Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Evangelist accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible

CNN) -- A top U.S. evangelical leader is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a "fruitcake interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution.

comments to be aired on his radio show Tuesday, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson criticizes the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for comments he made in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.

In the speech, Obama suggests it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asks in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?

"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama also said to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."

He also calls Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."

In the comments to be aired later Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament. - end snip

Full Story Here

-

You have to ask, why are those "antiquated dietaty codes" which no longer reflect the New Testament arbitrarily kept or done away with. E.g. If stoning your daughter and slavery are no longer to be taken as God's commands, why is homosexuality still taken?

Originally posted by Robtard
You have to ask, why are those "antiquated dietaty codes" which no longer reflect the New Testament arbitrarily kept or done away with. E.g. If stoning your daughter and slavery are no longer to be taken as God's commands, why is homosexuality still taken?

Because people aren't made homophobes by Christianity, they use Christianity to rationalize homophobia. Internal consistency of their beliefs be damned.

I wonder if the bible really even says homosexuality is a sin, or if that's just the way someone traslated it for Western culture.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I wonder if the bible really even says homosexuality is a sin, or if that's just the way someone traslated it for Western culture.

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

That would be one helluva typo.

However that is the only line I know of that is against homosexuality in the Bible. Better yet it apparently comes from the set of Kosher guidelines that Rabbis are supposed to follow, meaning if you kill someone for being gay you also have to beat the shit out of anyone that makes a cheeseburger.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because people aren't made homophobes by Christianity, they use Christianity to rationalize homophobia. Internal consistency of their beliefs be damned.

Huh?

Leviticus is used as a reason why homosexuality is a sin and therefore wrong.

Yet those same people who use Leviticus as a crutch in regards for damning homosexuality, will do away with Leviticus' accounts of stoning people for crimes because apparently the New Testament did away with the old teachings.

So why is one Leviticus teaching held onto while another is not?

Originally posted by Robtard
Huh?

Leviticus is used as a reason why homosexuality is a sin and therefore wrong.

Yet those same people who use Leviticus as a crutch in regards for damning homosexuality, will do away with Leviticus' accounts of stoning people for crimes because apparently the New Testament did away with the old teachings.

So why is one Leviticus teaching held onto while another is not?

Exactly. That one passage is held onto because of homophobia that is separate from the rest of the faith. The others are thrown out because people see them as outdated or inconvenient.

Well, there's more than just one scripture about homosexuality in the bible.

Genesis 19:5-7

Leviticus 18:22

Deuteronomy 23:17

Isaiah 3:9

And one really harsh one from Romans 1:27

Corinthians 6:9

Timothy 1:10

Jude 1:7


As you can see, homosexuality was taught against even after the Law of Moses was fulfilled through Christ: "No homosexuality" carried over into the new law of Christ as well.

But isn't this tangential?

The bible should not be used in governing in this country.

Also, is this thread in the wrong forum?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

That would be one helluva typo.

However that is the only line I know of that is against homosexuality in the Bible. Better yet it apparently comes from the set of Kosher guidelines that Rabbis are supposed to follow, meaning if you kill someone for being gay you also have to beat the shit out of anyone that makes a cheeseburger.

I'm not talking about typos, I'm talking about translating a Bible that was not written in English to favor some personal vendetta.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Genesis 19:5-7

That's about raping angels.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Leviticus 18:22

I gave you that one.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Deuteronomy 23:17

Does not mention homosexuality.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Isaiah 3:9

Does not mention homosexuality or call for action against the people in question.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And one really harsh one from Romans 1:27

Doesn't mention killing them. That's pretty bad though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Corinthians 6:9

Okay that's a nasty line.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Timothy 1:10

Mentions perverts not homosexuals.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Jude 1:7

No mention of homosexuality, simply sexual immorality which cover a lot of different things.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I'm not talking about typos, I'm talking about translating a Bible that was not written in English to favor some personal vendetta.

It's been translated by probably thousands of people from different times, different agendas and different feelings about being gay. That would be an impressive conspiracy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible should not be used in governing in this country.

Morals, which are often derived from many different sources including the bible or other religious texts, should be used to govern the state. However, those morals used to govern decisions should not cross the barrier of "separation of church and state". That is why I whole heatredly believe in equal rights for homosexuals to marry. To me, it is in violation of "separation of church and state" to infringe my religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. Ironically enough, it is also in violation of my religious beliefs to judge sinners. LOL! So if I was against homosexuality, it would be a win-lose-lose. I would only win because I stood up for what I believed to be right...but in doing so, I have caused suppression of a people and also caused myself to come under condemnation for judging others harshly.

If I DON'T fight against homosexuality, it is a win-win-win. I am still able to enfore the "rules" of my church within my church because it is a religious organization and this allows me to keep a separation of church and state. I am not causing suppression of another via the state and only enfore the "no homosexuality" rule within the "walls" of my religion. I do not have to judge them unless I am called to do so. If it is my calling to deny membership of homosexuals to my church, then it isn't judging incorrectly or against the teachings...it would be my job to do it.

Because there is a difference between the Old Testament "Mosaic (as in Moses) covenant and the New Testament covenant (that Jesus brought). You would have to study into Christianity to see and understand some of the differences.

Although I am a Christian and it would be easy to jump all over Barrack Obama, he does have a perfectly valid point on his statements here. There are definitely different perspectives in the same Bible.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Morals, which are often derived from many different sources including the bible or other religious texts, should be used to govern the state. However, those morals used to govern decisions should not cross the barrier of "separation of church and state". That is why I whole heatredly believe in equal rights for homosexuals to marry. To me, it is in violation of "separation of church and state" to infringe my religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. Ironically enough, it is also in violation of my religious beliefs to judge sinners. LOL! So if I was against homosexuality, it would be a win-lose-lose. I would only win because I stood up for what I believed to be right...but in doing so, I have caused suppression of a people and also caused myself to come under condemnation for judging others harshly.

