• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

Flashback: the Pilgrims who set sail on the Mayflower to escape religious persecution
Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, has said religious people are fleeing the country like the Pilgrim Fathers aboard the Mayflower because they are being denied the freedom to live in accordance with their beliefs.
Chief Rabbi: Equality laws leading to new Mayflower exodus
The Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks Photo: PA

7:00AM BST 01 Jul 2011

In 1620, a group of English separatists, who became known as the Pilgrims, set sail for America to escape religious persecution amid the volatile religious and political climate. under James I.

Under the 1559 Act of Uniformity, their rejection of the Church of England was declared unlawful leading many members of their East Midlands congregation to flee to Holland.

However, concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group set out to create a new colony in North America and chartered the Mayflower, a cargo ship, for the purpose. They departed from a site near Mayflower Steps in Plymouth, Devon in September 1620.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...ayflower-to-escape-religious-persecution.html


once again religious persecution started the whole ball rolling.


But they didn't leave Europe because of it. They didn't go to America to be free of religious persecution. So Americans should really stop pretending that they did. It's a corrupted version of history intended to tell a story rather than the truth. Most Americans are familiar with the fairytale story, but not what actually happened. How many Americans know half of them lived in Holland where they had religious freedom? Not many. How many Americans know the pilgrims actually chartered TWO ships; but the 2nd ship (the Speedwell) was taking on water on the channel crossing and was sold at an English auction (and that this was, according to some scholars, done fraudulently)? The true history isn't so picture perfect for whatever story people like to tell.


Plymouth
City in England
Plymouth is a city on the south coast of Devon, England, about 37 miles south-west of Exeter and 190 miles west-south-west of London, between the mouths of the rivers Plym to the east and Tamar to the west where they join Plymouth Sound. Wikipedia

What's the relevance of posting this? I think we're all aware that Plymouth is a city in England.
 
But they didn't leave Europe because of it. They didn't go to America to be free of religious persecution. So Americans should really stop pretending that they did. It's a corrupted version of history intended to tell a story rather than the truth. Most Americans are familiar with the fairytale story, but not what actually happened. How many Americans know half of them lived in Holland where they had religious freedom? Not many. How many Americans know the pilgrims actually chartered TWO ships; but the 2nd ship (the Speedwell) was taking on water on the channel crossing and was sold at an English auction (and that this was, according to some scholars, done fraudulently)? The true history isn't so picture perfect for whatever story people like to tell.


Plymouth
City in England
Plymouth is a city on the south coast of Devon, England, about 37 miles south-west of Exeter and 190 miles west-south-west of London, between the mouths of the rivers Plym to the east and Tamar to the west where they join Plymouth Sound. Wikipedia

What's the relevance of posting this? I think we're all aware that Plymouth is a city in England.

Right and you have one of those linky thingy's that has proff of your assertion.

Seems like you keep arguing with all these published sources but yet to back your BS assertions with verifiable page links.
 
But they didn't leave Europe because of it. They didn't go to America to be free of religious persecution. So Americans should really stop pretending that they did. It's a corrupted version of history intended to tell a story rather than the truth. Most Americans are familiar with the fairytale story, but not what actually happened. How many Americans know half of them lived in Holland where they had religious freedom? Not many. How many Americans know the pilgrims actually chartered TWO ships; but the 2nd ship (the Speedwell) was taking on water on the channel crossing and was sold at an English auction (and that this was, according to some scholars, done fraudulently)? The true history isn't so picture perfect for whatever story people like to tell.


Plymouth
City in England
Plymouth is a city on the south coast of Devon, England, about 37 miles south-west of Exeter and 190 miles west-south-west of London, between the mouths of the rivers Plym to the east and Tamar to the west where they join Plymouth Sound. Wikipedia

What's the relevance of posting this? I think we're all aware that Plymouth is a city in England.



My assertions was they left from England, not Holland ..........

Just wanted you to confirm that is where the Mayflower left from, so these Holland pilgrims sailed from England .................

Looks like they were English pilgrims escaping religious persecution as per my original assertion.


By the way who asked about questions??

Seems like I have a ton of questions to answer, perhaps it was an intuitive statement on my part.

Roflmmfao ............................
 
They stopped in Plymouth on the way. They had been living in Holland. They chose to leave because they wanted to keep both their non-conforming religion AND their English culture, which would have been in danger had they continued to live in Holland. The only place they could have both was the new world. Their destination was an English colony, so they made arrangements to sail there on an English ship. That meant stopping in England.

This is common knowledge to anyone with more than a grade school knowledge of american history.
 
