>> ^lsue:

Well I have to say that I disagree with you regarding your stance on late term abortions. I don't believe it should be criminal (for either doctor or patient) to undertake a medical procedure which concerns your own health and well-being. The point of the removal of laws against abortion is to decriminalize, not to encourage late term abortions or make them commonplace. What good would criminalization do?
But regardless of this disagreement, I felt that your first comment describing Canada's lack of abortion legislation "right up until the last second before birth" largely simplifies a complex issue and undermines the regulations which exist to get women the proper care when they need it (early in their pregnancy). This is why I replied.. I didn't mean to provoke an argument.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> Criminal laws on/against abortion are a federal matter though. And Canada has for some time now very clearly established that there is NO LAW against abortions. Current Canadian federal law in ALL provinces and territories makes all abortion, even up to 9 months, perfectly and completely legal.



But criminal law is an enormous part of the entire debate. Currently in Canada, it is perfectly and 100% legal to kill a fetus 1 hour before going in for a c-section. It is equally and completely 100% illegal, and considered one of the highest crimes in the nation to kill that exact same baby 2 hours later once the c-section has been completed. I say that's madness and more than just a little bit troubling.

I think you are far to quick to dismiss that situation as irrelevant or unimportant.

Well I have to say that I disagree with you regarding your stance on late term abortions. I don't believe it should be criminal (for either doctor or patient) to undertake a medical procedure which concerns your own health and well-being. The point of the removal of laws against abortion is to decriminalize, not to encourage late term abortions or make them commonplace. What good would criminalization do?

But regardless of this disagreement, I felt that your first comment describing Canada's lack of abortion legislation "right up until the last second before birth" largely simplifies a complex issue and undermines the regulations which exist to get women the proper care when they need it (early in their pregnancy). This is why I replied.. I didn't mean to provoke an argument.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> Criminal laws on/against abortion are a federal matter though. And Canada has for some time now very clearly established that there is NO LAW against abortions. Current Canadian federal law in ALL provinces and territories makes all abortion, even up to 9 months, perfectly and completely legal.

>> ^lsue:

It's a little more complicated then this - rules and access vary provincially. In Alberta, for example, good luck finding a clinic which will preform an abortion past 20 weeks.
"Who Performs Late Term Abortions:
Hospitals and some clinics in Canada perform abortions on request up to about 20 weeks, and a
few centres do abortions up to 22 or 23 weeks. However, most of the very small number of
abortions performed over 20 weeks gestation in Canada are done to protect the woman’s physical
health, or because of serious fetal abnormalities. Such problems cannot be discovered until an
amniocentesis test is done on the fetus later in pregnancy. Rare abortions after 22 or 23 weeks
gestation are also done in Canada for some cases of lethal fetal abnormalities, where the fetus
cannot survive after birth.
Since abortion services after 20 weeks are not always readily accessible in all parts of Canada,
women are sometimes referred to clinics in the United States (Kansas, Washington State, and
Colorado). Such procedures and associated expenses may be funded in full or part by some
provincial governments."
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^EMPIRE:
he mentions a woman possibly coming into the ER 7 months pregnant after having been raped. Is it even possible, legally, to get an abortion at such a late stage? At 7 months, that is pretty much a formed baby. I mean... there have been cases of premature babies with a lot less than 7 months of development.

In Canada it's legal right up until the very last second before birth. And heaven forbid anyone in our country discuss that might be too far, you'll be branded some woman hating neo-con trying to remove the rights of everyone who isn't a white male.




Criminal laws on/against abortion are a federal matter though. And Canada has for some time now very clearly established that there is NO LAW against abortions. Current Canadian federal law in ALL provinces and territories makes all abortion, even up to 9 months, perfectly and completely legal.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If the fascist, politically correct laws that force everyone to associate with everyone else applied to leftists, Senator No-Gay could successfully sue the restaurant for discrimination.


There is no law for refusing service to an individual for being an asshole...

