trap that marginalizes Christianity just like secularists want! Secularists say, "Sure. You can have your faith. Just leave it over there in the corner of society somewhere and don't bother anyone else with your ideas." Falling for this has numerous negative consequences, including giving the impression to potential converts to Christianity that our faith is not universally applicable, that it is only one of many possible worldviews, and Christianity is only a crutch for weak individuals. Jesus' was given "all authority on heaven and earth" (Matthew 28:18)--not just some authority. This notion--that the Christian faith can be marginalized from society--is directly responsible for the decline of Christianity in America. The inclination to segregate one's faith so as not to "impose" our values on others smacks of "true for me, but not for you." It is amazing that any Christian would buy into this post-modern relativism. Further, attempting to segregate our faith is dishonoring to God: God is god of ALL or He is not God AT ALL. (Psalm 24:1)

 

• Our COMPASSION as Christians demands that we institute biblical values in society. What other basis for a successful and compassionate society could possibly be better than the Bible?! Who are you going to go with: Ayn Rand or Jesus? Jesus allowed no human partner; we are either with Him 100% or we are against Him. (Matthew 12:30)

 

• We cannot miss the similarities between libertarianism and liberalism. While libertarians claim to be opponents of liberalism, it is not accidental that they have the same root word. There is an insidious mix of thought between libertarianism and liberalism. Both have certain political goals in common, such as utopian anti-war sentiment and pro gay rights. While there are versions of libertarianism that claim compatibility with Christian theism, something classic libertarianism has in common liberalism is that both are often at war with, or marginalize, God. Liberalism, when taken to its logical conclusion, leads to life without God--socialism, communism, humanism, and other non-theistic worldviews. Liberalism in any form, if properly understood, results in devastating results for a society--even harming those it was intended to help. See our articleThe Dirty Little Secret of Liberalism.

 

• Libertarianism is at its core a selfish worldview. This is distinctly different from biblical Christianity. Christianity subjugates the self to God, and to other people (Matthew 22:34-39). In contrast, classic libertarianism and liberalism alike are opposed to, or have no need for, a moral authority above the individual self.

 

• Libertarian Christians have, amazingly, adopted other concepts and the language of liberal secularists. They say to other Christians, "We don't want a theocracy." This charge is a red herring. Theocracy is when the church, as an institution, has all political power, including administering civil law. Biblical Christians want no such thing. We support the separation of church and state, properly understood. And we certainly do not want Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws instituted in society. Such laws were repealed in the New Testament (Acts 10:12-15; Colossians 2:11-16; Romans 14:17).

 

• While civil and ceremonial laws were repealed in the New Testament, moral law stands forever. Biblical moral law is applicable to everybody whether they believe it or not. Judicious application of biblical moral law to civil law is infinitely compassionate and positive for society. The idea that "you cannot legislate morality" is also an idea adopted from liberal secularism. It is a false idea. Virtually every law is a put in place based on someone's idea of morality.

 

• Anarchism is a branch of libertarianism. See Libertarianism.

 

• There are strong biblical commands for Christians to influence society, including civil government. See the list at the bottom of our Bible and Government article.

 Our message to Christians and non-Christians alike is this. If you want true freedom, a vigorous economy, and a compassionate society, the answer is biblical Christianity. See our blog post Biblical Capitalism.

What is the purpose of civil government, according to the Bible? The purpose of civil government is, very simply, to be God's servant to restrain evil and reward good (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Christians are (a) to pray for and obey governmental authority (1 Timothy 2:1-4), (b) unless it forbids what God requires or requires what God forbids, in which case Christians cannot submit, and some form of civil disobedience becomes inescapable (Acts 4:18-31, 5:17-29), (c) to influence government because all of life is under God's authority (Psalm 24:1; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 42:8; Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Corinthians 10:5). In a participatory democracy, Christians are under obligation to participate in civil government (Matthew 22:21).

