This critic obviously read not a single one
of the links I provided, because everything
he says is directly answered in those links.
If he wants to interact with the facts I've
presented, that would be fine.
I suggest he read David Barton's book
*Original Intent*.
http://KevinCraig.us/barton.htm
Here's a few notable blunders:
> Look what happened to the US in the last 8 years when we
> had a president who ran our country more like a theocracy than
> ever before. We started an unjustified war that has helped to
> squander the wealth and the lives of the most wealthy nation on
> the face of the planet.
This is not informed analysis, it's just mud-slinging.
How you can describe someone as a Christian Theocrat
when that person destroys the largest Christian population
in the Arab world by overthrowing a government which
permitted Christian evangelism and replacing it with
an Islamic theocracy under Sharia Law is beyond my
powers of reason to understand.
http://KevinCraig.us/iraq.htm
> So when
> this guy tries to rewrite history to claim the US has always
> been a Christian nation, he's just trying to find a
> justification for his desire to replace our democracy
> with his chosen form of tyranny.
The United States Supreme Court unequivocally declared that
America is a Christian nation, and provided indisputable
support for the claim:
http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/anti-trinity.htm
The Founding Fathers opposed "democracy" in no uncertain terms:
http://KevinCraig.us/democracy.htm
> I bet this guy is a typical dual standard guy. It's ok when
> Christianity is shoved down someone's throat because he
> likes that iconography and mythology, but its time for
> guns and action if anyone dare shove any other religion down his throat.
More error. Anyone can get rich by taking this guy up
on all his bets.
I'm a radical libertarian who opposes "shoving."
http://KevinCraig.us/violence.htm
Although I oppose gun control, I don't use them.
http://KevinCraig.us/guns.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/pacifist.htm
> Tell this guy its time to learn and follow the golden
> rule. If he doesn't want his kids to pray to Allah in school
> then stop pushing to have other kids pray to Jesus. He can
> teach his own kid to pray in anyway that he likes and he needs
> to teach his kid to respect the beliefs of all the other kids out there.
I oppose government-run schools for precisely this reason.
I should not be taxed to support and compelled to send
my children to atheistic schools (schools where God and
Christianity have been systematically censored). I agree
that non-Christians should not be taxed to support
schools that teach contrary to their values. Secular
Humanists love using the government to force their
atheistic ideas on everyone else.
> As you can see, I see those that push the Christian nation
> stuff as being un-American.
The Founders would disagree with you, and brand you as
un-American:
[H]e is the best friend to American liberty who is most sincere
and active in promoting true and undefiled religion and who
sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity
and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy
of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.
John Witherspoon, Works, (Philadelphia: Wm Woodard, 1802,
vol 3, p.46 [a lecture at Princeton University])
On May 2, 1778, when the Continental Army was beginning to emerge from its
infamous winter at Valley Forge, Commander-in-Chief Geo Washington
commended his troops for their courage and patriotism and then reminded
them:
While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens
and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to
the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character
of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the
more distinguished character of Christian.
(Writings, (1932) XI:342-343, General Orders of 5/2/1778)
> It's just sad to me that there are a lot of people out there
> who are so happy and pleased with their own religious beliefs
> that they have also come to believe that all of America would
> be a better place if only everyone enjoyed their religious beliefs
> as well.
The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift of
the light of Christianity, ought to be that it may be
imparted to the whole race of mankind.
James Madison, "Father of the Constitution"
http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/promote.htm
I wrote:
> Anyone who takes an oath to "support the Constitution"
> as our judges and politicians do, should be expected
> to support the Constitution as it was written and
> intended to be carried out, not what the politicians
> think it should be or want it to be.
> http://KevinCraig.us/interp.htm
Response:
> Not True. The constitution is a living document as specified by the
> guys that wrote it.
Totally ignored the evidence in the link,
and provided no contrary evidence.
Pure blind faith.
The Founders spoke of the Constitution as "chains"
which would bind down the government, not a "living"
document which could be interpreted any way the
government wants.
http://KevinCraig.US/chains.htm
> Not all signers of the constitution
> were deists, that is true, but several were as described in their own
> words.
Name one.
