In short, bit can see nothing in himself that you describe.

A Christian nation and a nation for Christian people, are not the same thing.

A nation for a Christian people means a nation where the the predominant influence is from Christian people. bit doesn’t intend for this to mean Christianity is in control, and this is the reason for not answering the “who will guard the guard” question.

The references to the history of our nation are to suggest that the reason we, the U.S., got to where we are is because of the influence of Christianity. This is bit’s belief. Other TP posters can find no positive influence of our faith in the U.S.

bit is certainly not looking for a “democratic-theocracy” nation.

You don’t seem to understand, Joseph, that bit’s posts are about the consequences of the influence of Christianity being completely remove from the U.S., which is what many TP posters want. In bit’s eyes many of the consequences are now being manifest. bit’s post are more about Christianity surviving in U.S. rather that taking over the U.S.

Nonetheless, bit likes your style and what you have to say about faith in Christ. So, he hopes you keep posting.

Bit, are you familiar with the terms confirmation bias and superfluous arguments?

I am equally convinced you are Islamizing and Jim Jones-zing Christianity and hoping for Iran like democratic-theocracy (?) Speaking of Jim Jones, I think you may need to appoint a Christian Khalifa or Ayatollah to rule on what constitutes Christianity. Michael Travesser may be a candidate, doncha’no. Listen, Bit, I left a tyrant religion much like you seek (it’s spooky how Islamic you sound) which pervades every aspects of person’s God giving life and liberties, for the freedom in Lord Jesus. It is my faith in Christ governing me, not US laws, church laws, pastors, priests or sayings of Chairman Hagee. Unlike yourself, I do not desire the governance of what grieves the Lord; religious men or women who believe they are holier-than-thou. Perhaps you have read the Lord Jesus told those who dressed religiously, acted religiously, governed religiously and believed they had a monopoly on morality, they are headed to hell. No thanks; I don’t want your grape kool-aid.

If it’s metaphorical wall, there certainly can be a one way wall, and Jefferson was describing the First Amendment metaphorically.

Make that case to the comatose, most conscious people will question how your one way metaphorical wall will protect them from the reality of abuse in the name of God. The terms and definition of “one way wall” or “metaphorical wall” is nothing more than dishonest and disingenuous use of language that appeals to and is cheered by the ignorant. You have yet to answer the question, who will guard the guard? Please don’t say “Christian leader accountable to God” I trust in the One and Only and there is no person in Christianity meeting that criterion.

You’re on high-horse or dead horse but either way, it’s time to dismount.

regards, joseph

You might find this interesting.

This is the document that governed the new U.S.A. before the U.S. Constitution was written.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

IV. Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of “humiliation, fasting, and prayer” were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by “covenant theology,” a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they “should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears.” Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the “public prosperity” of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a “spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens,” Congress declared to the American people, would “make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people.”

Be sure to check out the seal designs suggested by Franklin and Jefferson. They’re further down the page.

If it’s metaphorical wall, there certainly can be a one way wall, and Jefferson was describing the First Amendment metaphorically.

The Danbury Baptist Association, to whom Jefferson wrote the letter describing the First Amendment as a wall, was looking for assurance that the Federal Government was not going to interfere with their worship. They needed assurance that the Federal Government was not going to pick one Christian denomination over another the way many of the colonies had picked one Christian denomination to be the “state” religion.

Jefferson did not write the First Amendment, and he wasn’t part of the Constitution Convention.

That’s what the First Amendment says. We, the Federal government, are not going to establish a state religion.

Though many people describe the U.S.A. as a Christian nation, bit does not. So if you’re reading this in what bit posts, that’s what you’re doing…reading this in. bit is more concerned about the U.S.A. losing the influence of Christians and the Bible that he is about the U.S.A. becoming a so-called Christian nation.

Christian is characteristic of a person.

bit describes the U.S.A. as a nation for a Christian people.

Concerning “..the wall of separation…” as a metaphor, others have their opinions. Like this one:

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years…. The “wall of separation between church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned (Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38[1985], 92,106-107).

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ff1#ff1.

bit has read your comments, and he’s convinced that you’ve been misled.

Here’s the wallbuilders link again.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/
The link is working fine for bit this am.

If for some reason you can’t find it, google it.

Here’s the front page quote this morning at 8:35 am CST.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams

Which religion do you suppose he’s talking about?

My surprise or an understandable mistake is not the issue. But here is what surprises me, Bit: I can find more atheists than Christians that can make a coherent defense for the Doctrine of Trinity and give a sound reason on how Genesis had a right. What I find on the other side (read Christians); McCain completely clueless on what his Christian faith means; Palin believing man hunted or was hunted by dinosaurs,

The questions remains though whether or not we understand the First Amendment in the twenty-first century the way it was intended in 1789. bit believes we miss here.

That is not the question, that is the debate; unless you are saying you’re undecided. I am not sure what governs your argument but I am sure your thoughts are mile wide and inch deep. Should we not also ask of intention in 1789 as it pertains to slavery, universal suffrage, poll taxes, etc? Nonetheless, I am not a clairvoyant nor can I speak to the dead.

If memory serves, the famous separation of church and state doctrine is from a 1947 SCOTUS decision. bit recognizes it as the law of the land, but doesn’t think this legal doctrine reflects the intent of the founders. Further, bit doesn’t think this 1947 interpretation has benefited the nation – as a whole.

So we should assume Bit has own opinion, correct?

bit’s reading leads him to conclude that the intent of the founders was that the government would not exercise control of religion- the federal government is not going to pick a Christian denomination that way many of the colonies had -while at the same time expecting Christianity to influence the government- we want leaders who are accountable to God.

I got news for you, who ever leads America or any nation will most certainly be accountable to God, and so will be the rest of us. However, isn’t that the wonderful thing about American; we’re welcome to have our opinion but not impose our will on others. Kinda reminds me of what Chrsitianity is supposed to stand for. Let’s face reality, Bit; Christianity has always been and will always be miserable failure when it comes to governance, just like the religion of Islam.

The wall of separation in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a one-way wall: religion was protected from government.

Yes, and I just fell off the turnip truck…..Sure, everyone knows Thomas Jefferson was a champion of Christianity, Bible, and Church. There is no such thing as one way wall, that is merely a product of logic chopping. How is it possible to separate government interference in people’s beliefs if religion takes over the government, who will guard the guard?

regards, joseph

Joseph believes you think with repetition a false statement will become true. Your link is dead, so I will run a few names by you: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamen Franklin; and the Father of his Country, George Washington. And not among the former but should not be precluded Abraham Lincoln; the greatest American president, ever. I am ready and willing to listen.

You seemed to have missed my sentence. It appears that the First Amendment was written with the expectation that the predominant religion was and would remain Christianity.

Missed?….I wish such was the case. I am wondering how you managed to strangle the words of the 1st Amendment; why you demand legal documents from posters that disagree with you but appeal to private writings to support your case. You do know there are Constitution writers private correspondence that are contrary to your argument?

How imbued is this influence in early America?The quotes are from “New England Primer”, a text book used from the late 16xx to late 18xx.

No one here doubts from the beginning we’ve had Christians that wanted Christianity as national religion and for America to be Christian nation rather than people of faith and nation of Christians. Now you if you want submit a text book as sound evidence then Jefferson Bible should be more than sufficient to disprove your point

bit wasn’t thinking about BHO when he wrote about a Muslim being president.

Joseph wasn’t thinking about BHO, either. Sure.

bit does take some offense to this: but since this is anonymous posting, bit will get over it.

Anonymous posting?…perhaps speaking for yourself. The forum name I use is also stated on my 1040. Joseph doesn’t care that you are offened or will get over it.

BHO himself, when asked when life begins, answer, That’s above my pay grade..

Very good answer……..now, what is your agreement or disagreement?

This promotion of abortion, to bit, is incompatible with Christianity.

Promotion of abortion….so you say. Being single issue is incompatible with Chrsitianity, and more so, the hate which is all too often preached in America’s churches; yet white Christians are only repulsed by Rev Wright’s language. Nonetheless I cannot think of anything more asinine and repugnant than voting Republican being the acid test of person’s identity to Christ. All in all, if the only reason you will not vote for Obama is because of abortion position, I applaud you.

regards, joseph

You might appreciate the religious history of the US as shown in this U.S. House bill.

http://www.thomas.gov

Search on H.RES.888.IH.

This bill succinctly lists many facets of Christian influences and displays in the U.S. Government.

It’s fascinating.

Expect that this bill has been indefinitely tabled.

You might be surprised the number of U.S. citizens who think that the phrase “…separation of church and state…” is in the U.S. Constitution.

The questions remains though whether or not we understand the First Amendment in the twenty-first century the way it was intended in 1789. bit believes we miss here.

If memory serves, the famous separation of church and state doctrine is from a 1947 SCOTUS decision. bit recognizes it as the law of the land, but doesn’t think this legal doctrine reflects the intent of the founders. Further, bit doesn’t think this 1947 interpretation has benefited the nation – as a whole.

bit’s reading leads him to conclude that the intent of the founders was that the government would not exercise control of religion
- the federal government is not going to pick a Christian denomination that way many of the colonies had –
while at the same time expecting Christianity to influence the government
- we want leaders who are accountable to God.

The wall of separation in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a one-way wall: religion was protected from government.

bit believes you’ve been mislead about the founding fathers not being Christians!

To get an idea to the extent you’ve been mislead visit
http://www.wallbuilders.com.

You seemed to have missed my sentence…

It appears that the First Amendment was written with the expectation that the predominant religion was and would remain Christianity.

One of the recurring themes among founders was that the government they proposed would only work with a religious, moral people. This would seem obvious if the context from which they thought was based in Christianity. To bit it also seem reflected in the state oaths of office affirming that the oath takers were Christian. There are themes in our early government that office holders are accountable to God.

Christ and Christianity is frequently mentioned in the founders’ writings – often private correspondence between people.

bit believe that what you’ll find is the U.S. is a government for a Christian people. What do you think? Would there be a U.S.A without the influence of Christianity and the Bible?

How imbued is this influence in early America?
The quotes are from “New England Primer”, a text book used from the late 16xx to late 18xx.

Q: What is the chief end of man?
A: Glorify God.

Q: Who made you?
A: God

Q: Who redeemed you:
A: Jesus Christ

First of all ease your mind and prejudice; Obama is as much Christians (perhaps more) as you perceive in yourself, family and friends.

bit wasn’t thinking about BHO when he wrote about a Muslim being president.

Here’s a rewrite on bit’s question:

If anyone has any reference to any document written in the U.S. from about 1776, which suggests that anyone but a Christian could, would, or should be President of the U.S., bit would appreciate seeing it?

bit does take some offense to this:

Obama is as much Christians (perhaps more) as you perceive in yourself, family and friends.

but since this is anonymous posting, bit will get over it.

BHO has a 100% approval, or some sort of political ratings, from NARAL. Believe the acronym means National Abortion Rights Action League. It’s easy to find on the INet and they’re proud to endorse BHO.

Further, there are those who say BHO is for, promotes or doesn’t condemn, infanticide. Believe BHO has voted four times against “born alive” bills. These are bills to protect babies who survive abortions. Usually when this happens, a baby survives an abortion, they are left to die from exposure. It’s facetiously been described as a post abortion abortion. It’s infanticide.

BHO himself, when asked when life begins, answer, “That’s above my pay grade.”

This promotion of abortion, to bit, is incompatible with Christianity.

bitblt Says: Separation of church from state, or separation of church and state, is not in the U.S. Constitution.

Neither is Trinty ever mentioned in the Bible, but how many Christians deny the doctrine? Separation of church and state is a legal doctrine intended to create a wall between church and state; notwithstanding too many church officials telling Christians to check their brain in at the door.

If anyone has any reference to any document written in the U.S. from about 1776 to present time, which suggests that a Mohammedan could, would, or should be President of the U.S., bit would appreciate seeing it?

First of all ease your mind and prejudice; Obama is as much Christians (perhaps more) as you perceive in yourself, family and friends. Bitblt, I don’t want to sound mean but you have a reasoning problem. You do understand when Christians engage in logic fallacies to make a case, our witinessing for Lord Jesus becomes null and void?

I would appreciate seeing the legal documents which suggest non-Christians are barred form becoming US President. Listen, the US Constitution is about liberties, not shackles, esp. the right to self determination and freedom of conscious. This individual right was fought for and died for, by people of all color and creeds including Atheists; the very liberty that has allowed me leave Islam without fear of harm and accept Lord Jesus. OMT: Most of the founding fathers were not Christians and I can found no legal or political document attributed to them, mentioning Lord Jesus.

regards, joseph

Separation of church from state, or separation of church and state, is not in the U.S. Constitution. Further, it seems clear from the writings of the founders that their desire was that religion, Christianity, would influence the government, but the government would not influence Christianity. The influence of church on the state and state on the church was the European model where the church, the Roman Catholic church, was heavily embroiled in politics with many negative consequences.

That Christianity was their expectation seems more certain when early state oaths of office are examined. Many of these oaths required that the oath taker affirm that he was a Christian.

Nothing that bit reads in the founders writings’ about religion suggests twenty-first century understanding of this subject, as expressed by most TP posters, agrees with eighteenth and nineteenth understanding.

To put it plainly, nothing in the US Constitution was intended to support immortality, but most often, the understanding expressed on TP, is used to support and encourage immorality. Many posting here take the First Amendment to be a license for licentiousness.

It appears that the First Amendment was written with the expectation that the predominant religion was and would remain Christianity. As an example of this expectation of a predominant religion consider what
George Mason, often called the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” proposed as the wording for the First Amendment.

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Quoted from
Rowland, Kate (1892), The Life of George Mason (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

If anyone has any reference to any document written in the U.S. from about 1776 to present time, which suggests that a Mohammedan could, would, or should be President of the U.S., bit would appreciate seeing it?

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
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

Freedom of Religion only seems to apply to them as long as you want to be a hypocritical christian.

Peace

ScaryBrownHusseinChick–I’m not here to argue which religion is better. I was simply trying to provide some prospective on a point that a couple of other people were debating. Putting down others’ beliefs seems to be your agenda, but it is not mine. Leave me out of it, please.

Get this straight HusseinChick, I took issue with your article (and with other Muslim posters) for the reason it was nothing more than typical Islamic propagation produced for western consumption. Not only is it apparent you know very little about Christianity but even less about Islam. I am willing to venture you’re a convert (or should I say revert?) to Islam and with superficial knowledge of Islam, at best. Just so you may know: my mother and siblings are Muslims; and as should be expected, dear to me. So spare this forum of your insight on my agenda. I did not visit this forum to engage in debate with Muslims. but neither should I be expected to remain silent on Muslim postulations. Nonetheless, you had an opportunity to confirm the truthfulness of your claim and declined to answer.

regards, joseph

regards, joseph

I’m not here to argue which religion is better. I was simply trying to provide some prospective on a point that a couple of other people were debating. Putting down others’ beliefs seems to be your agenda, but it is not mine. Leave me out of it, please.

Peace.

(And I will not be checking this thread anymore.)

ScaryBrownHusseinChick (ThinkOutsideTheBush) Says: I think a lot of non-Muslims don’t realize that Muslims start their history from the very beginning also, and not just the 600s AD.

What choice do Mulsims have but to believe the Bible is corrupt. It’s not like Islam can make a case for itself without the accusation. However let’s set that aside and see if we can put the Muslim double-speak to rest. If Muslims supposedly existed prior to the bringer of Islam, then person need not believe Mohammed is a prophet to be a Muslim…correct?

regards, joseph