Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles? Of Course it was!

The video is real. You are the historian.

The Baptist Joint Committee is not a reliable source? There are no reliable sources for you then... I gave you a mix from everything, journals, papers, committees... none of this matters.

Instead, some ranting lunatic has your attention.

Don't expect anyone to take your sources and your claims seriously when you change them after they've been discredited. I never said I was a historian, this is yet another example of how you subtly distort issues and truths. I mentioned once that I am an amateur historian - huuuuge difference.

The video "Our Godly Heritage" exists. The 1990 VERSION of the video to which you claim he made the statement on, is no where to be found. Provide it.

Discredit the study by the University of Houston that I mention in my OP. Everything else is a waste of time.
 
We the people are the ones responsible for a Constitutional Form of Government. It is the people that agreed to be bound by this social contract that matters.

The constitution was largely void of religious reference, outside of mention of a creator and that congress shall pass no law concerning religion, the legal contract ratified by the people is silent on the issue.

When courts try to rule on a breach of contract, the first thing they do is ascertain the original understanding of those that agreed to the contract. The understanding of those that wrote the contract is less important.

So why do I care about those that approved it? Because that is how the law is supposed to work.


How does this integrate with my original post? Show me where I claim that the constitution has religious references in it (religious freedom notwithstanding).
 
Don't expect anyone to take your sources and your claims seriously when you change them after they've been discredited. I never said I was a historian, this is yet another example of how you subtly distort issues and truths. I mentioned once that I am an amateur historian - huuuuge difference.

The video "Our Godly Heritage" exists. The 1990 VERSION of the video to which you claim he made the statement on, is no where to be found. Provide it.

Discredit the study by the University of Houston that I mention in my OP. Everything else is a waste of time.


Here is your video. Thanks to someone else who found it for me.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Godly-Heritage/dp/B000E17KL2
 
How does this integrate with my original post? Show me where I claim that the constitution has religious references in it (religious freedom notwithstanding).


America was founded by the ratifiers who agreed with the constitution.

You care too much about tertiary writings from the founders.

If you and I have a signed contract, how relevant are all your other writings?

Now where did you prove that those ratifying the contract did so because of Judeo-Christian Principles? You make many assumptions.......
 
Don't expect anyone to take your sources and your claims seriously when you change them after they've been discredited. I never said I was a historian, this is yet another example of how you subtly distort issues and truths. I mentioned once that I am an amateur historian - huuuuge difference.

The video "Our Godly Heritage" exists. The 1990 VERSION of the video to which you claim he made the statement on, is no where to be found. Provide it.

Discredit the study by the University of Houston that I mention in my OP. Everything else is a waste of time.

And here is the Public Catalog entry in the United States Copyright Office:

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pw...ALL&CNT=25&PID=15500&SEQ=20080314114642&SID=1
 
Don't expect anyone to take your sources and your claims seriously when you change them after they've been discredited. I never said I was a historian, this is yet another example of how you subtly distort issues and truths. I mentioned once that I am an amateur historian - huuuuge difference.

The video "Our Godly Heritage" exists. The 1990 VERSION of the video to which you claim he made the statement on, is no where to be found. Provide it.

Discredit the study by the University of Houston that I mention in my OP. Everything else is a waste of time.


The article I sent you!!?

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2006-09-01/feature5

That article directly quotes from the video! When I get home, I'm going to make a youtube video for you... and we'll see how well you can edit your posts to backtrack.

Provide a link to the American Political Science Review article please, I'm certain their is an appropriate peer reviewed response.
 
Don't expect anyone to take your sources and your claims seriously when you change them after they've been discredited. I never said I was a historian, this is yet another example of how you subtly distort issues and truths. I mentioned once that I am an amateur historian - huuuuge difference.

The video "Our Godly Heritage" exists. The 1990 VERSION of the video to which you claim he made the statement on, is no where to be found. Provide it.

Discredit the study by the University of Houston that I mention in my OP. Everything else is a waste of time.

Also, there was a study done, and then written to book form, a very good piece, that I think you would very much benefit from:

Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers

You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority-Skeptical-Founding-Fathers/dp/1566636752


Brooke Allen also wrote this piece: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen

I'll apply him as a direct counter to Barton... and wouldn't you guess it, the man is actually educated!
 
The article I sent you!!?

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2006-09-01/feature5

That article directly quotes from the video! When I get home, I'm going to make a youtube video for you... and we'll see how well you can edit your posts to backtrack.

Click on the link, Kade. If you're a member then perhaps you can give me what it is you claim provides the quotes. I have no intention of subscribing.

Provide a link to the American Political Science Review article please, I'm certain their is an appropriate peer reviewed response.

I can't find a link but I gave you the sources for the research in my first post:

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review

Here is your video. Thanks to someone else who found it for me.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Godly.../dp/B000E17KL2

-----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------

The person who provided you with this is most likely the same person who PM'd me and told me that he/she remembers seeing that video in 1992 and remembers that quote.

So, for the sake of argument and assuming that many of Barton's "secondary sources" as he puts it, have been inaccurate, how does any of this refute my OP regarding the research done on the subject at hand? If you are unhappy because I quoted Barton, and you don't like him, fine. But trying to turn me into an apologist for him is a waste of time. If my argument was soley based on him as a source, I agree you would have a legitimate reason for pursuing this. However, Barton is not the one who conducted the study nor did he have anything to do with it, he simply wrote about it, and I used his quotes. l reiterate:

While I quoted him regarding the study, beyond that I have no investment, ideological or otherwise, in the man or his work.

I personally don't have a problem with using Barton's quotes on this study. I don't necessarily agree with him on other things but on this study, I completely agree with him. Perhaps Barton's problem with regard to his other stances, was in using unsubstantiated sources. I think that happens to everyone from time to time. And when you have a group or groups of people who are "out to get you", often times they are successful at turning popular opinion against you.

Ron Paul has experienced this. Did I stop supporting him when those bigoted writings in his name came out? Of course not. Like others in his position, Barton is misunderstood. But his achievments in combating the secularists when it comes to history revision is impressive.
 
Last edited:
Here's info on Donald Lutz:

http://www.polsci.uh.edu/faculty/vita/Donald Lutz.htm

Here is : “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554(198403)78:1<189:TRIOEW>2.0.CO;2-9&origin=crossref

Another book written by several scholars that uses the above as a source: http://books.google.com/books?id=QkUliRcSJXwC

and here is where they use the source: http://books.google.com/books?id=Qk...g=zq4V7jkCb6lFOw9KcEizxws9_SA&hl=en#PPA256,M1

Here is his book and an abstract of it: Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-American-Constitutionalism-Donald-Lutz/dp/0807115061
 
Hehe, if you think our government being founded on the Christian religion is "the exact same thing" as our country being founded on Judeo-Christian principles, then I have nothing left to debate with you. You need a dictionary and a thesaurus, and a few history lessons.

My friend, I'm far more educated than you are, and will ever be.

Case in point.
 
ANGLES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE
The Jewish Question exists wherever Jews appear, says Theodor Herzl, because they bring it with them. It is not their numbers that create the Question, for there is in almost every country a larger number of other aliens than of Jews. It is not their much-boasted ability, for it is now coming to be understood that, give the Jew an equal start and hold him to the rules of the game, and he is not smarter than anyone else; indeed, in one great class of Jews the zeal is quenched when opportunity for intrigue is removed.

The Jewish Question is not the number of Jews who reside here, not in the American's jealousy of the Jew's success, certainly not in any objection to the Jew's Mosaic religion; it is in something else, and that something else is the fact of Jewish influence on the life of the country where Jews dwell; in the United States it is the Jewish influence on American life.