Then explain why his lone opinion overruled the majority opinion.
All of my links to the phrases in the Declaration of
Independence were completely ignored, and my claims
(supported in the linked pages) are called "fabrications."
Name-calling is no substitute for the marshalling of
evidence.
> I claim the references to the devine were
> made specifically to show the line between the devine
> (which they believed in) and
> government which they believed belonged to the people
> not the devine.
"Divine" is consistently misspelled.
"The People" was emphasized by the Founders because
God commanded such:
http://VFTonline.org/EndTheWall/consent.htm
To say "the people and NOT the deevine"
is flat wrong. "The people BECAUSE divine"
is historically accurate.
> Man did this guy read the same declaration of independence that
> I did? First the declaration of independence is not the document
> that defines who we are as a people and a nation. That document
> is the Constitution.
We existed as a People and a nation before the Constitution
was written. The Constitution did not repudiate belief
in God, nor make us a nation that repudiates God rather
than trusting in God.
http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/trust.htm
> No where in the Declaration is there any argument to specify how
> Americans are obligated to behave.
The Declaration acknolwedges that we are a nation under God
and dedicated to obeying His commandments.
http://KevinCraig.us/religion/nature.htm
> So in some sense reading the
> Declaration to decide if America were founded as a Christian
> or any other kind of Nation is just silly.
That's what the U.S. Supreme Court did:
http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/HolyTrinity.htm
> The key phrases in the declaration include this one, "That to secure
> these rights Governments
> are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the
> consent of the Governed." This was written at a time when
> most governements were claiming their rights to govern came
> from devine powers. This is a clear rejection of theocracy
> in favor of government whose powers come from the people
> not God.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Not a single person who signed the Declaration of
Constitution would agree with those words.
"Rejection" and "not God" are clearly false.
Read and refute the evidence here:
http://VFTonline.org/EndTheWall/consent.htm
> Again, when it comes to governments, these guys believed the
> authority to govern comes from the people not the devine."
"Not the deevine" is completely false.
http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/romans13sep.htm
[T]he only true basis of all government [is] the laws of God and nature.
For government is an ordinance of heaven, designed by the all benevolent
Creator.
Samuel Adams
Writings, vol. I, p. 269, Samuel Adams in the Boston Gazette of Dec. 19,
1768 as "Vindex."
Has it [government] any solid foundation? Any chief corner stone? . . . I
think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God. .
. . The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God.
James Otis, mentor of Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty
The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (London: J.
Williams and J. Almon, 1766) pp. 11, 98.
[W]e will look for the permanency and stability of our new government to
Him who bringeth princes to nothing and teacheth senators wisdom [Isa.
40:23; Ps. 105:22]
John Hart, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Address, October 5, 1776, in, The Papers of William Livingston (Trenton:
New Jersey Historical Commission, 1979) Vol. I, p. 161.
[T]he rights essential to happiness . . . . We claim them from a higher
source -- from the King of kings and Lord of all the earth.
John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution
The Political Writings of John Dickinson (Wilmington: Bonsal and Niles,
1801) Vol. I, p. 111.
Read David Barton's book.
> Finally, I concede to this guy that the founders were not atheists.
> The declaration does appeal to the "Supreme Judge of the World,"
> and states "a firm reliance on the protection of devine Providence,"
> and cites "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as the source
> which entitles man to self evident rights. But stop and consider for
> a moment. These references are generalized, they do not talk
> of the Bible, don't mention Jesus, Mohamad, Budda, or even God
Not a single person alive in 1776 would agree with your
secularist hallucinations. These are inescapably religious
references and the myth of "separationof church and state"
say government cannot make religious references. To say
that these religious references are not references to
the Christian religion is insane.
Benjamin Franklin:
History will also afford frequent opportunities of
showing the necessity of a public religion. . . and
the excellency of the Christian religion above all others,
ancient or modern.
Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 1749, p.22
America was awash in Christianity at that time.
> and are carefully never used to justify the actions of governments.
> Why the elliptical references? If all the authors and signers of the
> declaration
> were in agreement in the US
> being created as a Christian Nation why not say so?
