Obama: much of our law grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition.

"To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

Obama

Hence, the term "common law".

Law is not really based around morality, it's developed around what society finds to be acceptable behavior. They're not the same thing, particularly if we're talking about morality with a religious basis.

his Keystone Cops campaign team at work again :eyes:

with speeches like these.

:wow:
"He did not just do that!!!"

Damn, at this rate, I'm going to want HRC in the office. I need to go get my head examined.

:popcorn:

First, morality is innate. Religion does not dictate morality. If anything it imposes "morals" that contradict what we know to be right or wrong. (The examples of this are too numerous and universal to describe.) For myself when I became religious in the 1980s, I made myself look down on women and think of gays as sinners because that is what the New Testament required. I have since deprogrammed myself and rely primarily on instinct for morality.

Second, even if the law agrees with some of the precepts of religion, it is not the same as saying it is based on those precepts. What is more, much of law is simply to keep society regulated and stable. That has nothing to do with morality.

Asking for public policy to ignore religious influences in this country may be too much to ask. Nevertheless, the 1st Amendment guarantees that religious doctrine should never be the basis of public policy. We have seen what happens when it is: ignorance, oppression and suffering. It also guarantees a person's right to be religious in anyway that does not affect anyone else's rights. In a religious state, there is only one correct dogma.

religion is evil. I'm a christian and I'm not evil. If others don't believe thats fine but I'm sick of this party turning into the the Religious (Repubs) vs AntiReligion (Dems). I'm a proud christian. Many of our presidents are CHRISTIANS. Not all christians think abortion is wrong. I agree with Obama that I think women who are thinking about abortion need to pray (thats if they are christian) or do some inward thinking about what is being brought fought.

While I respect some don't want religion in school. I do think more Americans need to think about their actions before they commit them. Thats all Obama has been trying to say. I don't think he is going to let his religion rule him or his presidency. I tired of people spinning his religion because there are many faithful dems who are christians too and your not being fair to us.

There are many very good reasons why the Founders created an explicitly secular form of government, as even a cursory examination of American history will show. Using religious doctrine as the benchmark for civil law is a small step away from establishing religious doctrine as the Law of the Land.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.",

Yes they tried to be balanced. But they still kept God because they are Christians. If its so evil than please give me all your money... I would be more than happy to take it lol. But seriously I doubt that Obama will enact laws only based on his religion thats just one factor. I'm sick and tired of people acting as if christians make judgements or do things with only our beliefs as key factors. Thats not true and it wont be true with Obama. His religion brings 1 perspective but it doesn't dominate.

one was added because we were scared of the heathen communists.

Many of our past presidents were christians are they evil? Being a christian doesn't make you evil and I'm tired of some members of this party trying to stamp out all things religious.

would that be even remotely fair to you?

No I would not be happy but Obama is not imposing his religion on Americans. I find your need to bash everything religious hideous and unfounded.

The bible says an eye for an eye. I've had people do horrible things to me. As a black woman I experience discrimination all the time. But I don't go after those people. I listen to the bible...evaluate the situation and make my own decision. Being religious doesn't mean that you take everything the bible says as gospel. I take want is offered, listen, absorb it, and then listen to others ( like my boyfriend who is an atheist, My mom who is a black muslim) and I think of past situations. That is what Obama will do.

At this point I'm tired of this. this notion that all christians will impose their religion on everyone else is sickening really.

We've had many years of politicians try to codify their religion into law.

it is imposing on other people.

I know that Christians are not evil.
But many Christians and their beliefs are demonstrably wrong.
Sorry Creationism in bullshit.
Rejection of science because its God's will is wrong.
Ruining our planet because we have dominion is wrong.

So unless you're willing to practice another person's religion, you shouldn't expect them to accept yours.

And is the utmost in arrogance to think that morality comes from religion.
And to the best of my understanding of the Christianity which I practice, it is the opposite of arrogant.

"And is the utmost in arrogance to think that morality comes from religion."

I do think religion can play a role. I base my decisions on multiple factors in my life. Thats what frustrating is that some people don't get that some Christians do the same thing. I don't think morality comes from religion only but religion can play a part, along with your society influences etc, in a persons moral beliefs.


