Bush's Remarks on Religion Offends Atheists

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 1/14/05 | Melanie Hunter

[Quix]

You're still failing to respond to the essentials of the Mars colony analogy.

[jackbob]

Wow - I did not know you were over here. I might have tried a little harder to settle it with you on the other thread. Sorry.

Thus far there are 6 self announced atheists here (including myself). Can I increase that count to 7 ?

[tob2]

A long distance wave Navy Gal!

[jackbob]

There is nothing in the context that necessitate the words in article eleven that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

If you know different, speak up. But implying an untruth in defense of your position, seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I have not lied to make any point here.

[jonestown]

Quix wrote:

I can't FORCE you to notice the facts in the founding documents and the early founding fathers's papers.

Nor can I force you to face the facts I've outlned about our Constitution, and its lack of references to Christian principles or values.

You are free to ignore the evidence aplenty. I have no burning desire to try and force you to see the obvious.

Show me your 'evidence' in our Constitution. You can't.

Interestingly, somewhat like God, our founders left enough wiggle room for diversity that you can very slightly rationally make your claims. Those claims don't really jive with history nor the founding documents and associated early papers.

The primary founding document, our Constitution, leaves you no wiggle room. Feel free to squirm away.

But, hey, Communistic revisionism is a growth industry in our era. Help yourself and pay accordingly.

Your feeble effort to tar me is noted. Pitiful ploy.

How could a Constitution modeled on our own be taken over by fanatics? It's been done and is increasingly being done in our era. Evidently your poor history background is matched by blindness to the news.

The religious & the atheistic fanatics who are trying to 'take over' in this country are not using Constitutional methods. Both factions ignore our principles of individual freedom; - and catch 22, - are blinded to that fact by their own backgrounds of unquestioned 'faith for the cause'.

Sad people.

[DocRock]

"There is nothing in the context that necessitate the words in article eleven that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

I may be mistaken, but I thought the peace treaty you reference was to secure the release of prisoners, (and it worked).


This is a Christian Nation and the opening statement of our first official governing document makes it crystal clear that this nation is founded on Christian beliefs and we have only become a great nation because we mix politics and religion.


The Mayflower Compact,
(November 1620) IN The Name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country a Voyage to plant the first colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. In WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth and of Scotland, the fifty fourth. Anno Domini, 1620.

Churches should be interested in winning souls for Christ but also preserving the political environment that many of our forefathers fought and died for so that our religious institutions could flourish.

[jonestown]

jackbob wrote:

Thus far there are 6 self announced atheists here (including myself). Can I increase that count to 7 ?

---

No.. I have no faith in either belief. -- I prefer logic.

Call me agnostic.

[Quix]

Your responses have persistently been a riot.

I guess that you are in usual form is a testimony to good health.

Which is welcome.

As I said, I don't care to try and prove my side to you. I leave that to others more energized and with the particular ref's closer to their fingers.

It is sad that you aren't better acquainted with our history from a more fair-minded perspective.

[Quix]

Good job.

You are aware, I assume, that these naysayers have no willingness and perhaps little capacity to be influenced by historical facts . . . and too often, little by logical facts.

[Quix]

Logic in a house of shattered mirrors.

LOL.

[GOPologist]

Atheistic remarks offend me. Where can I direct this?

Would the media please support me?

God Bless America!

[GOPologist]

Great comments by three Democrats.

Let's substitute the word, Atheism, for each time God is mentioned and see if it makes sense. The atheists never could even exist if it weren't for God.

BTW, when I fought in WW II, I remember the following statement: "There are no atheists in foxholes!"

[Bean Counter]

Where were these peple when Clinton had both of his Inaugurals; when Clinton had prayers at them, when Clinton was filmed coming out of every Church in sight?

The constant drumbeat about this from the Left is getting very tiresome.

[jonestown]

Evidently your poor history background is matched by blindness to the news.

Historically, the religious & the atheistic fanatics who have tried to 'take over' in this country do not use Constitutional methods. Both factions ignore our principles of individual freedom; - and catch 22, - are blinded to that fact by their own backgrounds of unquestioned 'faith for the cause'.
Sad people.

Your responses have persistently been a riot.

Thanks. -- Yours have also been amusing.

I guess that you are in usual form is a testimony to good health. Which is welcome. As I said, I don't care to try and prove my side to you. I leave that to others more energized and with the particular ref's closer to their fingers.

Whatever.

It is sad that you aren't better acquainted with our history from a more fair-minded perspective.

Another amusing comment. -- History is not "fair". Never has been. It is documented fact. Our primary document refutes your view that the USA was founded on Christian values. Learn to live with it.

[jackbob]

I have seen nothing recorded about the situation that necessitated the first sentence of Article eleven, of the twelve article treaty. If you have, please state what it was and explain.

Presenting the legal document establishing a subordinate colony by a bunch of self proclaimed loyal subjects of a European King does not qualify as a founding document of a sovereign nation. You need to come forward 156 years for that.

What's interesting here, is that when it was finally done, it was done mostly by good honest Christian men who were not about to dirty their God with the politics of a nation. Shame that this is not the case today.

[Quix]

You are clearly the one having trouble

living with

the origin of the values in our founding documents.

I guess you need to try harder to deal with it and live with it.

You have yet to respond to the essentials in the Mars analogy. Probably too uncomfortable for you to deal with it, too.

[Quix]

You evidently subscribe to the reality that

a fanatic

is someone who believes in something more strongly than you believe in whatever it is you believe in.

Actually, I tend to think of your espoused philosophy of life more as an avoidance of belief . . . a certain kind of philosophical timidity about eternal issues.

Which, certainly, from God's perspective, is still a decision--whether you want to own it, or not.

[jackbob]

An another writer earlier on this thread proposed that Atheism should be divided in two, atheist and nontheist. Interestingly, the type of atheist that I am is a nontheist I do not know if God exists or not. I just know that I have not seen any evidence of him. Thus I do not believe. That makes me a nontheist or atheist.

I personally have no quibble with those who say God does exist. I only disagree with them using government trying to force it on me. When the President gives his private opinion publicly, against atheists holding the office of President, I say fine. Just don't legislate it. And the President has not proposed to do so. I am not offended.

Those atheist who are offended, I suspected other motives at work.

[jonestown]

It is sad that you aren't better acquainted with our history from a more fair-minded perspective.

Another amusing comment. -- History is not "fair". Never has been. It is documented fact.
Our primary document refutes your view that the USA was founded on Christian values. Learn to live with it.

You are clearly the one having trouble living with the origin of the values in our founding documents.
I guess you need to try harder to deal with it and live with it. You have yet to respond to the essentials in the Mars analogy.

You guess a lot. -- See #157 for my comment on your inept analogy.

You evidently subscribe to the reality that a fanatic is someone who believes in something more strongly than you believe in whatever it is you believe in.

Another poor guess.

Actually, I tend to think of your espoused philosophy of life more as an avoidance of belief . . . a certain kind of philosophical timidity about eternal issues. Which, certainly, from God's perspective, is still a decision--whether you want to own it, or not.

Dream on.

[DocRock]

"I have seen nothing recorded about the situation that necessitated the first sentence of Article eleven, of the twelve article treaty. If you have, please state what it was and explain."

The treaty with the Barbary pirates was to secure the release of hostages from their raiding trade ships. This was a failed attempt at appeasement with Muslims, (Musselmen), but it did secure the release of the prisoners. (I'm working from memory, and I do not have the time to pursue the documentation to back up my memory at this time.)

"Presenting the legal document establishing a subordinate colony by a bunch of self proclaimed loyal subjects of a European King does not qualify as a founding document of a sovereign nation. You need to come forward 156 years for that."

I respectfully disagree when my Christian heritage and history is under attack. Reread my post 166 again and note that I never implied this was "a founding document of a sovereign nation". It is part of the Christian heritage and history of this nation and is the first governing document.

If you are referring to the Constitution, then I would like to bring to your attention the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is our Charter, a legal document that made us a nation. It doesn't tell us how we are going to run our country, that is what the Constitution does. In a corporation, the Charter is higher than the By-laws and the By-laws must be interpreted to be in agreement with the Charter. Therefore, the Constitution of the Untied States must be in agreement with the Declaration of Independence. The most important statement in our Declaration is that we want to operate under the laws of God.

So, even though the Constitution doesn't mention God, it doesn't have to, because the Declaration of Independence does, and it is a higher document.

All 50 state Constitutions appeal to the Almighty God.

Our National Anthem says:
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just;
And this be our motto, "In God is our Trust!"

Our Supreme Courts: As late as 1952, in Zorach v. Clausen (343 U.S.306), Justice William O. Douglas wrote:

"The First Amendment... does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union of dependency one on the other. that is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other-hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly... Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamation making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths - these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies, would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."

"What's interesting here, is that when it was finally done, it was done mostly by good honest Christian men who were not about to dirty their God with the politics of a nation. Shame that this is not the case today."

History also shows that most of the Convention's delegates came from states having established churches. Some even required voting tests that eliminated citizens who did not believe in Jesus Christ or the Holy Scriptures from being considered for election to public office. If these founders had been atheists and unbelievers, they would never have been elected to represent those states.