no that was music clover

no that was music clover

 

yeah, i knew you were refering to musiclover, but i wanted to make sure you knew that your views are respected.

i think it's 'rubbish' to bring one's personal religious beliefs to one's place of work, specially when one is running the entire country's business. i'm not saying anything bad about christianity or christian teachings.

 

sorry for the confusion.

well....i think that it is okay since ...well the U.S. is christian and is founded that way...yeah it may seem unprofessional but....

Nikki: There is explicit language in the Constituion regarding religion. How do you reconcile that with your view of the U.S. being "christain"?

well..it is who founded the first colonies ??

 

that would be the puritans...i know u have freedom of religion but the u.s. was founded on christian priciples...

U.S. is not "based" on Christian values, just as India is not "based" on Hindu values, even though the population of believers in each country is approximately the same. but both these countries are multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and secular, "secular" being the driving word!

 

you can say U.S. has a Christian ethos, and obviously it does.

 

but it's not a christian land...in fact, the ways some other religions are spreading in here, i doubt it will remain christian in 50 more years.... :/ :confused:

well..it is who founded the first colonies ??

 

that would be the puritans...i know u have freedom of religion but the u.s. was founded on christian priciples...

 

That didn't answer my question.

If the country is so Christian, how do you explain the Constitution restricting the influence of any religion on government?

U.S. is not "based" on Christian values, just as India is not "based" on Hindu values, even though the population of believers in each country is approximately the same. but both these countries are multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and secular, "secular" being the driving word!

 

you can say U.S. has a Christian ethos, and obviously it does.

 

but it's not a christian land...in fact, the ways some other religions are spreading in here, i doubt it will remain christian in 50 more years.... :/ :confused:

 

The U.S. was founded on Christian values. This is true.

The U.S. is even based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. This is also true.

 

The founders, though, seemed pretty concern about government endorsement of religion after the Church of England was forced up their ancestors. The language of the constitution seems to be a pretty clear indication that they felt that church should be separate from religion.

 

I'm not sure, however, that this even matters now.

i doubt you would want to live the way the first colonials lived! :lol: and in fact, i doubt you would want to live in a country strictly run by christian principles....it would be quite boring, to say the least! :dozey: :D

 

but that's side-tracking a bit.

 

what matters is what is in the constitution. and there, it's clear that the founders wanted a total separation of church/state.

because everybody has equal rights

 

but it does not say that same sex marriage is legal which is the whole point of this thread

The U.S. was founded on Christian values. This is true.

The U.S. is even based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. This is also true.

 

i've heard many people say this. could you enlighten me on this issue, for i don't know of any single example that can illustrate such a 'christian values' founding. as of now, i am more of the opinion that if at all, this country was founded by people who were deeply religious...i will accept that. but what's so special about a judeo-christian ethic that's not the same in some other religions? i can learn something here :)

because everybody has equal rights

 

but it does not say that same sex marriage is legal which is the whole point of this thread

 

nope, it's not explicit about it...that's why the debate :D

it all depends on one's viewpoint and one's interpretation of the founding values, and whether in fact such founding values can/should change over time.

 

afterall, it doesn't say there that slavery is illegal or legal...it just says all men are equal in the eyes of the law...it was men of that time who construed that blacks were not humans! or if they were, then they were only 3/5ths human (a slave man counted for 3/5ths of a vote...).

but does it specifically say that marriage is between two men or two women or a man and a women?

 

no but there are laws that do...

 

and moreover the whole point of Bush proposing the amendment is that so that he can clear that up that marriage can only be between men and women..

The U.S. was founded on Christian values. This is true.

The U.S. is even based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. This is also true.

 

i've heard many people say this. could you enlighten me on this issue, for i don't know of any single example that can illustrate such a 'christian values' founding. as of now, i am more of the opinion that if at all, this country was founded by people who were deeply religious...i will accept that. but what's so special about a judeo-christian ethic that's not the same in some other religions? i can learn something here :)

 

Our money, our national anthem, our pledge of allegiance all evoke God.

The oath you take in the stand in court evokes God.

These are all constructs accepted at the birth of our nation.

It's important to note that these not only illustrate the importance of God in the lives of the founder but that they are also not in the Constitution as law.

here is something i found:

"The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity."

"Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

That's great.

 

Of course, that ignores the fact that if they really felt that way they would have had adopted language in the governing document that said as much.

I want my room to be painted white. I then paint it blue.

 

What are you to infer?

well, 'God' isn't a copyrighted word of Jews and Christians.

Nor is 'God' an invention belonging only to Jews and Christians.

 

'God' belongs to all religions.

 

the pledge of allegiance is not even 100 years old, and the same goes for the money. these things were added during the McCathy anti-communism era, if i'm not mistaken. and they certainly aren't in the Constitution, as you say.

 

now you can say that for the founders at least, 'God' meant a Judeo-Christian god, but still, as you say, they were wise enough to not stamp their personal religious views on the constitution. thus, the constitution can't be said to have a judeo-christian basis.

well u really don't know...u could only use incuctive reasoning....as to why painted ur room blue

 

 

 

and with religion not being in the constitution it said that it would be too contriversial an issue so they stayed away from it

The simple fact is that we have a blue room. You're suggesting the room is white because that's what we wanted. Fact is we painted it blue, so discussing as if it's white isn't really productive.

what???

 

does that have to do with what we are talking about?

see..that's why the confederation didn't last long! :D

 

and yep, religion is indeed controversial...even now.

 

and now at least, not insignificant numbers of citizens are against the government having to do anything with religion...so...

We painted the room blue = we created a constituion w/o religious governence

 

You're suggesting the room is white = You think we go have a religious government

 

Fact is we painted it blue = We can see that we go not have a religous government

 

so discussing as if it's white isn't really productive. = you're talking about something that doesn't exist