And it's all irrelevant. Our society (assuming one is talking about the United States as a society) is no more based on Judaeo-Christian myths than it is on the myths of the gods of Mount Olympus. Many religious traditions are part of our culture. Certainly there are many who live in delusion that their preferred myths actually happened, but the myths give evidence that they are reflections of the societies in which they were engendered, not formative tenets around which the society developed. DrDoomNGloom has it backwards.

Societies that allow themselves to be governed by these religious beliefs are the ones that remain backward. Societies that learn to discard religious dogmas that either impede or detract from progress are those that grow stronger. The christian bible is replete with commandments that would keep women in the role of property as reflected in the societies in which it was written. Modern progressive societies do not have laws forbidding women to teach or hold positions of authority over men. Ditto the subject of slavery. These are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to evidence that 1st world societies are not based on principles derived from the Judaeo-Christian traditions.

As an aside I might also point out that this is an international forum. "Our" society is global. DrDoomNGloom's comments belie an unwillingness to consider the rest of the world.
 
By the way who asked about questions?
The very first person to post following YOUR post saying you had some questions for us.
If you master scroll technology, you could go back there and find it.
Seems like I have a ton of questions to answer, perhaps it was an intuitive statement on my part.
No, you said: "I have a couple of quick questions for all those in these threads." Nothing about insisting on your thesis in the face of all controversy.
 
xian
[Chinese shyahn]

noun
1.
hsien.
Xian
[shee-ahn]
noun, Pinyin.
1.
a city in and the capital of Shaanxi province, in central China: capital of the ancient Chinese Empire.
2.
Abbreviation for 'Christian'; cf. 'Xmas'.

The use of the letter 'X' as an abbreviation for 'Christ' is widespread in English.
Yep applies to all forms of soiciety.

The first American society, before there was such a split in sub groups.

They were all escaping religious persecution and unfair laws.

Little is known about the first American society, nor how many (if any) sub groups it comprised. Predecessors of the Clovis people may have migrated south along the North American coastlines, although there are arguments for many migrations along several different routes, up to 14,000 years ago.

The Mayflower has exactly fuck-all to do with the first American society; not only are they over a dozen millennia too late, but they were hardly a uniform, self-contained society, as they interacted with the local natives.

They were escaping religious persecution, but only in the sense that they felt that preventing them from dictating how others should behave was persecution (an odd definition that persists in US Christianity to this day). The laws that they were escaping were not unfair, but rather far to fair for their puritanical taste.

Of course, you could say that you don't count the Native Americans and their predecessors on the continent as 'Americans' on the basis that 'America' refers to the USA as a nation, rather than America as a landmass; but in that case, the first American society didn't exist until 1776 - at which time American society already comprised a large number of 'sub-groups' by any reasonable definition - many of whom were not xian; and those who were being part of a wide range of different xian denominations and sects.
 
Judeo-Christian Roots of America's Founding Ideals and Documents

Dear Friends,

Most states have now put in place a series of standards and performance objectives which students must attain in order to graduate from high school. As a member of Arizona's Standards Committee for Social Studies I was anxious to get some meaningful standards in place relating to an understanding of our roots. We were successful. Two of these requirements are that students must be able to identify fundamental principles in the Declaration of Independence and also be able to explain American moral and ethical ideals which have their antecedent in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

A number of teachers in my state have asked for resource material relating to these and other standards they are required to teach. In an attempt to respond to their request, the following is published as part of a more complete compilation called Sources. Sources also includes sample assessment questions for student study.

Listed below are a few principles or ideals to which the Founders adhered. Given immediately following each one are passages showing Judeo-Christian roots of that principle and then passages reflecting the use of the principle in America's founding documents. This list is by no means meant to be exhaustive, but only to exemplify the concept that America's Founding ideals have their roots in Judeo-Christian tradition. It should not be surprising that the Bible is quoted often as the source of the Founders' thinking for studies have shown the Bible is by far the most often quoted source in all of the publications and speeches of the founding era.
Principle: Reliance on the Providence of God

Judeo-Christian Roots

"For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee. O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones. And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children. In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee. Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me: whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake. Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. (Isaiah 54:10 - 17)

American Founding Ideal:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; .. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." (Declaration of Independence. See also John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987, pp. 355-377)
Principle: Law of God forms basis of good human laws

Judeo-Christian Roots

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psalms 19:7 - 8)

American Founding Ideal:

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." John Adams, February 22, 1756 (Federer, William J., America's God and Country Encyclopedia Of Quotations , FAME Publishing, Coppell, Texas, 1994, p.5)

"These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil .... This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this...