If I DON'T fight against homosexuality, it is a win-win-win. I am still able to enfore the "rules" of my church within my church because it is a religious organization and this allows me to keep a separation of church and state. I am not causing suppression of another via the state and only enfore the "no homosexuality" rule within the "walls" of my religion. I do not have to judge them unless I am called to do so. If it is my calling to deny membership of homosexuals to my church, then it isn't judging incorrectly or against the teachings...it would be my job to do it.

That sounds great and all, but please define "those morals". We end up picking and choosing from the bible, and everybody picks differently. We should, imho, not use any religious text to govern, but we should use law.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That sounds great and all, but please define "those morals". We end up picking and choosing from the bible, and everybody picks differently. We should, imho, not use any religious text to govern, but we should use law.

You can't use law to decide law, if you did it would never change. (of course the religious text are wholely innappropriate)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's been translated by probably thousands of people from different times, different agendas and different feelings about being gay. That would be an impressive conspiracy.

Why thank you!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can't use law to decide law, if you did it would never change. (of course the religious text are wholely innappropriate)

The bible has as much bad as good in it, so having a politician use the bible could end up getting us in a war we can't get out of, and gas prices that are far too high.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's about raping angels.

Wrong. That's about sex with men.

5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I gave you that one.

I never said you didn't. I was listing it list it.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does not mention homosexuality.

Yes it does.

17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Where do you think, in the English language, we get the word "sodomy"? The way of the sodomite is men who have anal intercoursex with men.




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does not mention homosexuality or call for action against the people in question.

9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

See my previous point.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Doesn't mention killing them. That's pretty bad though.

I didn't mention killing, either. I don't know where this point about killing came form...

But yeah, if there was ever doubt about homosexuality not being taught in the New Testament, this should clear it up.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay that's a nasty line.

Indeed.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Mentions perverts not homosexuals.

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Defiling yourself with manking, more specifically, the "defile" part, is referring to homosexuality.




NOriginally posted by Symmetric Chaos
o mention of homosexuality, simply sexual immorality which cover a lot of different things.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

In this one...

1. Giving yourself to strange flesh is referential to homosexuality. Some have argued that it is also inclusive of bestiality, however, Sodom and Gomorrha are not known for the bestiality...which brings us to point #2.

2. Sodom was known for the man on man action and from that verse, it looks like it spread like a flame(lol) to the adjacent cities.







Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That sounds great and all, but please define "those morals". We end up picking and choosing from the bible, and everybody picks differently. We should, imho, not use any religious text to govern, but we should use law.

I didn't list a bunch of examples because I simply don't of very many. I don't know any except the big ones like aboration and gay "rights".

Whether it's about ****ing angels or men is up to interpretation.

Also, sodomy refers to all kinds of "unnatural" sex. Only recently it is predominantly used to refer to male gay sex.

If you read that chapter, it is very clear they are talking about homosexual sex.

There is not anything to read into. It is what it is

Originally posted by chithappens
If you read that chapter, it is very clear they are talking about homosexual sex.

There is not anything to read into. It is what it is
Depends on which translation you're reading.

I watched a documentary on Sodom and the Biblical account, there are older text which portray Sodom's sin being one of greed. The Sodomites (not anal-sex practitioners) had plenty of food, water and wealth, yet didn't share with their neighbor cities who were destitute due to famine and whatnot. So God destroyed them for being selfish; not for being butt****ers.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Whether it's about ****ing angels or men is up to interpretation.

Also, sodomy refers to all kinds of "unnatural" sex. Only recently it is predominantly used to refer to male gay sex.


Actually, you have that backwards. Sodomy, back then, was almost always associated with man on man sex. Nowadays, sodomy is more open to interpretation. Completely heterosexual couples indulge in sodomy and actually talk about it.

Originally posted by chithappens
If you read that chapter, it is very clear they are talking about homosexual sex.

There is not anything to read into. It is what it is

Yeah...what this guy said.

Originally posted by Robtard
Depends on which translation you're reading.

I watched a documentary on Sodom and the Biblical account, there are older text which portray Sodom's sin being one of greed. The Sodomites (not anal-sex practitioners) had plenty of food, water and wealth, yet didn't share with their neighbor cities who were destitute due to famine and whatnot. So God destroyed them for being selfish; not for being butt****ers.

An indepth reading into Jude 1:7, and various other scriptures would lend a different conclusion.

I did a quck skim over...but, alas, I couldn't find where it directly associated "the way of the sodomite" to man on man sex...but I could have sworn that it's in there.

Edit...there's a reason we call it "sodomy"...because "it is the way of the sodomite".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, you have that backwards. Sodomy, back then, was almost always associated with man on man sex. Nowadays, sodomy is more open to interpretation. Completely heterosexual couples indulge in sodomy and actually talk about it.

I am pretty sure I don't have that backwards, but I am willing to learn, what have you got to convince me?

Originally posted by Robtard
Depends on which translation you're reading.

I watched a documentary on Sodom and the Biblical account, there are older text which portray Sodom's sin being one of greed. The Sodomites (not anal-sex practitioners) had plenty of food, water and wealth, yet didn't share with their neighbor cities who were destitute due to famine and whatnot. So God destroyed them for being selfish; not for being butt****ers.

I just read the Genesis 19 from three translations. Some of the words change but it's hard to confuse what happened:

Men, young and old, came to have sex with the two angels sent by God to check out the city. Lot says no but offers his two virgin dauthers. Men say no thanks and then add they will now do "worse" to Lot than they do to the angels (I feel crazy now but I almost certainly remember mention of group sex, looting and so on before this chapter in Sodom and Gomorrah). Angels say, "Move out the way" and blind all the men looking to have have their way with them.

After that comes the fire.

Originally posted by Robtard

In the speech, Obama suggests it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible.


