Pledge of Allegiance not what the Founding Fathers had in mind

[HankD]

There is an absolute standard to measure everything against including laws. That is everything that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Only He holds absolute truth. But we have to deal with the laws of one of the kingdoms of this world. None of these including America is perfect. The perfect kingdom is the Kingdom of God.

That said, the Declaration of Independence is imperfect and the Constitution as well. We were discussing a Supreme Court case which seemed to justify calling America a Christian nation. I didn't bring it up but replied to that. There are no Christian nations

Ask a Muslim. I've worked with them, been to dinner at their home with them and they with me (no pork).
Right or wrong, they consider us a Christian nation.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

I'm not moving the goal posts. I was just working through this to understand the case. To me this says that you or anyone can look at the US as a Christian nation but it doesn't have the force of law behind it. There's no legal basis for someone to disobey the law because of their Christian beliefs. They can choose to do so but would be charged with a crime. This is of course true for someone having a different faith as well. Saying I don't have to do something because of my faith is not a valid defense. If a new law is passed allowing this to be done it would have to apply to people of all faiths. Otherwise it would violate the first amendment. This is what's meant by freedom of religion.

Except in cases where being forced to do that "something" would violate the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause. (Which, of course, would have to be successfully defended for each particular case.)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is how Washington, with the help of Hamilton and Madison, put it to the nation (excerpts only):

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf​

In September 1796, worn out by burdens of the presidency and attacks of political foes, George Washington announced his decision not to seek a third term. With the assistance of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Washington composed in a “Farewell Address” his political testament to the nation.​

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.
​

With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts—of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.​

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.​

Ask a Muslim. I've worked with them, been to dinner at their home with them and they with me (no pork).
Right or wrong, they consider us a Christian nation.

and you give a dime what Muslims think! What do Jews think about it?

 

[Reynolds]

and you give a dime what Muslims think! What do Jews think about it?

I care what anybody but a liberal thinks.
I have had several Muslims tell me the US is a Christian nation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I care what anybody but a liberal thinks.
I have had several Muslims tell me the US is a Christian nation.

I wasn’t talking to you.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Except in cases where being forced to do that "something" would violate the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause. (Which, of course, would have to be successfully defended for each particular case.)

The first amendment gives the right to everyone to worship as they see fit. It does not give favoritism to any. It does not give anyone the right to break the law because of their faith.

 

[Reynolds]

I wasn’t talking to you.

It's an open forum.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's an open forum.

Still I was directing my question to Hank.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There is an absolute standard to measure everything against including laws. That is everything that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Only He holds absolute truth. But we have to deal with the laws of one of the kingdoms of this world. None of these including America is perfect. The perfect kingdom is the Kingdom of God.

That said, the Declaration of Independence is imperfect and the Constitution as well. We were discussing a Supreme Court case which seemed to justify calling America a Christian nation. I didn't bring it up but replied to that. There are no Christian nations

Playing semantics is leading to missing the point entirely to the detriment of the nation, its constitution, its citizenry in general, and Christians in particular.

First, we do agree that God’s Word is true and his law supreme. This is also true of most of the founders. Washington’s statement, “With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles,” has already been noted. The truth is that the nation was founded with this in mind--profound influence of Christian principles being inherent in the very idea of such a nation--even of those who did not profess Christ.

The first amendment was to protect citizens against the “slight shades of difference” that would thereby yield no quarter to others. Laws that contradict Christian principles, requiring Christians conscientiously disobey them, would be unconstitutional and thus have no place in the United States. Anyone claiming otherwise is not being honest with American history.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Playing semantics is leading to missing the point entirely to the detriment of the nation, its constitution, its citizenry in general, and Christians in particular.

First, we do agree that God’s Word is true and his law supreme. This is also true of most of the founders. Washington’s statement, “With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles,” has already been noted. The truth is that the nation was founded with this in mind--profound influence of Christian principles being inherent in the very idea of such a nation--even of those who did not profess Christ.

