Can someone explain the purpose of this resolution to me?

[mheslep]

Well if you're trying to tell me that Jefferson was hostile to Christianity, you're preaching to the choir. Personally I consider him a heretic at best.

I think that's a bit off target. Jefferson was hostile to organized religion, especially the Church of England, and its attempts to grab power. So I don't think its fair to say he was hostile to most of the precepts of Christianity, though he was not a Christian.

 

[mheslep]

...If it were left up to me I'd probably set up a democratic Christian theocracy. ...

Leaving aside for a moment the freedoms of non-Christians, this would work against the tenets of Christian theology. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's ..." is the oft cited basis for that. Seems to me the first thing you would do to destroy the robust religious life in the US is to establish a state religion. See Europe, for example, where to this day there are numerous countries with state religions supported by tax dollars and the pews are all empty.

 

[Huckleberry]

I would think it refers mainly to this:

...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

Those references to God do not specify Christianity.

Perhaps you mean that many of the founding fathers were Christians and Christianity is responsible for every action they took in their lives, particularly their political lives? I would instead choose to recognize their principles, not their religion. I don't see how it matters how one arrives at those principles through any other means.

I think that governments should not praise or admonish religious organizations. It invites comparisons of religious belief based on a governmental standpoint. If the government intends to uphold the principles it was founded on, freedom of religion in this case, then the government standpoint should indeed be free of religion.

These resolutions just aren't necessary, and in my case they are not welcome. I am a Christian myself, but I believe in separation of church and state. I think faith is meaningless if it is not arrived at by one's own consent. To live in a land under a God that one has not chosen is just wrong in my view. Give unto Caesar, and whatnot.

 

[rewebster]

One main reason, I see, is that a 'resolution' is one outcome of their work and sometime that is at least not a pork barrel earmark--and a 'cute' way of celebrating what they do----not exactly PC for a declared 'non-religiously' defined nation, but I bet they have Xmas parties too.

 

[Doc Al]

Sloppy w/ the facts there. Jefferson certainly, Franklin perhaps. Adams? No way. Washington?

Adams was a Unitarian, not your typical Christian. (Unitarians are just one step removed from Deists! ) He also signed the Treaty of Tripoli which stated: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion".

Washington wasn't your typical Christian either: He never declared himself a Christian, never took communion, never called for clergy to be present at his deathbed. When the rector of the church that Washington attended (Rev Abercrombie) was asked about Washington's religious beliefs (after his death), he was said to answer: "Sir, Washington was a Deist."

Franklin was generally considered a Deist.

Ethan Allen was a deist.

James Madison was no fan of Christianity or typically religious: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

And don't forget Thomas Paine, super-Deist.

No, the Founding Fathers were pretty much non-Christians (mostly deists and Unitarians). But much more important than their personal religious beliefs, they saw the need to create a secular government, not a theocracy. A singular achievement that we are rapidly destroying.

Build up that wall!

 

[Cyrus]

Aw, you guys didnt like my funny cartoon...

Ba-Dump-Tish.
http://img135.exs.cx/img135/9527/jesusdrummer8yl.jpg

 

[Huckleberry]

Aw, you guys didnt like my funny cartoon...

Ba-Dump-Tish.

Oh, I didn't see that dude on the drums. I was too busy looking at Santa's helper. It reminds me of SOS's old icon. Where did she go anyway?

 

[mheslep]

The personal religious beliefs of the US founders are clearly mixed to include tenets of Unitarianism, Christianity and Deism. In no way can anyone say they were 'mostly deists', nor even mostly 'non-Christian'. Its unsupportable, any more than one could say they were 'mostly Christians'. You respond with a strawman about 'not your typical Christian' (what ever that is) which I never asserted, and several non sequitors: the Adams quote, of course the US is not a theocracy, has nothing to do with Adams personal beliefs; the Madison quote, of course the founders were highly critical of 'legally established' religion and again not relevant to his personal beliefs.

Yes Paine was deist, though you are reaching a bit for founders, and of whom Adams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#_note-49"

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will

On Washington, his http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/youasked/060.htm"
I'd like to see the source for your Washington claims. Don't bother if its not primary, no agenda sites please.

No, the Founding Fathers were pretty much non-Christians (mostly deists and Unitarians).

Ok you've backed up to Unitarians at least, could have admitted that right out. Your assertion that they're mostly non-Christian is unsubstantiated, and 'Wishing doesn't make it so!'

But much more important than their personal religious beliefs, they saw the need to create a secular government, not a theocracy.

No theocracy, agreed. Secular? If that means 'not overtly or specifically religious' or 'not ecclesiastical or clerical', agreed again.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No I haven't. I'm pro-choice, as a matter of fact you can see where I said the only good thing about Ron Paul is that he might pull away enough of the Republican vote to guarantee a Democratic win. I will speak out against paranoia and propaganda though. But I don't vote strictly down a party line either. I vote for common sense and non-insane people. If a Republican is the saner of the two, I'll vote for them, I really don't care what party they belong to. Can you say the same?

Absolutely. I'm an independent. But, except for revolutionaries like Paul, I may not vote for a Rep president for the rest of my life - at least not until the neo-cons, religious zealots, and the rest of the enemies of the Constitution are gone. And that does apply to the rest of the Rep candidates who could actually win. They all turn my stomach just a little more than Hillary does now.

Nope, neither time.

Also, I find it odd that you would equate being Republican with being disengenious.

I stand corrected on the point about Bush, and I knew you are pro-choice and anti-religion, but I don't understand your comment about being disengenuous. I was trying to reconcile three years of your posts with your statements here.

I think we have very different ideas about what the US is supposed to be. I demand Constitutional law and liberty before all else.

What is good about Ron Paul is that he defends the Constitution.

 

[mheslep]

While we can allow religious freedom since so many seem to need it, there should be no mix of government and religion.

"we can allow religious freedom..."?
I know this thread is aging a bit, but this really struck me. The second part -no mix- is clear. But what is meant by 'allow'? Was the intent really that religious freedom is only granted (allowed) by the whims of others, so that it might also be taken away?

 

[binzing]

I thought it was about the annual appearance of some jolly old guy in a red suit with white trim. Ho, ho, ho!

And what about the slaughter of millions of innocent trees, which are ritually sacrificed?! No word about that.

Yes, but those trees are, largely, raised for that purpose, so its not deforestation if that's what your getting at.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Adams was a Unitarian, not your typical Christian. (Unitarians are just one step removed from Deists! ) He also signed the Treaty of Tripoli which stated: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion".

Washington wasn't your typical Christian either: He never declared himself a Christian, never took communion, never called for clergy to be present at his deathbed. When the rector of the church that Washington attended (Rev Abercrombie) was asked about Washington's religious beliefs (after his death), he was said to answer: "Sir, Washington was a Deist."

Franklin was generally considered a Deist.

Ethan Allen was a deist.

James Madison was no fan of Christianity or typically religious: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

And don't forget Thomas Paine, super-Deist.

No, the Founding Fathers were pretty much non-Christians (mostly deists and Unitarians). But much more important than their personal religious beliefs, they saw the need to create a secular government, not a theocracy. A singular achievement that we are rapidly destroying.

Build up that wall!

HEAR HEAR!