Question about the "Christian Nation" concept

Religions > Atheism > Question about the "Christian Nation" concept

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"nemo"
Date:	18 Oct 2003 05:09:21 AM
Object:	Question about the "Christian Nation" concept

All the time, we hear Christian demagogues yapping on about how America
is supposed to be a "Christian Nation," how they want us to "Return to
being a Christian Nation," and so on.
I wonder exactly what they envision? I mean, Christians can't even get
together and decide what it means to be a "Christian." How could they
decide what details a "Christian Nation" would have?
I went to the Coral Ridge web site, looking to see what Old Man Kennedy
had to say on the subject, but it was pretty well devoid of details.
Presumably, if you shell out $20 for a book of his, you'd get some
specifics...
Oh well. Just wondering.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.

User: "Dr. DuFonet"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	18 Oct 2003 08:58:45 PM

"*nemo*" <nemo0037@yahoo.dieSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-DA63CF.06092018102003@news06.east.earthlink.net...

All the time, we hear Christian demagogues yapping on about how America
is supposed to be a "Christian Nation," how they want us to "Return to
being a Christian Nation," and so on.

If you read popular magazines from the 1950's, like Saturday Evening Post
and Readers Digest you will understand what they mean by a Christian nation.
If you learn about the history of the *Comics Code* you will get a clue.
Also pay attention to the paintings by Norman Rockwell on the front covers.
.

User: "Lord Calvert"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	18 Oct 2003 09:39:55 PM

All the time, we hear Christian demagogues yapping on about how America
is supposed to be a "Christian Nation," how they want us to "Return to
being a Christian Nation," and so on.

And it's no coincidence that it was in the 1950s when government started
seriously imposing religion as a part of state policy and the most serious
government attacks on personal freedoms first took place. A "Christian Nation"
IS a police-state...much like East Germany under the Stazi but with religious
core.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	19 Oct 2003 11:03:32 PM

On 19 Oct 2003 02:39:55 GMT, forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert)
wrote:

All the time, we hear Christian demagogues yapping on about how America
is supposed to be a "Christian Nation," how they want us to "Return to
being a Christian Nation," and so on.

And it's no coincidence that it was in the 1950s when government started
seriously imposing religion as a part of state policy

Whaaaat?
I was in school in the Bible belt in 1950s and don't remember a damned
thing about having religion imposed upon us.
If you are thinking about the Sunday "Blue Laws" maybe you should
consider the fact that most in the south were religious at the time
and resented them to the point that they were done away with.
I don't know what the hell happened to you northeners during that
period but considering the fact the Lincoln, the arrogant, Lincoln the
tyrant, Lincoln the morally superiour was *your* president and hero
maybe you got what you deserved.
After all...you yanks learned to toe the government line well before
we southerners did.

and the most serious
government attacks on personal freedoms first took place. A "Christian Nation"
IS a police-state...much like East Germany under the Stazi but with religious
core.

Any society can and will become become a police state when the
citizens begin to think of their political "leaders as "saviours,
religion be damned.
Politicians are not required to take psychological tests to determine
their mental soundness or intelligence.
In America a man can become president if he has the money and
political influence to pull it off and can fail the very tests that
are applied to all who serve under him before they are accepted into
positions of authority.
Isn't that just a bit of a weird and disturbing idea?
Lyndon Johnson, the Democrat was a crude, rude, unintelligent *****
who caused the deaths of 58,000 Americans and at least 3,000,000
Vietnamese, mostly non combatants but damn, he was the president
because he talked a line of ***** any hustler would be proud of.
Bet'cha voted for him didn't cha?
He was after all....A Democrat.
And that's all that matters isn't it?
(You know I'm jacking with you don't you.
Wanna play? ;-)
It's good to see you posting again.
atheist@home#1554

Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use

"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson

User: "Dr. DuFonet"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	20 Oct 2003 06:23:09 AM

<atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:f7l6pvs76nsds5ctg8cqltqa9htm7kb3q0@4ax.com...

On 19 Oct 2003 02:39:55 GMT, forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert)
wrote:

All the time, we hear Christian demagogues yapping on about how

America

is supposed to be a "Christian Nation," how they want us to "Return to
being a Christian Nation," and so on.

If you read popular magazines from the 1950's, like Saturday Evening

Post

and Readers Digest you will understand what they mean by a Christian

nation.

If you learn about the history of the *Comics Code* you will get a clue.
Also pay attention to the paintings by Norman Rockwell on the front

covers.