Exactly, and the Senator is correct. The US is based on and intended for secular governing and jurisprudence. The only reason he's getting flak, is because a lot of snake-handling rednecks want the US to be a Christian state.

Originally posted by Robtard

You have to ask, why are those "antiquated dietaty codes" which no longer reflect the New Testament arbitrarily kept or done away with. E.g. If stoning your daughter and slavery are no longer to be taken as God's commands, why is homosexuality still taken?

Because today, many people who are not religious, think that stoning and slavery are pretty backwards but still consider being gay disgusting/abnormal/weird. So whether they're "arbitrarily" kept or tossed aside is debatable.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

That would be one helluva typo.


Yeah, that also sounds pretty straight-forward to me. You'd be hard pressed to try and find a way to show that its actually a metaphor.

----

Religion Forum, Robtard?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am pretty sure I don't have that backwards, but I am willing to learn, what have you got to convince me?

The word "sodomy".

Originally posted by dadudemon
The word "sodomy".

Go on.

I disagree with this being in the religion forum.

Originally posted by Devil King
I disagree with this being in the religion forum. Same.

Originally posted by chithappens
I just read the Genesis 19 from three translations. Some of the words change but it's hard to confuse what happened:

Men, young and old, came to have sex with the two angels sent by God to check out the city. Lot says no but offers his two virgin dauthers. Men say no thanks and then add they will now do "worse" to Lot than they do to the angels (I feel crazy now but I almost certainly remember mention of group sex, looting and so on before this chapter in Sodom and Gomorrah). Angels say, "Move out the way" and blind all the men looking to have have their way with them.

After that comes the fire.

If I remembered the documentary (it was some time ago), I would post what was stated. It did bring forth proof from older scriptures (eg less rewritten/revised) to substantiate the claim that Sodoms sin was greed and not gay-anal-rape.

I'll look though.

Originally posted by Devil King
I disagree with this being in the religion forum.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Same.

Despite the fact that the first two words in the title are "religious war"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Go on.

LOL.

That's it. Short of asking the original authors and subsequent translators about colloquial sayings and words, I don't have a way. I'm not an archaeologist.

I've come to this conclusion based on how the word "sodomite" is used to reference homosexual men in the old and new testaments. It was usually in reference to men who have sex with men. I could look that up somewhere...

Ahh these Christians in America scare me,

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Ahh these Christians in America scare me,

Me too.

Better be scared! God has OUR collective back!

Originally posted by chithappens
Better be scared! God has OUR collective back!

I've never been afraid of God, just afraid of people who think they know what God wants.

Haha, Christian have the answer. Not from the bible! But from the church!

Shazaam!

Originally posted by Robtard
You have to ask, why are those "antiquated dietaty codes" which no longer reflect the New Testament arbitrarily kept or done away with. E.g. If stoning your daughter and slavery are no longer to be taken as God's commands, why is homosexuality still taken?

The better question is why the Old Testament is paid attention to at all, or included in such a "holy" text. I can think of dozens (hundreds, thousands?) of books that are better guidelines for morality than it is. All it does is leave room for assh*les with an agenda to use scripture to justify their hatred, oppression, and intolerance.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Ahh these Christians in America scare me,

qft

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The better question is why the Old Testament is paid attention to at all, or included in such a "holy" text. I can think of dozens (hundreds, thousands?) of books that are better guidelines for morality than it is. All it does is leave room for assh*les with an agenda to use scripture to justify their hatred, oppression, and intolerance.

Puts what comes after in into context, to understand Jesus' new winesack you have to know of the old one he replaced.



Originally posted by DigiMark007
qft

???

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Despite the fact that the first two words in the title are "religious war"?

Yes. This is not a thread about religion. It's about political consideration of people who take their religion too far and refuse to acknowledge the seperation of church and state. This is a political thread, not a religious thread.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yes. This is not a thread about religion. It's about political consideration of people who take their religion too far and refuse to acknowledge the seperation of church and state. This is a political thread, not a religious thread.
I concur, I don't see why it is in this forum.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
???

My parents are psychopaths.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Whether it's about ****ing angels or men is up to interpretation.

Also, sodomy refers to all kinds of "unnatural" sex. Only recently it is predominantly used to refer to male gay sex. All angels are men anyway.

Yes, this probably belongs in a religious forum but what the heck. Lots of thought out replies here....(mostly).
Anyway, this has probably been done before, but exactly how do you know how to separate church and state when it comes to government, designing a criminal punishment system, etc? You've got to base a system of right and wrong on something don't you? How can you pick some morals and leave others out if you are going by a particular religion? Or if you don't believe in any religion or God how do you know where to begin with what is right and wrong?

And our founding fathers who wrote the constitution were mostly (not all but most of them) Christians who were greatly influenced by the Bible/Christianity and were more worried about imposing a particular church or denomination of the state on everyone--they weren't concerned about keeping general Christianity/Bibllical concepts out of our government.

Originally posted by K-Dog
And our founding fathers who wrote the constitution were mostly (not all but most of them) Christians who were greatly influenced by the Bible/Christianity and were more worried about imposing a particular church or denomination of the state on everyone--they weren't concerned about keeping general Christianity/Bibllical concepts out of our government.

Obviously many of them were influence by their faith but the only thing they really did to let in the influence of future Christians was give them the right to vote in mass numbers.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Puts what comes after in into context, to understand Jesus' new winesack you have to know of the old one he replaced.

We need to know what isn't be followed anymore? Not sure I follow. It would be like including "duck and cover" in a nuclear war pamphlet in order to understand current survival tips.

And it's still used to justify intolerance, and isn't a good moral guide by pretty much anyone's definition of moral. So again, why include it in the Bible at all, and why consider it the Word of God?

Originally posted by K-Dog
Yes, this probably belongs in a religious forum but what the heck. Lots of thought out replies here....(mostly).
Anyway, this has probably been done before, but exactly how do you know how to separate church and state when it comes to government, designing a criminal punishment system, etc? You've got to base a system of right and wrong on something don't you? How can you pick some morals and leave others out if you are going by a particular religion? Or if you don't believe in any religion or God how do you know where to begin with what is right and wrong?

And our founding fathers who wrote the constitution were mostly (not all but most of them) Christians who were greatly influenced by the Bible/Christianity and were more worried about imposing a particular church or denomination of the state on everyone--they weren't concerned about keeping general Christianity/Bibllical concepts out of our government.

I assume you own slaves and stone women.

How does a document written by men that considers the importance of not imposing any particular religion, not take into consideration the importance of keeping the biblical concepts and influence of Christianity from infuencing the government? Your entire 2nd paragraph is a contradiction.

Originally posted by K-Dog
Yes, this probably belongs in a religious forum but what the heck. Lots of thought out replies here....(mostly).
Anyway, this has probably been done before, but exactly how do you know how to separate church and state when it comes to government, designing a criminal punishment system, etc? You've got to base a system of right and wrong on something don't you? How can you pick some morals and leave others out if you are going by a particular religion? Or if you don't believe in any religion or God how do you know where to begin with what is right and wrong?

And our founding fathers who wrote the constitution were mostly (not all but most of them) Christians who were greatly influenced by the Bible/Christianity and were more worried about imposing a particular church or denomination of the state on everyone--they weren't concerned about keeping general Christianity/Bibllical concepts out of our government.

What proof is there that religion dictates "right and wrong" as fact? Do you not murder, rape and steal simply because you fear for your soul after death?

Here's a hypothetical: If God, the afterlife etc were somehow to be proved false beyond the shadow of a doubt, would you throw away your morals?

If the founding fathers wanted the Christian-view of God in America's government, don't you think they would have included it somewhere?

Originally posted by Devil King
Yes. This is not a thread about religion. It's about political consideration of people who take their religion too far and refuse to acknowledge the seperation of church and state. This is a political thread, not a religious thread.

Thanks for trying, I have a feeling the person who moved it saw "religious" and knee-jerked.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you not murder, rape and steal simply because you fear for your soul after death?


Why are these the only Commandments that pro-seculars focus on when discussing morality against the religious? As if killing and theft are the only things prohibited by the Bible.

**** the bible.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why are these the only Commandments that pro-seculars focus on when discussing morality against the religious? As if killing and theft are the only things prohibited by the Bible.

I mentioned slavery and treating women as inferior.

The other two are the most focused-on, and argued-over.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why are these the only Commandments that pro-seculars focus on when discussing morality against the religious? As if killing and theft are the only things prohibited by the Bible.

I could have gone on with the list, but those three (the more intense ons) were enough for the point.

Besides, the religious currently tend to disregard the less intense ones the are also prohibited by God. When was the last time someone obeyed the Sabbath as an eg.

Originally posted by Robtard
Besides, the religious currently tend to disregard the less intense ones the are also prohibited by God. When was the last time someone obeyed the Sabbath as an eg.

Last Saturday. Many Jewish people obey Sabbath law.



Here's a question I've never gotten a good answer to. Does anyone know why things like killing gays were put in the Bible in the first place?

Originally posted by Devil King
I assume you own slaves and stone women.

How does a document written by men that considers the importance of not imposing any particular religion, not take into consideration the importance of keeping the biblical concepts and influence of Christianity from infuencing the government? Your entire 2nd paragraph is a contradiction.

I'll tell ya, it's a heck of a lot easier to make my slaves do my work than me getting my lazy butt up and doing it myself!

And those danged women....I've got them lined up so if I stone one off, I'll get a fresh new one anyway. Oh, I thought everybody had it so good.

I don't see how my second paragraph was a contradition. I don't believe they were trying to keep their religious influence out of the constitutional ideas. What I said was that from what I know (maybe I'm wrong) they did not want a state-mandated church or denomination. They had seen English rules switch back and forth between Catholicism and various Protestant systems, often merely to justify their political agendas based on different doctrine. But as a whole they were Christian influenced. They weren't Muslim, Buddha, etc.
The statements that we are all created with inalienable rights by our creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is based on Christian principles. Now yes, maybe other religions could be said to say much of the same thing, but the founding fathers would have been influenced primarily by Christianity. Anyone who knows anything about the framework of the Constitution knows that the men prayed together everyday when they wrote this. They were Christian influenced, there were not Muslims or Hindus in 18th century New England (that I know of at least.)
A discussion like this is kinda hard to have cause I'm not sure if I am on the same wavelength as everybody else or not.

Originally posted by Robtard
Evangelist accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible

CNN) -- A top U.S. evangelical leader is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a "fruitcake interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution.

comments to be aired on his radio show Tuesday, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson criticizes the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for comments he made in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.

In the speech, Obama suggests it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asks in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?

"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama also said to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."

He also calls Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."

In the comments to be aired later Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament. - end snip

Full Story Here

-

You have to ask, why are those "antiquated dietaty codes" which no longer reflect the New Testament arbitrarily kept or done away with. E.g. If stoning your daughter and slavery are no longer to be taken as God's commands, why is homosexuality still taken? \



I thought I would go back to the original message and ponder a bit more. Barrack Obama does have a few good points here. It opens several cans of worms actually. How much should Christians pay attention to the old testament? How much the new? When he is talking about our military policy, I see his point. The sermon on the mount is a very peace-loving message. But we depend on a violent military in which men are not afraid to kill and feel right about doing it to protect us all. I mean, we can't just pray for our enemies while they come into our country and destroy our buildings, kill our people, and do nothing about it can we? Sometimes we have to go on the attack first and do it ruthlessly. One of the bigger cold-war era nuke missles was called the "Peacemaker missle" with the idea being that you would make more peace using it to end wars than you would by not and just keep on fighting. So how does a Christian, or person of any other faith, or just in acting on good conscious, know where to draw the line in the sand on these things? He does bring up some good points here, even though he will not get my vote personally.

Originally posted by K-Dog
I don't see how my second paragraph was a contradition. I don't believe they were trying to keep their religious influence out of the constitutional ideas. What I said was that from what I know (maybe I'm wrong) they did not want a state-mandated church or denomination. They had seen English rules switch back and forth between Catholicism and various Protestant systems, often merely to justify their political agendas based on different doctrine. But as a whole they were Christian influenced. They weren't Muslim, Buddha, etc.
The statements that we are all created with inalienable rights by our creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is based on Christian principles. Now yes, maybe other religions could be said to say much of the same thing, but the founding fathers would have been influenced primarily by Christianity. Anyone who knows anything about the framework of the Constitution knows that the men prayed together everyday when they wrote this. They were Christian influenced, there were not Muslims or Hindus in 18th century New England (that I know of at least.)
A discussion like this is kinda hard to have cause I'm not sure if I am on the same wavelength as everybody else or not.

It is inarguable, regardless of prayer and wording, that the fundamental principals of the American Constitution were based upon the secular ideals of the European enlightenment. We can trace those memes as far back as you want, and you will find very strong Christian influences, however, Christian theological rule and political admistration has never looked anything like the American constitution. The people who wrote it may have been practicing Christians, and may have used that language as narrative, but the ideas themselves have roots in the Rousseaus and Voltaires of the late 1700s.

Also, if we want to play the historical argument, the ground work for the Renissance and other European events which allowed the creation of the philosophy of "freedom" were based on Islamic ideas brought in through the Moors conquest of Spain and Italy. To say Islam has no role in the American Constitution, if we are looking at the philosophical origins of the principals described in the constitution, is incorrect. But that can be brought back even further. These ideas were brought to Islamic society from Greece as Rome conquored it.

Greek science and philosophy set the ground work for Islamic philosophy which set the ground work for Christian philosophy during the renissance, which was the ground work for the enlightenment and age of reason which was directly responsible, as in uses the EXACT same language and justifications as, the American Constitution.

But wait, where did Greek Philosophy come from? Egypt and pre-vedic India! So what is that? The American constitution is really based on Polytheistic mythology from pre-bronze age society? Using your logic, it sure is!

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.

--- Thomas Jefferson

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions."

--- George Washington

Plenty of quotes out there show Thomas Jefferson to have been an atheist and George Washington to be a Christian. Yet these two quotes are basically saying the same thing: that all forms of religion should be protected, but one should not be a bigger part of the government than another. That's what they were going for in the infancy of the United States.

However, it is a little presumptuous to say that Christianity had no influence in the construct of the Declaration of Independence. It was pretty much the only religion in colonial America at the time since Jewish people did not start emigrating in large numbers to America until about the 1800s, so many of the founding fathers were Christians. Those who were not seemed to be influenced at least by John 13:34 ("love each other as I have loved you" in that they were okay with religious expression as long as the US did not become a church-state.

Originally posted by inimalist
It is inarguable, regardless of prayer and wording, that the fundamental principals of the American Constitution were based upon the secular ideals of the European enlightenment. We can trace those memes as far back as you want, and you will find very strong Christian influences, however, Christian theological rule and political admistration has never looked anything like the American constitution. The people who wrote it may have been practicing Christians, and may have used that language as narrative, but the ideas themselves have roots in the Rousseaus and Voltaires of the late 1700s.

Also, if we want to play the historical argument, the ground work for the Renissance and other European events which allowed the creation of the philosophy of "freedom" were based on Islamic ideas brought in through the Moors conquest of Spain and Italy. To say Islam has no role in the American Constitution, if we are looking at the philosophical origins of the principals described in the constitution, is incorrect. But that can be brought back even further. These ideas were brought to Islamic society from Greece as Rome conquored it.

Greek science and philosophy set the ground work for Islamic philosophy which set the ground work for Christian philosophy during the renissance, which was the ground work for the enlightenment and age of reason which was directly responsible, as in uses the EXACT same language and justifications as, the American Constitution.

But wait, where did Greek Philosophy come from? Egypt and pre-vedic India! So what is that? The American constitution is really based on Polytheistic mythology from pre-bronze age society? Using your logic, it sure is!

Reductio ad absurdum.

The founding fathers were Christians. In spite of their enlightenment era intents keeping that influence out of their design of the Constitution would be impossible. Admittedly they did a very good job, but assuming that simply because they were trying to work with Enlightenment concepts doesn't mean they somehow avoided letting their religion affect the design is silly.

The last few posts were good and well thought out (without me picking sides or playing favorites). That's the kind of stuff that I can learn from. I am certainly not trained as a historian and my knowlege is incomplete on these things, but now I know a bit more. I like it when posts go beyond 5th grade level intellect which can happen a lot on these boards. Certainly the founding fathers, like all of us, were influenced by their experiences and culture from many sources and individuals.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Here's a question I've never gotten a good answer to. Does anyone know why things like killing gays were put in the Bible in the first place?

Everyone despised the Jews so they made laws against what they saw as those people's customs and beliefs like sodomy, incest, wearing clothes with multiples colors, shaving beards, etc.

Even the stoning of children who deviate is still carried through, with psychological stones, verbal stones, etc... stones strong enough that some kids commit suicide or murder parents or friends out of the blue.

The law is eternal.

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
Even the stoning of children who deviate is still carried through, with psychological stones, verbal stones, etc... stones strong enough that some kids commit suicide or murder parents or friends out of the blue.

The law is eternal.

LOL! Good one. We should not discipline our kids at all. I have a 2 yr old at home, and let me tell you it would not be pretty if she had no boundaries!

lol religion

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Everyone despised the Jews so they made laws against what they saw as those people's customs and beliefs like sodomy, incest, wearing clothes with multiples colors, shaving beards, etc.

