Obama: We Are Not a Christian Nation

[Indy4Chng]

We're a Federal Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy. Not a 'Democratic Republic.' A Federal Constitutional Republic. And again, the ideas of liberty came from the French
QUOTE]

We were a republic, there is no way you can say we are a republic today. Originally the people only elected representitives and only a few people could vote. Now we elect every position and everyone can vote there is a lot more democracy then originally intended. In certain state the people can directly change state consitutions and pass laws. That is not a republic. Federally we are still a little more of a republic, but originally I belive senators were elected by the representatives as well as the president.

 

[RideTheDirt]

Two points if you can tell me where that's from.

Sounds like some sort of Declaration of some sort...Probably Declaring Independance?

 

[SeanEdwards]

Look at it from the point of view of what we are not. We aren't a Jewish, Buddhist, atheist or a Hindu nation. Try saying that India isn't a Hindu nation.
I mean, you guys have me laughing right now.

About 200 million muslim Indians are getting very irritated with your shenanigans.

 

[Patriot123]

- whatever you said, can't be bothered to find it-


Do we make laws? Do we vote on acts? Do we decide when to go to war? Do we decide how the Constitution will be interpreted? Does majority rule in court cases? Are fifty one percent of the people ruling over forty nine percent? No. We are a Federal Constitutional Republic.

 

[Truth Warrior]

IF anything, I'd say it was a Freemason nation.

 

[Patriot123]

Sounds like some sort of Declaration of some sort...Probably Declaring Independance?

Bingo. I was beginning to think that no one would get that.

About 200 million muslim Indians are getting very irritated with your shenanigans.

QFT.

 

[TER]

Yes. Again, Division Fallacy. If you don't know what that means, please, by all means look it up.

I did look it up. What I have learned from the definition is that the comment I made would fall into such a fallacy of division if what I am stating is false.

I have yet to learn from you how my statement is false. You stating that they were pissed off at the monarchy does not make my statement false.

To rephrase my statement: The fact that the French at that time were mostly believers in Jesus Christ being the incarnate Word of God had more than a little influence in their ideas of freedom and justice.

 

[Indy4Chng]

"Do we make laws"

We do in the state I live in, we can even change the constitution by a simple majority vote. I'm not saying we don't live in a republic, but there is a lot more democracy in it then originally intended.

We could oppress the minority if an amendment of the constitution passed (by simply majority), however the judges would probably try to overturn it even if they didn't have the right to.

 

[Patriot123]

I did look it up. What I have learned from the definition is that the comment I made would fall into such a fallacy of division if what I am stating is false.

I have yet to learn from you how my statement is false. You stating that they were pissed off at the monarchy does not make my statement false.

To rephrase my statement: The fact that the French at that time were mostly believers in Jesus Christ being the incarnate Word of God had more than a little influence in their ideas of freedom and justice.

The point is that they didn't come up with the ideas because they were Christian. Or because they wanted to "show how great the church was," when in reality it was comparable to Al Qaeda. They came up with these ideas because they were being oppressed by their monarchy and wanted a new government. They wanted a revolution. They wanted change, and they meant it. Think about how the Pope at the time did not endorse the French revolution and said that anyone who supported it was not a true Christian. Why did he say that? Because he was pissed off at the fact that the French seized all of the churches property. Hows that for "we love Jesus?" The country was divided up between people who supported their country more than their religion and people who supported their religion more than their country. The people who came up with the ideology of liberty were French minds who were on the side of their own country. Otherwise they would have never written what they did out of loyalty to their religion.

 

[Patriot123]

"Do we make laws"

We do in the state I live in, we can even change the constitution by a simple majority vote. I'm not saying we don't live in a republic, but there is a lot more democracy in it then originally intended.

We could oppress the minority if an amendment of the constitution passed (by simply majority), however the judges would probably try to overturn it even if they didn't have the right to.

What state? And doesn't matter. All though we may have a very small number of aspects that pertain to a Democracy, we are still a Federal Constitutional Republic. And no. The people cannot amend the constitution. Their elected representatives can. The people cannot.

 

[TER]

The point is that they didn't come up with the ideas because they were Christian. Or because they wanted to "show how great the church was," when in reality it was comparable to Al Qaeda. They came up with these ideas because they were being oppressed by their monarchy and wanted a new government. They wanted a revolution. They wanted change, and they meant it. Think about how the Pope at the time did not endorse the French revolution and said that anyone who supported it was not a true Christian. Why did he say that? Because he was pissed off at the fact that the French seized all of the churches property. Hows that for "we love Jesus?" The country was divided up between people who supported their country more than their religion and people who supported their religion more than their country. The people who came up with the ideology of liberty were French minds who were on the side of their own country. Otherwise they would have never written what they did out of loyalty to their religion.

Thank you for this post. It is very informative.

My point is that there have been many revolutions in many places in the world during many different eras of history, and those revolutions which espoused and propagated the idea of liberty and religious tolerance has overwhelimingly happened in countries whose majority of people believe in Jesus Christ and His teachings.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I would disagree with this statement, as you are ignoring the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Hmmm . . . did the Eastern Orthodox Church have the original Greek interpretation of the New Testament? Before it split away from the Catholic Church, wasn't its foundation likewise poisoned by the Platonic philosophy incorporated into the early foundation of the Catholic Church by St. Augustine? I can see where the woshipping of rituals established by the Eastern Orthodox Pope would still happen because of the prior history that it shared with the early Catholic Church. Also, what kind of repression did the Arabs have on the Church during their occupation.
Anyway. You bring up a great point to consider.