"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures ... [and] are found upon comparison to be really part of the original law of nature. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. William Blackstone (Federer, p.52)
Principle: Religion and Morality form basis of Liberty

Judeo-Christian Roots

"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." (Leviticus 25:10)

"Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 34:17)

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14)

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)

American Founding Ideal:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams (Federer, p. 10)

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" George Washington (Federer, p.660)

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion ... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." George Washington's Farewell Address
Principle: The Equality of Man

Judeo-Christian Roots

"Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect [discriminate against] persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it." (Deuteronomy 1:16-17)

"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect [discriminate against] the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor." (Leviticus 19:15)

"God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34)

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

American Founding Ideal:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Declaration of Independence

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States" U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9, Paragraph 8)
Principle: God-Given Human Rights

Judeo-Christian Roots

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27 - 28)

"Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet.. (Exodus 20:13-17)

American Founding Ideal:

".that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Declaration of Independence)
Principle: Government authority by Consent of the Governed

Judeo-Christian Roots

"Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment." (Deuteronomy 16:18)

"Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes." (Deuteronomy 1:13 - 15)

American Founding Ideal:

".governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (Declaration of Independence)

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government" (U.S Constitution, Art. IV, Section 4)
Principle: Sanctity of Contract

Judeo-Christian Roots

"If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." (Numbers 30:2)

American Founding Ideal:

"No state shall.pass any. law impairing the obligation of contracts." (U.S Constitution, Art. I, Section 10, Paragraph 1)
Principle: Two Witnesses

Judeo-Christian Roots

"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death." (Deuteronomy 17:6)

American Founding Ideal:

"No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." (U.S Constitution, Art. III, Section 3, Paragraph 1)
Principle: No Corruption of Blood

Judeo-Christian Roots

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deut. 24: 6)

American Founding Ideal:

".but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." (U.S Constitution, Art. III, Section 3, Paragraph 2)
Principle: Sabbath Day Excepted

Judeo-Christian Roots

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work." (Exodus 20:8-10)

American Founding Ideal:

"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it." (U.S Constitution, Art. I, Section 7, Paragraph 2)
Principle: Separation of Church and State

Judeo-Christian Roots

"Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar's, and unto God the things which be God's." (Luke 20:25)

American Founding Ideal:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (First Amendment, U.S. Constitution)
Principle: Teaching the Law of Liberty to Next Generation

Judeo-Christian Roots

"And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. (Deuteronomy 6:7)

American Founding Ideal:

"Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges, let it be written in primers, in spelling books and in almanacs, let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation." (Abraham Lincoln, "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions", January 27, 1838)

From this sampling it can be readily seen that no nation has a closer parallel to the Judeo-Christian tradition than the United States of America.

Sincerely,

Earl Taylor, Jr.

http://www.nccs.net/2003-05-judeo-christian-roots-of-americas-founding-ideals-and-documents.php
 
From this sampling it can be readily seen that no nation has a closer parallel to the Judeo-Christian tradition than the United States of America.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli; submitted before the US senate by President John Adams, and unanimously ratified by the senate on June 7th, 1797

It's difficult to imagine that the early senate would've unanimously voted for a treaty that contains those words if they felt they lived in a country founded upon christianity.

Also, no nation has a closer parallel to the judeo-christian tradition? You wot mate? Pretty sure Vatican city has you beat no matter what.
 
It is certainly possible to provide a long list of parallels between American societal norms and tenets of Christianity. Nobody ever argued that it could not.

It is also possible to demonstrate that many civilizations existed prior to the advent of Judaism and Christianity that also embodied many of those societal norms.

And it is possible to demonstrate that many of the tenets of Judaism and Christianity are not embodied by American society.

American society has certainly been influenced by deluded people who believe their christian god is real. That is not the same as being derived from.

What's more, American society is inexorably moving away from allowing itself to be stifled by irrelevant, oppressive and backward christian doctrines. That is a good thing.
 
Two of these requirements are that students must be able to identify fundamental principles in the Declaration of Independence and also be able to explain American moral and ethical ideals which have their antecedent in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The Declaration of Independence is mostly one great big Fuck You to King George. How is that grouped with founding documents?
Is there any legislation that's based on the document? CAN there be any?
 
One can cherry pick passages out of the Bible(s) to support tons of view, as the Bible(s) is hardly a coherent singular document. Picking on just one of the comments:
American Founding Ideal:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Declaration of Independence

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States" U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9, Paragraph 8)
Principle: God-Given Human Rights

Judeo-Christian Roots

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27 - 28)

"Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet.. (Exodus 20:13-17)

This “American Founding Ideal” can be far better traced to the Renaissance, than the Bible, as far as “roots” go. The Bible if anything, is authoritarian, not
democratic. This is especially true in the Tanakh, whether one considers the older Judges period, or the later royal dictatorships. God picks them, and pretty much fuck off if you don’t like it. The writers of the NT never envisioned that people of their new cult would ever be strolling the halls of power, and essentially never talked about what believers in this Jesus-god should do with such power. Acts is about as close as it gets, and within Acts we see what today would most accurately be called authoritarian socialism.

As far as laws go, one might as well state that we have Sumerian/Akkadian roots, as the 2050 BC Code of Ur-Nammu lists similar legal edicts, and is far older than the Exodus writing.

“If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.”

Never mind that we don’t have laws against lying generally, nor against “coveting”. Nor do we have laws against mixing differing fabric fibers, nor against eating shellfish. And we don’t stone our children to death for swearing at our parents.


With all the above said, it shouldn’t be miss-construed to suggest that Christians didn’t influence the formation of the US or its form of government. But the Bible(s) are very old documents, that the religion makers have reinterpreted multitudes of times to support their evolving theology. The holy book is further removed as an influence factor, than the dogmas/theologies of the various Christian sects of their period, just as it is today. Today we have evangelicals/fundamentalists vying to influence our government/society in ways quite opposed to the desires of Christians of various sects like the UMC and ELCA, with the RCC sect plowing another independent strand between the two. We have sects that have never met a war they didn’t mind charging into, to sects that absolutely will not pick up a gun to commit war. We have sects like the Missionary Baptists with extreme prudish ideals, to sects that are damn close to free love. Will the real Bible Christian group please stand up….
 
Two of these requirements are that students must be able to identify fundamental principles in the Declaration of Independence and also be able to explain American moral and ethical ideals which have their antecedent in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The Declaration of Independence is mostly one great big Fuck You to King George. How is that grouped with founding documents?
Is there any legislation that's based on the document? CAN there be any?

Is that how you view that document??
From wikipedia
[Snip]
The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, references to the text of the Declaration were few for the next four score years. Abraham Lincoln made it the centerpiece of his rhetoric (as in the Gettysburg Address of 1863), and his policies. Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence.
This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[7] containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[8] The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.[9]
It provided inspiration to numerous national declarations of independence throughout the world. Historian David Armitage, after examining the influence of the American "Declaration" on over 100 other declarations of independence, says:
The American Revolution was the first outbreak of the contagion of sovereignty that has swept the world in the centuries since 1776. Its influence spread first to the Low Countries and then to the Caribbean, Spanish America, the Balkans, West Africa, and Central Europe in the decades up to 1848.... Declarations of independence were among the primary symptoms of this contagion of sovereignty.[10]
[/Snip]


Those moral standards were based on Judea-Christian beliefs, no matter how much you would like to you can not change that.

So why did we not find 120 reasons to attack the muslim religion or any other religion??

What scares you so much about Christianity you have to come and wage verbal war against it??

Are you gay??

I have a connection, just a logical question that I can connect with a relevant assertion.
 
A bit about the National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS), as this was the source for the right wing view of history, per this linky:
http://www.nccs.net/2003-05-judeo-ch...-documents.php

The NCCS is hardly a balanced source for the history of influences on our founding fathers, as it is on the far right wing side of the Repug party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Constitutional_Studies
The NCCS has found a number of new organizational allies among Constitutionalist groups such as the John Birch Society, the Eagle Forum, and the Oath Keepers. Additionally, in the media, the NCCS "found a powerful voice in the form of Glenn Beck, who is a Mormon himself and used his Fox News platform to advocate for NCCS books and ideas.
 
From this sampling it can be readily seen that no nation has a closer parallel to the Judeo-Christian tradition than the United States of America.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli; submitted before the US senate by President John Adams, and unanimously ratified by the senate on June 7th, 1797

It's difficult to imagine that the early senate would've unanimously voted for a treaty that contains those words if they felt they lived in a country founded upon christianity.

Also, no nation has a closer parallel to the judeo-christian tradition? You wot mate? Pretty sure Vatican city has you beat no matter what.

I don't know. The Founding Fathers were setting up a system that they referred to as a moral ideal while at the same time they were owning slaves, keeping women as second class citizens, enshrining the rights of the wealthy to hold onto power, etc. Sounds pretty Christian to me.
 