That the Jews exert an influence, they themselves loudly proclaim. The Jews claim, indeed, that the fundamentals of the United States are Jewish and not Christian, and that the entire history of this country should be re-written to make proper acknowledgement of the prior glory due to Judah. If the question of influence rested entirely on the Jewish claim, there would be no occasion for doubt; they claim it all. But it is kindness to hold them to the facts; it is also more clearly explanatory of the conditions in our country.

If they insist that they "gave us our Bible" and "gave us our God" and "gave us our religion," as they do over and over again with nauseating superciliousness throughout all their polemic publications -- not a single one of these claims being true -- they must not grow impatient and profane while we complete the list of the real influences they have set at work in American life.

It is not the Jewish people but the Jewish idea, and the people only as vehicles of the idea, that is the point at issue. In this investigation of the Jewish Question, it is Jewish influence and the Jewish Idea that are being discovered and defined.

The Jews are propagandists. This was originally their mission. But they were to propagate the central tenet of their religion. This they failed to do. By failing in this they, according to their own Scriptures, failed everywhere They are now without a mission of blessing. Few of their leaders even claim a spiritual mission. But the mission idea is still with them in a degenerate form; it represents the grossest materialism of the day; it has become a means of sordid acquisition instead of a channel of service.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LABOR AND JEWRY
The essence of the Jewish Idea in its influence on the labor world is the same as in all other departments -- the destruction of real values in favor of fictitious values. The Jewish philosophy of money is not to "make money," but to "get money." The distinction between these two is fundamental. That explains Jews being "financiers" instead of "captains of industry." It is the difference between "getting" and "making."

The creative, constructive type of mind has an affection for the thing it is doing. The non-Jewish worker formerly chose the work he liked best. He did not change employment easily, because there was a bond between him and the kind of work he had chosen. Nothing else was so attractive to him. He would rather draw a little less money and do what he liked to do, than a little more and do what irked him. The "maker" is always thus influenced by his liking.

Not so the "getter." It doesn't matter what he does, so long as the income is satisfactory. He has no illusions, sentiments or affections on the side of work. It is the "geld" that counts. He has no attachment for the things he makes, for he doesn't make any; he deals in the things which other men make and regards them solely on the side of their money-making value. "The joy of creative labor" is nothing to him, not even an intelligible saying.

Now, previous to the advent of Jewish socialistic and subversive ideas, the predominant thought in the labor world was to "make" things and thus "make" money. There was a pride among mechanics. Men who made things were a sturdy, honest race because they dealt with ideas of skill and quality, and their very characters were formed by the satisfaction of having performed useful functions in society. They were the Makers. And society was solid so long as they were solid. Men made shoes as exhibitions of their skill. Farmers raised crops for the inherent love of crops, not with reference to far-off money-markets. Everywhere THE JOB was the main thing and the rest was incidental.

The only way to break down this strong safeguard of society -- a creative laboring class of sturdy character -- was to sow other ideas among it; and the most dangerous of all the ideas sown was that which substituted "get" for "make."

With the required manipulation of the money and food markets, enough pressure could be brought to bear on the ultimate consumers to give point to the idea of "get," and it was not long before the internal relations of American business were totally upset, with Jews at the head of the banking system, and Jews at the head of both the conservative and radical elements of the Labor Movement, and, most potent of all, the Jewish Idea sowed through the minds of workingmen. What Idea? The idea of "get" instead of "make."

The idea of "get" is a vicious, anti-social and destructive idea when held alone; but when held in company with "make" and as second in importance, it is legitimate and constructive. As soon as a man or a class is inoculated with the strictly Jewish idea of "getting" -- ("getting mine"; "getting while the getting is good"; honestly if you can, dishonestly if you must -- but get it" -- all of which are notes of this treasonable philosophy), the very cement of Duncan society loses its adhesiveness and begins to crumble. The great myth and fiction of Money has been forced into the place of real things, and the second step of the drama can thus be opened up.

Jewish influence on the thought of the working-men of the United States, as well as on the thought of business and professional men, has been bad, thoroughly bad. This is not manifested in a division between "capital" and "labor," for there are no such separate elements; there is only the executive and operating departments of American business. The real division is between the Jewish Idea of "get" and the Anglo-Saxon idea of "make," and at the present time the Jewish idea has been successful enough to have caused an upset.