 

[TER]

Hmmm . . . did the Eastern Orthodox Church have the original Greek interpretation of the New Testament? Before it split away from the Catholic Church, wasn't its foundation likewise poisoned by the Platonic philosophy incorporated into the early foundation of the Catholic Church by St. Augustine? I can see where the woshipping of rituals established by the Eastern Orthodox Pope would still happen because of the prior history that it shared with the early Catholic Church. Also, what kind of repression did the Arabs have on the Church during their occupation.
Anyway. You bring up a great point to consider.

I know this not an appropriate thread to begin discussing the difference between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, but I should tell you that your post has many inaccuracies in it and humbly suggest you research more about the history of the Early Church.

 

[Patriot123]

Thank you for this post. It is very informative.

My point is that there have been many revolutions in many places in the world during many different eras of history, and those revolutions which espoused and propagated the idea of liberty and religious tolerance has overwhelimingly happened in countries whose majority of people believe in Jesus Christ and His teachings.

Non Sequitur Fallacy.

This is because a large part of the world is Christian. Think of times before Christianity. There were revolts, too, which seeked to have more freedom and whatnot. (Were they in pursuit of full-force liberty? No, because the idea wasn't around yet) Were they because of blank religion? No. They were because the people were pissed off. That's why. It means nothing if these countries were Christian or not. Revolts don't happen because people want to uphold "moral values from their religion." (Even though Christianity doesn't have too many) People revolt because they're pissed off. Twisting history will do you no good.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You must be completely ignoring history if you don't think this country was founded on Chrisitian principles. The founding members were incredible christian. Their beef was there were different types of christian's and the government (as was the case in England) should not be able to say how you should worship. ~snip

I think they got most of the republic idea from the Romans, cause we were originally founded as a republic, we have since migrated to more of a democratic republic.

+1

 

[Indy4Chng]

What state? And doesn't matter. All though we may have a very small number of aspects that pertain to a Democracy, we are still a Federal Constitutional Republic. And no. The people cannot amend the constitution. Their elected representatives can. The people cannot.

That is wrong.. I know for sure the people in California and Oregon (where I live) can. And I believe many other states can as well. The people can sign a petition to add a iniative to the ballot that modifies the constitution (if it gets enough signatures). Then if the people vote in favor 50.1% then the constitution is amended, it circumvents the legislature. Haven't you read anything on the Gay Rights in California how they don't won't to allow the iniative to reach the ballot as it would amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. The reps wouldn't do this but the people only.

We can also pass a law using the same method in fact many times when the representatives have raised taxes the people passed a law eliminating the tax law passed by the state congress.

How is that not a form of democracy in a republic the people (with no accountability of thier votes) could not do such.

 

[TER]

Non Sequitur Fallacy.

This is because a large part of the world is Christian. Think of times before Christianity. There were revolts, too, which seeked to have more freedom and whatnot. (Were they in pursuit of full-force liberty? No, because the idea wasn't around yet) Were they because of blank religion? No. They were because the people were pissed off. That's why. It means nothing if these countries were Christian or not. Revolts don't happen because people want to uphold "moral values from their religion." (Even though Christianity doesn't have too many) People revolt because they're pissed off. Twisting history will do you no good.

I simply disagree with you. Does that mean I am right and you are wrong? No.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This determination is not that hard to deduce.

The point is that they didn't come up with the ideas because they were Christian. Or because they wanted to "show how great the church was," when in reality it was comparable to Al Qaeda. They came up with these ideas because they were being oppressed by their monarchy and wanted a new government. They wanted a revolution. They wanted change, and they meant it. Think about how the Pope at the time did not endorse the French revolution and said that anyone who supported it was not a true Christian. Why did he say that? Because he was pissed off at the fact that the French seized all of the churches property. Hows that for "we love Jesus?" The country was divided up between people who supported their country more than their religion and people who supported their religion more than their country. The people who came up with the ideology of liberty were French minds who were on the side of their own country. Otherwise they would have never written what they did out of loyalty to their religion.

But we only have our Christian heritage or our Greek heritage to draw from. There was no such thing as a French heritage. The French revolution came about because Jean Rousseau, a person without a formal education, taught himself to read dialogues by Plato. FACT: The reason Western Europe created major Universites after the 13th century was to unravel the mysteries created by the introduction of Aristotle's works during that time. Before the Greek philosophers introduction, all schools in Western Europe were Christian. That is why they referred to that age as "the age of faith."

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Many inaccuracies?

I know this not an appropriate thread to begin discussing the difference between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, but I should tell you that your post has many inaccuracies in it and humbly suggest you research more about the history of the Early Church.

Thanks for not responding to the post.

 

[Patriot123]

That is wrong.. I know for sure the people in California and Oregon (where I live) can. And I believe many other states can as well. The people can sign a petition to add a iniative to the ballot that modifies the constitution (if it gets enough signatures). Then if the people vote in favor 50.1% then the constitution is amended, it circumvents the legislature. Haven't you read anything on the Gay Rights in California how they don't won't to allow the iniative to reach the ballot as it would amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. The reps wouldn't do this but the people only.

We can also pass a law using the same method in fact many times when the representatives have raised taxes the people passed a law eliminating the tax law passed by the state congress.

How is that not a form of democracy in a republic the people (with no accountability of thier votes) could not do such.

So a few states have a few characteristics of a Democracy. We still have an overwhelming number of characteristics of a Federal Constitutional Republic. You can't argue what's in the books. We are defined, as a nation, as a Federal Constitutional Republic. You cannot change that.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands..."