And it's no coincidence that it was in the 1950s when government started
seriously imposing religion as a part of state policy

Whaaaat?
I was in school in the Bible belt in 1950s and don't remember a damned
thing about having religion imposed upon us.

So was I, and we had a bible teacher come in once a week with a feltboard.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	20 Oct 2003 01:02:49 PM

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:23:09 GMT, "Dr. DuFonet"
<accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote:

<atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:f7l6pvs76nsds5ctg8cqltqa9htm7kb3q0@4ax.com...

On 19 Oct 2003 02:39:55 GMT, forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert)
wrote:

All the time, we hear Christian demagogues yapping on about how

America

is supposed to be a "Christian Nation," how they want us to "Return to
being a Christian Nation," and so on.

If you read popular magazines from the 1950's, like Saturday Evening

Post

and Readers Digest you will understand what they mean by a Christian

nation.

If you learn about the history of the *Comics Code* you will get a clue.
Also pay attention to the paintings by Norman Rockwell on the front

covers.

And it's no coincidence that it was in the 1950s when government started
seriously imposing religion as a part of state policy

Whaaaat?
I was in school in the Bible belt in 1950s and don't remember a damned
thing about having religion imposed upon us.

So was I, and we had a bible teacher come in once a week with a feltboard.

A feltboard?
I attended many schools in different southern states and rarely had
any part of the bible read to the class and never a prayer.
<Not even in Alabama>
I do recall one teacher in the seventh grade who came to class after
the Supreme Court ruling forbidding religious indoctrination, opening
her desk drawer taking out a bible and slamming it down on her desk.
We didn't even know she had one until that moment.
She just stood there with her hand on the book and never opened it.
We thought it was funny as hell.
atheist@home#1554
.

User: "Lord Calvert"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	20 Oct 2003 12:15:53 AM

And it's no coincidence that it was in the 1950s when government started
seriously imposing religion as a part of state policy

Whaaaat?
I was in school in the Bible belt in 1950s and don't remember a damned
thing about having religion imposed upon us.

Then you must have missed the change in US motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In
God We Trust" in 1955, the change in the Pledge of Allegiance to carry a
religious slogan in 1954 and the change on our paper currency to carry a
religious slogan in 1957. Where were you? Sleeping in class?

Lyndon Johnson, the Democrat was a crude, rude, unintelligent *****
who caused the deaths of 58,000 Americans and at least 3,000,000
Vietnamese, mostly non combatants but damn, he was the president
because he talked a line of ***** any hustler would be proud of.
Bet'cha voted for him didn't cha?
He was after all....A Democrat.
And that's all that matters isn't it?

If you have ever read my posts before you should be well aware that I am a
Goldwater conservative. You should also know that I was one year old when
Johnson was elected. Ironically it was Johnson who created the modern
Republican Party. When he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Southern
Democrats bolted to the GOP en masse. By the early 1980s they had seized
control of the Party, transforming it from the small-government libertarianism
of Goldwater to the big-government, white-supremacist, neo-Confederate,
Christian-supremacist, anti-constitutional totalitarianism of Gingrich,
Ashcroft and the rest of the Dixiecrats who now form the core of the GOP.
"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no
position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is
no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or
Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon,
the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious
factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious
clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a
particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money
or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across
this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I
must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And
from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to
me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of
every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight
them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to
all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' " - Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ),
Congressional Record, 16 September 1981
"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's *****." - Sen.
Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), in response to Jerry Falwell's comment about the
O'Connor Supreme Court nomination
"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this
country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson
and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the
country." - Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), in "The Advocate"
"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think
I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion.
That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some
do-gooders or the Religious Right." - Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), Los Angeles
Times, 1994
"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by
fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican
Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss
politics goodbye." - Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), Washington Post, 1994
"By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has
avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with
religious wars .... Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other
framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem
Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of
injecting religious issues into the affairs of state. The religious factions
will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to
them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to
make their views known without trying to make their views the only
alternatives... We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of
state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we
mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles
of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic
republic." - Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), Senate Speech, 15 September 1981
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	20 Oct 2003 12:54:09 PM

On 20 Oct 2003 05:15:53 GMT, forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert)
wrote:

And it's no coincidence that it was in the 1950s when government started
seriously imposing religion as a part of state policy

Whaaaat?
I was in school in the Bible belt in 1950s and don't remember a damned
thing about having religion imposed upon us.

No, the sleeping and playing hooky came later.
I really didn't notice the change however.
In either the pledge or the currency.

If you have ever read my posts before you should be well aware that I am a
Goldwater conservative.

I read all your posts and frankly suspected you of being independant
more than firmly aligned.
Liberal in some things and conservative in others.