As put by Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's So Great about Christianity, "Christianity enhanced the notion of political and social accountability by providing a new model: that of servant leadership. In ancient Greece and Rome no one would have dreamed of considering political leaders anyone's servants. The job of the leader was to lead. But Christ invented the notion that the way to lead is by serving the needs of others, especially those who are the most needy. Mark 10:43 quotes Christ:'Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant...for even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve.' And in Luke 22:27 we hear Jesus say, 'Who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.' In the new Christian framework, leaders are judged by how well they respond to the concerns and welfare of the people. Over time, people once known as 'followers' or 'subjects' become 'customers' and 'constituents'."

Should Christians be involved in politics and government? We argue that Christians should care about politics because, ultimately, we care about people. Government has an increasingly large influence on the lives of people, thus we cannot ignore politics. Further, almost every law reflects someone’s idea of morality. Since God’s morality is ultimate and universal, society benefits from the Christian’s participation in the public square. That is, society benefits when biblical truth is reflected in law. Indeed, Christians should be involved in all aspects of society, including law, art, music, economics, science, etc.

There are numerous Bible passages that confirm the importance of God and Government. These include:

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. (Matthew 22:21)

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. ( 2 Cor 10:5)

The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. (Psalm 24:1)

We must obey God rather than man. (Acts 5:29)

You are the salt of the earth…the light of the world. (Matthew 5:13-16)

The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget about God. (Psalm 9:17)

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. (Psalm 33:12)

On account of me, you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. (Mark 13:9)

The good influence of godly citizens causes a city to prosper. (Proverbs 11:11)

I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right. (Isaiah 45:19)

We are not trying to please men, but God, who tests our hearts. (1 Thessalonians 2:4)

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil. (Isaiah 5:20-21)

Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13-15)

Do not give the devil a foothold. (Ephesians 4:27)

A wise man attacks the city of the mighty and pulls down the stronghold in which they trust. (Proverbs 21:22)

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness. (Matthew 5:10-12)

Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them, as leaders, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. (Exodus 18:21)

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. (Proverbs 29:2)

When rulers are wicked, their people are too. (Proverbs 29:16)

For the wicked shall not rule the godly, lest the godly be forced to do wrong. (Psalm 125:3)

Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. (Psalm 127:1)

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. (Proverbs 13:8-9)

To the Jews I became like a Jew....  (1 Corinthians 9:20-24)

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me.”  (Matthew 28:18)

Fill the earth and subdue it. (Genesis 1:26-28)

Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. (Matthew 6:10)

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked way, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

The warning for Americans is that there is no longer a consensus that biblical ethics are truly absolute. Our liberties are eroding as big government tries to take over where our biblical consensus left off. Tyranny and social tragedy are the logical results unless we reverse this trend.

We highly recommend this article by Patrick Leduc entitled "Christianity and the Framers: The True Intent of the Establishment Clause":

Establishment Clause

Bibliography and Resources for study:

• David Barton, God in the Constitution
• Bradford, M. E., A Worthy Company; Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution.
• Barton, David, America's Godly Heritage (video); and The Spirit of the American Revolution (video); and Barton, David, The Myth of Separation (book). These and many other resources are available at Wallbuilders.
• DeMar, Gary, America's Christian History: The Untold Story; and God and Government: A Biblical and Historical Study (3 volumes). These books and other excellent resources available from American Vision.
• DiLorenzo, Thomas, How Capitalism Saved America.
• D'Souza, Dinesh, What's So Great about Christianity.
• Eidsmoe, John, Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers
• Federer, William J., America's God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations.
• Foster, Marshall and Swanson, Mary-Elaine, The American Covenant: The Untold Story.
• Gibbs, David C., Jr. (President of the Christian Law Association) with Jerry Newcombe, One Nation Under God: Ten Things Every Christian Should Know About the Founding of America.
• Marshall, Peter and Manuel, David, The Light and the Glory; also From Sea to Shining Sea.
• Schaeffer, Francis A., A Christian Manifesto.

See other related articles on our site: The Impact of Christianity, Biblical Capitalism in Uncertain Economic Times, and Why Socialism Is Not Compassionate.

This video series is extraordinarily helpful:

Richard Church on American History

Also, here other helpful articles:

God and Liberty

Christian vs. Libertarian Capitalism

Does the Bible Support Communism?