They DID say so, and the U.S. Supreme Court skimmed some of
the voluminous record of their saying so and reminded people
like you that this is a Christian nation.
http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/HolyTrinity.htm
> The answer is simple,
> the key idea of the declaration and later built into the constitution
> is that the power of governments comes from the people not
> the devine,
*NOT* is logically false and historically blind.
"comes from the people" because God commanded men to
form governments. You are completely unfamiliar with
the thinking of the Founders. I've linked to the
evidence, but you prefer blind faith over the facts.
> and that any personal beliefs in religion have no role
> in defining the governments by which men agree to rule their lives.
But separationists consistent claim that the private
beliefs of Franklin and Jefferson outweigh the public
declarations and official proclamations of all the
other Founders and courts for 170 years that this
is a Christian nation.
> This guy wants America to be a Christian nation so that
> he can impose a tyranical set of laws on his fellow citizens to follow
> his religion
I am a radical libertarian who opposes government imposition
of any kind. You freely engage in psychoanalysis of me
and the Founding Fathers without any rational contact
with the evidence.
> so when he reads the Declaration he skips all the words
> that don't reference a devine being. Utter hog wash.
The words that don't reference a deevine being don't
contradict the words that DO !
> More ignorance and wishful thinking - just read Jefferson's writings
> to figure out how much he did not want America
> to be a Christian nation.
He explicitly said he wanted America to be a Christian
nation, albeit unitarian. I even quoted his own words
so you wouldn't have to click the links, and you STILL
didn't read them!
I said:
> It was never intended for practitioners of human sacrifice,
> cannibalism, polygamy, or suttee to be permitted to practice
> their religion, because this was a Christian nation.
Response:
>
> Although we allow the Indians of the Southwest to take peyote
> in the name of their religious freedom.
That's because, unlike cannibalism, smoking plants
is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible.
> It's naive to believe that all moral systems come from religious
> beliefs. There are moral systems that have no religious roots
name one
> and surprisingly many of these moral systems share common
> ground, like the belief in the golden rule because the golden rule
> is a reasonable rule that does a lot of good for all the people. It
> does not have to come from a divine source to be reasonable.
But it DID. You can say "it does not have to," but it DID.
America's Founding Fathers did not draft laws based on
"these moral systems" that you imagine, they based our
nation's laws on the Bible:
http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/10commandments.htm
Your beliefs about America are based on blind faith,
irrational hopes, and a stunted acquaintance with the
facts of history.
Read Barton's book. Read my links. Don't just spit out
secularist bumper sticker and lines from the Atheists'
Debate Manual. I hate to sound like a curmudgeon, but
I agree with America's Founders that atheism is
dangerous to society, and the religion and morality
are the foundation of our freedoms:
http://KevinCraig.us/religion/morality.htm
http://KevinCraig.us/religion/christianity_and_liberty.htm
If you're ever in Southwest Missouri, lunch is
on me, provided you read my links ;-)
Kevin Craig
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
www.IsAmericaAChristianNation.com
On Tue, December 2, 2008 10:34 pm, Jayson Post wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> I have a friend who is a genuine card-carrying ACLU member, and I
thought
> that it would be worthwhile to invite him to share his thoughts on what
Kevin wrote. So here they are. My friend wrote a letter and then
embedded his response in blue font throughout Kevin's email.
>
> If you want to hear my thoughts on what Kevin wrote, just ask me, and I
will give them to you.
>
> May reason prevail!
>
> Jayson
>
> Deputy Director
> World Union of Deists
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jayson,
>
>
>
> The guy needs to learn his history. Just because you
> really want something to be one way does not mean that
> you are allowed to go back in history and put words into the
> mouths of the people that came before us.
>
> The only educational malpractice going on for this guy
> is that he's not happy that the schools are not yet teaching
> his form of revisionist history. Perhaps he should consider the other
possibility. That the schools are doing an ok
> job and it's his sense of history that is distorted.
>
> At the time the US was formed the world had a lot of
> practicing theocracies in the old world. Our founders
> being men of the world knew this and choose not to
> create a new world theocracy.
> What this guy does not want to be true is the sad truth that
> America has grown to be a world power for exactly the opposite
> reason that this guy wants to be true - the fact that
> America is not a Christian nation, just a secular nation that
> lets a lot of Christians practice their religion unhindered until they
get antsy and want to start pushing their religion onto others.