You should also know that I was one year old when
Johnson was elected.

I forgot.

Ironically it was Johnson who created the modern
Republican Party. When he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Southern
Democrats bolted to the GOP en masse. By the early 1980s they had seized
control of the Party, transforming it from the small-government libertarianism
of Goldwater to the big-government, white-supremacist, neo-Confederate,
Christian-supremacist, anti-constitutional totalitarianism of Gingrich,
Ashcroft and the rest of the Dixiecrats who now form the core of the GOP.

Interesting.
Do you have source suggestions?
Some books perhaps?
I know quite a few Democrats believe the Republican party at the time
fought all civil rights legislation but it appears they may have
actually been the ones fighting for much of it.
The facts are what I am looking for but I haven't been able to find
much that isn't terribly biased one way or the other.

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no
position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is
no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or
Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon,
the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious
factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious
clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a
particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money
or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across
this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I
must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And
from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to
me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of
every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight
them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to
all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' " - Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ),
Congressional Record, 16 September 1981

Maybe some recommendations on sources about Goldwater?
To be honest I didn't really become the slightest bit "politically
aware" on most things until 1978.
I'm behind the curve and trying to catch up.
Ignorance is the mother of confusion and I find myself a bit confused
about certain attitudes regarding the period of the sixties and much
of the politics involved.

"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's *****." - Sen.
Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), in response to Jerry Falwell's comment about the
O'Connor Supreme Court nomination

Lol!
<snip quotes>
Interesting man.
We have a state senator here in Tennessee you would probably like.
For years the issue of a state lottery was denied a referendum because
of the religious idea that gambling is a sin and is in fact illegal in
Tennessee.
Senator Cohn <Democrat> had been pushing for the lottery and got tired
of the religious arguments, agreed that gambling *was* in fact illegal
and had the state attorney put out the word that church bingo games
were gambling and those conducting the games would be prosecuted.
The churches raised hell to no effect.
<Astoundingly hypocritical but not surprising>
We had the referendum last year and it passed.
As far as the threat from the "religious right" I'm just not convinced
it's as powerful a danger to our rights as some believe.
Can you offer some concrete examples of effective lobbying on their
part and how they affected our freedoms?
Btw, about three years ago a local minister here in the bible belt
requested that youth sports directors not schedule games on Sundays
because it "unfairly forced parents to choose between church and
sports."
He was ignored and the Sunday games continue.
They may be more effective at a different level but if so I am not
aware of it.
Examples would help.
atheist@home#1554

User: "Bill, The Avender"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	18 Oct 2003 09:40:59 PM

In alt.atheism on Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:58:45 GMT, "Dr. DuFonet"
<accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote:

"*nemo*" <nemo0037@yahoo.dieSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-DA63CF.06092018102003@news06.east.earthlink.net...

All the time, we hear Christian demagogues yapping on about how America
is supposed to be a "Christian Nation," how they want us to "Return to
being a Christian Nation," and so on.

*Sigh*. Here we go again. Rather than paying attention to paintings
and magazines and Reader's Digests, how about paying attention to
_reality_? Read biographies from the era you seem to imply is so
"wonderful" and you'll see - the world was anything _but_ the
pristine, "innocent" place you delude yourself into believe it was.
Magazines and paintings focus on the positive things, at least if they
expect to sell. So naturally, if you get your knowledge of the world
from those things, you would have a skewed perspective.
Back to the biographies. Bio upon bio upon bio is out there from
virtually any period of time you can imagine. NONE of them paint a
picture of the world as you believe it to have been. Account after
account after account can be found for child molestation,
wife-battering, rape and just about anything you can name that seems
to wrong with the world today. The only way we could go back to the
world of which _you_ speak is by starting to lie to ourselves and each
other about how wonderful and trouble-free our lives are. The day a
theist who pines for the "good old days" actually catches on to this
verifiable, undeniable _FACT_, I will be amazed.
--
L8r,
Avender
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
Common is the man who can be fashioned into a
reflection of the era in which he lives.
Rare is the man who can take the era in which
he lives, and fashion it into a reflection
of himself.
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
.

User: "Dr. DuFonet"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	19 Oct 2003 08:17:39 AM

"Bill, The Avender" <Avender@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:3f95f84f.37182688@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...

In alt.atheism on Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:58:45 GMT, "Dr. DuFonet"
<accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote:

"*nemo*" <nemo0037@yahoo.dieSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-DA63CF.06092018102003@news06.east.earthlink.net...

All the time, we hear Christian demagogues yapping on about how America
is supposed to be a "Christian Nation," how they want us to "Return to
being a Christian Nation," and so on.

If you read popular magazines from the 1950's, like Saturday Evening Post
and Readers Digest you will understand what they mean by a Christian

nation.

If you learn about the history of the *Comics Code* you will get a clue.
Also pay attention to the paintings by Norman Rockwell on the front

covers.

It seems as though you fear that I or others will interpret those things a
positive. Personally, I don't but I did not realize that so many would
simply view that with nostalgia..

Back to the biographies. Bio upon bio upon bio is out there from
virtually any period of time you can imagine. NONE of them paint a
picture of the world as you believe it to have been. Account after
account after account can be found for child molestation,
wife-battering, rape and just about anything you can name that seems
to wrong with the world today. The only way we could go back to the
world of which _you_ speak is by starting to lie to ourselves and each
other about how wonderful and trouble-free our lives are. The day a
theist who pines for the "good old days" actually catches on to this
verifiable, undeniable _FACT_, I will be amazed.

I'm already amazed that you read so many biographies.
.

User: "jwk"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	22 Oct 2003 12:49:16 PM

*nemo* <nemo0037@yahoo.dieSPAM.com> wrote in message news:<nemo0037-DA63CF.06092018102003@news06.east.earthlink.net>...

Being a non-Christian theist - $250 fine annually.
Being an atheist - deportation.
Abortion - illegal.
Homosexuals - illegal.
Sex education - punishable by 20 years hard labor.
Birth control - only legal for married people, illegal to discuss,
sold only in "adult" magazines.
Being Democrat - punishable by deportation or life in prison, or both.
Being perceived as "liberal" - same or worse.
No lawyers or judges, only a panel of Pat Robertsons handing down
God's judgements.
Everybody prays, all the time. Out loud.
Science education abolished - the world is flat, was created in six
days, is only a few thousand years old, fossils are a lie.
Anyone mentioning Evolution or Darwin gets a canning.
Anyone with a Darwin emblem gets stoned.
Anyone who causes them (Christians) to think - gets stoned.
You are chased out of the country.
I am chased out of the country.
Only FOX "news", all the time.
No more relations with "godless" countries.
We invade everybody. As time permits. Until they are all our
"protectorates".
Labor unions are abolished as perponents of communism and therefore
Satan.
Dancing is illegal (Baptists insist it is sinful).
Sex is illegal unless - you & partner are married, straight and don't
enjoy it at all.
All sexual positions/behavior are illegal except
missionary-for-reproduction with one dry kiss at the start for
foreplay.
Did I forget much?
jwk
BAAWA
.

User: "xyzzy"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	18 Oct 2003 11:01:06 AM

*nemo* <nemo0037@yahoo.dieSPAM.com> wrote:

At this point in time their focus is on making the label stick. Once
that's accomplished, the real "fun" will begin.
.

User: "Edgar A Pearlstein"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	18 Oct 2003 07:35:40 AM

*nemo* (nemo0037@yahoo.dieSPAM.com) wrote:
: All the time, we hear Christian demagogues yapping on about how America
: is supposed to be a "Christian Nation," how they want us to "Return to
: being a Christian Nation," and so on.
:
: I wonder exactly what they envision? I mean, Christians can't even get
: together and decide what it means to be a "Christian." How could they
: decide what details a "Christian Nation" would have?