The subject of homosexuality is addressed mostly in Leviticus of the Old Testament, which is a history of the Jewish people. Their exodus from Egypt, the 10 Commandments, the dispersal of the 12 tribes, etc, all concern Jewish people. The Jewish people themselves kept the laws outlined in Leviticus. Whether you believe God gave them these laws or they made them up themselves, no outside group made up laws to try to oppress them, at least not where this is concerned. I don't understand who you mean by "everyone," especially since the popular theory is that Moses himself wrote a large portion of the Old Testament, and he himself was Jewish.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.

--- Thomas Jefferson

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions."

--- George Washington

Plenty of quotes out there show Thomas Jefferson to have been an atheist and George Washington to be a Christian. Yet these two quotes are basically saying the same thing: that all forms of religion should be protected, but one should not be a bigger part of the government than another. That's what they were going for in the infancy of the United States.

However, it is a little presumptuous to say that Christianity had no influence in the construct of the Declaration of Independence. It was pretty much the only religion in colonial America at the time since Jewish people did not start emigrating in large numbers to America until about the 1800s, so many of the founding fathers were Christians. Those who were not seemed to be influenced at least by John 13:34 ("love each other as I have loved you" in that they were okay with religious expression as long as the US did not become a church-state.

what theologians, especially those involved with the administration of Christian rule, had any such ideas prior to the 1700s?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Reductio ad absurdum.

The founding fathers were Christians. In spite of their enlightenment era intents keeping that influence out of their design of the Constitution would be impossible. Admittedly they did a very good job, but assuming that simply because they were trying to work with Enlightenment concepts doesn't mean they somehow avoided letting their religion affect the design is silly.

The Christianity that existed post renissance/enlightment/age of reason

or am I to suppose (re: generalize) that all Christians have always been the same?

Which specific part of the constitution do you find to be more in line with pre-renissance Christian theocratic policies more so than enlightment era philosophy?

Originally posted by inimalist
what theologians, especially those involved with the administration of Christian rule, had any such ideas prior to the 1700s?

Well, Christ himself preached loving one's neighbors, including one's enemies. I would think that would fall under the lines of religious tolerance. Christ would never approve inflicting violence or persecution on someone as he was the one to coin the phrase, "turn the other cheek."

Galatians 3:28: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.' "

thats fine

what about the humans who, you know, actually ran countries based on christian teaching.

Technically, if Jesus is the only one, the Christianity of America is categorically different than the Christianity of Europe pre-renissance, which is my argument, which shows that the specific christianity of the time had little to do with the influence, and it is easier to explain this discrepency through memetic drift and a re-definition of christian faith based on enlightment ideas rather than christianity informing an opinion on the constitution.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Reductio ad absurdum.

The founding fathers were Christians. In spite of their enlightenment era intents keeping that influence out of their design of the Constitution would be impossible.

Can you point out the supposed principles that are espoused by the constitution that can be construde as ONLY christian-inspired? Or perhaps where a portionn of the founding documents refers only to christianity? Or a portion of the document where any specific religion is addressed? Or any mention of religion in the document that doesn't specifically refer to the idea that religion must not influence government?

Given the answers to those questions, I find it highly likely that they were able to seperate their religion from their politics.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Reductio ad absurdum.


How?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How?

Its not a crime anyway...

Originally posted by K-Dog
I'll tell ya, it's a heck of a lot easier to make my slaves do my work than me getting my lazy butt up and doing it myself!

And those danged women....I've got them lined up so if I stone one off, I'll get a fresh new one anyway. Oh, I thought everybody had it so good.

I don't see how my second paragraph was a contradition. I don't believe they were trying to keep their religious influence out of the constitutional ideas. What I said was that from what I know (maybe I'm wrong) they did not want a state-mandated church or denomination. They had seen English rules switch back and forth between Catholicism and various Protestant systems, often merely to justify their political agendas based on different doctrine. But as a whole they were Christian influenced. They weren't Muslim, Buddha, etc.
The statements that we are all created with inalienable rights by our creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is based on Christian principles. Now yes, maybe other religions could be said to say much of the same thing, but the founding fathers would have been influenced primarily by Christianity. Anyone who knows anything about the framework of the Constitution knows that the men prayed together everyday when they wrote this. They were Christian influenced, there were not Muslims or Hindus in 18th century New England (that I know of at least.)
A discussion like this is kinda hard to have cause I'm not sure if I am on the same wavelength as everybody else or not.

It was a contradiction because it implied they considered no religion and then went on to say they considered only christianity.

You see, that's the arrogance of your position. Just because there might not have been very many muslims or hindus or Jews, doesn't mean they didn't take those religions into account, doesn't mean they didn't know they existed. It is not true that they prayed together everyday.

"Endowed by their creator" is not a phrase aimed at a creator, it is a phrase aimed at the people. Their creator implies that descision is up to the person, not the government.

Originally posted by Devil King
It was a contradiction because it implied they considered no religion and then went on to say they considered only christianity.

You see, that's the arrogance of your position. Just because there might not have been very many muslims or hindus or Jews, doesn't mean they didn't take those religions into account, doesn't mean they didn't know they existed. It is not true that they prayed together everyday.

"Endowed by their creator" is not a phrase aimed at a creator, it is a phrase aimed at the people. Their creator implies that descision is up to the person, not the government.

The American Constitution is a wonderful document for securing personal freedoms. I'm sure Christian teachings were involved in certain areas...but then I don't know that for certain, I don't even think it matters.

America is a secular nation and it should remain so.

Originally posted by K-Dog
The last few posts were good and well thought out (without me picking sides or playing favorites).

