View Full Version : Christianity Was At The Heart Of U.S.A. Founders

01-20-2005, 01:55 PM
Please check out this weblink.<p>Especially for those of you that see Separation of Church and State as something akin to concrete in our Constitution.<p><A HREF="http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/forsakenroots.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/forsakenroots.html</A><p>Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of The Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.<p>Please check out the above link and share your comments.<p>Yes, I have an agenda, but who doesn't when they submit threads in these forums.<p>Please keep the discussion civil. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>Regards, Eightballsidepocket

01-20-2005, 04:53 PM
In the film 'national treasure', it also says that the signers of the decleration of indipenance were freemasons, or something like that. Damn films are getting to my head.<p>:)

Naga Royal Guard
01-20-2005, 08:59 PM
Thomas Jefferson smoked pot, so i heard....<p>

01-21-2005, 04:04 AM
America has really gotten off track these few years. If only the American government was still like it was when it was founded then there would be no problems. Its truely sad to see not only America but the whole world in such a state.

01-21-2005, 04:40 AM
Back when America was founded, slavery was rife, poverty was endemic and wars were commonplace. The world was not a nice place.<p>

01-21-2005, 09:21 AM
Sorry eightball, but religion does not belong in government, or in public institutions. While on this rock we are all immediately answerable to one law, and that is the law of the state (as in country) you are currently in. What you choose to do in the name of religion, outside of a public institution is your prerogative (so long as it does not interfere with someone else's right to excersise their religious beliefs). Arguing otherwise is tantamount to prophesing the superiority of one religious belief over another one, which if enshrined in public policy can only lead to state sponsored discrimination.<p>Perhaps our laws were largely based in christian morality and masonic practicality, but do not confuse morality for outright espousing of religious doctrine in public policy and institutions.

01-21-2005, 09:37 AM
Well said Santeno.

Naga Royal Guard
01-21-2005, 10:22 AM
the morals of most (all?) major religions coincide anyway ( dont kill, dont steal, dont rape; dont cheat on your spouse (or ex w/ a BMW OWNER), dont watch porn, ad infinitum); they could get along alot better if they would accept that instead of splitting hair

01-21-2005, 11:10 AM
Don't quote me on it naga, but I'm pretty sure most major religions don't address Porn specifically.

01-21-2005, 05:54 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Naga Royal Guard</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the morals of most (all?) major religions coincide anyway ( dont kill, dont steal, dont rape; dont cheat on your spouse (or ex w/ a BMW OWNER), dont watch porn, ad infinitum); they could get along alot better if they would accept that instead of splitting hair</TD></TR></TABLE><p>You'd be surprised, I think. In a very general way, yeah, most major religions probably agree, but I don't call it splitting hairs when some of the major religions recommend that I be killed for some of the things I do (no, not cheating on my ex w/ a BMW owner). <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/cool.gif" BORDER="0"> Being dead and being alive are about as opposite as you can get. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/bonk.gif" BORDER="0"> Getting along is one thing, but being true to core fundamentals is another. <p>All I can think to say is that separations of church and state doesn't mean the erradication of religion from public life, something I believe the Founding Fathers didn't intend either. Almost all were pretty bublic (though like all, imperfect) Christians, they had the Ten Commandments chisseled into the gates of the Supreme Court as a sign of where they believed they got their authority from, and many other things in which they acknowledged their reliance on God even in their public service, but did not block anyone who didn't see things like them from serving. <p>That's the difference today. The efforts of some, a vocal minority, to remove the Ten Commandments from court rooms, to stop President Bush from praying or taking the oath of office on the Bible, etc., is equal IMO to institutionalizing atheism in Public life. A President praying at his inauguration does not negatively impact an atheist, but an atheist not allowing a President to pray does negatively impact the President. I hope that made sense. Why, when most, the vast majority, around 90% of Americans believe in God (a God) should we go around pretending like we don't because 10% or less of the population is offended? Freedom of religious expression should extend to public life and public servants as well.

01-21-2005, 06:13 PM
What is I believe in Kukulcan? Can I have a big winged serpent chisled into a courtroom somewhere?<p>See where I'm going with this?