All over the United States, in many branches of trade, Communist colleges are maintained, officered and taught by Jews. These so-called colleges exist in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Rochester, Pittsburgh, New York, Philadelphia and other cities, the whole intent being to put all American labor on a "get" basis, which must prove the economic damnation of the country. That is the end sought, as in Russia.

Until Jews can show that the infiltration of foreign Jews and the Jewish Idea into the American labor movement has made for the betterment in character and estate, in citizenship and economic statesmanship, the charge of being an alien, destructive and treasonable influence will have to stand.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CHURCHES AND JEWRY
The last place the uninstructed observer would look for traces of Jewish influence is in the Christian Church, yet if he fails to look there he will miss much. If the libraries of our theological seminaries were equipped with complete files of Jewish literary effort during recent decades, and if the theological students were required to read these Jewish utterances there would be less silly talk and fewer "easy marks" for Jewish propaganda in the American pulpit. For the next 25 years every theological seminary should support a chair for the study of Modern Jewish influence and the Protocols. The fiction, that the Jews are an Old Testament people faithful to the Mosaic Law, would then be exploded, and timid Christians would no longer superstitiously hesitate to speak the truth about them because of that sadly misinterpreted text: "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee."

There is a mission for the pulpit to liberate the Church from what the New Testament Scriptures call "the fear of the Jews." The pulpit has also the mission of liberating the Church from the error that Judah and Israel are synonymous. The reading of the Scriptures which confuse the tribe of Judah with Israel, and which interpret every mention of Israel as signifying the Jews, is at the root of more than one-half the confusion and division traceable in Christian doctrinal statements.

The Jews are NOT "The Chosen People," though practically the entire Church has succumbed to the propaganda which declares them to be so. The Jewish tinge of thought has of late years overspread many Christian statements, and the uninstructed clergy have proved more and more amenable to Jewish suggestion.

The flaccid condition of the Church, so much deplored by spokesmen who had regard for her inner life, was brought about not by "science," not by "scholarship," not by the "increase of light and learning"-- for none of these things are antagonistic even to incomplete statements of truth -- but by Jewish-German Higher Criticism. The defenders of the faith have fought long and valiantly against the inroads made by the so-called Higher Criticism, but were sadly incapacitated in their defense, because they did not see that its origin and purpose were Jewish. It was not Christian; it was not German; it was Jewish.

It is perfectly in keeping with the Jewish World Program that this destructive influence should be sent out under Jewish auspices, and it is perfectly in keeping with non-Jewish trustfulness to accept the thing without looking at its source. The Church is now victim of a second attack against her, in the rampant Socialism and Sovietism that have been thrust upon her in the name of flabby and unmoral theories of "brotherhood" and in an appeal to her "fairness." The church has been made to believe that she is a forum for discussion and not a high place for annunciation.

Jews have actually invaded, in person and in program, hundreds of American churches, with their subversive and impossible social ideals, and at last became so cocksure of their domination of the situation that they were met with the inevitable check.

Clergymen ought to know that seven-eights of the economic mush they speak from the pulpit is prepared by Jewish professors of political economy and revolutionary leaders. They should be informed that economic thought has been so completely Judaized by means of a deliberate and masterly plan of camouflaged propaganda, that the mass-thought of the crowd (which is the thought mostly echoed in "popular" pulpits and editorials) is more Jewish than Jewry itself holds.