This is also a contradiction. You say the posts were well thought because they largly agree with the position you have been supporting since you entered the thread, and then you say "without picking a side"? I don't recall anyone inviting you to be the impartial judge of this thread and it's outcome. (not that one will be reached)

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Its not a crime anyway... No, of course not, can be a quite good practice. Just no idea what he was talking about.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The American Constitution is a wonderful document for securing personal freedoms. I'm sure Christian teachings were involved in certain areas...but then I don't know that for certain, I don't even think it matters.

America is a secular nation and it should remain so.

When ever a proposition came before the body there were several votes that had to be taken. First they had to vote to consider the proposition and finally they had to vote to pass or deny it. With, many times, there being a number of votes in between.

Much more often than not, when that proposition hinged soley on the consideration of christianity or any particular sect of that broader religion, this group of men didn't even pass a vote to consider the proposition. This means they voted not to even discuss it or consider it. And none of them were voted on to be added to the constitution.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
The subject of homosexuality is addressed mostly in Leviticus of the Old Testament, which is a history of the Jewish people. Their exodus from Egypt, the 10 Commandments, the dispersal of the 12 tribes, etc, all concern Jewish people. The Jewish people themselves kept the laws outlined in Leviticus. Whether you believe God gave them these laws or they made them up themselves, no outside group made up laws to try to oppress them, at least not where this is concerned. I don't understand who you mean by "everyone," especially since the popular theory is that Moses himself wrote a large portion of the Old Testament, and he himself was Jewish.

Incest was considered bad by the Jews because it was a wide practice in Egypt. Sexual promiscuity was discouraged because it was seen in other societies that despised the Jews. Etc. Who wrote it is of no consequence to what I said. My statement was The Jewish people model their beliefs against those around them, because they saw them as immoral people. And Also because of practicality in a lot of cases.

Incest was not widely practiced in Egypt.

Should say it was acceptable, considering the royal family and most of the nobility practiced it.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Should say it was acceptable, considering the royal family and most of the nobility practiced it.

Didn't the British do the same??????????????????

Edit-I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the British part of my ancestory, the tree gets rather narrow.

Good reference for people claiming knowledge of what the framers of the U.S. were thinking when they put pen to paper.

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution

You'll notice "God" as one of the subjects, eigth down. Enjoy.

I wish we had one.

Originally posted by Robtard
Huh?

Leviticus is used as a reason why homosexuality is a sin and therefore wrong.

Yet those same people who use Leviticus as a crutch in regards for damning homosexuality, will do away with Leviticus' accounts of stoning people for crimes because apparently the New Testament did away with the old teachings.

So why is one Leviticus teaching held onto while another is not?

Exactly. This is another reason why I believe the Bible was written not tp relay God's message and will, but to relay the thoughts of the writer on how the we should be.

You're kind of drawing a false comparison. "God", as a word or concept, does not appear in the constitution.

However, in the Bill of Rights, freedom of religious expression is. While there is and should be a separation of church and state, it doesn't mean the church (meaning people's belief systems) shouldn't influence how and what people think. People have a right to be inspired by their religion and express it. Of course there is a limit to that where politics are concerned, but the mentioning or not mentioning of God is a moot point. Jefferson mentioned God in the Declaration of Independence and he was an atheist. John Kerry is Catholic and I don't think he ever made God a point in any of his speeches unless asked what he believed.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
However, in the Bill of Rights, freedom of religious expression is. While there is and should be a separation of church and state, it doesn't mean the church (meaning people's belief systems) shouldn't influence how and what people think. People have a right to be inspired by their religion and express it. Of course there is a limit to that where politics are concerned, but the mentioning or not mentioning of God is a moot point. Jefferson mentioned God in the Declaration of Independence and he was an atheist. John Kerry is Catholic and I don't think he ever made God a point in any of his speeches unless asked what he believed.

Thomas Jefferson was an atheist? I couldn't remeber if it was Atheism or Polytheism.

Pretty sure he was an atheist.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

But if he was polytheistic, he probably would have been in a very small minority.



Mandos, I'm married. Instead of coffee, why don't I just propose a toast in your honor over here and you can return it over there?

I'll pretend that this thread has merit by responding to this:

Wait, no, I won't. I've repeatedly explained how this works, and it makes me sad that r-tards keep on making their noise.

Well ya, someone already covered it if reference to homosexuality, little late in the game to proclaim superiority, genius.

St. Paul condemns sodomy.

He also supposedly experienced visions, the kook.

Originally posted by Robtard
He also supposedly experienced visions, the kook.

Or possible Cook...maybe its all just a huge mistranslation.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well ya, someone already covered it if reference to homosexuality, little late in the game to proclaim superiority, genius.
I'll take superiority on the basis of "**** you, I've been doing this before Urizen showed up and forced me to parrot myself every two weeks."

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'll take superiority on the basis of "**** you, I've been doing this before Urizen showed up and forced me to parrot myself every two weeks."

How do those nails feel?

so yet again two morons stand for election in the US, at least one wont get a vote form the white populatioin of the south even if they are democrates, they never bat for in their words " the other team"

I say "Third Party"............Be done with this.

Originally posted by Robtard
How do those nails feel?
Not playing the victim, playing the annoyed poster who has to deal with the Internet-equivalent of petulant teenagers.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
However, in the Bill of Rights, freedom of religious expression is. While there is and should be a separation of church and state, it doesn't mean the church (meaning people's belief systems) shouldn't influence how and what people think. People have a right to be inspired by their religion and express it. Of course there is a limit to that where politics are concerned, but the mentioning or not mentioning of God is a moot point. Jefferson mentioned God in the Declaration of Independence and he was an atheist. John Kerry is Catholic and I don't think he ever made God a point in any of his speeches unless asked what he believed.

