Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Is America a "christian nation"?

Concerning the separation of church and state in 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter replying to the Danbury Baptist. In the letter he stated

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, gave a clear concise response with regard to an inquiry as to America's status as a "christian nation" and made sure that it was understood it was not.

In the case from 1892, Holy Trinity Church v. The United States of America was a case about immigration, not religion. The facts dealt with an immigration issue and not a strictly religious one.

For proponents to make this into something it is not and then say it decided without any doubt that America is a "christian nation", only means that those who hold to this ridiculous assertion has again practiced a major fundie/evangelical tactic of taking something out of context and then spinning it into something completely different than it originally was intended to mean and extrapolate it into something else entirely.

Desperate fundies seeking to bolster there revisionist historical claims are nothing but a joke to everyone who actually has studied history and can comprehend it. To attempt to even massage or offer such a statement clearly illustrates the ignorance and stupidity of this sect of brainwashed imbiciles, who like lemmings will blindly accept anything from their pudits as long as it purports to furhter their forced takeover of America and to mak eeveryone follow the rest of the herd to their repeated ranting form a book that can't even reconcile it's own contradictions, let alone offer more than just suspect stories that aren't even supportable via it's followers.

Even the sects attorneys somehow fall victim to this habit of failing to recognize fact from fantasy although they suposededly spent years in school and trianign their minds to be capable of doing that.

The bottom line as always is when any fundie/evangelical speaks, writes, or even communicates, one must immediately question their veracity and make them produce their supporting evidence and especially the SECULAR evidence which undoubtly will instantly refute anything they have said that supports their content of some historical reference to "christian nation" hogwash.

Always make them put up and then show them so they can shut up. Only by a concert of effort will Ameirca be returned to it's original intenet and that is a complete separation of church and state and undo the damage already done to it's citizens.


TFR



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Labels: , , , , , , ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. Dude, you really are brainwashed yourself. All that Christ was about was saving you from an eternity in hell, and opening up your eyes to the truth. Satan has blinded you from this truth, and I do pray that you will finally see the real truth before you face God himself when you die.
Sure, there are some few who twist the message of Jesus for thier own means, just as there are selfish people in every form of society, government, or group. All you really need to do is compare what they say and do with what God said in the Bible. (the most examined, and accurate book in all of human history)

July 17, 2009 at 8:32 AM  
Blogger ALOCKSLEE said...

As you can clearly read I have a response from a person who although hiding behind the handle of anonymous feels their rhetoric is somehow responsive to the original post. Frankly, they could have signed this but wish to remain hidden obviously due to their inability to read, understand , comprehend and respond in a coherent fashion to the actual subject and simply want to proselytize and demonstrate the complete inability to focus their thinking outside of the isolated pocket of fascist ideology their call fundamentalism/evangelicalism.

Perhaps my response to their disconnected banter will actually cause them to take a few moments and offer some other witty diatribe more to the point or at least provide citations from the version of contradictions they thump continually.

The claim as to most examined, possibly, but as to the most accurate clearly and without doubt certainly not with it's myriad contradictions, gaps, lack of secular supporting evidence to prove the "events" is not by any stretch of the most vivid imagination accurate, let alone the most accurate book of any era or time.
TFR

July 17, 2009 at 1:15 PM  
Blogger ALOCKSLEE said...

Under the case of TORCASO v WATKINS 347 U.S. 488
http://vftonline.org/TestOath/Torcaso.htm

Among the footnotes the following was found regarding secular humanism and Atheist philosophy:
Here we see the Court washout. The Court says that it will fight to block a move to restore the historically and constitutionally discredited policy of probing religious beliefs by test oaths or limiting public offices to persons who have, or perhaps more properly profess to have, a belief in some particular kind of religious concept. Atheism is not a "belief in some particular kind of religious concept" as the Framers understood it. It is one thing to "test" a person's belief in the mode of baptism or his membership in a particular denomination. All the Christians who signed the Constitution agreed on equality for all Christian denominations. But the overwhelming majority also agreed that an atheist does not have the requisite religious beliefs to take an oath.  [Back to opinion]

The Court says Maryland was intended to be "securely beyond the reach of oaths . . . ." Certainly Lord Calvert wanted to eliminate laws which discriminated against Christians because of their church affiliation. But is there any evidence that Lord Calvert sought to eliminate all oaths? Did he envision witnesses in court testifying without taking an oath? Did he imagine men assuming political office without an oath of office? The Court is exploiting ambiguity to establish the religion of Secular Humanism.

TFR

July 17, 2009 at 3:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home