The Jew has got hold of the Church in doctrine, in liberalism, so-called, and in the feverish and feeble sociological diversions of many classes. If there is any place where a straight study of the Jewish Question should be made it is in the modern Church which is unconsciously giving allegiance to a mass of Jewish propaganda. It is not reaction that is counselled here; it is progress along constructive paths, the paths of our forefathers, the Anglo-Saxons, who have to this day been the World-Builders, the Makers of cities and commerce and continents; and not the Jews who have never been builders or pioneers, who have never peopled the wilderness, but who move in upon the labors of other men. They are not to be blamed for not being Builders or Pioneers, perhaps; they are to be blamed for claiming all the rights of pioneers; but even then, perhaps, their blame ought not to be so great as the blame that rests upon the sons of the Anglo-Saxons for rejecting the straightforward Building of their fathers, and taking up with the doubtful ideas of Judah.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JEWRY IN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
Colleges are being constantly invaded by the Jewish Idea. The sons of the Anglo-Saxons are being attacked in their very heredity. The sons of the Builders, the Makers, are being subverted to the philosophy of the destroyers. Young men in the first exhilarating months of intellectual freedom are being seized with promissory doctrines, the source and consequences of which they do not see. There is a natural rebelliousness of youth, which promises progress; there is a natural venturesomeness to play free with ancient faiths; both of which are ebullitions of the spirit and significance of dawning mental virility. It is during the periods when these adolescent expansions are in process that the youth is captured by influences which deliberately lie in wait for him at the colleges. True, in after years a large proportion come to their senses sufficiently to be able "to sit on the fence and see themselves go by," and they come back to sanity. They find that "freelove" doctrines make exhilarating club topics, but that the Family -- the old-fashioned loyalty of one man and one woman to each other and their children -- is the basis not only of society, but of all personal character and progress. They find that Revolution, while a delightful subject for fiery debates and an excellent stimulant to the feeling of superman-likeness, is nevertheless not the process of progress.

The trouble with the colleges has progressed along precisely the same lines that have been described in connection with the churches. First, Jewish higher criticism in the destruction of young men's sense of respect for the ancient foundations; second, Jewish revolutionary social doctrines. The two always go together. They cannot live apart. They are the fulfillment of the Protocol's program to split non-Jewish society by means of ideas.

It is idle to attack the "radicalism" of college student -- these are the qualities of immaturity. But it is not idle to show that social radicalism ("radicalism" being a very good word very sadly misused) comes from a Jewish source. The central group of Red philosophers in every university is a Jewish group, with often enough a "Gentile front" in the shape of a deluded professor. Some of these professors are in the pay of outside Red organizations. There are Intercollegiate Socialist Societies, swarming with Jews and Jewish influences, and toting Jewish professors around the country, addressing fraternities under the patronage of the best civic and university auspices. Student lecture courses are fine pasture for this propaganda, the purpose being to give the students the thrill of believing that they are taking part in the beginning of a new great movement, comparable to the winning of Independence.

The revolutionary forces which head up in Jewry rely very heavily on the respectability which is given their movement by the adhesion of students and a few professors. It was so in Russia -- everyone knows what the name "student" eventually came to signify in that country. The Jewish Chautauqua, which works almost exclusively in colleges and universities, together with Bolshevism in art, science, religion, economics and sociology, are driving straight through the Anglo-Saxon traditions and landmarks of our race of students. These are ably assisted by professors and clergymen whose thinking has been dislocated and poisoned by Jewish subversive influences in theology and sociology.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?
Simply identify the source and nature of the influence which has overrun our schools and universities. Let the students know that their choice is between the Anglo-Saxons and the Tribe of Judah. Let the students decide, in making up their allegiance, whether they will follow the Builders or those who seek to tear down. It is not a case for argument. The only absolute antidote to the Jewish influence is to call college students back to a pride of race.

We often speak of the Fathers as if they were the few who happened to affix their signatures to a great document which marked a new era of liberty. The Fathers of our nation were the men of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic race. The men who came from Europe with civilization in their blood and in their destiny. The men who crossed the Atlantic and set up civilization on a bleak and rock-bound coast; the men who drove north to Alaska and west to California; the men who opened up the tropics and subdued the arctics; the men who mastered the African veldt; the men who peopled Australia and seized the gates of the world at Suez, Gibraltar and Panama; men who have given form to every government and a livelihood to every people and an ideal to every century. They got neither their God nor their religion from Judah, nor yet their speech nor their creative genius -- they are the Ruling People. Chosen throughout the centuries to Master the world, by building it ever better and better, and not by breaking it down.

