bitblt has referenced the son of a man pivotal to the American Revolution, who happens to be a fairly conservative and pious Christian. but it’s still his opinion, which he’s certainly entitled to.

here’s another man’s:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. . . . Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tri bunal, to the test of ther investigation. . . Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformithy. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves [?]“

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia

John Quincy Adams saying the way things were doesn’t make things that way. I’ve no doubt he probably truly felt what he said, but he doesn’t speak for Jefferson, obviously. Adams already had an agenda, but he doesn’t speak for his father either:

John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and became a Unitarian. It was during Adams’ presidency that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).

despite bitblt’s propensity for referring to himself in the third person, angry mcangus will respond.

another blooody logical fallacy bitblt. this one a “straw man”. No one has claimed that Christianity and the Bible didn’t affect the bloody history of the US. Obviously, it has influenced all of Western Culture since, oh, about the Augustan age.

that is not what the thread was about. it was about this fookin preacher’s claim that the US “was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false [Islam] religion destroyed”.

warrant that claim and quit changing the blooody sooobject.

Comment by Alex Encandar — March 13, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

There certainly wouldn’t be Christianity without Judaism. So in this regard bitblt agrees.

However, your remark about Islam seems to bitblt to be more of a twenty-first century answer to a question mostly set in the eighteenth century.

bitblt is not aware of any contribution made by Islam to the founding of the U.S., but he’s open to hearing about it

Further, bitblt doesn’t see how Moslem influence will contribute to insuring the future of the U.S, but he’s also open to hearing about that.

bitblt certainly disagrees.

bitblt’s question should not be construed to mean that the U.S. is a “Christian” nation. bitblt believes the U.S. was intended to be a nation for a Christian people, and he believes that without the influence of Christianity and the Bible there would not be the U.S. we know today.

The following quote seems appropriate:

The sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams, reflecting on the origin of the nation, stated succinctly the role that God played in America’s founding:

.
.
.
From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent states were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians…. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct (1821, p. 28, emp. added).

The Declaration of Independence cast off all the shackles of this [British] dependency. The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians (1837, p. 18, emp. added).

Observe carefully that President Adams claimed that all of the Founders believed in the God of the Bible, and that nearly all of them also believed in Christianity. Since John Quincy Adam’s father was a prominent Founder as well as the second President of the United States, surely he was in a much better position to assess America’s founding principles and the intentions of the Founders than anyone today.
.
.
.

Quoted from http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2971
References at the link.

Nonetheless the U.S. Constitution has three references or allusions to Christianity.

The first reference is the First Amendment itself. Drafts of this amendment make it clear that its purpose was to insure that no membership in a particular Christian denomination would be required to hold a Federal office. In the early U.S. many states did have state religions. I’m told that one of the twelve drafts which survives actually uses the word ”Christian.” Other writings at the time of and near the time of the writing of the constitution also make the intent clear. The writers of the constitution assumed that Christianity would always be the predominate religion. The First Amendment was never meant say that all beliefs are equal. This would include non-belief – atheism – being equal to belief.

The second reference is the counting of business days. The Christian day of worship, Sunday, is excluded when counting business days.

The third reference is the dating of the Constitution. The document uses the phrase, “In the year of our Lord.” This one seems rather obvious when you consider that C.E was available to the writers.

bitblt thinks that the intent of the founders is important, but he thinks the worldview of the current citizens is important for the preservation, for the future of the nation we have. His worldview seems to be different that yours.

It seems to bitblt that the Christian worldview is the one that brought the nation to this point.

That would be the …

They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct

…above.

Do you think your worldview is the one that will hold the nation together in the future?

Christianity and

the Bible?

Comment by bitblt — March 13, 2008 @ 12:45 pm

====
Influenced = Yes

Reliant upon = No

To be fair, we wouldn’t have the U.S.A. that we know and cherish without the influence of Islam and Judaism as well as many other religions. Pretty sure the US was and still is for the most part a mixing pot of world views (see the current discussion) and religions and therefore many MANY groups contributed to the basic ideas and principles of the US’s founding.

*****************************************************

Let’s see now…

Does the text of the Declaration of Independence include the words “Bible”, “Christ”, or “Jesus”? No, it doesn’t. There is one occurrence of the word “God” but the context in which it appears (…”the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”…) leave at least some room for doubt whether this is a specific reference to the biblical God. There is also one occurrence of the word “Creator” — but again, this reference is somewhat vague and may or may not specifically refer to the biblical God.

Let’s look at the Constitution…any mention of the words “Bible”, “Christ”, “God”, or “Jesus” within the text? Nope — NONE, for all four words. Since it seems safe to argue that these two documents constitute the foundation upon which this country was built, and since neither of these documents make much reference to God or to Jesus, then I think it’s also safe to argue that the answer to your question is YES.

Are you saying that we – U.S. Citizens – would have the U.S.A. that we know and cherish without the influence of

Christianity and

the Bible?

Typical “red herring”. Christofascists try to conflate Columbus with founding of “this nation” or Pilgrims at Plymouth with founding “this nation” so that they can ignore Adams, Jefferson, Madison, et al who actually founded “this nation” on Enlightenment ideals of natural rights and the social contract a la Locke, Rousseau, etc.

And the reason he never pointed out the exact words from his quotation that supported his claims is because he couldn’t. I see my Repug students do this all the time. They allege something, then when you ask for the exact supporting evidence, they provide the proverbial “red herring”. Then act like somehow you’re insane for demanding real evidence, and that they are so much smarter because of their “moral values”.

And they never see the irony.

Comment by Daryll

That’s interesting. The devil makes house calls, but God doesn’t.

T h e
G o d
of
Abraham
was a
d e m o n
s p i r i t?

.

Comment by mandolin — March 12, 2008 @ 6:22 pm

Was pure bussiness. Common knowledge was that there existed a direct route by the East to Cipango (Japan), China and India, and that the world had a lesser radius. They did want a direct and faster maritime route of commerce to do bussiness, as I’ve said, avoiding thus a all the sailing around Africa, whose coasts were unknown under the Ivory Coast or so. And, well, America was a surprise. They didn’t know its existance. The recovery of holy land was a very secondary motivation, if any. They had a more immediate problem ending the Reconquista, with their aspirations of unification of the Iberian penninsula kingdoms and lands, and with their European goals. Don’t forget that they planted the seeds of the Holy Roman Empire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V%2C_Holy_Roman_Emperor

The subsequent disputes were more about dominancy of the Mediterranean sea trade, hampered by the Ottoman empire than an active will to recover the Holy Land.

As in today’s “struggles” is a lot of talking about spiritual motivations (Christianity, Spreading Freedom), but a lot of action to improve bussiness, ideology be damned.

McCain is getting himself deeper in trouble surrounding himself with these religious warriors like Parsely,Hagee and others who think the whole earth is designed to accommodate them only.

Comment by MCMetal — March 12, 2008 @ 7:29 pm

Personally, I regret being an arrogant bugger.

As far as music is concerned, we probably have more in common than we’d willingly admit in the midst of a stupid argument.

Comment by gummitch — March 12, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

Yeah

But you’re probably more right than I am , anyway ……I’ll live through it.

BTW

Don’t regret being who you are ; it seems to be working ………

Comment by MCMetal — March 12, 2008 @ 7:29 pm

Personally, I regret being an arrogant bugger.

As far as music is concerned, we probably have more in common than we’d willingly admit in the midst of a stupid argument.

Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — March 12, 2008 @ 7:12 pm

Detailed report, please….