Welcome to Gaia! ::

You took the part that is out of context, try the beginning.



Now, tell me, what does that say?

THIS!: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion 3nodding

But seriously...

You're right...halfway. The government wasn't founded on the Christian religion. It was founded on the freedom of religions (along with other things). Quakers were fleeing Europe because they were getting their noses slit along with other persecuted people that had different religions. With that said, people came here to express their religion freely without other getting punished for doing so.

However, the people founding the government were primarily Christian. That is why the government has the ten commandments. Because they now had the freedom to do so. Though times have indeed changed, it's a historical part of the court rooms. Its just keeping the roots of what this country was founded on. Freedom.

You can choose not to look at them. You can choose to ignore them. But having some commandments upon the wall doesn't breach any contract nor does it infringe on anybody's rights.

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but it looks to me like your the one taking it out of context. Your just taking one sentence out of the entire treaty, thus changing the meaning of the sentence.

By the way, I think that in an argument like this relevence is subjective. It makes it really hard to argue.

First off, our Founding Fathers were primarily deist, not Christian. At any rate, they and the majority of the people who came here as colonists came because their government was so thickly intertwined with the church at the time that they couldn't freely practice their views on religion. By trying to weave religious elements back into the government framework we are recreating exactly that from which our Founding Fathers were trying to escape. Secondly, the government does not have the ten commandments- Christianity does. There is a difference, seriously.^_^'



The relevant part of the sentence is that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Regardless of context, that is a statement of fact and does not change. You can try it for yourself- say anything you want before or after that phrase. It might not make sense because it's random, but the meaning of the phrase "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" remains clear and unaltered. This argument is to refute the claims being made that our Founding Fathers intended for this country to be a Christian nation- a popular platform for the GOP and many Christian religious reformists at the moment. That is why it is important to establish that this nation was not founded on Christianity- the reason why it was not founded on Christianity is preserved in history, and should satisfactorily explain the reasons why this nation should not become a theocracy.

Contrary to what has been said above, our government is not currently a theocracy (a government where religion is so bound up with rule that to separate them would require a complete overhaul of the system). We are a democracy, with an emphasis placed on freedom of religion. If we install one religion into our government framework, simply because most of the people in power belong to that general category, then we will have a state religion and religious freedom will be considerably lamed if not wiped out altogether. We are all free to practice our religion. We are not free to push it onto other people. Therefore, federal buildings (which are intended for the service of all people, regardless of religion) should not become religious buildings. It's simply not appropriate- and it's so easy to fix! I can't even fathom why this is such a big issue.^_^'

On the other side of the story, if we're going to make Christianity our state religion just because many of our politicians are Christian, which denomination would we use? The President's, since he's the most powerful? Maybe we could even make him a president by Divine Right.^_^' Or do we chose the denomination which is most strongly represented in all three of the branches of government? If there's a tie, what do we do? Maybe we could start electing people by religion rather than by voting record, to keep a certain religious faction in power? Of course, we'd have to knock off a few of the people currently holding seats in the wrong denomination, first. That's where theocracies tend to go- we've only just started looking down that road so far. I can only think of one nation which had a theocracy where it actually worked out for them, and I doubt that we could reproduce their results the way we are now.

Ack! I meant tacked to their wall. I didn't mean they had the commandments as actual laws. sweatdrop

But back to what I said before...Tacking a religious icon to the wall doesn't convert someone more than someone's friend having a cross tacked to the wall of their house. You aren't pressured to be Christian with your friend (unless they're one of those creepy "LOVE JESUS OR DIE!!" type people), just like you aren't with the government.


And guys...we don't need to be ganging up on puppet...chill please. 3nodding

Well if you want to get technical, the ten commandments were the traditional laws back then. Those laws stood in place for thousands of years. Adulterers were stoned, theives were imprisoned, blaspemers were crucified... The laws were used in court houses way back then and therefore it is tradition. Even if its not, I'd say 300 years of having the ten commandments hung up in the court houses is long enough to deem it a tradition. We consider things that have been around for far, far less tradition. (Yeah..I thought I took a "I don't care" stance on this. How did I get sucked into arguing?)

Exactly, all that does is describe the foundings of our nation, now, it may have been that I may have inadvertantly made you infer that it holds more legal significance than it does.


So far, good.


It seems like you are saying that the Quakers or any other branch of Christianity that was being persecuted in England/Europe at the time, are the people who founded our nation. That is untrue, they founded the Colonies, not the Nation.


I don't believe that is the case; I think a large number of the founding fathers of the nation, were less avid about being good christians. Though, since you make the claim, I would like to see proof of this claim.


Are you implying that in 18th century Europe, Christian symbols were left outside of the courtrooms and such?


So, then why not go back to slavery? We, while being founded on freedom of all citizens, should be able to legally inslave any non-citizen, if we so choose, because it is part of our history.


Except, that this completely simplifies things by implying intent plays no part. Which, by the way, intent plays a huge part in such issues. So, it is then a question of intent; as in, are the Ten Commandments being placed in a government building inteding to promote religion, in this case Christianity.