No, we are not a "Christian" nation......

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1261 - 1280 of total 1513 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
locker

climber
STFU n00b!!!
Jun 28, 2014 - 06:29am PT

"...capish!"...


LOL!!!...

go-B

climber
Cling to what is good!
Jun 29, 2014 - 04:41pm PT

Credit: go-B
Yosemite Valley and Jesus
http://ronerskine.typepad.com/weekly_tramp/page/3/

Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Jun 29, 2014 - 05:35pm PT
The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

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.

Seem pretty clear to me.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 29, 2014 - 06:15pm PT
^^^Yea? well your point isn't clear at all!
Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Jun 29, 2014 - 06:36pm PT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I'm a latecomer to this thread. This post is about Jim's originating premise that we are not a Christian nation in terms of design of government. What are you not getting? I'm not making a comment about the recent posts. Still seems pretty clear to me.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 29, 2014 - 06:45pm PT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Well, All the people that wrote that Bill were all swore into office with an oath to Jesus Christ. An "establishment of religion" infers to NOT respecting any ONE religion. The majority of the drafters were infact Christians.

Even Jim knows that. He's just chum'in.
Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Jun 29, 2014 - 06:57pm PT
Sorry, I'm not taking the bait. You know a good number of those present and contributing to the process were deists. And, being mature and secure in their personal beliefs, the Christians involved made a stand for their right to practice their religion, for anyone else to practice their religion, and for the government to sanction no one religion over another. Hence, we are by design a secular nation even though common practice has often in the past and even still does in some ways betray the principle of the Bill of Rights. If we do hold the document dear, we will implement it accordingly. If we don't, we will make silly arguments for casually abridging it to our personal comfort.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Jun 29, 2014 - 08:07pm PT
all swore into office with an oath to Jesus Christ.
"sworn"

and that's not true at all.
under God.
Also incorrect.

There is nothing in the Presidential oath of office about religion.
The second article of the Constitution says nothing about god, let alone jesus
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law, with the intention that he was swearing on the constitution.[
It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, or in their acceptance of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God."[33] There is currently debate as to whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to his acceptance of the oath. No contemporary sources mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his acceptance.
We've been over this before. I specifically quoted similar sources about a month ago. I'm fine with arguing whether we are a Christian nation or not as long as you have your facts right.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 29, 2014 - 08:23pm PT
Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901. Barack Obama, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, and Richard Nixon (also a Quaker) swore the oath on two Bibles. John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law, with the intention that he was swearing on the constitution.[8] Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One.[9] Washington kissed the Bible afterwards,[10] and subsequent presidents followed suit, up to and including Harry Truman,[11] but Dwight D. Eisenhower broke that tradition by saying his own prayer instead of kissing the Bible.

Washington even kissed the Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And all others up to Truman!!

i'm not even condoning a Christian nation, other than the right to pursue Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
i wish that Christianity and government were never in the same sentence.

But facts are facts, just don't deny.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 29, 2014 - 08:40pm PT
try adding a few more exclamation marks. It makes all the difference you know.

What exactly are you insinuating Blue? Are you saying that the act of swearing on a cocconut would make the solemnity any less or that the vow of allegience to the law would be less or more valid?

whether its swearing on a bible or koran is irrelevant. It is a gesture of solemnity nothing more. It is not a act of codifying religiousity sureptitiously into law. If it was intended that religion or cocconuts doctrine were to be officially codified into the law it would be described as such using the english language, stated explicitly and without ambiguity, much like your constitution and other statements and definitions of law.

Like Mark said, it is stated clearly as it was intended. If they intended otherwise it wouldn't be done by the backdoor of whatever secret handshake or fraternity chant you prefer, it would be stated, written and signed off on.

Or maybe I'm missreading you but its not surprising if so, considering your vagueness. Are you actually suggesting the first amendment is actually an endorsement of christianity.... simply because a biblee was used as a prop?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 29, 2014 - 08:40pm PT

Option of taking an oath or an affirmation

The Constitutional language gives the option to "affirm" instead of "swear". While the reasons for this are not documented, it may relate to certain Christians, including Quakers, who apply this scripture literally: "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation" (James 5:12, KJV)
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jun 29, 2014 - 08:43pm PT
Blue, your argument seems to be that the religion of the nation resides in the religion of the President, not the words of the Constitution. I don't agree.

If we were to elect a Mormon, would we become a Mormon nation? Hindu? Buddhist? If we elected several of them? What is the threshold?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 29, 2014 - 08:53pm PT
whether its swearing on a bible or koran is irrelevant.

If we started out swearing on the koran our laws would be much different today!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


i'm merely pointing to facts to help peoples opinions grow.

The fact that when we citizens elect the most powerful person in the world, the act of him putting his hand on the bible and giving an oath unto God shows everyone, including himself he is NOT the highest authority!


Are you actually suggesting the first amendment is actually an endorsement of christianity.... simply because a biblee was used as a prop?

No No No. The bible does mean christian and jew BTW. When you see a pic of someone giving an oath. People don't remember much what was said, but they do remember seeing the left hand on the bible and the right hand raised toward God.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 29, 2014 - 09:02pm PT
If we started out swearing on the koran our laws would be much different today!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


No it wouldn't... and knock it off with the exclamation marks for crying out loud. What is it with the rapturously delerious and exclamation marks? Go -B can't stop doing it too. Its annoying, like you think we are so thick you have to yell to be understood or something.

Anyway, it wouldn't. How about if they used a cocconut? Would suddenly the law be null and void? If they swore on a Penthouse magazine the written law is the law, as defined by the language and signed off on.

Your whole point - whatever it is, you refuse to state it - is lost on a point of semantics or symbolism that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what is written and signed. That states the truth of the matter.

People don't remember much what was said, but they do remember seeing the left hand on the bible and the right hand raised toward God.

Only the stupid or easily distracted. What matters is the testimony, or whatever the hell else is being sworn to as verified, not the cocconut. OK Maybe if it was a cocconut, that might get remembered but not a run of the mill bible. It is completely irrelevant to the business.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Jun 29, 2014 - 09:14pm PT
The fact that when we citizens elect the most powerful person in the world, the act of him putting his hand on the bible and giving an oath unto God shows everyone, including himself he is NOT the highest authority!

I'd be more impressed if it was a beating heart ala the Aztecs...
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 29, 2014 - 09:16pm PT

If we were to elect a Mormon, would we become a Mormon nation? Hindu? Buddhist? If we elected several of them? What is the threshold?


This was the early drafters worry. and the reason for the wording.

But yea could you imagine if a catholic ran this country. If you ran a stoplight you'de have topay a fine and give 20 hail Marys. or if a morman ran it, caffine and sugar would be against the law. and if a muslim, well you know. Rediculusness!
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 29, 2014 - 09:21pm PT
If the president was a damn Spaniard instead of a damn Kenyan it would be fresh bleeding Aztec Heart. If it was Gilligan it would be a cocconut. Either way it is the written word, clear and defined that matters not some symbolic talisman
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 29, 2014 - 09:49pm PT
Here BB, I did your research for you ( you're welcome) . Watch this and it will be explained to you that laws are not enacted by devine providence or whooshed into existence with the proper magic wand, and if you insist it is you are likely to be laughed out of town even by the peasants

locker

climber
STFU n00b!!!
Jun 30, 2014 - 07:32am PT


"could you imagine if a catholic ran this country. If you ran a stoplight you'de have topay a fine and give 20 hail Marys"...


Uh...
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Jun 30, 2014 - 09:05am PT
Blueblocr imagining evolution:

Messages 1261 - 1280 of total 1513 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews