This is a Christian Nation

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ^ | Feb. 29, 1892

[Vision]

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." -- Thomas Paine

And what does your quote have anything to do with the fact that this country was founded by Christians, so all religions could seek asylum here?

[DannyTN]

"Because he (Paine) was a disgrace."

You're not kidding. Look at this history I found on Paine. The only thing positive he seems to have done was to right Common Cause. He fled during the revolution. Excerpted from Thomas Paine History

His career turned to journalism while in Philadelphia, and suddenly, Thomas Paine became very important. In 1776, he published Common Sense, a strong defense of American Independence from England. He joined the Continental Army and wasn't a success as a soldier, but he produced The Crisis (1776-83), which helped inspire the Army. This pamphlet was so popular that as a percentage of the population, it was read by more people than today watch the Superbowl.

But, instead of continuing to help the Revolutionary cause, he returned to Europe and pursued other ventures, including working on a smokeless candle and an iron bridge. In 1791-92, he wrote The Rights of Man in response to criticism of the French Revolution. This work caused Paine to be labeled an outlaw in England for his anti-monarchist views. He would have been arrested, but he fled for France to join the National Convention.

By 1793, he was imprisoned in France for not endorsing the execution of Louis XVI.

[xm177e2]

I would like some historical evidence to your claims.

Okay. Look what the right-wing French monarchists did after they took back their country and abolished the Republic. That, and every single government ever created in Christian Europe until the founding of the USA (not a single democracy among them). Catholics, Protestants, they all messed up.

[DannyTN]

"We are under self-rule."

I agree, we are under self-rule. And that means that we have the same obligation to rule the country wisely and attend to the same things that God told various kings to attend to. We must pick our elected officials wisely.

[Vision]

No, I mean I would like you to provide evidence supporting your statement on how the greatness of our country is from founding fathers who worshiped many religions.

[Grut]

Well, OK, America is a Christian Country. But what kind of Christian? Congregationalist? Methodist? Catholic? AME? Mormon? Snake-kisser?

[Tailgunner Joe]

PUBLIC CITIZEN v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 491 U.S. 440 (1989) - The Church of the Holy Trinity entered into a contract with an alien residing in England to come to the United States to serve as the director and pastor of the church. Notwithstanding the fact that this agreement fell within the plain language [491 U.S. 440, 474] of the statute, which was conceded to be the case, see ibid., the Court overrode the plain language, drawing instead on the background and purposes of the statute to conclude that Congress did not intend its broad prohibition to cover the importation of Christian ministers. The central support for the Court's ultimate conclusion that Congress did not intend the law to cover Christian ministers is its lengthy review of the "mass of organic utterances" establishing that "this is a Christian nation," and which were taken to prove that it could not "be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation."

[xm177e2]

I would like you to provide evidence supporting your statement on how the greatness of our country is from founding fathers who worshiped many religions.

What I said was that it "might be why our Republic has survived for so long," not that it was essential to our greatness. Just that if they had all been Christians, they might have done something foolish and our Republic would not have lasted.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Are you suggesting that the Bourbon monarchy was worse than the French Comittee of Public Safety's bloody Reign of Terror?

The bolshevik interpretation of the establishment clause, Godless "social contract" and Tom Paine-like hatred of religion are the legacy of the failed French Revolution and are foreign to the American tradition.

[Vision]

Why do you don't hold the obvious view, that they were Christians wise enough to understand that?

[Eastbound]

"I agree, we are under self-rule. And that means that we have the same obligation to rule the country wisely and attend to the same things that God told various kings to attend to. We must pick our elected officials wisely."

The only wisdom we need in selecting our officials is to be certain we hold them accountable for neglect of duty and for violations of their oath of office. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to be a good administrator or to shuffle papers.

Self-rule is for people who know who the Ruler of self is.

[xm177e2]

Are you suggesting that the Bourbon monarchy was worse than the French Comittee of Public Safety's bloody Reign of Terror?

No. Having a little diversity in the constitutional drafting comittee probably wouldn't have done much to improve France. I mean, that country was messed up at that time (and I'm not sure it's ever gotten better). I suppose monarchy was the best the French could have hoped for, maybe that was a bad example.

All I said was that an all-Christian group might have messed up. Not that diversity is inherently necessary for the creation of a good government or that governments founded by diverse groups are always better.

[DannyTN]

"The only wisdom we need in selecting our officials is to be certain we hold them accountable for neglect of duty and for violations of their oath of office. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to be a good administrator or to shuffle papers."

I couldn't dissagree more. Would you hire anybody to work for you on the premise that if they screw up, you will hold them accountable? Or would you try to hire talent that can get the job done with integrity?

We need a lot more wisdom in hiring our elected officials than just holding them accountable.

[xm177e2]

that they were Christians wise enough to understand that?

?

When did I say the non-Christian founding fathers were the only wise ones?

Frankly, the Framers were an amazing group of men who accomplished an amazing thing. Our Constitution cannot be credited solely to deists, in fact the greater share of credit should go to Christians. But that's not the same as saying that this is a "Christian nation." It's possible for Christians to found something secular. Every time a couple Christian businessmen get together to form a partnership, they are not always creating a "Christian" company.

[malakhi]

but be prepared for the onslaught of libertines and libertarians who crave vice and immorality

Nice job of poisoning the well.

[rdb3]

Please, have your weird moments to yourself.

Where was I "weird?"

$710.96... The price of freedom.

[Eastbound]

"We need a lot more wisdom in hiring our elected officials than just holding them accountable."

I agree, of course. The right person for the right job. Credentials, interviews, elections, selections, job descriptions, whatever it takes to insure the electorate they will be getting the best bang for the buck.

[VOA]

"This is a Christian Nation"

Yes, and more.
A good book about the Judeo-Christian nature of the USA was produced by Michael Novak (Catholic)
and well-praised by conservative Jewish commenator Dennis Prager.

"On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding"
by Michael Novak

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554686/qid=1089069591/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4052247-2311911?v=glance&s=books

[Vision]

When did I say the non-Christian founding fathers were the only wise ones?

You said Some of the most important framers weren't even Christians, which might be why our Republic has survived for so long

I had wanted you to explain why you thought this is the case.

[general_re]

"I should think the potential of this doctrine to allow judges to substitute their personal predelictions for the will of the Congress is so self-evident from the case which spawned it as to require no further discussion of its susceptibility to abuse."

But of course, you have no problem with activist judges, so long as they're the right sort of activist judges. Isn't that right?