I understand peoples frustrations. They don't want any religion to dominate over them or to transform our government into a communist regime. However I'm just sick of people on DU think that every christian uses their bible to make their decisions. I'm not perfect for all I know I could go straight to hell because I've done *cough* a lot *cough* (don't repeat that to my family lol) of things against my religion.

their religions.

Global warming; not to worry Gods will in action.
Pollution; not to worry we have dominion.
Stem cell research; against Gods will
Women's right; no a woman must submit to her husband so there is not why she can be raped by her husband.

There really wasn't much pushback against religion until they tried to undermine our laws with their religious beliefs.

"They don't want any religion to dominate over them or to transform our government into a communist regime."

"In Satan we Trust"?

Would you be ok with a Satanist in the presidency?

If your answer is "No," then you should seriously look at whether you are trying to enforce your religion on others.

since its a fast growing religion

If the Satanist cared about all americans. Wanted to fight poverty I don't care what the hell religion he follows or not just as long as they are a good president. I know I'm going against the Christian grain but a Satanist, Christian, Jew etc don't have to answer to me. They answer to who ever they believe in or to God. But the Satanist actions as a president he or she will have to answer to the American people about that.

Again I'm young and not narrowminded. I accept everyone and never try to pass my religion for faith on anyone. At the end of the day hey maybe God isn't real and I was just following a made up religion. Thats the wonders of the world but right now I I choose to believe. Am I wrong or right Eh.....

The Pledge of Allegiance was first published on September 9, 1892. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, and did not include any mention of God.

It was not until 1954, 62 years latter, that God was added to the Pledge. A push by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic religious organization, was the principle sponsor. When Eisenhower signed that bill on June 14, 1954, he said: From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city, every village, and every rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. In this statement, Eisenhower made it quite plain that he intended to link the indoctrination of religious beliefs with loyalty to this country.

The use of "In God We Trust" has a simlar history originating out of the US Civil War. It has appeared and disappeared repeatedly for almost a century. This religious doctrine was adopted as the motto of the United States in 1957 by -- you guessed it -- President Eisenhower, when the President's signature threw out the old motto, "E Pluribus Unum" (Latin, "Out of many, one" referring to a single nation created out of many sovereign states.) Once the phrase was the official motto, it was a trivial matter to require it on all coinage and paper money despite being a blatant establishment of religion.

Please, do learn some history.

I knew that was recent, but not the particulars

That seems to have helped you a lot so far.

Good response.

The rejection of theology from a civil society is evil.

Obviously, yes, there were very good reasons for the 1st amendment.

Nobody's arguing that.

There is so much intolerance on this board.

rights, Im not against abortion. My pastor's views doesn't dominate my actions or views of others. I take what my pastor says and some times I apply it but many times I dont. But I'm not a crazy christian.

though. Or else the atheists are just really really loud.

here. Yeah I'm a Christian so the hell what. I'm not evil and I don't impose my "evil" christian beliefs on anyone at at work or out in public.

Freedom of religion means accepting everyone's religion. Saying that our country is based on Judeo-Christian traditions leaves out all the other traditions on which it's based.

means the separation of Religion and state. Which it does not. A church is an institution, religion is not.

I am not a Christian I am a Muslim but value leaders who at the end of the day believe they are accountable to a higher power, regardless of what they call the religion (whether they are Jews, Christians, Hindu's, Muslim's, etc.).

All of our Presidents have been faithful Christians.

Jefferson for all his postulations on freedom of religion and law still believed strongly in Christianity and that many have distorted its true meanings.

And I'm not a Christian.

But rather that his deism was more a filtration and that Jefferson remained committed much more to a Christian belief system than to atheism or agnosticism.



To argue that Jefferson was not a Christian you'd have to argue that Unitarians are not Christians. Jefferson didn't like organizations, but he without a doubt was a believer in morality.

That would come as quite a surprise to many of our presidents, especially the early ones. In their own words:

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." - Thomas Jefferson

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia"

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." - Jefferson, a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

"It has been fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse (Revelations), and even then I considered it merely the ravings of a maniac." - Jefferson

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - John Adams, a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." - John Adams

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." - John Adams

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has 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." - James Madison

"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself." - Thomas Jefferson on George Washington, in his private journal, Feb. 1800 (no one who knew Washington in his lifetime believed he was in any way a Christian. He apparently went through the motions to make Martha, a devout believer, happy.)