If he was kicked out for being straight, white, male or old, you might have the vaguest point. He was kicked out for being a discriminatory cunt. Fair turn about imo.

Plus I don't recall you standing up and condemining the senator for his bigoted and discriminatory comments and stance (feel free to show me where you have though.. X ). But you get all hot and bothered because the guy is refused entry to a restaurant. I keep thinking it's not possible that you could make a bigger hypocritical jackass of yourself but you always seem to come up with a way.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has no law specifically stating that the captain has to be the last one to abandon a ship, though the tradition around it makes it very shameful that Captain Schettino didn't.

However, international maritime law is irrelevant in this case since it was an Italian flagged ship sailing in Italian waters. Congrats, Captain Schettino. You now have the Italian "justice" system to contend with. See you in 50 years (or 48 with good behavior).

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^quantumushroom:
When the minimum wage is raised, companies hire fewer workers and prices rise.
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.

Weird. I seem to live in a country where, while there is no law for minimum wage, we have unions (remember those things?) that have negotiated the MW to around 16$, usually more for most types of jobs. We also pay alot more taxes, especially the rich. And our government spends LESS on healthcare per capita than the US, and healthcare is free for everybody. And guess what? We dont really have an unemployment problem. College/university is also free, by the way.
How about that shit?


Does your country also have the third most population in the world?

>> ^quantumushroom:

When the minimum wage is raised, companies hire fewer workers and prices rise.
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.


Weird. I seem to live in a country where, while there is no law for minimum wage, we have unions (remember those things?) that have negotiated the MW to around 16$, usually more for most types of jobs. We also pay alot more taxes, especially the rich. And our government spends LESS on healthcare per capita than the US, and healthcare is free for everybody. And guess what? We dont really have an unemployment problem. College/university is also free, by the way.

How about that shit?

>> ^gorillaman:

@Unaccommodated
Modern marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with the production of children.
Marriage can only be worthwhile as a private contract contrived to serve the happiness of its participants. Its legitimacy should not be determined by the number of similar arrangements or the prevalence of comparable relationships in nature.
The biological source of our sociosexual proclivities is only a starting point, the raw material to be combined with our culture and worked by our intellect to produce something of greater value. Humanity has the power to surpass nature.
Homosexuality crossing a threshold of acceptability now that it's practiced by a significant enough percentage of the population is an idea that ought to be offensive to pretty much everybody.


Why should something be outlawed simply because it's offensive? My farts are pretty offensive but there's been no law passed to ban them... yet anyway.

Also, how exactly do we surpass nature when we are part of nature, please explain.

@rottenseed

However, if you read the "context" (since you dummies love to pull the
context card out), the question he is answering is:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful
for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

So pretty much the ONLY mention of a man and a woman is an exclusive
mention of not getting a divorce

Obviously it isn't the only mention, since Jesus is quoting the Old Testament. There are other verses which refer to marriage, but even if it were the only one, it doesn't change the fact that God has defined marriage to be between a man and woman and has condemned homosexual relations and fornication. One mention or 100, the truth of it is absolute.

All of this is for naught, however, since the first amendment to the
constitution, states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty amazing, huh? How not only does the constitution (apparently
written and signed by "Christians") doesn't mention any "god"
whatsoever, but they make sure in an amendment, that the government
does not support any single religion. This means that, sin or not, the
government has no business enforcing any law on the basis of religion.

game. set. match.

Your declaration of victory is premature. What the founders meant by "religion" is any particular Christian denomination. They did not want any to be preferred or adopted as the national religion. Fisher Ames, who wrote the language of the first ammendment, said this:

“...we have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education....We've become accustomed of late to putting little books in the hands of children containing fables with moral lessons. We are spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principle text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man made book.”

