Replies

If a politician is a believing Jew or any other monotheistic religion (not counting Islam of course) then I see no problem. Or at the very least respects and honors the basic principles supporting our country. (Although I don’t see how an atheist could sincerely do so.)

The left and Islam hate all religions (other than Islam of course); Muslims regularly and traditionally slaughter not only Christians but Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and pagans such as animists. They are not solely focused against Christians. Any non-Muzzie is an infidel. If they can’t find any regular infidels, they’ll slaughter the “wrong” sort of Muslims.

A good number of the founders of the country were more Deists or had varying degrees of belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ; yet their words are true and still a guiding light (or could be). Narrowing it as you do is a mistake, our country was certainly founded on Judeo-Christian morals and basic principles, but that does not mean our government should consist solely of Christians who share very specific religious beliefs.

A good number of the founders of the country were more Deists or had varying degrees of belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ

Franklin and Jefferson could be classified as deists, but not Washington; there is far too much evidence to the contrary when his original writings are consulted.

In total about 5% of those characterized as "founders" could fairly be characterized as deists or having a doctrine that was generally accepted as unscriptural.

yet their words are true and still a guiding light (or could be)

The Constitution, while a worthy effort, admittedly left various and incredibly significant open questions, mostly resulting from the fact that it needed to be a negotiation between all the colonies. It was crafted in a very succint manner, in an effort to avoid future wrangling of complex sentences that too specifically tried to spell out every detail. However, the intended meanings in the simple, elegant structure have been so twisted by lawyers over the centuries that the thing has been basically trampled. Man being imperfect, he crafts an imperfect document and goes about interpreting it imperfectly. The overriding key feature of our founding documents, however, is that they create a legitimate nation; as a nation, therefore, we rely on the Constitution and uphold it.

The core of my comment was that people who are called Gentiles in the New Testament, i.e., everyone who is not Jewish, were largely the composition of American at it's founding. They would only have access to God through Christ the mediator. Thus, an appeal to the Creator and "certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is logically resting on the fact that the Bible is a true testimony. The whole thing rests on the Creator, who has endowed with rights, and the New Testament and Jesus Christ, in order for colonial Americans to claim that the God of the Bible has granted them anything. Of course, if the Creator is removed from the document, then we the people were not endowed with these rights, because there would be no Creator to do so; we the people would then simply be claiming them based on our own desires.

Is it any wonder that communists seek to remove the Christian faith from America ? The Declaration of Independence - the original assertion of the rights of citizens - rests on the Christian faith.

If a person speaks of spirits and gods other than the God of the Bible - such talk is nothing but superstition. Simply saying "I feel there is a spirit", or worshiping a tree, etc., all such things are irrational drivel and nonsense. It would make utterly no sense at all to appeal to a rock as a god. The Bible says (eminently clearly) that such talk is offensive to God and true believers are commanded to never worship anything but the one true God; a good starting point to read is Exodus 20.

In Jesus' own words in the Bible:

John 14:6

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Jesus proclaimed that he was truth itself.

In our new-agey, secular-humanist society, which really started in a significant way in the 1800's, people who seek to reject the Bible have typically never actually studied the Bible, yet they feel quite qualified to comment on it. While they would never profess to be an aeronautical engineer or a sculptor unless they studied those fields - and they would laugh at someone who claimed to be them but never studied - they themselves assume that they have an understanding of the Bible, when they have not studied it. If they did truly study it, they would first become scared out of their wits. Because they would begin to realize how demanding God is in his perfect justice and start to have an inkling as to how far they fall short (of course, the first steps one finds oneself taking in belief).