President Lincoln's former law partner, William Herndon, said of him after his assassination: "he never mentioned the name of Jesus, except to scorn and detest the idea of a miraculous conception ... He was an out-and-out infidel, and about that there is no mistake."

Lincoln's first law partner, John T. Stuart, said of him: "He was an avowed and open infidel, and sometimes bordered on atheism. He went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I have ever heard."

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession." - Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So repeatedly and unabashedly, in public and private correspondences, many of the early presidents up to Lincoln made no bones about the fact they were not Christians, and some were even openly scornful of the entire religion of Christianity.

Jefferson continually evolved and even contradicts himself. Like I said, Jefferson for all his postulations still remained a proponent of moral systems, including Christianity, even though he didn't buy into divinity wholesale.



Deism is not a faith or a belief system, it is a way of ordering belief systems.

Lincoln is equally complex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_religion





First Presbyterian Church, Springfield, Illinois.

The Lincoln family began attending the church in 1850 after the death of three-year-old Edward Lincoln. Dr. James Smith, the pastor at the time, had conducted Eddie's funeral service in the Lincoln home. Abraham Lincoln did not formally join the church, but his wife Mary became a member on October 13, 1852. Their youngest son Thomas (Tad) was baptized in the church on April 4, 1856, which was his third birthday.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/sites/pew.htm

And things are never as easy as presented by a selection of quotes that spans an entire lifetime. I am aware of the struggles Jefferson especially went through as his views matured and developed. I would presume the other intelligensia of his time went through similar angst over their inherited belief systems (after all there were at least certainly CULTURALLY Judeo-Christian), and from their writings and statements certainly many indeed did. As you clearly know this was widespread among the educated classes in Europe, especially France; the Age of Reason was running headlong into the inhereited truth if orthodox Christianity. And schisms in the Protestant Rite were becoming more widespread as a result of this any other factors. I seriously doubt any of the American leaders and scholars of the late 18th Century were atheists, but at the same time the complete absence of any reference to a divine Christ, the Trinity, the Bible, or a clearly Judeo-Christian God in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers clearly indicates to me they would have never been classified as orthodox Christians (or really Christians at all) either then or now, and the writings of certain prominent religious leaders of the period make it clear they didn't see them as Christian either. I would likewise caution people to be careful of these men's public statements, especially in a political context; they were no fools, and realized that while early America was not particularly Christian (about 5% of the citizenry belonged to a church in the late 1700s), Americans were culturally quite Judeo-Christian and wanted to feel that their leaders shared this culture. Therefore in many cases they made pro forma professions of religiosity in public, while saying quite different things in their private letters. But when it came to lasting works, such as the Declaration and Constitution, as public as these documents were they drew a clear line and refused to allow religiosity, whether genuine or a facade, to intrude into what they clearly viewed as a most serious enterprise.

Whatever the authenticity of their public statements or the struggles they went through as they tried to accomodate Reason and Religion, I think we can agree that by their later lives these men had come to certain conclusions, generally reflected in their writings and official actions:
- There is a God; what form God takes and how God interacts with the universe is unknown and possibly unknowable
- Organized religion is not God; organized religion is a creation of Man for his own purposes, and in general organized religion has served the needs of the few over the needs of the many
- But organized religion can be viewed as a positive force inasmuch as it leads people to a moral way of life and provides a sense of belonging; Jefferson made clear in the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom that Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, AND EVEN PAGANISM were perfectly acceptable inasmuch as they lead to a moral way of life
- Christianity, like all other world religions, gets no free pass and must be judged just as any other endeavor of Man; where it does evil it must be held accountable, where it does good it should be left alone, with no more or less status than any other religion

Regards

Welcome to DU!

O8)

I just don't want Christian beliefs - all zillion of them - fighting it out for dominance over who gets to change our Constitution.

Also, religion is not the same as Christianity. Lots of religious people are not Christian. I believe in God, but I'm not a Christian.

I agree that anyone contemplating an abortion should do some careful inward thinking. I just don't want them to be required by law to pray to a Christian God. I don't want it to be illegal for a woman to have an abortion just because some people think it should be.