The first amendment was to protect citizens against the “slight shades of difference” that would thereby yield no quarter to others. Laws that contradict Christian principles, requiring Christians conscientiously disobey them, would be unconstitutional and thus have no place in the United States. Anyone claiming otherwise is not being honest with American history.

Here is the First Amendment:

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.

None of your interpretation can be found here.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Here is the First Amendment:

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.

None of your interpretation can be found here.

Yes, interpretation does play an important part, which is why justices need to know the history surrounding the documents. Given that context, your statement is nonsense.

Playing semantics is leading you to miss the point entirely, to the detriment of the nation, its constitution, its citizenry in general, and Christians in particular.

Next I expect someone will claim Washington, Hamilton, and Madison were not even Federalists, though as “Publius” the latter two along with John Jay, the first Chief Justice, wrote The Federalist Papers.

 

[HankD]

and you give a dime what Muslims think! What do Jews think about it?

Yes Christ died for them as well.
I asked them (a young Muslim couple) to come to my family's Christmas Eve dinner (no pork - just turkey) and they said yes!
We explained Christmas and gift giving. No hard sell just the story.
This young couple had just moved into their house and we gave them a nice wall clock.
The young wife was brought to tears.

I'm fine with it, I'm part Jewish on my mother's side.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Yes, interpretation does play an important part, which is why justices need to know the history surrounding the documents. Given that context, your statement is nonsense.

Playing semantics is leading you to miss the point entirely, to the detriment of the nation, its constitution, its citizenry in general, and Christians in particular.

Next I expect someone will claim Washington, Hamilton, and Madison were not even Federalists, though as “Publius” the latter two along with John Jay, the first Chief Justice, wrote The Federalist Papers.

So you think the constitution does not stand as written but rather needs to be reinterpreted in light of history since it was written? Interesting.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Yes, interpretation does play an important part, which is why justices need to know the history surrounding the documents. Given that context, your statement is nonsense.

Playing semantics is leading you to miss the point entirely, to the detriment of the nation, its constitution, its citizenry in general, and Christians in particular.

Next I expect someone will claim Washington, Hamilton, and Madison were not even Federalists, though as “Publius” the latter two along with John Jay, the first Chief Justice, wrote The Federalist Papers.

We even signed a treaty that stated that America is not a Christian nation.

Treaty of Tripoli
The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary), signed in 1796, was the first treaty between the United States of America and Tripoli (now Libya) to secure commercial shipping rights and protect American ships in the Mediterranean Sea from local Barbary pirates.

It was signed in Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was ratified by the United States Senate unanimously without debate on June 7, 1797, taking effect June 10, 1797, with the signature of President John Adams.

Article 11 has been and is a point of contention in popular culture disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Some religious spokesmen claim that—despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate of the text in English which contained Article 11—the page containing Article 11 is missing from the Arabic version of the treaty.[12] The contemporaneous purpose of Article 11 was to make clear that the United States was a secular state[14] and to reassure the Muslims that the agreement was not with an extension of earlier Christian nations that took part in the Crusades.[15]

Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. 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 (Mohammedan) 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.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Yes Christ died for them as well.
I asked them (a young Muslim couple) to come to my family's Christmas Eve dinner (no pork - just turkey) and they said yes!
We explained Christmas and gift giving. No hard sell just the story.
This young couple had just moved into their house and we gave them a nice wall clock.
The young wife was brought to tears.

I'm fine with it, I'm part Jewish on my mother's side.

Has it been long since Ben Shapiro, a practicing Jew, gave a keynote address at Liberty University in which he explained the moral underpinnings of American law from the Ten Commandments, and the necessity thereof?

 

[HankD]

Has it been long since Ben Shapiro, a practicing Jew, gave a keynote address at Liberty University in which he explained the moral underpinnings of American law from the Ten Commandments, and the necessity thereof?

I don't know.