The Declaration and Religion

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD ;  The founding fathers don't think so:


The first amendment doesn't think so:

"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."

So if someone practices a non Christian religion, which the first amendment grantees they can, then by your standards they are not Americans. You violate the constitution to suggest that the US is a Christian nation. It is not. The US is SECULAR!

Libertarians are strongly aligned with US values. In fact authoritarian ideas (which are opposed to libertarian ideas) are exactly what the US was founded to stand against as a beacon of liberty. With authority, there is no liberty.

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot ;  Your MEME is FAKE and historically inaccurate. Here is the Truth...check it out and stop publishing FAKE History.

1. "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law"  (Inaccurate context)

 Jefferson was referring to the common law of England which he identified as the collection of laws which existed prior to the Magna Carta.  He was not referring to the laws of America.  Here is the context from which your quote was taken:

 "For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

2. "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" (FALSE)

 Jefferson never said this.  What he actually said was:

"This was the real ground of all the attacks on you. Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy,– the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man,– endeavored to crush your well-earnt & well-deserved fame."

 This is an excerpt from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a dissenting minister from England named Joseph Priestley.  Both Jefferson and Priestley believed that the doctrines preached by Jesus Christ had been corrupted by the mainline churches of Christianity.  Priestly even published a book entitled "An History of the Corruptions of Christianity" in which he attempted to trace how various perversions of Christ's original doctrines had taken place throughout history.  Neither Jefferson nor Priestly claimed that Christianity was corrupt in itself.  Rather, they argued that the mainline churches had perverted the gospel of Christ just as Paul had warned in Galatians 1:7.  Jefferson viewed Christianity as a sublime and benevolent religion which had often been perverted by those desiring to twist it to fit their own purposes.

 3. "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."  (Inaccurate translation)

 This was never said by Adams or any other American.  It comes from a very poor attempt to translate from Arabic into English a letter written by the Dey of Agiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.  I devoted an entire chapter of my book Hidden Facts of the Founding Era to discussing this quote and the many errors surrounding it.  You can read that chapter online for free at this link.

 4. "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."  (Who was Thomas Paine?)

 Thomas Paine had practically no influence on the formation of America.  He was hated and despised by most Americans, and when the founding fathers discovered that he had been imprisoned in Parris during the French Revolution, they wrote to each other that it would be best if he spent the rest of his years rotting in a French cell.  Paine's only claim to influence in the American Revolution was the pamphlet "Common Sense," but that pamphlet was actually commissioned by Dr. Benjamin Rush who oversaw it's writing and recommended it to other leaders of the Revolution once it met with his approval.

5. "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."  (Out of context)

 Madison was discussing the question of whether we ought to have an established religion.  Here is the context from which your quote was taken:

 "Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported.

 "Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject.

"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

"It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion ... The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their religious establishments."

Madison was not objecting to the idea of establishing a government on religious principles which is what most Christian mean when they claim that America was founded as a Christian nation.  He was simply opposed to the establishment of a state religion.  By the way, the concept of a separation between church and state is itself a religious concept which was introduced into America by the Baptists.  As I wrote in my book "Hidden Facts of the Founding Era":

 The concept of true freedom of religion was introduced in America by the Baptists of Rhode Island.  George Bancroft, the famous American historian, recorded that in November of 1658, the colonists of Rhode Island requested that Roger Williams plead their case before the king that they would 'not be compelled to exercise any civil power over men's consciences.'   They declared that it was their goal 'to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be maintained, with a full liberty of religious concernments.'  The king consented to their request, and in July of 1663, he signed the Charter of Rhode Island which included the following statement:

'Our royal will and pleasure is, that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion in matters of religion.'

 Then, in May of 1664, the legislature of that colony passed the first law in American history which established true religious freedom.  That law stated that:

 'No person shall at any time hereafter be any ways called in question for any difference of opinion in matters of religion.'

 In May of 1665, the legislature reaffirmed this law with a statement declaring that religious freedom had been granted in Rhode Island ever since Roger Williams began the settlement there in 1636.  Their statement said:

'Liberty to all persons, as to the worship of God, had been a principle maintained in the colony from the very beginning thereof; and it was much in their hearts to preserve the same liberty forever.'