Obviously more Americans need to think about their actions before they commit them. How is that a uniquely Christian recommendation? Any spiritual path would recommend that people think about their actions. Non-spiritual people would agree that it's a good idea too. Who wouldn't say that thinking about our actions is a good idea? What's Christian about that?

What I'm saying is that I'm not against Christians or Christianity. I am against Christians thinking that Christianity is the only valid moral and spiritual path. I am against Christians insisting that the laws match their religious beliefs.

When does it stop being "just election year pandering" and become a genuine threat to American civil society?

:shrug:

For starters, there is an implication that those who do not follow a "Judeo-Christian" religion -- Islam, say, or Wicca or Shinto or Buddhism or any of the many religious and spiritual beliefs which are indigenous to North America -- are at odds with the law solely because of their beliefs.

Second, it holds up a great deal of sectarian doctrine as a benchmark by which civil laws can be created. Would it be acceptable to mandate attendance at religious services? To make an affirmation of monotheism a requirement for voting? Add an in-depth knowledge of the Ten Commandments to high school civics and citizenship tests?

Third, it is demonstrably false. Christian morals is very explicitly based on poverty; how much of US law is based on the premise that moral people must give up all that they own to the poor? How much of US law is based on the premise that marriage is a one-time deal and may never, EVER be disposed of?

I would never reject a candidate solely because of his or her religious beliefs; the Constitution forbids that sort of test (... but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Article VI, para. 3.) I do, however, see someone who claims that this is a "religious country" based on "religious morals" as someone incapable of defending the Constitution and thus wholely unsuited for holding public office.

:shrug:

For a start very little of Judoeo-Christian morality is specific or original to Judaism or Christianity. It wasn't Abraham or Jesus who first said "hey guys maybe this stealing and rape and murder stuff should be frowned upon".

Secondly there are enormous swathes of Christian and even more so Jewish laws and "morality" which are not only completely absent from US law but contradictory to it in many cases.

Thirdly even if neither of the above was true we are a country that is not even close to entirely Judeo-Christian tradition population, and even further from one that is entirely committed or observant to those faiths.

Fourth even if we were he is a man seeking the highest constitutional office possible, where he will have to swear to defend that constitution which expressly prohibits establishing or preferring one set of religious beliefs over others or none.

there is no president in either religion,
there is no Congress in either religion,
there is no judiciary in either religion,
there is no treaties in either religion,
there is no common defence in either religion,
there is no freedom of speech,
there is no trial by jury,
there is no democracy in either of those religions

for things we don't mind in modern society.

I've told Christians this and I'll say it again, when interest charges are outlawed then they can start talking about the laws of our land being based on Christian principles. After all, Jesus preached against the money changers, yet never said a word about or against abortion or homosexuality. :shrug:

It is a simple question of intellectual and legal history. Common law and moral judgment are not exclusive. They are not one in the same, but to charge that Judeo-Christian belief has had no influence in the formation of our legal system is patently untrue.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

On the contrary, most of our laws come from English Common Law, which itself is derived from a combination of Roman/Germanic/Viking/Briton laws and customs that we inherited through the ages. Most of those were well established before Christianity itself reached those lands. Things such as trial by jury, the amount of jurors, the adversarial legal system, etc. were all derived from legal systems, not religious systems.

it exists perfectly well outside any religious structure and it existed in other cultures which predated Judeo Christian religions.

You think that the Chinese don't have morality?
How about the Hindus, are they lacking in morality?

know much about the caste system? do you know what an untouchable is? do you consider that moral? if not, then you have your answer.

some of the worst violators of human rights.

The statue of MLK is being made in, you guessed it! CHINA!

There is outrage about it, because they stand for everything MLK fought against.


The way the Chinese dealt with opium addiction was rather interesting, communism took over and they simple shot anyone using drugs in the back of the head. No more opium problem! Great moral solution, wouldn't you say?

just like torture didn't come for the US religion
just like ignoring aids until 100,000's of thousands died from it didn't come from US religion
just like poisoning the world with tobacco didn't come from US religion

Taoism didn't support that.

so their morality comes from their religion not their government?

you ought to recognize its been happening around here lately

explains if your virgin daughter is raped to charge the rapist and have him - the rapist - marry your daughter.

Nice morality!

democracy and jury trials and whatnot

oh yeah, the LATE Jerry Falwell, for the much drummed buzz phrase "The Judeo-Christian" tradition. There is no such animal.