 

[HankD]

Where is this thread going, I still have no problem at all with the Pledge of Allegiance.
I'm a little disappointed with asterisk Tom and his view. But hey, it's Tom .

He and I could start a club for eccentrics, we need one more. kyredneck?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

We even signed a treaty that stated that America is not a Christian nation.

Treaty of Tripoli
The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary), signed in 1796, was the first treaty between the United States of America and Tripoli (now Libya) to secure commercial shipping rights and protect American ships in the Mediterranean Sea from local Barbary pirates.

It was signed in Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was ratified by the United States Senate unanimously without debate on June 7, 1797, taking effect June 10, 1797, with the signature of President John Adams.

Article 11 has been and is a point of contention in popular culture disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Some religious spokesmen claim that—despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate of the text in English which contained Article 11—the page containing Article 11 is missing from the Arabic version of the treaty.[12] The contemporaneous purpose of Article 11 was to make clear that the United States was a secular state[14] and to reassure the Muslims that the agreement was not with an extension of earlier Christian nations that took part in the Crusades.[15]

Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. 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 (Mohammedan) 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.

That failed treaty, with its questionable insertion of article 11 stating that the US was not founded on the Christian religion, was replaced by one much more satisfactory to the US, once the Muslim pirates had been subdued. The corresponding article of the new treaty conspicuously omits any such phrasing, and evidently no other treaties with Muslim nations ever contained such.

For more on this, see Treaty of Tripoli Article 11 Christian nation. This webpage persuasively delves into the particulars of this relating to secularist arguments opposing the foundational influence of Christianity in America.

ARTICLE 14th As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan Nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the High Seas: It is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house; all slaves of the same Religion shall not be Impeded in going to said Consuls house at hours of Prayer. The Consuls shall have liberty and personal security given them to travel within the Territories of each other, both by land and sea, and shall not be prevented from going on board any Vessel that they may think proper to visit; they shall have likewise the liberty to appoint their own Drogoman and Brokers.​

http://projects.leadr.msu.edu/usforeignrelations/files/original/d4b26511e2eac451f6e8b6916d15bf38.pdf​

 

[GoodTidings]

The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

“America wasn’t founded as a theocracy,” he said. “America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.

“I am sorry to tell you,” he continued, “that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ.”

Being a Christian nation and being a theocracy are two different things.

By the way, Greg Boyd teaches Open Theism, a heresy that states that God is essentially not omniscient and doesn't know the future. I would not be running to him for lessons on theology.

America was a Christian nation. Real history and not the junk history that Liberals rely on, teaches that most of our founders and many later leaders were Christians. They were not perfect, and we might not agree with all of their theology, but they were Christians and the US was founded upon Christian principles. The influence of the Bible and Christianity can be seen in our founding documents.

America was not founded to get away from theocracies at all. That is bad history. A theocracy is what you have in Islam. And a biblical theocracy was what they had in ancient Israel before Saul became king.

Historically, the 1st Amendment freedom of religion was meant to protect Christians from the tyranny of the Church of England that had put down roots in the colonies and was harassing the Baptists, particularly the Baptists of Virginia.

It was John Leland and Isaac Bacchus with the help of Thomas Jefferson who managed to help bring into being the 1st Amendment and guarantee of religious freedom.

I don't think anyone thinks that America is the light of the world, but America IS the greatest nation to ever exist on earth and it has been a nation that safeguarded Christian religious freedom and religious freedom for others as well. And it is because America was founded as a Christian nation that other religions are afforded religious freedom that you don't find in any other country of the same quality and to the same degree that it is found in the US.

If the Liberals had their way, America would be an LGBTQ/Muslim/Socialist/Atheist nation.

 

[GoodTidings]

Then it is not a Christian nation then. We agree.

You don't know the difference between saying that the US is a Christian nation and saying that it is theocracy. When we say that America is a Christian nation, we are talking about its overall character. A theocracy is a whole different thing. Islam is a theocracy. Muslim nations are theocracies. The US as a Christian nation doesn't look anything like a theocracy.