Christian Bible Foundations of our Country
Ed Pearlstein

Sometimes we hear that the United States is "founded on
biblical principles", as a slightly softened version of the "Christian
nation" idea. People making that claim don't give specifics on which
foundations of the U.S. and which parts of the Bible they mean.
Of the many foundations of our country, I was able to find two
which are supported in the Bible, and several which run contrary
to the Bible.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Although the Declaration isn't
really a legal document of the U.S.(since there wasn't any US until
1787), it is important historically and philosophically. It is a
document intended to justify revolution
against an established royal government. The Bible, however, says
"the powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1-7), and "For
kings, and for all that are in authority" (I Timothy 2:2), thus giving
rise to the idea of divine right of kings. I find no mention of
"consent of the governed" in the Bible, as the Declaration demands.
While the Declaration deplores taxation without representation, Jesus
says, regarding taxation, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things
which are Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21)
FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I don't find in the Bible any defense of freedom
of speech. On the contrary: "he that doubteth is damned" (Romans
14:23); "there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers...whose
mouths must be stopped.." (Titus, 1:10-11); and "These six things doth
the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: ......and he
that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19). The last
passage could be construed as being against democracy, since anyone
who runs for office against an existing administration is sowing
discord.
RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE. This is embraced in both the original
Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3) and in the First Amendment.
Yet in the Bible we have: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"
(Exodus 20:3); "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18);
"He that sacrifice unto any god save the Lord only, he shall be
utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20); "He who is not with me is against
me" (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23); "he that blasphemeth the name of the
LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall
certainly stone him" (Leviticus 24:16). [Such stoning was actually
carried out, in 1 Kings 21:13] Anyone proselytizing for another religion
is to be put to death, and if that person is a member of your family, you
are to strike the first blow to kill him or her (Deuteronomy 13:5-10).
The practice of "shunning" someone who disagrees with you on religious
matters is advised in 2 Thessalonians 3:14.
A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Our Constitution demands this
(Article IV, Section 4). But I find nothing in the Bible to support
it. On the contrary, Romans 13:1-7 tells people to obey authority
because it is instituted by God. Also, 1 Peter 2:13 can be interpreted in
the same way.
"CORRUPTION OF THE BLOOD" is forbidden by the Constitution (Article
III, Section 3, paragraph 2). In the Bible, though: "Prepare slaughter
for his children for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21).
[However, the Bible does contradict itself on this: "... neither shall
the children be put to death for the fathers" (Deut 24:16)]. Also:
"visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third
and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deut. 5:9);
"His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). Bastards
may not enter the temple, nor their descendants (Deut. 23:2). God
even killed a baby because of a sin by its father (2 Samuel 12:14).
Ahab escaped punishment for murder by making an elaborate apology, and
his descendants were punished instead (I Kings 21:29). The doctrine
of original sin is also against this part of the Constitution.
SLAVERY. This was an important social and economic foundation of our
country both before and after independence. It was an institution
condoned by the founders and recognized and defended by the original
Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9;
Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). Slavery is also condoned in both
the Old and New Testaments, but it is never condemned. On the contrary,
it is codified, and made an inherited condition:
Exodus 21:4ff gives rules for keeping slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46
says that heathen may be purchased as slaves, that their children
become slaves, and that they are inherited as property by the owner's
children forever. Other places that indicate that slavery is a
hereditary condition are: Genesis 9:25, Exodus 21:4, Corinthians
7:20. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says that when you conquer a city, if it
surrenders then all people inside it become your slaves; but if it
doesn't surrender, then all males are to be killed and all women and
children "take unto thyself". Luke 12:47-8 shows that Jesus approves
of slavery, for he describes the conditions under which one should
give a severe beating to a slave. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells slaves to
honor their masters.
In the book of Philemon, Paul sends a runaway slave, Onesimus, back
to his former master. But this conflicts with the admonition in
Deuteronomy 23:15 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant
which has escaped..." So the Bible is on both sides of the 1857 Dred
Scott case!
TREATMENT OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE. Here is another place where one of
the foundations of our country is justified by the Bible. "Then ye
shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and
destroy....And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and
dwell therein.." (Numbers 33:52-53). This biblical injunction was
obeyed many times by Americans.
A NOTE ON THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI. This treaty with the Bey of Tripoli
was negotiated by the administration of President George Washington,
and finally signed and ratified during the administration of President
John Adams, in 1797. Article 11 of the English-language version says
"the United States is in no sense based on the Christian religion".
(There is a mystery about this, since Article 11 doesn't appear in the
Arabic version! It's a fair presumption, though, that the English
version is what was signed by President Adams and duly ratified by the
U. S. Senate. See Bevans: Treaties and Other International Agreements
of the United States of America, 1776-1989, volume 11 and David Humphreys:
Miscellaneous Works (1804).)
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	18 Oct 2003 07:52:28 AM

On 18 Oct 2003 12:35:40 GMT,

(Edgar A
Pearlstein) wrote:

It doesn't matter what the bible says unless and until somebody points
out which bits of the DOE and constitution mention it and say they
they are derived from it.
Is the bible the foundation of mathematics because characters in it
can count?
But it is impossible to show any part of the DOE or constitution
saying that it is biblically derived. It's simply not there.
The DOE uses poetic deistic language that (if you insist on its being
litereally interpreted) can be interpreted many ways. Eg _my* creators
were my parents: by being born I have certain innate human rights.
The Constitution makes no reference whatsoever to Christianity or the
bible. Its basis is "we, the people".
Even by explicitly disproving what they claim, gives unjustified
credence to them. Instead of their having to prove it first (which
obviously can't be done), we have let them set the agendaand the
starting point for the argument.
.