> Look what happened to the US in the last 8 years when we
> had a president who ran our country more like a theocracy than
> ever before. We started an unjustified war that has helped to
> squander the wealth and the lives of the most wealthy nation on
> the face of the planet. We've promoted the elimination of the
> middle class, created a small class of the uber-wealthy, and
> eroded away the constitutional rights that took a revolutionary
> war followed by over 200 years of constant struggle to gain.
> Remind this guy that democracies, or any government, can
> only fail in two ways; enemies from without or tyranny from
> within. A theocracy is only one kind of tyranny. So when
> this guy tries to rewrite history to claim the US has always
> been a Christian nation, he's just trying to find a justification
for his desire to replace our democracy with his chosen
> form of tyranny.
>
>
> I bet this guy is a typical dual standard guy. It's ok when
> Christianity is shoved down someone's throat because he
> likes that iconography and mythology, but its time for
> guns and action if anyone dare shove any other religion down his
throat. Tell this guy its time to learn and follow the golden
> rule. If he doesn't want his kids to pray to Allah in school
> then stop pushing to have other kids pray to Jesus. He can
> teach his own kid to pray in anyway that he likes and he needs
> to teach his kid to respect the beliefs of all the other kids out there.
> As you can see, I see those that push the Christian nation
> stuff as being un-American. Too lazy to learn the history for
themselves,
> too willing to be lead by blogs and orators who have un-American goals,
too un-American to stand up against those who
> are trying to redefine the principles of the US constitution
> just because the leaders they are following have wrapped
> themselves in the American flag and Jesus, two things they like.
> It's just sad to me that there are a lot of people out there
> who are so happy and pleased with their own religious beliefs
> that they have also come to believe that all of America would
> be a better place if only everyone enjoyed their religious beliefs as
well. Sadly, that simple kind of thinking has lead the
> world to its most painful wars and despairing poverty. I hope
> there are enough people out there to teach these guys that
> each of us have our own right to our own religious beliefs that
> give us as much satisfaction and pleasure as their religion
> gives them. They need to see that keeping religion out of the
> schools and governments is the only option for long term
> peace and prosperity.
>
> Later,
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To Whom It May Concern,
>
>
> I am convinced that the ideal nation is a secular democratic republic
that allows its adult citizens to do whatever they want as long as they
do not obviously hurt someone else. The United States was not
necessarily designed to be such a nation at its conception, yet,
compared with other nations at the time, it certainly was a major step
in the right direction.
>
>
> Anyone who takes an oath to "support the Constitution"
> as our judges and politicians do, should be expected
> to support the Constitution as it was written and
> intended to be carried out, not what the politicians
> think it should be or want it to be.
>
> Not True. The constitution is a living document as specified by the
guys that wrote it. If we followed the constitution exactly as it was
written we'd have slavery, blacks would have only 3/5 of a head count
when taking a census, and there would be no concept of judicial review
by the Supreme Court. (sarcasm begins here) Of course if the Supreme
Court
> rules that your thinking is unconstitutional, then of course, if your
this
> guy, then don't change your thinking - just discredit the court, rewrite
history, and impose your tyranny on a free nation by
> defining for everyone else how to think by telling the world
> how the constitution "was intended to be carried out."
>
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/interp.htm
>
>
>
> The United States was founded on some excellent ideas, but sometimes
these ideas had to be expanded to be as good as possible. For
> example, the Declaration of Independence declares "that all men are
created equal." What does that mean? It originally meant that all
white American men who own property and pay taxes are created equal,
and, thus, should be allowed to vote.
>
>
> All men are created equal, but not all are allowed to
> hold public office (must be 35 years old to be President,
> for example). The ability to vote to increase taxes
> should be limited to those who must pay them.
>
> Who knows what he means by this. Is he proposing a new kind
> of poll tax to limit who gets to vote in elections or his he proposing
getting
> rid of a representational government? I think he's proposing only to
let
> people who think like him vote. Gee wouldn't that be a nice world for
any of us if we had the power to only let those who would vote like me
to vote?
