Barack Obama: We Are Not A Christian Nation!

1n354a Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - and the battle over state and federal powers has been going on ever since as US law has no solid, immovable lines drawn...rather they are reinterpreted, flex and adjust to meet the needs/demands of the nation. though I would have to see evidence that they supported state-run-churches (I think you are making that up) first, even if they did want state run churches, in the past century it was determined that that would be a violation of people's rights.

RetSquid Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - "US law has no solid, immovable lines" Yes, it does, but the court keeps moving it with the 'commerce' clause. "see evidence" Ever try 'Google"?

1n354a Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - I am not going to spend my time researching every claim you make to see if it is true or not. If you have evidence supporting your claim, or at least a credible source, I would be more than happy to take a look. Interstate commerce could be considered a backdoor approach to controlling things that originally were not meant to be controlled by the federal government, but who is to say that the founding fathers didn't intend for that to begin with?

RetSquid Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - "researching every claim" Proud of your ignorance? "founding fathers didn't intend for" You actually think that the Founding Fathers WANTED an overpowering Federal government? Your historical education is seriously lacking.

1n354a Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - "Proud of your ignorance?" I don't consider not wanting to chase every crazy idea you pull out of your ass. if you have evidence to back your claim I am more than willing to hear it. if all you are doing is blathering on and on without verifying the validity of your claims then no, I have no intention of doing your work for you. I have a very good understanding of history - both early US and other. I'm not an expert but I am certainly better educated than you are, based on your posts.

RetSquid Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - "every crazy idea" Like I said, ignorance, now bordering on stupidity. I told you where to start looking. As a History Major I can tell you that you learned the wrong things.

1n354a Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - @RetSquid ROFL you told me where to start looking? You referenced the largest search engine in the world bound to capture any level of crap depending on what I search for with no way of validating claims or assertions...if you are a history major (caps optional) then give me a source; a specific source to back up your claims. If you can't then I am will accept your admission that you are pretty much making it up as you go. Cheers!

RetSquid Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - I could draw it in crayons to get to your level and you would still ingore the evidence. Just Google "state sponsored church" and pick the first one. Or is that too much work for you?

1n354a Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - you might have to use crayons since that is probably all you have lying about. 1st entry is Wiki which more or less reestablished my position. So again put up or shut up. list your sources.

RetSquid Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - "list your sources." Go back to Wiki and scroll down to "Former state churches in British North America" and look at the sources for yourself.

1n354a Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - again - supports my position. they existed though most were disestablished in the 1700's and 1800's on their own. and if you look at most of the laws that remain (no atheist holding office) they have all been deemed unenforceable by the Supreme Court as they violate #1 and #14. Interesting that Utah wasn't even allowed in for years because of the religious overtones (and other issues)...odd that a religious loving bunch would consider that a negative point....don't you think?

RetSquid Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - "disestablished" Which obviously means they were accepted and normal when the Constitution was signed.

1n354a Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - many states had them - many states were founded by specific religious groups - points I never contended. but that was several hundred years ago and situations change....unless you are contending that black people should be considered property (another idea that even in 1812 was considered acceptable and normal)? The US courts and the state governments have determined that maintaining such institutions is a violation of rights guaranteed in the 1st and 14th amendments. That is my position.

MysonbeWise Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - See NWO Solution

MysonbeWise Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty! Do NOT associate with those given to CHANGE! Do NOT be afraid of sudden terror, Nor of trouble from the wicked when it comes, For the Lord will be your confidence, And will keep your foot from being caught. The wicked flee when noone pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion - Proverbs FEAR NOT, PRAY FOR YOUR ENEMY - Jesus

RetSquid Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - I was wondering when you would bring up slavery. Most of the founding Fathers were against it, but wanted to keep the Southern States in the Union. But the Founding Fathers did intend to found a Christian Nation, but not to the exclusion of other religions. So you agree that they DID want a Christian Nation, but times have changed and the Courts changed the Law.

1981jadams Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - If you've studied your history, then you'd already know that our founding father's built this nation as a secular one and not specifically a Christian (Jewish, Muslim, etc.) nation. Unfortunately, we have become a "Christian" nation with "In God We Trust" on our money and "one nation under God" in our pledge of Allegiance. I find the whole thing disturbing, disgusting and insulting as a fairly well educated, rational person.

1n354a Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - I do not agree that they wanted a christian nation. I actually propose that they would have liked to have been done away with religion all together. At most they were deists; some were anti-religious. The only reason that state-sponsored churches existed was that the state-federal powers line was not established...and as previously pointed out, many states corrected their mistakes themselves while others were corrected by the Supreme Court.

RetSquid Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - "not specifically a Christian" You really need to read more about it. Try "Ten big lies about America".

RetSquid Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - "At most they were deists; some were anti-religious." Not even close, Deists "tend to reject the notion of divine interventions in human affairs". This is not born out in their actions such as praying for God's intervention or thanking Him for intervening in their lives. some were anti-religion, not anti-Christian. "corrected their mistakes" And it took the Supreme court (and bigoted judge) 160 years to 'fix' the problem? I think we were better off with a moral Government.

1981jadams Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - My statement is based off of verifiable History. And in fact, the majority of our founding father's were appalled by religion. I don't have the money to buy a book right now. Do you have any websites you can reference?

1n354a Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - it took 160 years for the situation to become enough of an issue that the Supreme Court had to make a ruling. "Not even close" - ok twinkle toes. if you say so. the problem is that no matter what you say...this nation was not set up to be a christian nation...separation of church and state... and hold on a second...a moral government? I thought you were in support of a Christian nation?? you can only have one...moral or Christian.

veroinuyasha Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - woot you go person!!!!

1981jadams Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - Thank ya much!

theviolator23 Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - if you think a christian government is a moral government I would recommend looking back to 14th century europe. A "christian" nation implies a theocracy. We are a secular nation.