And then in 1680, they issued yet another statement declaring:

 'We leave every man to walk as God persuades his heart; all our people enjoy freedom of conscience.'

 ...After relaying the above facts about Rhode Island, Mr. Bancroft wrote: 'Freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was, from the first, the trophy of the Baptists.'

By the way, Roger Williams and the Baptists of Rhode Island were influenced by Thomas Helwys, a Baptist preacher in England who wrote the earliest recorded defense of religious freedom in the English language.

See: http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/bad-meme-1

We_are_accountable

I always laugh at non Christians calling themselves good people when they support killing even viable babies! Until you become prolife, please spare us your judgment of Christians. They have the humanity to speak out for our most vulnerable lives, and you do not.

People are leaving religion because they want to live these immoral anything goes lifestyles. It's about selfish convenience, even over another innocent life.@Happy_Killbot

Dee

@Grafix

****But she didn't really.  She just flew a kite and hoped it would fly.  

Yes me and National Geographic flew a kite hoping it would fly  even rational Christians accept that the ark was not found 

***The Israeli Dept. of Antiquities, the Turkish Dept. of Antiquities, the American Society of Archaeologists, The British Museum, The National Archives and Historians' Institute of the Netherlands and a heap of others all helped to fund the authentication process, the lab tests, the forensics, the dating, the equipment, etc. etc. of the project after the discovery of the Ark and also funded the Museum, since built near the site which displays the artefacts taken from the relic, all of which have been authenticated by laboratory testing, scientific data, dating, forensics, etc. etc.  I doubt these esteemed Institutions would invest in such an endeavour if they thought it was a croc show.  

But it’s a croc of s—t , but then again you did state scientists have now accepted the word of the Bible as being totally accurate , unfortunately for you your denial of reality has you clutching at straws .......BTW I’m not a “she” 

*****But Hey!  Let's just relegate all of them to the dustbin and put a Mom & Pop backyard-no-show up on a pedestal, so we can claim a bucket load of scientists, archaeologists, historians, government officials are real prawns, debunk them all, because it suits our political and religious prejudices and bigotry . Way to go America!

Yet I gave you evidence of creationist archaeologists who say it’s all bunk , you cannot post up one credible academic who supports your nonsense 

 ****My reply is below to Dee's nonsense, she pasted and copied from the unaccredited, uneducated, zero credentials, no journalistic accreditation, no academic education, Mom & Dad Pop shop Snopes on the Slopes of Socialist shills, paid to search and destroy all Conservative and Christian info' on the internet which threatens the Marxist paradigm, just follow the money.  It reveals all we need to know.

You were told repeatedly Snopes was quoting directly from National Geographic but being a Christian denial of reality and lying are normal to you 

@Dee - Snopes is a Marxist fraud, presenting itself as some kind of (unregistered, unapproved, unacclaimed, unaccredited, no journalistic quals, unknown source) authority.  With all of those "UNs"  it is precisely why it is a fraud.  It is a lefty bakehouse, designed to brainwash wee peas in cranial boxes, which some call a brain.  End of credits.

Why would any logical, thinking educated person turn to such a low-brow, Mom and Pop backyard shop for confirmation of anything?  Huh?  When we have highly qualified journalists, and many investigative journalists, foreign correspondents who've studied for years, been professionally trained in the craft of collecting, sourcing, vetting and authenticating fact from fiction?  But, sigh, some think Snopes is real.  LOL!  Give me a break.

From Happy Killjoy:

Snopes is considered to be a reliable and highly trusted fact-checking website. If you are claiming they are unreliable, then you had better have some strong evidence to back it up, unless you have some kind of fascist, Orwellian, 1984, totalitarian, media control, anti-liberal, alternate facts, source denying, anti-USA, bigoted, agenda

*****So you now have some evidence that no-one else has?  Clever you.  Like to show it to us, namely, that Snopes has journalistic credentials, a degree in the craft, a proven record in journalism, has paid journalists on it's staff, is not a Mom & Dad backyard Pop shop?  Is not paid by George Soros and Jeff Besoz to discredit properly sourced journalism, and only journalism which threatens the Marxist paradigm?  When you can produce all of these credentials I shall agree with you.

Right Snopes and National Geographic are out to persecute Christians got ya 

****I mean like it was first published by the Turkish Government-owned newspaper, then picked up,.translated and re-published by Al Jazeera and that picked up by a heap of Western news outlets, when you were probably still a wee kitten in nappies.

"If the ark of Noah is discovered, it will be the greatest archaeological find in human history, the greatest event since the resurrection of Christ, and it would alter the currents of scientific thought." -Dr. Mellville Bell Grovesnor, president of National Geographic Society and Editor of National Geographic Magazin

And yet no international broadcasts acclaiming this astonishing find not one reputable scientist , archaeologist, or historian stepping up to claim the accolades for such a discovery ......Wait it’s probably another Commie plot by National Geographic and Snopes ......

Dee

@Grafix

You’re comedy gold mate and now you’ve shown your true hand as in your a seventh day Adventist which is yet another of those ”Christian” cults the U S specialises in

This also means your a Young  Earther as you give as your “ killer “ piece of evidence a link to Discovery New Net owned by a con man called Ronald Wyatt ( thankfully now dead ) with zero credibility who relied on clowns like you to swell his bank account ......

Wyatt was not considered credible by professional archaeologists and biblical scholars. The Garden Tomb Association of Jerusalem state in a letter they issue to visitors on request:

The Council of the Garden Tomb Association (London) totally refute the claim of Wyatt to have discovered the original Ark of the Covenant or any other biblical artifacts within the boundaries of the area known as the Garden Tomb Jerusalem. Though Wyatt was allowed to dig within this privately owned garden on a number of occasions (the last occasion being the summer of 1991) staff members of the Association observed his progress and entered his excavated shaft. As far as we are aware nothing was ever discovered to support his claims nor have we seen any evidence of biblical artifacts or temple treasures.[17]

Archaeologist Joe Zias of Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has stated that "Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. ... [His claims] fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc."[18]

Wyatt's official organization, Wyatt Archaeological Research (WAR), claims that the IAA have always been aware of the excavations and issued "verbal permits" for most of them and official permits to all WAR excavations since 2002.[citation needed]Nevertheless, the only evidence of WAR involvement in a legitimate excavation sanctioned by the IAA relates to WAR part-funding of a 2005 dig.[19]

Evangelicals have also been critical of Wyatt's claims: Answers in Genesis called Wyatt's claims "fraudulent",[20]and David Merling, a Seventh-day Adventistprofessor of archaeology addressed the issues of Wyatt's Noah's Ark and anchor stones with the following: 

While the Durupinar site is about the right length for Noah's ark, [it is] ... too wide to be Noah's ark. Wyatt has claimed that the "boat-shapedness" of this formation can only be explained by its being Noah's ark, but both Shea and Morris have offered other plausible explanations. Likewise, Wyatt has argued that the standing stones he has found are anchors, while Terian is aware of similar stones outside the Durupinar site area that were pagan cultic stones later converted by Christians for Christian purposes.[21]

Dee

@TKDB

***** Christianity is pro kids, family, community, and pro United States of America. 

But you admitted you beat your kids hows that pro kids?  

You did say you spank them didn’t you? Do you wish to deny this?

spank

/spaŋk/

verb

1. slap with one's open hand or a flat object, especially on the buttocks as a punishment.

   "she was spanked for spilling ink on the carpet"

You admitted you don’t agree with same sex relationships hows that pro family? 

You admitted the unemployed or those who cannot afford education or healthcare should not be given a hand out hows that pro community?

You admitted giving  American Military personal free education was “ immoral “ how that pro American?


Bet as usual you will run in terror at having to do what you never do as in answer a question

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD Well then Rickey, since you don't have the integrity necessary to make your own arguments and instead prefer to outsource your thoughts to others, let me instead respond to this Commercial which if you read it, you would have realized doesn't actually contend with my claim or challenge, and in some instances even supports it.

1. Christianity isn't a part of common law, I agree. However it could then be argued that common law, and not Christian law is the basis of the US legal practices. Sorry Rickey, you played yourself.
2. Christianity is the most perverted system. This is an interesting read, however the point that much of Christianity is corrupt also supports my claim, because if the founding father recognized it as corrupt, they would have ensured that none of it was a part of the founding of the nation, which is what happened.
3. The treaty of Tripoli is a formal way for the US to cease conflict with the Barbary states, who were predominantly Muslim, on the grounds that there was no religious context for conflict. This quote is not an inaccurate translation, but perhaps a slight misunderstanding of the meaning. It could be interpreted that the meaning is that the US is open to those of other non-Christian beliefs and seeks no conflict with them on religious grounds.
4. Thomas Paine had no influence? Get out of town! Common Sense is one of the first things you hear about when learning about the US revolution. To say it had little influence because nobody liked the author and then hit him with ad hominem attacks? That's just low. Try again when you have an actual argument.
5. Reading the context for the quote does nothing to retract from the meaning and does nothing to support the claim that the US is somehow a Christian nation. There is no state religion, which is what I mean when I say that the US is not a Christian nation, and the commercial you so eloquently copy/paste agrees with me.

The challenge still stands that there are no values unique to Christianity which are also founding values of the US, with the exception of racial slavery which has already been noted.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable We are not talking about abortion here, please try to stay on topic.

Grafix

@RickeyD - Well done Rickey.  You have clearly spent many hours doing what our Dept. of Education, academia and teachers not only no longer do for our kids, but are instructed by the Syllabi and Curricula to deliberately AVOID  doing - impart accurate knowledge.  You've provided an accurate lesson in history.

The rest of us have been taught it and now defend the never-previously-before disputed fact, that the Founding Fathers used the fundamental principles and moral codes of Christianity to guide them in the founding of this nation.  Our kids have been taught a deliberate distortion of that fact to believe the opposite.  The sad truth is, they will not read your wonderful contribution, because they have also not been taught how to properly read, research, collate information and exercise critical thinking. It is all part of the dumbing-down process deliberately designed to disarm them, that they may ultimately be unable to defend themselves.  The same Agenda is at work in the attempts to literally disarm the people, violating the Second Amendment.  Subsequently, the younger generations are disinterested in finding the truth, they don't know how. 

It matters not which debating website you join. I see the same pattern everywhere, over and over.  I see the empirical evidence of how they wilfully  deny and resist truth.  The most obvious is when posting a fairly long text, which takes a few minutes to read, the notifier signalling someone has replied, flashes up only seconds after my mouse has clicked the "Post" button. It says it all.  There is no interest in the truth.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix , he copy/pasted all of that, he didn't write any of it. Its a commercial for a book.

Grafix

@Dee - Your problem is you go to second-hand sources for your information and reference, mere opinion to try to deny an empirical fact , to deny an undeniable reality.  It doesn't work.  The original source is the ONLY source that can ever provide the truth.  That truth is right before your very eyes on the hillside in the Ararat Mountains, in the science, technology, laboratory tests and forensics which confirm its authenticity.

What authenticity does National Georgraphic and mere OPINION have?  Think about that one next time, before you jump into denial without giving your denial a chance.  

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix So if Dee is the original source of his own words, then they are accurate?

You seriously don't see why what you are saying just doesn't work? You need to cross reference things to verify accuracy.

The Turks failed their cross-check, because they just made it all up, that is the reality right before your eyes, the discovery is faked.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - The source does not discredit the accuracy of Rickey's post, though.  It references facts and knowledge.  Show me any knowledge you have posted on this page.  Knowledge is not made-up by the way.  Knowledge is truth and only  truth. Even knowing that a fake claim to knowledge is fake, is also knowledge.   IF it is not truth, THEN it is not knowledge, but propaganda or mendacious fabrication.

Your problem, Happy Killjoy, is that you are the victim of a deception, a mighty deception.  You've been taught that the Constitution is government law.  It is not.  It is to protect the people FROM government law that does not enshrine the Will of the People.  You have been taught that the U.S. "nation" is secular.  It is not.  The entire nation is anything but secular and the Constitution protects the right for us to be anything but secular.  The only branch of our society which must be secular, by law, is found in the execution of enacting the law, the legislation written by Legislators - government.  Even these Legislators are not required to be and can never be required to be secular. 

In your ignorance of the law, of the history of our nation and the history of the Founding Fathers, you have posed the most ridiculous question.  As the law itself requires that the law can only express the Will of The People, then HOW would it be possible for Christianity, which has no legislative powers, to even come close to "not aligning" with the "U.S." as you put it? We struggled with what you meant by "U.S." in the first place, but after much protest from me, you finally defined that to mean the founding documents.  Did you re-phrase your question to SAY that?  Nope. Your whole exercise is uneducated and unintelligent.

The fact of the matter is this:  The only possible way for there to be a nonalignment of values between the founding documents and Christianity, would be if Christianity had legislative powers, but it doesn't.  So who does?  Congress.  Therefore if there is a perceived nonalignment between the two, then the fault must by obvious process, sit squarely at the feet of Congress. It makes your question a complete non-sequitur.  Get it now? 
.

Dee

@Grafix @Grafix

****  Your problem is you go to second-hand sources for your information and reference,

You mean like I should have been citing Discovery News Net a young earth creationist site that was owned by a con man called Ronald Wyatt , that’s your go to source ....You’re comedy gold 

***mere opinion to try to deny an empirical fact , to deny an undeniable reality. 

An “emperical fact “ from a creationist website Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

BTW you go to the Bible a second hand source for your information on Jesus ......Ouch that’s gotta hurt 

*** It doesn't work.  The original source is the ONLY source that can ever provide the truth.  That truth is right before your very eyes on the hillside in the Ararat Mountains, in the science, technology, laboratory tests and forensics which confirm its authenticity.

The “truth “  that even the majority of Christians believe is right got ya 

****What authenticity does National Georgraphic and mere OPINION have?  Think about that one next time, before you jump into denial without giving your denial a chance.  

Of course National Geographic are all part of the Marxist plan you outlined no doubt .....What’s truly amusing you say all this whilst believing the words from a book of B S that has an array of talking animals in it , a water walking “messiah” , virgin births , giants , unicorns , a flat earth covered by a glass dome etc , etc all the time lecturing others on “reality “, “logic “ and “empirical evidence “ Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

You have to make allowances for him he’s a young earth creationist they’re up there with the flat earthers for lunacy 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix I might ask you the same thing, where is any of your knowledge? You think Noah's ark is real and then post a hoax. If I posted a bunch of UFO pictures I would be doing the same thing.

You are just a troll aren't you? There is just no way anyone could say what you say in all seriousness, unless they were fully aware it is all fake and they just want to annoy people on the internet.

Nobody actually thinks that any of the bible stories are real, it's so obvious that they are supposed to be metaphorical to establish a tradition. They are no different from other stories like the Iliad and Homer's Odyssey. They didn't actually happen like that. Then some gullible people did believe it and those who realized it was fake took advantage of them for money. That is why there are so many wealthy televangelists, and the Mormon church hides millions, gullible people just give it up.

The morality in the bible is a travesty, made for goat herders millennia ago. We can do better than that. The immorality of the gullible theists has to stop.

Happy_Killbot

@Dee Seriously, we ought to drop the young earth nutcases in a cage with the flat earth society to fight to the death, and then shoot the survivors.

Happy_Killbot

@Dee Perhaps we ought to drop the young earth believers in a cage with the flat earth society to fight, and then shoot the survivors.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

I don’t know who’s the more irrational , there used to be a flat earther on here would with his pal would fight tooth and nail with anyone who denied the earth was not flat ......The flat Earth society used to have a logo on their site saying “ Branches all around the .......globe ...they took it down when a caller pointed out that they may not have thought their logo out .... 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee What I am still trying to figure out is how flat earth won out over expanding earth theorists. I suspect the great source of all objective morality is at play.