Into the camp of this race, among the sons of the rulers, comes a people that has no civilization to point to, no aspiring religion, no universal speech, no great achievement in any realm but the realm of "get," cast out of every land that gave them hospitality, and these people endeavor to tell the Sons of the Saxons what is needed to make the world what it ought to be!

If our sons follow this counsel of dark rebellion and destruction, it is because they do not know whose sons they are, of what race they are the scions. Let there be free speech to the limit in our universities and free intercourse of ideas, but let Jewish thoughts be labeled Jewish, and let our sons know the racial secret.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAME THE ENEMY!
The warning has already gone out through the colleges. The system of Jewish procedure is already fully known. How simple it is! First, you secularize the public schools -- "secularize" is the precise word the Jews use for the process. You prepare the mind of the public school child by enforcing the rule that no mention shall ever be made to indicate that culture or patriotism is in any way connected with the deeper principles of the Anglo-Saxon religion. Keep it out, every sight and sound of it! Keep out also every word that will aid any child to identify the Jewish race. Then, when you have thus prepared the soil, you can go into the universities and colleges and enter upon the double program of pouring contempt on all the AngloSaxon landmarks, at the same time filling the void with Jewish revolutionary ideas.

The influence of the common people is driven out of the schools, where common people's influence can go; but Jewish influence is allowed to run rampant in the higher institutions where the common people's influence cannot go. Secularize the schools, and you can then Judaize the universities.

This is the "liberalism" which Jewish spokesmen so much applaud. In labor unions, in churches, in universities, it has tainted the principles of work, faith and society. The proof of it is written thickly over all Jewish activities and utterances. It is in exerting these very influences that Jewry convinces itself that it is fulfilling its "mission" to the world.

The capitalism attacked is non-Jewish capitalism; the orthodoxy attacked is Christian orthodoxy; the society attacked is the Anglo-Saxon form of society; all of which by their destruction would redound to the glory of Judaism.
The list could be extended -- the influence of the Jewish idea on Anglo-Saxon sports and pleasure, on the Anglo-Saxon idea of patriotism, on the Anglo-Saxon conception of the learned professions; the influence of the Jewish idea runs down through every department of life.

"Well," one very badly deluded American editor, wrapped up in Jewish advertising contracts, was heard to say, "if the Jews can get away with it, then they have a right to." It is a variant of the "answer" of Jewish origin, which runs thus: "How can a paltry 3 million run the 100 million of the rest of us? Nonsense!"

Yes, let it be agreed; if the Jewish idea is the stronger, if the Jewish ability is the greater, let them conquer; let Anglo-Saxon principles and power go down in ruins before the Tribe of Judah. But first let the two ideas struggle under their own banners; let it be a fair struggle.

It is not a fair fight when in the movies, in the schools, in the Judaized churches, in the universities, the Anglo-Saxon idea is kept away from the Anglo-Saxons on the plea that it is "sectarian" or "clannish" or "obsolete" or something else, say, reaction.

It is not a fair fight when Jewish ideas are offered as AngloSaxon ideas, because offered under Anglo-Saxon auspices. Let the heritage of our Anglo-Saxon fathers have free course among their Anglo-Saxon sons, and the Jewish idea can never triumph over it, in the university forum or in the marts of trade. The Jewish idea never triumphs until first the people over whom it triumphs are denied the nurture of their native culture.

Judah has begun the struggle. Judah has made the invasion. Let it come. Let no man fear it. But let every a man insist that the fight be fair. Let college students and leaders of thought know that the objective is the regnancy of the ideas and the race that have built all the civilization we see and that promises all the civilization of the future; let them also know that the attacking force is Jewish.