Actually modern Christianity in the US has been hugely modified by the ideals of the founders who were for the most part liberal humanists and/or deists. You seem to be reversing cause and effect. Christianity today is not the Christianity of the 1600s or earlier. They use the same Bible but interpret it very differently, stressing different sections and ignoring different sections. The writings of Voltaire had much more influence on the shaping or our governmental form than the Bible.

However, the nature of the Spanish Inquisition is a much better example of governance based on the Bible and Judeo-Christian tradition. The ten commandments (especially the first four which our Constitution explicitly says the government can't enforce) and biblical laws were zealously enforced. They certainly had no tolerance for anyone who violated biblical dictates and they obeyed the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".
 
Last edited:
The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, references to the text of the Declaration were few for the next four score years. Abraham Lincoln made it the centerpiece of his rhetoric (as in the Gettysburg Address of 1863), and his policies. Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence.


Abraham Lincoln did not write the declaration; so I fail to see why one would cite him as a source on its inspirations. Incidentally, it seems odd for you to keep appealing to Lincoln; given that Lincoln does not appear to have been particularly christian. He often criticized christianity. Indeed, some of his closest friends described him as an atheist. Not that it particularly matters what, if anything, he believed.


It provided inspiration to numerous national declarations of independence throughout the world. Historian David Armitage, after examining the influence of the American "Declaration" on over 100 other declarations of independence, says:
The American Revolution was the first outbreak of the contagion of sovereignty that has swept the world in the centuries since 1776. Its influence spread first to the Low Countries and then to the Caribbean, Spanish America, the Balkans, West Africa, and Central Europe in the decades up to 1848.... Declarations of independence were among the primary symptoms of this contagion of sovereignty.[10]
[/Snip]

This is a rather incomplete and wrong view of history. The American revolution was most certainly *not* the "first" modern outbreak of 'sovereignty' or democracy. And indeed, the US Declaration of Independence was directly inspired by a very similar declaration of independence of a country that in many respects served as the model for the early US government; namely my own. The declaration of independence has often been compared to the 1581 Act of Abjuration; and it is quite evident by reading the act that the US declaration was inspired by it. Indeed, Jefferson was quite familiar with the Act and the Dutch republic.

Of the two, the Act of Abjuration is the only one to include explicitly christian language (by referring to God instead of a creator, and referring to bishops); though like the declaration, it does nothing to establish christianity as the basis for the new country. The Act of Abjuration, and not the declaration, was the first time in known history that a people deposed a ruler on the basis of him having violated the social contract with his subjects. It is a shame that just as with the pilgrims, we see you choosing ignorance of your own history and the ways in which it has been influenced so that you can hold fast to an idealized (and christianized) fairytale. After all, if the declaration was just inspired by the declaration of independence of another country instead of being divinely inspired and the first of its kind, it loses its 'mystical authority', doesn't it?


Compare the preamble of the Declaration of Independence (1776):

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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.



With the preamble of the Act of Abjuration (1581):

As it is apparent to all that a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them. And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view. And particularly when this is done deliberately, unauthorized by the states, they may not only disallow his authority, but legally proceed to the choice of another prince for their defense. This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives.



Those moral standards were based on Judea-Christian beliefs, no matter how much you would like to you can not change that.

Forgetting that neither Christianity, nor Judaism, came up with these moral standards.
 
The Declaration of Independence is mostly one great big Fuck You to King George. How is that grouped with founding documents?
Is there any legislation that's based on the document? CAN there be any?


Those moral standards were based on Judea-Christian beliefs, no matter how much you would like to you can not change that.
You, or the page you quoted, found parellels in Christain beliefs.
What do you have to show that this isn't a coincidence? That the contents are actually and intentionally based on Judeo-Christain beliefs? Anything?

So why did we not find 120 reasons to attack the muslim religion or any other religion??
Huh?
Dude, you're responding to a single poster's thread. Not a purpose of the website. And you're attributing the title to the entire board.
Reading comprehension problem there.

And, frankly, i'm less than impressed with Kyroot's efforts and have said so in the thread.
But again, facts are not really your issue, you just want to take umbrage.
What scares you so much about Christianity you have to come and wage verbal war against it??
Swing and a miss, Dr.
I'm not scared of Christainity and would be quite willing to leave it completely alone if the members weren't so intent on how I live my life.
Are you gay??
No... Although thumpers HAVE historically opposed the relationship I DO enjoy by quoting (and misquoting) biblical verse in their protests to pretend that God is against what I and my partner enjoy.
I have a connection, just a logical question that I can connect with a relevant assertion.
I think you're just making shit up, personally, but that's okay. It's not like I expect much better at this point.
 
Back
Top Bottom