If Obama wants to be a preacherman, then he should quit trying to be president and go to theology school. We are a SECULAR nation, not a formally-recognized Theocracy.

He is totally out of line with his reasoning.

from a man who only got religion when it improved his career.

Its certainly an influence, but far from the only one.

Obama kissing the ass of every Republican group he can think of!!!

"Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4158424&mesg_id=4158424

"We are attempting to inject faith into policy."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4158307&mesg_id=4158307

At what point does it stop being pandering to religious nutters and become proof of being a religious nutter?

The first, Edwards. The second, Clinton.

But my point still stands. How are we supposed to know that this is just pandering to the right in a desperate attempt to get votes? (Whether we should support someone so desperate is a question I will leave off for now.) How are we supposed to know that this is not what they actually believe and would never even consider for a moment actually acting on such beliefs? Because they are Democrats? There are Democrats on this very thread who are saying that there is aboslutely nothing wrong with such statements.

Just because all of the leading candidates are making such statements does not make them any more correct. "Argumentum ad populam" remains a logical fallacy.

I suppose we can't know for absolute certain. But since every single viable candidate in history has done that, I think we can safely ignore their words and look at their record.

When I do, there is inevitably a huge cry of, "Ignore their records; pay attention to what they are saying."

:eyes:

It looks like I am no longer "undecided".

I'm going to come down for Edwards. Obama has played the theology card too many times for me to be comfortable with him.

Our candidates seem to be competing for equal opportunity suckage.

But at least Edwards (AFAIK) hasn't come out and said, as Obama did: "It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God.'" I was furious when he said this, but I forced myself to back off and give him another chance after my first choices have dropped out/been marginalized.

he doesn't say
a) our laws are derived from religion
b) morality comes for Judeo Christianity

I think its great to have religion personally.
I just don't want to have religion nationally.

I have no objection to public displays of 10 commandments. I just think we should rotate between all of the religions in our country. Personally I'd start with the native Americans multitude of religions purely because they were here first.

that the 1st amendment doesn't grant "freedom from religion," and does say that he doesn't have a problem with 10 Commandments displays, and does talk about how he's for non-directed school prayer. All just as bad, in my eyes.

And to suggest that I can somehow separate and divorce that from the rest of me is not possible...freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion.

Reading this quote, I don't see that he's saying that the government must support religion. He's literally saying that he is not expected to vaporize that part of his being. I'm okay with this. I have no problem with politicians being personally religious. I just don't want their religion codified in our laws.

I already wrote about 10 commandments displays, as long as they are displayed in context and other religions are also displayed as being part of the 'melting pot' of our society. Its historic; I'm okay.

Non-directed school prayer would depend on the conditions for me.
I think that one should be doable as long as it merely a moment of reflection on yourself, your actions, and your hopes for the future.

"I think its great to have religion personally.
I just don't want to have religion nationally."

That is exactly what the first amendment is all about.

He worships the Giver of Life -- the coffee pot.

(Unitarian joke.)

:eyes:

Or pretending to be.

And I think that Obama is treading on dangerous ground here. If it's ok to inject personal morality into public policy, what's to stop people like Huckabee from rewriting the Constitution according to his twisted interpretation of the Bible.

This is just stupid, in other words.

But he's just like George Bush when it comes to rhetoric - all hat and no cattle.

How much is tactical maneuvering and how much is creeping theocracy?

though?

:shrug:

Judeo Christian principals and traditions

And I for one am grateful for them.

it makes murder, theft, destruction of property, even lying in certain situations, illegal.
It has given us the freedom of speech, freedom to congregate, freedom of religion (ANY religion including none at all), to name but a few.

The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was not to deny God or religion, but to protect us from being forced into a particular religion. The had lived under British rule and The Church of England (the officially established Christian church in England) and wanted the freedom to choose. We have millions of churches in this country, not just one.

We may not wish to participate in another persons beliefs, but we owe them the same right to have their belief that we want.

Try exercising any of these rights, freedoms or whatever you want to call them in a theocratic society. In some you will be put to death.

Long live the Judeo-Christian tradition!

Holy moly.

?

Full Text

Yes this is a 'secular' country, founded on Judeo-Christian Values. Please do not confuse Values with Theology.