Again, it's a false comparison. Freedom of religious expression is addressed, but no specific religion is noted in that freedom. How and what people think is totally fair game (as I have always said); but how that is meant to influence the government is alos addressed. The mentioning of god is NOT a moot point when there are so many that base the argument on the god being mentioned is the one whose religion they happen to subscribe. Jefferson didn't mention The God. He mentioned A god. He simply did not ascribe that god to any particular denomination or creed. Jefferson was NOT an atheist. He can be most closely called a deist. Although I doubt in this day and age he would have reasoned that god simply walked away from something he had created. (pay attention Quiero) He simply wouldn't have seen the need for an all-knowing god to play babysitter and list-maker to his own creation that he would have known everything about before he walked away; being all-knowing and such. Jefferson was no christian, but he wasn't an atheist either. And somehow the idea that there should be no religious test or state religion or even a consideration of one's religion or religious influence on matters of government were not only passed, but any idea to the contrary was voted not to even be considered by these so-called fundamentalist founders of our United States of America. Odd, I think, for anyone claiming this is a christian nation.

Originally posted by Devil King
Again, it's a false comparison. Freedom of religious expression is addressed, but no specific religion is noted in that freedom. How and what people think is totally fair game (as I have always said); but how that is meant to influence the government is alos addressed. The mentioning of god is NOT a moot point when there are so many that base the argument on the god being mentioned is the one whose religion they happen to subscribe. Jefferson didn't mention The God. He mentioned A god. He simply did not ascribe that god to any particular denomination or creed. Jefferson was NOT an atheist. He can be most closely called a deist. Although I doubt in this day and age he would have reasoned that god simply walked away from something he had created. (pay attention Quiero) He simply wouldn't have seen the need for an all-knowing god to play babysitter and list-maker to his own creation that he would have known everything about before he walked away; being all-knowing and such. Jefferson was no christian, but he wasn't an atheist either. And somehow the idea that there should be no religious test or state religion or even a consideration of one's religion or religious influence on matters of government were not only passed, but any idea to the contrary was voted not to even be considered by these so-called fundamentalist founders of our United States of America. Odd, I think, for anyone claiming this is a christian nation.

Although not technically a Christian nation, America does have many Christian based themes.

Originally posted by socool8520
Although not technically a Christian nation, America does have many Christian based themes.

Enlighten us Mr. Sock.

Originally posted by socool8520
Although not technically a Christian nation, America does have many Christian based themes.

Wow, this will be great to hear!

Originally posted by Devil King
Enlighten us Mr. Sock.

"God bless America"

Originally posted by Devil King
Enlighten us Mr. Sock.

What is this sock thing?

Originally posted by socool8520
What is this sock thing?

A sock is a user who has been banned from the forum but has managed to create a new account in order to continue their trolling ways.

Not necessarily trolling. In most cases, it's been to continue their dumb**** posting habits.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Not necessarily trolling. In most cases, it's been to continue their dumb**** posting habits.

I've never had an account here until recently. I don't know why people thought that was a dumb post. It's true, America does have many Christian influences. Many of them are in our laws and such. Hell there's even a few Bible belt states that don't allow Porn, tattoos and stuff. Where was I incorrect?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
"God bless America"
Just one of them. Pledge of Allegience. And there's more.

America is... special.

Originally posted by Mandos
America is... special.

And the rest of the world......isn't

Originally posted by socool8520
I've never had an account here until recently. I don't know why people thought that was a dumb post. It's true, America does have many Christian influences. Many of them are in our laws and such. Hell there's even a few Bible belt states that don't allow Porn, tattoos and stuff. Where was I incorrect?

Those aren't national laws. The only thing that makes America a "Christian nation" is the combination of a) being a democracy and b) having a lot of Christian citizens. It's been proven many times over in this thread that America is not inherently Christian.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Those aren't national laws. The only thing that makes America a "Christian nation" is the combination of a) being a democracy and b) having a lot of Christian citizens. It's been proven many times over in this thread that America is not inherently Christian.

Like I said, Influences. I never said it was a Christian nation.

Originally posted by Mandos
America is... special.

We are special. To quote Stripes, we're the mutt of the world and who can resist a mutt?

I just wonder how many of America's founding fathers really considered themselves Christian. Devil King and I will probably debate until the sun explodes as to whether or not Jefferson was an atheist, but I think a lot of the founding fathers just went through the motions of Christianity. Sometimes it seems like the mentioning of God where it isn't necessary seems to be an appeal to the masses rather than an expression of their own convictions. Does anyone have any insight to that?

I thought that Jefferson was a Deist.

The references don't need to be a cynical appeal to the masses OR an expression of faith. At that time in history (to my understanding) it was much less acceptable to be an atheist than it is now. It was probably an expression of the language and ideals of the age, the zeitgeist lent itself to a quasi- religious phrasing of the nation's codes.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Sometimes it seems like the mentioning of God where it isn't necessary seems to be an appeal to the masses rather than an expression of their own convictions. Does anyone have any insight to that?

Politicians, televangelist, would be saviors? Like that?

In regards to Jefferson though, there are several books who have direct quotes from his memoirs and notes. He really doesn't speak well of Paul, the OT & NT and main stream religion. Wiki has these quoted and also has the source of the books listed for a quick look.

Originally posted by socool8520
Just one of them. Pledge of Allegience. And there's more.

.....

The 'under god part' of the pledge as well as the 'in god we trust' qoute labeled on all coins and dollar bills were not present when the constitution was created nor anytime around that period. Those religious influnces are rather recent occurances.I would say late 1800's, and 1900's.


EDIT: Looks like people have already brought up that point on multiple occasions.Regardless, I believe the founding fathers would be horrified at how christianity has influenced goverment over the past couple decades.

Oh and another point to bring up------ by today's standards most of the founding fathers would be considered atheist despite actually being deist.Take Alstair Macgrath(possible spelling mistakes) for example. He is a deist I believe, but doesn't despise organized religion. I think Dawkins 'shifting moral zeitgiest' could explain this change.