That is all that will be necessary. It is against this that the Jews protest. "You must not identify us," they say, "You must not use the term 'Jew'." Why? Because unless the Jewish idea can creep in under the assumption of other than Jewish origin, it is doomed. Anglo-Saxon ideas dare proclaim themselves and their origin. A proper proclamation is all that is necessary today. Compel every invading idea to run up its flag!

"Only speak if you are the most ablest man in the room."

Buddy, you are a nut. Really... So just because I'm Jewish, I'm the "enemy," eh? And I never knew that Judaism was being indoctrinated to our public schools :) Yeah, sure, go get me a list of all these random conspiracy sources, sure. I'll refute every single damn one. Out of my entire time on this forum, I haven't seen someone as ignorant, hateful, blatantly stupid and anti-semitic than yourself. Get a life, get educated, and stop using Judaism as this "scapegoat. Because the last time I checked, it wasn't us Jews who are screwing up America. It's the radical racist Evangelicals who are who value Vatican City more than our homeland like yourself. Get a life, and realize that at least 90% of the Jewish population stands for exactly what the bloody hell this movement stands for. My G-d. If you were actually educated, you'd realize that the entire nation of Israel, Jews in other countries and etcetera love and adore Ron Paul. My G-d. If you would just sit down for a second and actually do some research outside of your little "conspiracies," you'd see right through them.

Holy ****.
 
Hey, you could say the same about the topic starters reply :p I was just returning the favor.

Nah. I tend to agree with Deborah K on this one. Big big difference between a nation state being founded by religious virtues and principles, and a nation state infusing religion into the government.
 
We the people are the ones responsible for a Constitutional Form of Government. It is the people that agreed to be bound by this social contract that matters.

The constitution was largely void of religious reference, outside of mention of a creator and that congress shall pass no law concerning religion, the legal contract ratified by the people is silent on the issue.

When courts try to rule on a breach of contract, the first thing they do is ascertain the original understanding of those that agreed to the contract. The understanding of those that wrote the contract is less important.

So why do I care about those that approved it? Because that is how the law is supposed to work.

Wow, you have conservative in your name, but you speak like a law genius. Congratulations. You win.
 
Alright, my entire point comes to this...

Judeo-Christian "values" are completely void of any useful original philosophical thought. Commonly, the Ten Commandments are considered part of this value system. Anything adapted from ancient Judaism into Christianity... although the word really didn't exist before the 1890s.

The motivation behind the creation of our country were mostly enlightenment principles. These were influenced by many people, not excluding Burke, Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith...etc. Our most cherished founding fathers, who wrote the MOST important documents leading up to and within the creation of this beautiful nation, were HIGHLY influenced by these Principles... these founders include:

Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Mason, Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.

Enlightenment Principles:

Popular Sovereignty
Natural Rights
Liberty
Reductionism
Rationalism
Anti-superstition
Tolerance
Pantheism/Deism
Reason as Basis of Authority
Progressive




Now, your insistence that somehow this nation was founded on the very antithesis of the principles of this nation are absolutely ridiculous.

That you use criminally retarded individuals to further the useless point, is itself, inexcusably ignorant.
 
Alright, my entire point comes to this...

Judeo-Christian "values" are completely void of any useful original philosophical thought. Commonly, the Ten Commandments are considered part of this value system. Anything adapted from ancient Judaism into Christianity... although the word really didn't exist before the 1890s.

The motivation behind the creation of our country were mostly enlightenment principles. These were influenced by many people, not excluding Burke, Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith...etc. Our most cherished founding fathers, who wrote the MOST important documents leading up to and within the creation of this beautiful nation, were HIGHLY influenced by these Principles... these founders include:

Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Mason, Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.

Enlightenment Principles:

Popular Sovereignty
Natural Rights
Liberty
Reductionism
Rationalism
Anti-superstition
Tolerance
Pantheism/Deism
Reason as Basis of Authority
Progressive




Now, your insistence that somehow this nation was founded on the very antithesis of the principles of this nation are absolutely ridiculous.

That you use criminally retarded individuals to further the useless point, is itself, inexcusably ignorant.