The man who wrote the first amendment obviously thought it was constitutional to teach the bible as our principle text in public schools, yet today they say that even having one in the classroom violates the 1st amendment. I wonder who actually knows more about the 1st amendment or what its purpose was. Obviously it wasnt meant to prevent government support of Christianity or the bible as our principle means of education. "Imagine that"

Two years after Jefferson wrote the letter that people use to justify a separation of church and state, he ordered as a presidential act the extention of using federal lands "“for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity”. He ordered that act extended two more times before he left office. Yet today they say that we can't have a nativity scene on government property. Are you starting to see how painfully out of context your imagined secularist interpretation is? There wasn't any such thing as secularism then, because everyone was Christian and believed in God. Why do you think the US capitol building was converted to a church every sunday? Why was the first supreme court opened with a 4 hour prayer and communion service?

What you are also unaware of is that the state constitutions at the time not only mentioned God and Christianity, many of them forbid anybody but Christians taking office:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;
wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

Starting to get the picture? How about this treaty?

Continental Congress (1783), ratified a peace treaty with Great Britain at the close of the Revolutionary War. The treaty began:

In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence
to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith… and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences… [p.149]


Why did George Washington announce this when they finished the constitution?:

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

The evidence is insurrmountable and overwhelming that this country was founded on Christian principles. To deny it is to ignore everything that is true about our history.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The problem with Ron Paul is that his economic policy contradicts his foreign policy. He wants to further deregulate and cut taxes for the corporations that took us to war in the first place. It's like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.


You see contradicts, I see consistency. A position against against war is a position against meddling, same to regulating businesses. And not all corporations profit from war, that is a bold hyperbole. Would an entire internet of do-gooders regulate food imports better than a government agency? Who knows, I for one, would like to see it tried. A failure will precipitate more participation in solution finding then the flawed FDA's and its inadequacies. The same advances that advance all our modern technology are ignored when mired in the miasma of politics. Important things that have no real answers should be left in our hands, 300 million hands make light work of problems, but only if that problem is left for them to solve. The illusion of law and safety is worse than no law at all. I consider myself a caring person, so I don't advocate liberty as an excuse to do harm, but do good in the way and on the things I want to do good on. Outsourcing caring, justice, goodness to other people; to government people I believe is the cause of much of our selfish american culture. And as such, I don't think upping the ante of other people caring for us is the answer. Freedom is harder, its evil more plain and boldfaced. But boldfaced enemies are easier foes than powerful men hiding behind good sounding legislation. Basically, I am against all forms of force, be it forces of good or evil. The only force I believe in is personal force of will, and my ability to convince you without force. It would be evil for me to demand you give your time, money, and energy to habitat for humanity...even though what they do is an arguable good thing. I don't see how the case for any of the other social legislation is any different.


Edit some autocorrect typos

The only mention that can be construed as Jesus speaking against gays is Mathew 19:4-6:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

However, if you read the "context" (since you dummies love to pull the context card out), the question he is answering is:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

So pretty much the ONLY mention of a man and a woman is an exclusive mention of not getting a divorce

All of this is for naught, however, since the first amendment to the constitution, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty amazing, huh? How not only does the constitution (apparently written and signed by "Christians") doesn't mention any "god" whatsoever, but they make sure in an amendment, that the government does not support any single religion. This means that, sin or not, the government has no business enforcing any law on the basis of religion.

game. set. match.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Because Christians do not follow jewish civil or cermonial law.
>> ^hpqp:
Orly? How come I never see your righteous rants under videos about eating seafood? (Lev. 11:10-12) >> ^shinyblurry:
We're commanded by God to speak out against sin and we aren't going to stop obeying God to listen to the politically correct establishment.

thanks for the response my friend.
you need to realize something,for it will save you a huge amount of time.
i am already aware of your theosophy so you dont have to reiterate every time we converse.
more practical that way.

Sure, always a pleasure my friend. I didn't get notification of your reply, otherwise I would have replied to this sooner. If I am reiterating anything it is to respond to bold claims and assertions about Jesus or the word of God that you're making.