>
>
> The same can be said of America's secular seed. The Declaration of
Independence does mention "Nature's God." (Which, by the way, refers to
the Deist conception of God, not Yahweh or the Trinity. Remember that
the writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was an
outspoken Deist.)
>
>
> Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence
> was altered by a revision committee, and signed by those
> who cannot be called "deists."
>
> More revisionist history. He implies Jefferson wasn't a staunch
supporter of the serparation of Church and State and got snookered when
a committee changed his wording, and that the men that signed the
constitution were not deists. Not all signers of the constitution were
deists, that is true, but several were as described in their own words.
>
>
> http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/TJ_Dec.htm
>
>
>
> Yet the Declaration of Independence
> mentions Nature's God in passing, so it is by far more of a secular
document than a religious one.
>
>
> I disagree. The Declaration says:
>
>
> • that the existence of God is a "self-evident truth" - Not in the
declaration
> • that our rights are the product of intelligent design
> (not the government) - Not in the declaration, but if he means our
inalienable Rights are endowed by a creator, it is in the
> declaration.
>
> • that all Americans are obligated to conform their lives to
> "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," that is, the Bible - only
the
> quoted part is in the declaration, the bit about obligation and
conforming their
> lives is totally fabricated and has nothing to do with the point of
this document.
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/religion/nature.htm
> • that our actions must one day pass judgment with
> "the Supreme Judge of the world" - again other than the quoted part,
totally fabricated.
> The appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world is to grant that the
intentions
> of writers, that is dissolving their association with Great Britain,
be rooted in moral principles. This is more in line with a "May God
be
> my witness"
> kind of thing than one day I'll have to stand before God and be
judged.
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/judge.htm
> • that all Americans should have "a firm reliance on
> the Protection of Divine Providence." - again other than the quoted
part, totally
> fabricated. the phrase comes from the signers pledging their lives,
fortunes
> and honour to support the constitution with a reliance on Divine
Providence,
> not as a rule book for how people should live their lives.
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/religion/providence.htm
>
>
> This is *pervasively* religious. An unsupported conclusion. He
> misrepresented
> every quote in the declaration that made any reference to the devine and
concludes
> that the document is inherently relegious. I claim the references to
the
> devine were
> made specifically to show the line between the devine (which they
believed
> in) and
> government which they believed belonged to the people not the devine.
To
> misread
> this document in this way is either ignorant or just wish fulfillment.
> Most Americans today are victims of educational malpractice,
> and so they don't know how religious America was in
> those days.
>
> Man did this guy read the same declaration of independence that
> I did? First the declaration of independence is not the document that
defines who we are as a people and a nation. That document is the
Constitution. The Declaration is an argument that justifies the
separation of America from the British Government.
> No where in the Declaration is there any argument to specify how
Americans are obligated to behave. So in some sense reading the
Declaration to decide if America were founded as a Christian
> or any other kind of Nation is just silly. Read the Constitution to see
what kind of Nation the US was founded as. But the
> Declaration is a key document in the birth of our nation. It's
> valuable to read and understand it all on its own merits.
>
> The key phrases in the declaration include this one, "That to secure
these rights Governments
> are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the
> consent of the Governed." This was written at a time when
> most governements were claiming their rights to govern came
> from devine powers. This is a clear rejection of theocracy
> in favor of government whose powers come from the people
> not God.
>
> Another good phrase near the end of the declaration (so I doubt
> this guy has ever seen it because that would be a lot of reading to do)
is "In the Name, and by Authority of the good People of
> these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United
> Colonies are, and of Right, ought to be free and independent states;
that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown,..."
Again, when it comes to governments, these guys believed the
> authority to govern comes from the people not the devine."
>
> Finally, I concede to this guy that the founders were not atheists. The
declaration does appeal to the "Supreme Judge of the World," and states
"a firm reliance on the protection of devine Providence," and cites "the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as the source which entitles man to
self evident rights. But stop and consider for a moment. These
references are generalized, they do not talk
> of the Bible, don't mention Jesus, Mohamad, Budda, or even God
> and are carefully never used to justify the actions of governments. Why
the elliptical references? If all the authors and signers of the
declaration
> were in agreement in the US
> being created as a Christian Nation why not say so? The answer is
simple,
> the key idea of the declaration and later built into the constitution is
that the power of governments comes from the people not
> the devine, and that any personal beliefs in religion have no role in
defining the governments by which men agree to rule their lives.