This is why the 1st amendment is so important, so that there is not imposed a national religion.

The Declaration of Independence (Independence from England) mentions God several times. As well as many other documents of the Founding Fathers.

Below is George Washington's Proclamation of National Thanksgiving, note his references to God and Country:

(City of New York @ October 3, 1789 )
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

But it's not the one your thinking of. Thomas Jefferson wrote the DoE, and Jefferson was a Deist ( he also had many unfavorable things to say about Christianity). So no sale there. Furthermore the DoE has no relation to the laws of the US.



Full Text




As to George Washington, his references to God don't necessarily mean the Judeo-Christian God. There's considerable debate as to whether or not Washington believed in the Christian religion despite his official affiliation with the Church of England and, later, the Episcopalians.



Full text

In other words, he may have been religious, but it's unlikely he was a Christian and the God he referred to was not the Christian God. Furthermore, even were he a Christian his Thanksgiving speech has no bearing on the laws of our nation so it's a moot point.

Seeing as they all came from the Church of England, a Christian Church then yes it is the Christian God they are referring to. The Judeo-Christian Values where the principles of all of them, including Jefferson for establishing a secular government. I am sure some of them may have had disagreements with the Church of England, it enforcement, that impacted there feelings about religion. Religion is man made after all, Spirituality is God given.

There are still today, tho not many, faith based Christian groups that make reference to God without always using Jesus' name.

The Declaration of Independence and many other documents do mention God because they believed in God. It goes to the state of mind, ie: values, traditions.

The Constitution does not have the references to God because they created a secular not theocratic government. They wanted religious freedom. Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Deist, etc. There was prejudice then, even more than now (if you can imagine that!) they want the country open to all. Even so, all have had to deal with and overcome the prejudices of their particular faith.


Jefferson was raised in the Church of England, at a time when it was the established church in Virginia and only denomination funded by Virginia tax money. Before the Revolution, Jefferson was a vestryman in his local church, a lay position that was part of political office at the time. He also had friends who were clergy, and he supported some churches financially. During his Presidency, Jefferson attended the weekly church services held in the House of Representatives. Jefferson later expressed general agreement with his friend Joseph Priestley's Unitarianism, that is the rejection of the doctrine of Trinity. In a letter to a pioneer in Ohio he wrote, "I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its conscience to neither kings or priests, the genuine doctrine of only one God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.

I don't give a hoot what he did for appearances or what he may have been as a child.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson




He also said some really unpleasant things about Christianity/religion/mixing of Church and State.


http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm




http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/jefferson.htm

"Seeing as they all came from the Church of England, a Christian Church then yes it is the Christian God they are referring to."

...since I was raised a Southern Baptist, and considered myself to be a devout Southern Baptist until into my early adult life, then forever more any time I make reference to God I MUST be referring to the Protestant Christian God that I was raised to worship. So in your view is religion genetic, or just irreversable past the age of 5?

NOOOO possibility at all that any of these men might have turned away from the faith that they inherited and grew up with? Despite all their personal letters and private correspondences that made it quite clear that's EXACTLY what most of them had done by the time they reached adulthood?

These men were products of the Age of Reason. Most who followed Reason or the Enlightenment became Deists, or at least Unitarians. These systems of reason are hardly Christian, unless you view denial of the Trinity or the divinity of Christ as perfectly normal Christians beliefs.

Y'know, the Founders were pretty clear on this, and your opinion diverges from theirs.

Our law is modeled on English common law that goes back well before Christians showed up.

Was English Common Law around in the 2nd century?

The Church of England traces its formal corporate history from the 597 Augustinian mission, stresses its continuity and identity with the primitive universal Western church, and notes the consolidation of its particular independent and national character in the post-Reformation events of Tudor England.
Christianity arrived in Britain in the first or second century (probably via the tin trade route through Ireland and Spain), and existed independently of the Church of Rome, as did many other Christian communities of that era. Records note British bishops, such as Restitutus in attendance at the Council of Arles in 314, and, even more significantly, Britain was the home of Pelagius, who nearly defeated Augustine of Hippo's doctrine of original sin. The Pope sent Saint Augustine from Rome in the 6th century to evangelise the Angles in 597. With the help of Christians already residing in Kent he established his church in Canterbury, the former capital of Kent (it is now Maidstone), and became the first in the series of Archbishops of Canterbury. A later archbishop, the Greek Theodore of Tarsus, also contributed to the organisation of English Christianity.