Congratulations, you created a list comprised mostly of values within Christianity along with values associated with the Enlightenment. Again, I go back to my earlier point that Tocqueville, hardly a religious nut, recognized in his book "Democracy in America" that Christianity played a major role in the workings of the country, the founding, and the government as well as Christianity having many most of those virtues you described. That's not to say the government is a religious state, but he recongized that democracy, and a constitutional republic made room for religious values to influence the law of the land. How? Banning certain vices at the local and state level because they are immoral. The Banning of gambling in certain states (PA right up till a couple years ago) and the 19th century temperance movement are great examples of that. Both are example of laws at the begining of the country, both influenced by religion, and both were completely constitutional.

Now, that doesn't have anything to with the Constitution, but it does have to do with the fact that America's "founding" went beyond what a select few created. Our founding amounts to invovlement with all people, not just the most famous ones like Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. The founding of the country was about the people, according to historian Ray Raphael in his book "Founding Myths." To make it clear, Rayphael argues that a founding is more than a document, it's the sentiment, thoughts beliefs, ideals, values, virtues of the people making up the country. With that said, every colony, prior to the Declaration of Independence had their own version of it. Those are what inspired Jefferson and a few others to write the big one. All of those Declarations had religious references, all paying tribute to the value that Christinity has in a republic and free society. The Virginia Declaration of Rights drafted by George Mason is a perfect example of this:

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other."
--Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

Also, take a look at our first national government. Made up by the articles of Confederation. The drafters of the Articles knew that Christianity and the values we associate with republicanism were one in the same.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
Now, why do the Articles of Confederation matter since it's not the Consitution? The sentiments put in to the Articles, are the same sentiments put into the Constitution. Constitutional scholar Louis Henkin argues that because the Constitution does not rule out certain parts the first official constitution of America (the Articles), the constitution we know and love today retains those same sentiments. These sentiments were that a republic, this republic, requires Christian virtues (see your list) in order to survive.

Are these values strictly Christian? No. They can belong to many beliefs. That doesn't change the fact that our nation felt they were Christian values.

Also, I would tend to agree that Enlightenment thinkers influenced the founders greatly. Historian Bernard Bailyn's book "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" backs that up. But again, it doesn't change the fact that our Founders (defined not just by a few select, but the entire population which supported and fueled the Revolution) believed that Christian principles and values should be at least one basis for the founding of our American republic.
 
Last edited:
Alright, my entire point comes to this...

Judeo-Christian "values" are completely void of any useful original philosophical thought. Commonly, the Ten Commandments are considered part of this value system. Anything adapted from ancient Judaism into Christianity... although the word really didn't exist before the 1890s.

The motivation behind the creation of our country were mostly enlightenment principles. These were influenced by many people, not excluding Burke, Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith...etc. Our most cherished founding fathers, who wrote the MOST important documents leading up to and within the creation of this beautiful nation, were HIGHLY influenced by these Principles... these founders include:

Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Mason, Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.

Enlightenment Principles:

Popular Sovereignty
Natural Rights
Liberty
Reductionism
Rationalism
Anti-superstition
Tolerance
Pantheism/Deism
Reason as Basis of Authority
Progressive




Now, your insistence that somehow this nation was founded on the very antithesis of the principles of this nation are absolutely ridiculous.

That you use criminally retarded individuals to further the useless point, is itself, inexcusably ignorant.

I actually like what you wrote there, Kade, and I agree with most of it - except for the obvious exclusion of Judeo-Christian principles. Your complete denial of this reveals much about your own agenda as an atheist. It is the very reason I wrote this thread in the first place. And you have just proven my point.

I have put forth an argument that is substantiated by research. The fact that you have categorically ignored the research leads me to the conclusion that you have no way to refute what I'm contending other than to disparage one of my sources. You keep bringing up Barton to the exclusion of Lutz's writings and research, as well as other scholars who have cited Lutz's work in their own works. This speaks volumes as to the weakness of your argument.
 
Back
Top