I understand that in your eyes you have dissected the scripture for its "true" meaning, and that in comparison, you think I am rubbing two sticks together. Before I became a Christian and had gnostic beliefs, that is the way I approached scripture as well. I am not ignorant to your point of view, or your methodology. What I am trying to tell you is that by searching for the "true" meaning you have lost the true meaning.

i knew you would have a strong disagreement with not only my take on sin but how i dealt with those in a crisis of faith.
was to be expected. please remember that condensing 40 years down in to a few paragraphs much will be lost. so the answer would be:
no hell (not the version given by the church)
nor satan (again,not the version given by the church)
but i do not teach that salvation is a solo job.christ was the way and the light.
the path has been lit we need but to follow.
love and forgiveness are the first step towards that goal.

John 10:1

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.

The first step is to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. What we need foremost is Gods love and forgiveness; that is how we are validated as human beings. This is the reason I am disagreeing with you, because you are distorting what Jesus said. You're teaching people to make up their own gospel, and thus, their own Jesus. This is what is called idolatry. You're teaching people to make Jesus into a false idol. Don't like the idea of eternal punishment? No problem! Jesus didn't really mean that..He loves you and accepts you just the way you are. Don't like the idea of Satan? No problem! Evil is just a state of mind..you don't really have an enemy trying to destroy you. God would never allow that, He loves you!

What you're doing is divesting Jesus and His word of its authority and teaching people to be a judge over scripture. Instead of conforming to Gods standards, you're teaching people to make God conform to their standards, and showing them how they can justify it. It's wrong, and you're doing them more harm than good, because what you're teaching them is in fact in opposition to everything Jesus taught us to do.

i dont really understand your disagreement with my internalization/externalization example

because then you turn around and kind of make my point and even back up MY perspective.
that was interesting.

I disagree because it is all the work of the Holy Spirit. No, it is not what I happen to call the Holy Spirit and you call something else. I am talking about the literal Spirit of God, who has a mind and is God Himself. I am talking about the Spirit who searches the deep things of God, and leads into all truth. It isn't a metaphor I am using. This is where we're disagreeing. The Holy Spirit is the one who transforms us into the image of Christ, and apart from the Spirit we are chasing our own tails.

You say the Holy Trinity = body mind spirit. This is the problem with gnosticism, that it makes all sorts of connections that aren't really there. By making these kinds of associations you are actually divesting it of its true meaning. The Holy Trinity is God, there is nothing to compare God to, or associate God with. God is God and no one and nothing is like God. The equation isn't body mind and spirit in any case, it is body soul and spirit.

http://bible.org/seriespage/man-trinity-spirit-soul-body

nor do i understand your reticence to being called a baptist.it is what most closely aligns to your theosophy.sometimes we need labels to help us relate.thats why i use gnostic.
ah well.not a big point really..was just curious.

They are closer to what I believe than other denominations but what they believe doesn't represent what I believe. That's why I reject the label. I am simply a follower of the Way, a disciple of Jesus Christ.

i was thinking of a long line of questions but feel they not express the revelation i desire.
so.let me ask you this ONE question:
did god create us so he could be worshiped?

God created us to be in relationship with Him, which includes love, worship, fellowship, and service. He didn't create us because He needed anything, He created us out of the abundance of His goodness.

Let me ask you a question. Do you feel God isn't worthy of worshipped, or that He doesn't want to be worshipped?

This is something people bring up, that they don't feel they should have to worship God. My position is, if you don't feel like worshipping God then you clearly don't know Him. He is worthy of all honor, all praise, and all glory.

i have to admit being a bit tickled by some of your responses.they actually fit quite well from a gnostic perspective.i know you didnt mean them that way..hence me getting the giggles.
so i agree in spirit.we ARE all ONE.
this is why i end many of my letters with:namaste
what a great word.

2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

We are one when we are joined together in Christ. The body of Christ is the unity that God has set apart for Himself, separate from the world. We are all made in the image of God, true, but the spirit apart from Christ is dead in its sins and is incapable of pleasing God. The family of God is made up of adopted sons and daughters, and outside of that, there is no fellowship or unity.

OH.almost forgot (because "someone" keeps using bullet form responses)
when it comes to the bible the only thing i really give any authority to is the ministry of jesus.
the old testament is the old covenant and lets be honest.god is kind of a huge dick in that book.jesus made it irrelevant.and i have read all the gospels i could get my hands on,researched the meanings,the mistranslation,other theologians hypothesis and came to two conclusions:
1.jesus was most certainly here.
2.the bible is an incomplete text,fascinating as it may be.(boring to most though,but im a dork).

It might have skipped your attention but Jesus verified the Old Testament as the truth. He verified Genesis, Noah, Jonah, and many other things. It most certainly is not irrelevent for that reason, and for the reason that it is the prophecies in the Old Testament that predict the coming of Christ, prophecies which Jesus literally fulfilled. You can read the entire OT as being a type of the Messiah to come:

http://videosift.com/video/True-and-Better

However you might see the actions of God, He was dealing with a stubborn and evil people, who defied Him at every turn. Remember when He brought Moses up on the mountain? What is the first thing the israelites did? They made a golden calf and worshipped it saying "here is the god who brought us out of egypt." This was after God had done all of these mighty miracles before them. If anything, God was way too lenient.

I'm glad we can at least agree that Jesus was here. So let me ask you two 1/2 questions:

1: why don't you think Jesus is literally God (not someone who attained it, but is the literal creator of this reality)?
1a: was He raised from the dead, and if yes, by whom and for what purpose?
2: why is the bible "incomplete"? What do you think is missing?

ps:great book for ya right here.
http://frimmin.com/books/cosmicchrist.php

I've actually seen and read similiar books to these. They attempt to turn Christianity into a universalist enlightenment religion. The 12 steps to being as God is. It is to believe everything in general without believing anything in particular. It is the same thing the serpent said to Eve:

"ye shall be as gods"

Saying, we have to become as Christ to fix the Earth. That isn't what Jesus taught. He taught us that we are servants serving in His house, and that He has been given all authority under Heaven and Earth. He said in very plain language that He is the judge of the living and the dead, and that He is going to return to this fallen world and establish His Kingdom.

There is only one Jesus Christ, and we're not it. Why do you ignore the scripture that talks about His Lordship over Heaven and Earth but then embrace everything else?

and look up christ conciousness.
thats where my general theosophy lays.

It is indeed true that we need to have the mind of Christ, but again we can't do that without the Spirit of Christ. I think it is a noble pursuit to want to be like Jesus, but you can't do that by just emulating Him. You need His Spirit, the one that raised Him from the dead. We don't get the Spirit of Christ unless we are born again and confess Jesus as Lord. It is all a work of God, and apart from Him we can do nothing.

Galatians 5:22-23

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

I hope you don't see my reply as being too harsh, because I am stating the truth of what I believe, just as you are. If you have taken any offense, please accept my apology. I don't compromise on truth, and I am only meeting you with it at the places where you have drawn the lines. Take care my friend.

>> ^enoch

Jefferson wrote about a wall of separation, not a one way door. "Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God" means just that. Note that the government is not mentioned in that relationship. Further, the idea that homosexuals can't serve in the military has nothing at all to do with the Bible. Even if we accept that the Bible says that homosexual feelings or activity is a sin, there's no mention in the Bible that I'm aware of that says that sinners can't be in the military. If the military wishes to exclude all sinners, then according to many Christians no one could serve at all. But regardless of all that, the Bible is indistinguishable from fiction, and deserves to be treated as such.