Why you want to insist the Founders were lying Christians is beyond me.

Lying Christians at that.

More quotes! More quotes! More quotes!

there is no Judeo-Christian tradition -- that's a bullshit term developed to co-opt Judaism.

on English common law, which in turn was based on Anglo-Saxon law with a bit of Celtic code thrown in. Congress is an American adaptation of Parliament, which was an Anglo-Norman adaptation of the Saxon Wittan.

Murder, theft, etc.. were illegal and punishable under the early Germanic and Celtic codes before those peoples ever set eyes on a Christian missionary.

The historical record makes it quite clear he's wrong.

If we're saying the early Americans were culturally Christian, then fine, I think that's pretty clear. I'm not religiously Christian anymore, but having grown up in the US I am culturally Christian - I observe the various Christian holidays (Xmas, Easter, etc), and generally do things that fit in with a culture that is steeped in Christian tradition.

But if he or anyone else is saying that the US was founded on exclusively Christian principles and as a Christian nation, well then I say that bold assertions require bold evidence. Where is it? While drafting the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers these men had more than enough opportunity to instill the fledgling United States with SOME signs of its Christian underpinings. Come on, just ONE mention of Jesus! But out of all those documents you get no mention of Jesus, the Bible, Christianity, the Prophets, the Ten Commandments, Abraham, Moses, the Gospels, or for that matter a specifically Christian God AT ALL. Yes God is mentioned, but always as the Creator, the God of Nature, or the God of Providence. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Enlightenment movement, the Age of Reason, or Deism will immediately recognize these as Deistic terms for the supreme being - and let me tell you, God as envisioned by the Enlightenment and Deism bears little to no resemblance to the God of the Christian Bible. In this view God both created and is bound by Natural Laws, and would in no wise violate those laws. So no miracles, no Son of God, no Resurrection, and no divine intervention in the world of Man. God plays by the rules. In the Deistic view, God gave us Reason, the greatest gift of all. And with Reason Man could find his own salvation, without the need for any semi-divine off-springs of God getting executed by disgruntled soldiers in dusty Levantine countries. That is what the majority of the Founders believed, and that's the overwhelming tone of the Constitution.

The US is founded on Christian principles? Please. Then explain why there is not just acceptance of but EQUALITY given to every other religion on Earth, no mention of any of the key symbols of Christianity, a strict prohibition on any religious test for office, and a strict separation of Church and State - this last is clearly not mentioned word-for-word in the Constitution, but the phrase was penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Baptist ministers of Danbury, CT, and given his status and relevance in the events of the 1780s and 1790s, the Supreme Court has accepted his view in this letter as being an authoritative interpretation of the First Amendment. Christian ministers of the day DENOUNCED the Constitution's lack of Christian symbology, and its failure to give special status to ANY form of Christianity. They clearly didn't think that their new country had been founded as a Christian nation - quite the opposite - many of the Founders and early Presidents were labelled "infidels" for their lack of Christian faith and their failure to make the US a Christian nation by law.

Imagine for a moment what the Constitution would have looked like had the 18th Century's Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons drafted it, then compare it to what we have today, and tell me again how the US was founded as a Christian nation.

By the way if you want quotes scroll up a ways. I put a bunch of them up there. And don't even get me started on the Treaty of Tripoli...

Just so you know.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/clinton.hires.evangelical.consultant.for.presidential.campaign/8863.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

"Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

That goes for all of you!

Unlike some people who call themselves moral Christians.

I tell you, since I've been doing research on our enemies I've been astounded over and over again at the lengths they'll go to in their agenda to screw us over. Distortions, manipulations and outright lies are the foundations of their agenda. They have no qualms about lying to anybody and everybody--even the elderly--to get votes, support and money for their cause. It's utterly despicable.

And they claim they're the "moral values" party. :puke:

trying to out-Christian the Christians.

:sarcasm:

Obama wants a BIG TENT... is he opening the flap???

By using far right wing talking points?

and keep it out!

The quote in the original post is from pg. 218 of The Audacity of Hope (Crown Publishers, 2006). The succeeding three paragraphs (pg. 219-220) show Obama to be anything but a theocrat: