The United States is NOT a Christian Nation...

I wouldn't expect a Christian Nation to have anything but a secular government. "My kingdom is not of this world", alone pretty much rules out any kingship claiming a divine right. Your a liberal. To you a "nation" is defined by its government. While Christianity doesn't concern itself with governance. "Obey all authorities instituted among men", " render unto Caesar, that which is Caesars", "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus".

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. John Adams

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. John Quincy Adams

The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Congress 1854

Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854

Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. John Hancock

The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. Patrick Henry

 

That, or sometimes a Nation doesn't live up to its principles to which it aspires. As well, it seems that Christianity had more to do with bringing an end to slavery and segregation than it ever had to do with bringing it about.

 

usbible.com

It's not likely Jesus as such ever existed at all. Pre-history is chock full of mythical 'histories' featuring a blend of real elements and myth. No one could hope to verify any claims, after all, and the masses were pretty much under the sway of whatever their priests and kings told them.

And priests back then were also astrologers; the 'wisdom' of those times was based in part upon the science of the movements of the heavenly bodies, and many stories that were invented incorporated elements from this. One example of this is the solar deity, a demigod or otherwise divine figure who represented the sun allegorically and, I would postulate, helped to give sun worship a personal element. It's easier to relate to a Mithras, Hercules or Jesus than to the orb in the sky, and it's edifying to believe that the sun's annual apparent course and the associated seasons were connected directly to the fate of mankind. The sun 'dies' and then is 'reborn' at Winter Solstice, when the powers of darkess are at their strongest (days are short, the world is cold and dead, etc.), spends some time in the astrological 'wilderness' during late winter, and then? The days lengthen and then, in accordance with the gospel accounts, it encounters the water bearer, John the Baptist (who is also Aquarius), at which point it is baptised and subsequently rises (allegorical pun) to power, which of course is heralded by the change in weather from winter's darkness and cold to the warm, sunny spring, which of course is accompanied by the return of life and all sorts of wonderfulness like that. There you see another function of these stories - they offer an explanation, no matter how unscientific and silly they appear to us today, for the seasons and the sun's motion. People like to have answers to their questions, no matter how wrong they may actually be. Better something than nothing, right?

Anyway, on the story goes until it finds itself back at Winter Solstice, when again it dies and is then reborn. Jesus' earthly parents are constellations, namely Virgo (the virgin, eh?) and Boötes (Joseph), who are next to one another in the December sky together with the serpent, Serpens Caput, who is represented both as a dragon or serpent in bible stories and as King Herod in those gospels which claim Herod the Great had sought to kill baby Jesus (Rev 12 describes it thus: 12 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.

3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.) And yeah, the woman 'fled into the wilderness' in the gospel stories by fleeing to Egypt, and astrologically this could be understood by their apprent motions in the sky as well.

As for the idea of Jesus going to India, that would not have been necessary! India had already been connected to the Near East by that time through the Persian Empire and trade routes. Did the religious ideas of Persia, Egypt, Greece and perhaps all other parts of the Near East, North Africa and Europe stem from India? That's a distinct possibility, and for that matter quite likely given the evidence. From Wiki:
The Persian Empire is any of a series of imperial dynasties centered in Persia (now Iran) with boundaries that fluctuated around that core, extending far into regions that would later become Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan. The first of these was established by Cyrus The Great over 2,500 years ago, in 550 BC,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire

Great timing as well, isn't it? Cyrus the Great and the Persian Empire were also viewed positively by the Jews of the time, as they had freed rather than enslaved them and permitted them to worship as they saw fit. You can be sure that Persia came to have a massive influence on all manner of thought in the region, just as Rome did in its territories, Egypt in its territories, and even as the USA does globally today. When an empire or superpower is viewed favorably and has a degree of power and influence in a given culture, that culture will readily adopt all manner of ideas and practices from said empire or superpower. Also, the 'magi' mentioned in the gospel nativity stories were by definition Persian astrologers

THAT is the history of Christianity. It's one of many offshoots of an old lineage of sky-based religions and teachings, and Jesus was part of a kind of solar hero fad of that period of (pre-)history.

 

Lets see some evidence. Ive provided many quotes of founders demonstrating their Christian Beliefs. Christianity doesn't require membership in a particular church. Particular churches require membership. Washington and Jefferson were probably both what one could label as deist, but both could be labeled Christian as well. They are not mutually exclusive. Jefferson himself claimed to be a Christian. Washington attended Anglican and then Episcopalian churches. He constantly thanked "providence" for things in the past and prayed for its assistance in future endeavors. Evidencing belief in an involved god that intervenes in human affairs, unlike what is considered traditional deism.

 

So what good are Christian principles then?

You want your cake and want to eat it too. So let me get this straight... America is based upon Christian principles... which we as a society ignored for a couple hundred years... then after loooooong periods of time Christians fought to end slavery and then many many many years later the Christians were good enough to end segregation? You make that sound like that's good thing. I argue that if we were founded upon Christian principles then those principles are all but useless.

The reality is that America was founded upon an amalgam of many competing principles and that many Christians were slave owners while many other Christians were for abolition. I argue that the Age Of Reason thinkers had the largest influence upon the foundation of our Country as they understood the inherit danger of theocracies... like the one our forefathers fled England to escape.

I think you are revising history to match your dogma while I prefer to dig and find the good, the bad, and the ugly of history.

 

Jefferson rejected Christian dogma... including the miraculous conception and the resurrection. I have never been in a Church that rejects the resurrection. Washington said many conflicting things about religion over his life... perhaps showing how his views changed and soured against the Church over time.

 

Something to aspire to. Like I said.

 

Jefferson said

"I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others".

He rejected some CHURCH doctrine. You could easily argue he wasn't an Anglican, Episcopalian, Baptist, Etc but I nor he ever claimed to adhere to any Church doctrine. He was a follower of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, a Christian. The fact that he doesn't meet YOUR or some Church's definition of a Christian is irrelevant.

 

Jefferson accepted Jesus' moral teachings, but he rejected the idea that he was divine. He did not believe inthe christian god. He was deist, which means he believed in a god which exists outside of the universe and does not interfere or care about the universe or it's creations.

He could be called a christian based on the fact that he practiced the moral teachings of christ, but he did not practice any part of christian religious dogma.

 

What you label as "Christian Dogma" is actually Anglican, Episcopalian, Baptist, Catholic, Etc dogma.

And he could be called a Christian on the fact that he stated he was a Christian.

 

http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

Noteable among those mentioned are Thomas Jefferson, the author if the Declaration of Independence, James Madison often referred to as the father of the US Constitution, and George Washington generally referred to as the Father of America. These were Diests that didn't believe in Christianity.

Central to the arguments that the United States is not a Christian nation are found in the following:

United States Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

First Amendment to the US Constitution

http://constitution.findlaw.com/

Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 - 1878

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html

Clearly the founders of American respected the Right of the Person to their individual (not institutional) religious beliefs while at the same time prohibiting the imposition of those religious beliefs upon the American people.

Sadly we've seen the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs imposed under the law repeatedly throughout the history of the United States. In the above decision by the US Supreme Court it was addressing polygamy and it established the precedent that religious opinion alone could not be used as the foundation for law and then it violates it's own precedent in making it's decision. The prohibition laws against polygamy were based upon Judeo-Christian religious beliefs as a part of the common law of Western European nations that were all founded upon Christian religious beliefs. In it's decision the Supreme Court notes:

The Supreme Court clearly states that the laws against polygamy were based upon the "ecclesiastical" Christian courts of England while also acknowledging that polygamy is widespread around the world based upon other, non-Christian, religious beliefs. The Court's decision against Reynold's is exclusively based upon "religious opinion" established by "ecclesiastical" Christian courts in England and Europe in direct contradiction of the very precedent the ruling established.

Our laws against polygamy, the prohibitions against same-sex marriage (currently being struck down across the board), and the anti-abortion laws were all passed based upon religious beliefs. In the 1950's the discarding of the historical national motto of "E Pluribus Unum" that had existed since 1776 and replacing it with "In God We Trust" and the modification of the Pledge of Allegence to include "One Nation Under God" in the 1950's was by the Christians seeking to impose their religious beliefs on America in violation of the "Separation of Church and State" precedent that was established in Reynolds v United States. The "Christians" wanted to establish we were a "Christian Nation" in opposition to the "Godless" USSR establishing a "Religious Cold War" against the Soviet Union. The Christians didn't oppose the Soviet Union because of the tyranny of communism but instead they opposed it because it was non-Christian.

While we were established as a secular nation not founded upon Christianity or any other religion the Christians have historically imposed their religious beliefs in violation to the letter and intent of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence upon which America was founded. Even the laws that allowed slavery and that prohibited inter-racial marriage were argued for based upon Protestant Christian beliefs. White Supremacy is argued for based upon WASP religious beliefs even today. The KKK has historically always been a right-wing WASP social conservative hate group and they're agenda and philosophy is founded upon their Protestant religious beliefs. When we look at the history or our immigration laws that prohibited immigration they've always been about restricting non-WASP immigration. When we look at our voting laws that denied the Right to Vote for non-citizens they were based upon prohibiting non-WASP's from voting. They've been rationalized for other reasons to cover-up the racism by the WASP's but the historical evidence of the racism is extensive.

Christianity, specifically Protestant Christianity, is responsible for some of the greatest violations of the Rights of the People in the United States since the founding of this nation in 1776.

 

Thomas Jefferson says-

"I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others".

The fact that he doesn't fit the church's definition of Christian doesn't change that fact. And clearly Washington doesn't fit the definition of deism as he prayed to providence to thank for occurrences in the past and interventions in the future.

 

Nothing within biblical doctrine prohibits polygamy. And you are selective in your quotes. Here are some more, directly contradicting your assertion.

By the statute of 1 James I (c. 11), the offence, if committed in England or Wales, was made punishable in the civil courts, and the penalty was death.

we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity.

Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law.

 

He often claimed not to be a Christian as well.

 

Since you are generally full of (*)(*)(*)(*), an actual quote might help your case.

 

They believed in the philosophy of Jesus but not the diety of Jesus. They did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God nor did they believe in any of the miracles or supernatural powers expressed in the New Testament. They did not believe Jesus was anything other than a man, they didn't believe Jesus was the "road to salvation" and didn't believe in the crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus.

In short if you eliminate the "Religion of Christianity" then Jefferson and Washington were advocates of Hindu philosophical beliefs because that is what Jesus taught.

 

Marriage, by it's nature, is not a "sacred obligation" as that was an invention of religions. Marriage existed prior to the invention of any religion by mankind. The nature of marriage is the "evolution of social association for survival" in animals. Many animals "mate for life" (i.e. are married) and there is absolutely nothing "sacred" about this pairing within those species.

James I of England was the head of the Church of England and all of his decrees and all of the laws under James I were "Christian" laws. England was a sectarian nation based upon Christianity.

There is some validity to the claim that the Bible doesn't expressly prohibit polygamy and it remained a practice in Palestine after the founding of the Christian church but it was officially prohibited in Rome and Christianity was a merger between Jewish religious beliefs and Roman religious beliefs with the "Apostle Paul", a Roman Jew that never met Jesus, being a primary force in establishing the "Christian" religion and marketing it to the Romans. The religious beliefs of Christianity have never actually been constrained by the actual Bible or New Testament as the early leaders often deviated from the New and Old Testament by inventing religious practices and beliefs whenever they damn well felt like it.

The fact remains that polygamy was practiced throughout the world during the 19th Century but was prohibited by "Christian" nations of Europe. The Supreme Court, in Reynolds v United States, explicitly states that it's decision is based upon the laws of European nations all of which were officially sectarian Christian nations with their laws based upon Christianity.

Polygamy (plural marriage) was not an "offense against society" in the territory of Utah and was openly practiced by the Mormon religion during the 19th Century after the "Christians" had forced them with acts of terrorism from the United States. Due to "Christian" religious pressure imposed by the US government, and the desire to become a state, the Mormon's "officially" abandoned polygamy (plural marriage) in the 1890's but the practice continued and remained socially acceptable. Polygamy both as "plural marriage" and true polygamy continues to exist in the United States and is not found to be an offense against society unless force and/or coercion is employed in establishing the relationship. If it is a voluntary relationship between consenting adults it is NOT and offense agianst society.

Yes marriage is a voluntary partnership contract, either verbal or written, established by individuals that have reached the "age of majority" and the "law of contracts" is typically enforced by government. If it is not voluntary and/or if it is established prior to the "age of majority" then technically under contract law it is an invalid contract. Under contract law there are no prohibitions against multiple partners (polygamy) or against closely related individuals (incest) entering into a partnership (marriage) and these partnership (marriages) do exist in the United States although they are not sanctioned under the marriage laws.

That doesn't imply the "marriages" are wrong but instead that our marriage laws, based upon Christian religious beliefs, are wrong.

 

Now you are directly contradicting your assertions and supporting mine.

 

It was prohibited bty the Roman empire before any nations became Christian. Its from the ancient greeks.

- - - Updated - - -

I said he was a Christian and made no assertions about his beliefs.

 

You do realize early opinion of the Supreme Court disagrees with you right?

 

Reading comprehension has been, is, and will be a problem for progressive leftist O'Bama voters because while they have brains they lack the skills to use them in meaningful ways.

 

Right and wrong is exactly what law identifies. Right and wrong is not a nebulous construction that fluxuates in the currents of public opinion. What is right and wrong is the corner stone of society and the basis of law and a civil society. That is exactly what we had until the progressive leftists putrified law with a clear preference for the lunatic fringe of all stripes. Murdering unborn babies, allowing gay marriage, and a whole host of other issues that are clearly personal, national, and social disgraces.

So? What do you think of Islamo's wanting to establish sharia law in the United States?

 

I think that goes for any and all religions.

 

Nope. The law exists to maintain order in society, not to identify or enforce morality. Neither abortion nor gay marriage have been shown to disrupt order in society, so laws regulating them are unnecessary. Your neighbors do not have to share your standard of morality, they only have to refrain from disrupting order. I think Islamics, Christians, or any other religious follower should remember that religious rules and regulations are supposed to be chosen voluntarily by followers, not enforced by law.

 

Order in society is based on what is right or acceptable or what is wrong and what is not acceptable. Right and wrong, lawful or unlawful is a moral judgement, otherwise we have anarchy. Murdering infants and gay marriage are symptoms of social and moral decay that is on purpose and bought into by those who have no moral center to begin with and further on purpose the ligitimizes perversity, not the preference for what is right, and both are in reality a poke in the eye of Christianity and Judeo-Christian law because they represent a divergence from Christianity and confluence with Marxist Atheism. Infant murderers and homosexuals are presented as 'victims' and niether pursues valor, though the press tries to present them as such.