User: "Maverick"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	19 Oct 2003 03:04:39 AM

10/18/2003, around 12:09:21 PM, *nemo* wrote:

Perhaps it means that you cannot work on sundays or you will be stoned,
or that you can't wear clothes of two different materials or whatever
it was, and you can't grow two different crops in the same field.
Maybe they will get rid of science completely from school and add
creationism and bible study, all in the spirit of that proverb quote
from the bible that tells you to trust lord with all your heart and not
use your own brains. Obviously this is the main requirement to do the
other things.
.

User: "Lord Calvert"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	18 Oct 2003 04:37:10 PM

This is what they envision:
http://www.natreformassn.org/
Basically it would be a Christian version of Islamic Sharia only much more
brutal.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	19 Oct 2003 10:21:40 PM

On 18 Oct 2003 21:37:10 GMT, forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert)
wrote:

This is what they envision:

http://www.natreformassn.org/

Basically it would be a Christian version of Islamic Sharia only much more
brutal.

Lol!
That's all you have to offer?
One b.s. website?
That's not exactly an all encompassing "they" now is it?
You are really ***** at the world aren't you Yank?
Just glancing about in every direction for people to fear, hate and
condemn.
People like you would be really funny if you weren't so damned
dangerous.
Chop, chop, chop...
Off with their fucking heads!!
atheist@home#1554

User: "Bob White"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	20 Oct 2003 09:46:20 AM

<atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:fnk6pv48qhfpgvs0j89d0n75psl96vijfv@4ax.com...

...
Just glancing about in every direction for people to fear, hate and
condemn.
...

He didn't say hate or fear, moron. There is nothing wrong with objecting if
some moron true-believers are trying to set up a theocracy where you live
which would take away your civil liberties. The price of liberty is eternal
vigilance.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	20 Oct 2003 01:21:52 PM

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:46:20 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:fnk6pv48qhfpgvs0j89d0n75psl96vijfv@4ax.com...

...
Just glancing about in every direction for people to fear, hate and
condemn.
...

He didn't say hate or fear, moron.

I'm not a moron birdbrain!
<Get it? Bob White...birdbrain>
Clever eh?

There is nothing wrong with objecting if
some moron true-believers are trying to set up a theocracy where you live
which would take away your civil liberties. The price of liberty is eternal
vigilance.

And just how are they going to set up that theocracy?
Which denomination would be in charge?
Or which of the multitude of religions practiced in America?
On the other hand when the people get really tired of what they
perceive to be a frightfully deteriorating society they will seek
answers and solutions somewhere and if they believe religion offers it
that's what they will choose.
In America the "people's revolution" would most likely be at the
ballot box but Americans don't really seem to care much for
politicians who make too big a deal of their religion.
Americans in fact elected Bill Clinton, a known perjurer and adulterer
twice.
If they had voted based on their religious beliefs why would they do
that?
I asked Calvert for examples of the religious right's effectiveness
and I will ask you for the same.
I could be missing something.
atheist@home#1554

User: "SReeseMe"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	18 Oct 2003 06:43:41 AM

Subject: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept
From: *nemo*

Date: 10/18/2003 6:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <nemo0037-DA63CF.06092018102003@news06.east.earthlink.net>

All the time, we hear Christian demagogues yapping on about how America
is supposed to be a "Christian Nation," how they want us to "Return to
being a Christian Nation," and so on.
I wonder exactly what they envision? I mean, Christians can't even get
together and decide what it means to be a "Christian." How could they
decide what details a "Christian Nation" would have?
I went to the Coral Ridge web site, looking to see what Old Man Kennedy
had to say on the subject, but it was pretty well devoid of details.
Presumably, if you shell out $20 for a book of his, you'd get some
specifics...
Oh well. Just wondering.
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002

Excellent question!
I hear that phrase fairly frequently in political chatrooms that "we are a
Christian Nation!" My stock response is to point to the Constitution and say
as gently as possible that the USA is a secular republic not a Christian
Theocracy.
Now if the Christian that said that is fairly well read, mature, calm and
rational the results can be a friendly and fun debate.
However usually the person is one of those bitter, angery, immature, defensive
Christians, which means a whole lot of yelling, swearing and generally
unChristian behavor on their part.
What these people want IS a Christian Theocracy. Nevermind that runs counter
to our Constitution, Article 6, paragraph 3: "but no religous Test shall ever
be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States."
Ask them about that.
For real fun ask them if this is a Christian nation why don't the words: God,
Jehovah, Jesus, Christianity, Bible or Ten Commandments appear in the
Constitution?
Now for the scary part: ask them once they establish their Christian nation
what rights will they take away from us non-Christians. The answers will scare
you.
-Stephen
.

User: *"nemo"*
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	18 Oct 2003 07:07:50 AM

In article <20031018074341.07995.00000397@mb-m16.aol.com>,

(SReeseMe) wrote:

Subject: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept
From: *nemo*

I don't doubt that many people who parrot the "Christian nation" phrase
merely mean that the majority of the people here are Christian... or
that they wish it were so. It's the zealots who scare me.

Now if the Christian that said that is fairly well read, mature, calm and
rational the results can be a friendly and fun debate.

However usually the person is one of those bitter, angery, immature,
defensive Christians, which means a whole lot of yelling, swearing and generally
unChristian behavor on their part.

What these people want IS a Christian Theocracy.

There was a story on the net a few days ago frm Tennessee, about a mural
that is going in on some gounty government building or other. It's a lot
like the stuff they have at the Supreme Court, with Moses depicted along
side Solon, Hammurabi, and other ancient "law-givers."
People were pissed that Moses wasn't the only one there. One woman
reportedly said, "Where do they think they're living?"
That might be a good question to ask those peple who want Christianity
only for America.

Nevermind that runs counter
to our Constitution, Article 6, paragraph 3: "but no religous Test shall
ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States."

Ask them about that.

I seriously doubt that the Constitution would be written anywhere near
what it looks like if Christian nutbars were to put it together today.

For real fun ask them if this is a Christian nation why don't the words:
God, Jehovah, Jesus, Christianity, Bible or Ten Commandments appear in the
Constitution?

Another good response to the statement about the absence of the phrase
"separation of church and state" from the Constitution: "The Bible
doesn't have the word 'trinity,' you know." Same point, different
document.

Now for the scary part: ask them once they establish their Christian nation
what rights will they take away from us non-Christians. The answers will
scare you.

As if I don't have enough to scare me these days... {;-)

-Stephen

--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.

User: "Liz"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	18 Oct 2003 07:38:17 AM

On 18 Oct 2003 11:43:41 GMT,

(SReeseMe) in news
message <20031018074341.07995.00000397@mb-m16.aol.com> wrote:
[-----]

I hear that phrase fairly frequently in political chatrooms that "we are a
Christian Nation!" My stock response is to point to the Constitution and say
as gently as possible that the USA is a secular republic not a Christian
Theocracy.

Now if the Christian that said that is fairly well read, mature, calm and
rational the results can be a friendly and fun debate.

However usually the person is one of those bitter, angery, immature, defensive
Christians, which means a whole lot of yelling, swearing and generally
unChristian behavor on their part.

What these people want IS a Christian Theocracy. Nevermind that runs counter
to our Constitution, Article 6, paragraph 3: "but no religous Test shall ever
be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States."

Ask them about that.

For real fun ask them if this is a Christian nation why don't the words: God,
Jehovah, Jesus, Christianity, Bible or Ten Commandments appear in the
Constitution?

Now for the scary part: ask them once they establish their Christian nation
what rights will they take away from us non-Christians. The answers will scare
you.

I presume that they would lovingly throw us out of the country or
compassionately imprison us in concentration camps until we saw the
error of our ways. Of course, the phrase, "burning bright" could take
on a previously unthought of connotation.
�berwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.

User: "Therion Ware"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	22 Oct 2003 05:28:09 AM

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 12:38:17 GMT in alt.atheism, Liz (Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism

On 18 Oct 2003 11:43:41 GMT,

(SReeseMe) in news
message <20031018074341.07995.00000397@mb-m16.aol.com> wrote:
[-----]

Better yet:
Tiger, Tiger burning bright
in the forest of the night
what famous hand or eye
framed thy fearful symmetry?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.

User: "Michelle Malkin"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	23 Oct 2003 12:07:31 AM

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:28:09 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 12:38:17 GMT in alt.atheism, Liz (Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism

On 18 Oct 2003 11:43:41 GMT,

(SReeseMe) in news
message <20031018074341.07995.00000397@mb-m16.aol.com> wrote:
[-----]

Better yet:

Tiger, Tiger burning bright
in the forest of the night
what famous hand or eye
framed thy fearful symmetry?

Shouldn't that be immortal, rather than famous?
.

User: "Therion Ware"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	23 Oct 2003 12:12:26 AM

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 05:07:31 GMT in alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin
(Michelle Malkin <hypatiab7@earthlink.net>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:28:09 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 12:38:17 GMT in alt.atheism, Liz (Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism

On 18 Oct 2003 11:43:41 GMT,

(SReeseMe) in news
message <20031018074341.07995.00000397@mb-m16.aol.com> wrote:
[-----]

Better yet:

Tiger, Tiger burning bright
in the forest of the night
what famous hand or eye
framed thy fearful symmetry?

Shouldn't that be immortal, rather than famous?

Very probably!
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.

User: "jwk"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	23 Oct 2003 08:08:00 AM

Michelle Malkin <hypatiab7@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<jfoepvc43ubl4bet4nr05av6sqs375uj3h@4ax.com>...

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:28:09 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 12:38:17 GMT in alt.atheism, Liz (Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism

On 18 Oct 2003 11:43:41 GMT,

(SReeseMe) in news
message <20031018074341.07995.00000397@mb-m16.aol.com> wrote:
[-----]

Better yet:

Tiger, Tiger burning bright
in the forest of the night
what famous hand or eye
framed thy fearful symmetry?

Shouldn't that be immortal, rather than famous?

Not when it is a direct quote.
.

User: "Michelle Malkin"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	24 Oct 2003 01:19:41 AM

On 23 Oct 2003 06:08:00 -0700,

(jwk) wrote:

Michelle Malkin <hypatiab7@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<jfoepvc43ubl4bet4nr05av6sqs375uj3h@4ax.com>...

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:28:09 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 12:38:17 GMT in alt.atheism, Liz (Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism

On 18 Oct 2003 11:43:41 GMT,

(SReeseMe) in news
message <20031018074341.07995.00000397@mb-m16.aol.com> wrote:
[-----]

Better yet:

Tiger, Tiger burning bright
in the forest of the night
what famous hand or eye
framed thy fearful symmetry?

Shouldn't that be immortal, rather than famous?

Not when it is a direct quote.

A direct quote would be:
Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forest of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
plus five more verses.
.

User: "Lord Calvert"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	24 Oct 2003 09:53:45 AM

A direct quote would be:

Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forest of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

plus five more verses.

The way I learned it was:
Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forest of the night
Fur on fire, what a sight
Tiger, tiger, please don't bite
(thanks to an old classmate of mine 25 years ago named Bill Levrett who has
passed into the archives of history)
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.

User: "Michelle Malkin"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	26 Oct 2003 12:21:13 AM

On 24 Oct 2003 14:53:45 GMT, forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert)
wrote:

A direct quote would be:

Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forest of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

plus five more verses.

I cheated by copying it from an old English lit book. But, I have to
admit enjoying yor old classmate's version.

User: "Steve Watson"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	20 Oct 2003 04:06:41 PM

Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message news:<1sb2pv4qhb598fdsjiomktad27lv89r7b8@4ax.com>...

On 18 Oct 2003 11:43:41 GMT,

(SReeseMe) in news
message <20031018074341.07995.00000397@mb-m16.aol.com> wrote:

[.......]

Now for the scary part: ask them once they establish their Christian nation
what rights will they take away from us non-Christians. The answers will scare
you.

Margaret Atwood, _The Handmaid's Tale_. Be afraid.
I'll be accepting refugees from south of the border.

�berwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!

Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe

User: "Liz"
Title: Re: Question about the "Christian Nation" concept	20 Oct 2003 05:20:55 PM

On 20 Oct 2003 14:06:41 -0700,

(Steve Watson) in
news message <67e8470e.0310201306.41321a45@posting.google.com> wrote:

Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message news:<1sb2pv4qhb598fdsjiomktad27lv89r7b8@4ax.com>...

On 18 Oct 2003 11:43:41 GMT,

(SReeseMe) in news
message <20031018074341.07995.00000397@mb-m16.aol.com> wrote:

[.......]

Now for the scary part: ask them once they establish their Christian nation
what rights will they take away from us non-Christians. The answers will scare
you.

Margaret Atwood, _The Handmaid's Tale_. Be afraid.
I'll be accepting refugees from south of the border.

Thank you. It's good to know that there is a refuge.
�berwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.

Page 1 of 2

Post reply

A Question for Atheists About Christian 12 step programs.
Question from a Christian
Re: Christian Reconstructionism (was Re: Question for Group Re: (U.S.) Founding Fathers and Religion
A QUESTION ONLY A CHRISTIAN WOULD ASK
Question for Christian parents
Re: A Question For Atheists About Christian Psychics and Mediums.
A Question For Atheists About Christian Psychics and Mediums.
Question for Christian parents

Question for All You Christian GOPedophiles
Physics Question (MUST READ!!)
A Question for Atheists
Question about a particular religious axiom
Question for people in this group
Question for people in this group
Re: Question for Kiwis

Topics

Bible

Abortion

Atheism

Depression

Physics

Education