> The only way to misread the declaration is to read it with an agenda in
mind. This guy wants America to be a Christian nation so that he can
impose a tyranical set of laws on his fellow citizens to follow his
religion so when he reads the Declaration he skips all the words that
don't reference a devine being. Utter hog wash.
>
>
>
>
> Deism is also a far more secular
> philosophy than Christianity.
>
>
> But not the deism of Jefferson's day.
>
> More ignorance and wishful thinking - just read Jefferson's writings to
figure out how much he did not want America
> to be a Christian nation.
>
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/deism.htm#unitarianism
>
>
>
> Furthermore, the United States
> Constitution does not refer to any deity.
>
>
> This is because Christians did not want the federal
> government to have any authority over religion.
>
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/enumerated.htm
>
>
>
> If the United States was
> supposed to be a very religious nation, its constitution should have at
least mentioned a deity!
>
>
> Not according to the Christians who wrote it.
> If the Framers had intended the Constitution
> to be secular, they could have done so. The
> French did this, but the Americans did not:
>
>
> http://KevinforCongress.blogspot.com/2008/09/secular-constitution.html
>
>
>
> From these largely-secular beginnings, the United States will
> hopefully develop into a purely secular nation in the same way it
developed from a pro-white-rich-male-citizen nation into a pro-adult-
citizen nation.
>
>
> Even Jefferson wanted America to be a Christian nation,
> albeit Unitarian. But religious, not secular, not atheist:
>
>
> Sharing a hope nurtured by many Americans in the
> early nineteenth century, Jefferson anticipated a
> re-establishment of the Christian religion in its
> "original purity" in the United States.
> Andrew M. Allison, in
> Thomas Jefferson: Champion of History, pp.299ff.
>
>
> Once primitive Christianity was fully restored . . . Christianity
would
> escape all danger of being eclipsed or superseded. "I confidently
expect," Jefferson wrote in 1822, "that the present generation will
see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States."
And to the Harvard professor and Unitarian Benjamin Waterhouse,
Jefferson that same year observed: "I trust that there is not a young
man now living in the U.S. who will not die an Unitarian. Gaustad,
Faith of our Fathers, p. 105
>
>
> http://VFTonline.org/EndTheWall/TJ.htm
>
>
>
> May the United States government favor no religion,
> not Deism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Satanism, Atheism,
Agnosticism, et cetera. That way, Americans can practice their
> religions without interference from their government and no religion
will have a governmental advantage over another.
>
>
> It was never intended for practitioners of human sacrifice,
> cannibalism, polygamy, or suttee to be permitted to practice
> their religion, because this was a Christian nation.
>
> Although we allow the Indians of the Southwest to take peyote
> in the name of their religious freedom.
>
>
> http://vftonline.org/TestOath/mormon.htm
>
>
> I oppose government support of religion (i.e., taxing people).
> But government makes laws, and laws impose somebody's
> morality, and morality comes from somebody's religion.
> Government will always favor one religion over others,
> or be in the process of changing favored religions.
>
> It's naive to believe that all moral systems come from religious
beliefs. There are moral systems that have no religious roots
> and surprisingly many of these moral systems share common
> ground, like the belief in the golden rule because the golden rule is a
reasonable rule that does a lot of good for all the people. It does not
have to come from a divine source to be reasonable.
>
>
>
> Americans will be
> much more likely to embrace or reject a religion based on its merit (or
lack thereof), rather than because their government backs it.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
> This allows more freedom, and freedom is the core value of the United
States of America!
>
>
> May reason prevail!
>
>
> Jayson
>
>
> Deputy Director
> World Union of Deists
>
>
> Human beings have reason because they are created
> in the Image of God.
>
> That is a belief and just because it happens to be
> your belief doesn't make it true or false. We will never know
> if a particular belief is true or false - that's why its so important
that
> our
> government be based in a separation of church and state -
> to allow everyone the privledge you take for yourself, the
> luxury of treating your beliefs as true.
>
>
> Beings which are created by impersonal, random,
> meaningless, blind forces do not have reason.
> They are simply the random interaction of various chemicals.
>
> Which of course is another belief and you can't know if its true or
false. All you'll ever know about this is that you
> want it to be true. Again, citing the golden rule, you need to
> allow others the courtesy of having their own opinions about
> beliefs if you feel its important to you to have beliefs you
> take as being true.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin Craig
> Powersite, MO 65731-0179
> www.VFTonline.com
> www.KevinCraig.us
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, November 30, 2008 10:41 pm, Cindy Mulvey wrote:
>
> Did I send you this Kevin, I sought for truth and began to understand.
Whether America began with christian values or not, this does makes
sense.
>
>
> To Whom It May Concern,
>
>
> I am convinced that the ideal nation is a secular democratic republic
that
> allows its adult citizens to do whatever they want as long as they do
not
> obviously hurt someone else. The United States was not necessarily
designed to be such a nation at its conception, yet, compared with other
nations at the time, it certainly was a major step in the right
direction.
>
>
> The United States was founded on some excellent ideas, but sometimes
these
> ideas had to be expanded to be as good as possible. For example, the
Declaration of Independence declares "that all men are created equal."
What does that mean? It originally meant that all white American men
who
> own property and pay taxes are created equal, and, thus, should be
allowed
> to vote. Later on, this idea was rightfully expanded to include black
male citizens. Later on, this idea was rightfully expanded again to
include female citizens. Later on, this idea was rightfully expanded
yet
> again to include 18-year-old citizens. And somewhere along the way, the
requirement to own property and pay taxes to vote was dropped. Thus,
the
> seed of a great idea was planted in the Declaration of Independence but
had to grow into a mighty oak of inclusiveness to become completely just
and good.
>
>
> The same can be said of America's secular seed. The Declaration of
Independence does mention "Nature's God." (Which, by the way, refers to
the Deist conception of God, not Yahweh or the Trinity. Remember that
the
> writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was an
outspoken Deist.) Yet the Declaration of Independence mentions Nature's
God in passing, so it is by far more of a secular document than a
religious one. Deism is also a far more secular philosophy than
Christianity. Furthermore, the United States Constitution does not
refer
> to any deity. If the United States was supposed to be a very religious
nation, its constitution should have at least mentioned a deity!
>
>
>
>>From these largely-secular beginnings, the United States will hopefully
> develop into a purely secular nation in the same way it developed from a
pro-white-rich-male-citizen nation into a pro-adult-citizen nation. May
the United States government favor no religion, not Deism, Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Satanism, Atheism, Agnosticism, et cetera.
That way, Americans can practice their religions without interference
from their government and no religion will have a governmental advantage
over another. Americans will be much more likely to embrace or reject a
religion based on its merit (or lack thereof), rather than because their
government backs it. This allows more freedom, and freedom is the core
value of the United States of America!
>
>
> May reason prevail!
>
>
> Jayson
>
>
> Cindy Mulvey
> 352-529-1058
> www.artshealingsecrets.com
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 29, 2008, at 10:36PM, "Kevin Craig"
> <http://vftonline.org:2082/3rdparty/squirrelmail/src/compose.php?send_to=KevinCraig%40KevinCraig.US> wrote:
>
> On Sat, November 29, 2008 12:30 pm, Cindy Mulvey wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
>
> what is 4 FT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin4VFT = Kevin4Vine&FigTree = Kevin for Vine&FigTree
>
>
> Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin Craig
> Powersite, MO 65731-0179
> www.VFTonline.com
> www.KevinCraig.us
>
>
>
>
>
> http://vftonline.org:2082/3rdparty/squirrelmail/src/compose.php?send_to=VFTINC%40aol.com = Vine & Fig Tree
> I was in the understanding with Biblical (only) understanding, but this
reveals the fact, this walk of mine has been a walk of
>
>
>
>
> The Christmas Conspiracy
>
>
>
>
> Virtue
>
>
>
>
> Vine & Fig Tree
>
>
>
>
> Paradigm Shift
>
>
>
>
> Theocracy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|