As for whether or not the founding fathers were mostly deist, I do need to do more research. Some of your claims point to you being correct. Others aren't relevant.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Since we started turning our back on the Christian god? You mean like when the writer of the Constitution plainly stated that the first amendment was intended to provide a wall of separation between church and state? Or how so many of the founding fathers were deist, not Christian? The foundation surely has nothing to do with marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Just which Christian principles are you claiming America was founded on? And which denomination?
This is what Jefferson wrote, which was not an official government document:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"
What that obviously means is that it is protecting the church from the government, not the government from the church. The original intention of the establishment clause was to prevent any denomination from becoming the state religion. Since then it has been selectively interpreted to exclude Christianity from public affairs, mostly due to the inclusion of the case law standard.
Where do you get this idea that "so many of the founding fathers" were Deist? You could make a strong case for perhaps 2 or 3 of them. The rest were practicing Christians for which there is ample evidence. 24 of the signers have seminary degrees and one of them was a practicing minister. They opened the first session of congress with a 3 hour prayer and then a bible study. Franklin proposed that they open every congress with prayer at the first constitutional convention and since that time, every session has opened with prayer (until the last few years)
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
Do you think Jefferson is a Deist? Why did he write this?:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
Why did he hold church services in the house of representitives?
These were the three main reference materials cited by the framers:
king james bible
spirit of the laws
commentaries laws of england - blackstone, based on ten commandments
The rule of law is based on Gods natural, unchanging law. James madison had the idea for our three branches of government based on Isaiah 33:22. The reason we have checks and balances is because man has a sinful nature and they didn't believe any man could be trusted with power.
The liberty bell is inscribed with leviticus 25:10. In the battle hymm of the republic: "as christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"
our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
John Adams
the bible is the rock on which our republic rests
andrew jackson
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
Newsweek 12/27/82
>> ^DrewNumberTwo>> ^DrewNumberTwo

Since we started turning our back on the Christian god? You mean like when the writer of the Constitution plainly stated that the first amendment was intended to provide a wall of separation between church and state? Or how so many of the founding fathers were deist, not Christian? The foundation surely has nothing to do with marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Just which Christian principles are you claiming America was founded on? And which denomination?

This is what Jefferson wrote, which was not an official government document:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"

What that obviously means is that it is protecting the church from the government, not the government from the church. The original intention of the establishment clause was to prevent any denomination from becoming the state religion. Since then it has been selectively interpreted to exclude Christianity from public affairs, mostly due to the inclusion of the case law standard.

Where do you get this idea that "so many of the founding fathers" were Deist? You could make a strong case for perhaps 2 or 3 of them. The rest were practicing Christians for which there is ample evidence. 24 of the signers have seminary degrees and one of them was a practicing minister. They opened the first session of congress with a 3 hour prayer and then a bible study. Franklin proposed that they open every congress with prayer at the first constitutional convention and since that time, every session has opened with prayer (until the last few years)

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Do you think Jefferson is a Deist? Why did he write this?:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson

Why did he hold church services in the house of representitives?

These were the three main reference materials cited by the framers:

king james bible
spirit of the laws
commentaries laws of england - blackstone, based on ten commandments

The rule of law is based on Gods natural, unchanging law. James madison had the idea for our three branches of government based on Isaiah 33:22. The reason we have checks and balances is because man has a sinful nature and they didn't believe any man could be trusted with power.

The liberty bell is inscribed with leviticus 25:10. In the battle hymm of the republic: "as christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"

our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

John Adams

the bible is the rock on which our republic rests

andrew jackson

Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document

Newsweek 12/27/82

>> ^DrewNumberTwo>> ^DrewNumberTwo

Wow, AC is so bitter. It seems that he's oblivious to the scale of inequity and its exponential growth in recent years. If he would really examine the balance of equality in the "good old days," he would realize that it was much more equitable.

Goods used to be American made and today's globalization has seen manufacturing almost disappear and replaced by outsourcing and child labour. From a purely business standpoint, this makes sense. There is no law against foreign investment, so it's not economical to be patriotic.

And here we are today, with the balance so skewed that it makes sense to pay a few hundred million to buy a senator, republican or a judge. A few years down the road, you'll be paid back by sidestepping that environmental restriction or class-action lawsuit or anything else that might hurt your business.

And if you're an investment banker or bis securities trader, you provide very little to society other than a higher tax rate that you can comfortably afford. But even then, you can weasel your way out of most of that with creative deductions and perfectly legal loopholes. Remember what Warren Buffet said about his cleaning lady? Do you think he was talking out of his ass?