Members banned from this thread: Snikitz and Humorme


Page 7 of 59 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 587
Thanks Tree262Thanks

Thread: Why should Atheists give a shit about Theists?

  1. #61
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,623
    Thanks
    7314

    From
    Home
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    It would take many many paragraphs to prove the Christian beliefs of the first settlers and that they were here to propagate the Christian religion. I'll list a few things you can look up and see that they are consistent with my previous posts. I'll do a half dozen so that, if you look them up, you will not want to argue that my previous posts were not reflective of all the colonies. Each of these listed will prove our Christian heritage:

    * Sir Robert Heath's Patent 30 Oct 1629


    * The Charter of Maryland 1632:

    "Provided always, that no Interpretation thereof be made, whereby God's holy and true Christian Religion, or the Allegiance due to Us, our Heirs and Successors, may in any wise suffer by Change, Prejudice, or Diminution; although express Mention be not made in these Presents of the true- yearly Value or Certainty of the Premises, or of any Part thereof; or of other Gifts and Grants made by Us, our Heirs and Successors, unto the said now Lord Baltimore, or any Statute, Act, Ordinance, Provision, Proclamation or Restraint, heretofore had, made, published, ordained or provided, or any other Thing, Cause, or Matter whatsoever, to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding."

    The Avalon Project : The Charter of Maryland : 1632

    Didn't want you to think that this list is fluff. The wording is in all the listed documents

    * Grant of the Province of New Hampshire to Mr. Mason - 22 April 1635

    * Fundamental Orders of Connecticut 1638 - 1639

    * Agreement of the Settlers at Exeter in New Hampshire - 1639

    * Fundamental Agreement of the Colony of New Haven 4 June 1639

    I can cite many more to make the point, but I digress. We need to move further into history in order to understand where we are today.
    But you are making a point with which no one is arguing. No one is arguing that the continent wasn't settled by religious people from Europe before the United States was founded. Everyone knows that. It's just not relevant.

    The question is, was the United States founded as a religious nation? Was it meant to be a Christian nation, or just a nation with no official religion that happened to be populated with (mostly) Christians. Anyone with any familiarity with Enlightenment thinking about democracy and separation of church and state, and free thought, and the consent of the governed, and all the rest knows that the country was specifically founded without any official religion. They made a point of clarifying that in the Constitution. Anyone familiar with the writings of the founders knows this. I'm sure you know it too.

    You can quote all the way back as far as you want, but it doesn't mean much. After all, those people believed in the Divine Right of Kings, but it doesn't make sense to say that the US was founded on allegiance to the Monarchy, so why do you get to cherry pick some things from 180 years prior to the founding, but not others? Why pick some religious beliefs but not others?
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey, AttusBlack and OldGaffer

  2. #62
    vulgar? Rasselas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    56,540
    Thanks
    29141

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    But you are making a point with which no one is arguing. No one is arguing that the continent wasn't settled by religious people from Europe before the United States was founded. Everyone knows that. It's just not relevant.

    The question is, was the United States founded as a religious nation? Was it meant to be a Christian nation, or just a nation with no official religion that happened to be populated with (mostly) Christians. Anyone with any familiarity with Enlightenment thinking about democracy and separation of church and state, and free thought, and the consent of the governed, and all the rest knows that the country was specifically founded without any official religion. They made a point of clarifying that in the Constitution. Anyone familiar with the writings of the founders knows this. I'm sure you know it too.

    You can quote all the way back as far as you want, but it doesn't mean much. After all, those people believed in the Divine Right of Kings, but it doesn't make sense to say that the US was founded on allegiance to the Monarchy, so why do you get to cherry pick some things from 180 years prior to the founding, but not others? Why pick some religious beliefs but not others?
    Moreover, it was customary to combine the religious with the political in the 15th and 16th centuries. It would be hard to find political documents that DIDN'T invoke religion. Let's recall that the New World was divided up between the Spanish and the Portuguese by Pope Alexander VI. Any claim by a nation like Britain, which was defying a religious edict, would have to invoke a religious purpose simply to create legitimacy for itself.

    Today, most majority Muslim countries invoke God in every pronouncement of government. They begin "In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful...." Do we give them respect for this, or do we believe they really are being faithful and religious when they do this? Or is it just a necessary custom?
    Thanks from StanStill and AttusBlack

  3. #63
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,219
    Thanks
    222

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    But you are making a point with which no one is arguing. No one is arguing that the continent wasn't settled by religious people from Europe before the United States was founded. Everyone knows that. It's just not relevant.

    The question is, was the United States founded as a religious nation? Was it meant to be a Christian nation, or just a nation with no official religion that happened to be populated with (mostly) Christians. Anyone with any familiarity with Enlightenment thinking about democracy and separation of church and state, and free thought, and the consent of the governed, and all the rest knows that the country was specifically founded without any official religion. They made a point of clarifying that in the Constitution. Anyone familiar with the writings of the founders knows this. I'm sure you know it too.

    You can quote all the way back as far as you want, but it doesn't mean much. After all, those people believed in the Divine Right of Kings, but it doesn't make sense to say that the US was founded on allegiance to the Monarchy, so why do you get to cherry pick some things from 180 years prior to the founding, but not others? Why pick some religious beliefs but not others?
    If you think I'm cherry picking, I will be glad to include as many examples as you want. You sound like someone who is desperate.

    Each of us is a product of our history. The founding fathers were a product of their history. Their sense of right and wrong was predicated on what they were taught and what their parents were taught came from their parents.

    When we get to the founding period that the left makes much ado over, we have upward of 200 years of unbroken history. There were no atheists, Hindus, or Muslims in control of the government of what is now the United States. It was not the great melting pot the atheists and the left claim. Your objections only mean you want an interpretation of history not consistent with the facts. Sorry, I was called out on this, so I'm taking the challenge. Your questions will be answered in due time, but if you accuse me of cherry picking the first 200 years, I'll be glad to talk about the 1639 Charter of Maine, Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641, The Articles of Confederation of the United States Colonies of New England of 1643, and we can breeze through many more getting down to the 1701 Charter of Delaware.

    We can list them all if you rather. I'm not cherry picking a damn thing. I won't presume you want that; you were just kidding. I will share with you a link to Connecticut's first codified laws:

    https://archive.org/details/codeof165000conn

    Every aspect of our history is relevant. People are spending big bucks today to learn about their ancient ancestors through ancestry.com yet you tell me that THE very history of this country's Christian roots is not relevant. Who are you trying to make believe that? Me or you?
    Last edited by Humorme; 27th December 2016 at 12:41 PM.

  4. #64
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,623
    Thanks
    7314

    From
    Home
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    If you think I'm cherry picking, I will be glad to include as many examples as you want. You sound like someone who is desperate.

    Each of us is a product of our history. The founding fathers were a product of their history. Their sense of right and wrong was predicated on what they were taught and what their parents were taught came from their parents.

    When we get to the founding period that the left makes much ado over, we have upward of 200 years of unbroken history. There were no atheists, Hindus, or Muslims in control of the government of what is now the United States. It was not the great melting pot the atheists and the left claim. Your objections only mean you want an interpretation of history not consistent with the facts. Sorry, I was called out on this, so I'm taking the challenge. Your questions will be answered in due time, but if you accuse me of cherry picking the first 200 years, I'll be glad to talk about the 1639 Charter of Maine, Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641, The Articles of Confederation of the United States Colonies of New England of 1643, and we can breeze through many more getting down to the 1701 Charter of Delaware.

    We can list them all if you rather. I'm not cherry picking a damn thing. I won't presume you want that; you were just kidding. I will share with you a link to Connecticut's first codified laws:

    https://archive.org/details/codeof165000conn

    Every aspect of our history is relevant. People are spending big bucks today to learn about their ancient ancestors through ancestry.com yet you tell me that THE very history of this country's history is not relevant. Who are you trying to make believe that? Me or you?
    You're not cherry picking? So you DO think our country was founded on allegiance to the Monarchy? Your sources all believed it was immutable.

    Or do you believe (like I do) that ideas about government and religion and the role of religion in government changed over the 180 years prior to the founding of the United States?

    I just find it laughable that you think the writing of the Founders is something that "the left likes to make a big deal about" so you respond by citing stuff written long before any of their grandparents were born.
    Thanks from Rasselas, AttusBlack and Ian Jeffrey

  5. #65
    vulgar? Rasselas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    56,540
    Thanks
    29141

    From
    in my head
    So the logic of this argument is that, since my ancestors were slaveholders, and everyone is a product of their history, I must necessarily favor slavery.
    Thanks from StanStill and Ian Jeffrey

  6. #66
    Veteran Member cpicturetaker12's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    14,172
    Thanks
    11355

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    A few questions and comments:

    #1. I too, think women ought to be able to sell their cooch. (It's theirs, after all). BUT, we do need some regulation of it, don't you think?
    #2. Would you be cool with some Hookers turning tricks on your corner?
    #3. Would you like for your children to watch the "business transaction?" The Deed, itself? (HEY, that's better than the movies they show at school, no?)
    #4. Do you think there should be any limits on prostitution?
    #5. You won't see an "abortion ban."
    #6. YOU MAY see, however, a situation, where the taxpayers are not expected to fund them.
    #7. You MAY, also, see some specific limitations, on things such as "late term abortions," or, miors recieving abortions without parental consent.
    #8. Should the father/sperm donor have ANY say so, whatsoever, or.....does HE NOT have a "choice?"
    #9. Do you gamble, much? (I ask, because, you have to be a pretty heavy gambler, if you can't do so, on the "down low..."
    #10. "Blue Laws" tend to be from the very communities they cover. Do you feel that you should have the right to tell people across the continent, living in towns, you will likely never visit, how they should live their lives, and which laws regarding business hours, they should maintain?
    #11. Should taxpayers be expected to take care of people, who lose all their money, gambling?
    #12, Should taxpayers be expected to pay for treatment of any STD's picked up by Hookers, in their line of work?



    As for these being "forced" upon you, I am going to "force" some reality on you:

    --You have the right to have an abortion.

    --You can gamble with your buddies, in private. (Sure, it's not Vegas, but, you can engage in such, if you like.) IF you wish for more methods of betting your money away, I can see your point, as most states do have some limitations on gambling. Some of them NOT in the "Bible Belt."

    --I can understand your angst about "Blue Laws," but honest....they aren't that difficult to work around. In my state, there are NO liquor or wine sales on Sunday. While that can be quite tough on alcoholics, and bums who work JUST enough to go buy a bottle of Thunderbird, I figured out that you can purchase your booze ahead of time. Like, say on Saturday night. I am pretty smart, though. I would point out that the majority of these laws are supported by the community that they cover. Now, I can understand, if you came to my city, and got miffed because you couldn't buy a bottle of booze on Sunday. BUT.....would your state recognize my "right to carry" permit? I mean...if these Blue Laws are so bad, what about the gun laws in, say, Chicago? Shouldn't that city alter it's laws to suit people in other parts of the nation? (That is only fair, if you expect the same....)

    --Sorry but buying pussy is pretty much illegal in most of the nation. Not so certain that is due to CHRISTIAN influence, or, the concerns for public health. Maybe a bit of both. I would point out, however, that even NON-Christian countries often limit, or outlaw prostitution.

    I want you to go on, as I see a lot of hyperventilating and irrational angst in your post, but.....I see NO "Rights" that you will be losing. Just things that you want, but are not allowed to have.....so, you blame Christians and, the Christian faith....
    SEX, SEX, SEX, SEX, pussy, prostitution and STDS. You're just a one NOTE OUTRAGER. There are many other 'CHRISTIAN LAWS' that are in my business that I want stopped, ceased and "desist'd". Jesushchrist. PUN Intended.

  7. #67
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,219
    Thanks
    222

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    You're not cherry picking? So you DO think our country was founded on allegiance to the Monarchy? Your sources all believed it was immutable.

    Or do you believe (like I do) that ideas about government and religion and the role of religion in government changed over the 180 years prior to the founding of the United States?

    I just find it laughable that you think the writing of the Founders is something that "the left likes to make a big deal about" so you respond by citing stuff written long before any of their grandparents were born.
    I take it you have a point? American jurisprudence evolved out of the laws you are referencing. What? You don't want the whole truth? Any dumbass knows that we are divorced from the Monarchy. You don't want to get there with an honest examination of history?

  8. #68
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,219
    Thanks
    222

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    So the logic of this argument is that, since my ancestors were slaveholders, and everyone is a product of their history, I must necessarily favor slavery.
    I won't even dignify that stupidity with an answer.

  9. #69
    vulgar? Rasselas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    56,540
    Thanks
    29141

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    I won't even dignify that stupidity with an answer.
    It's a perfect analogy. We are the products of our ancestors and our cultural/political past, surely. But if that's true, then it's true for the ugly past as well as the past we approve of. You can't say that the combination of religion and politics determined the ideas of our Founders any more logically than I can assert that slavery is determinative of present-day attitudes.

    The relationship between the King of England (whose alternate title is "Defender of the Faith") and Anglican religion is a formal one. Our founders created the First Amendment to prevent a similar relationship in the US.
    Last edited by Rasselas; 27th December 2016 at 02:38 PM.
    Thanks from AttusBlack

  10. #70
    Senior Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    10,188
    Thanks
    4105

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    I'm well aware of your arguments, but you've failed to acknowledge when your arguments are being dismantled with facts. Yeah, there were Freemasons involved in America; however, there even more people that were NOT anti-Christian. Your modern left wing name calling is no deterrent to our history.

    The first Charter of Virginia, a document from King James I of England to the Virginia Company assigning land rights to colonists for the stated purpose of propagating the Christian religion (to Sir Walter Raleigh) in 1584 read as follows:

    "We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government."

    The Second Charter of Virginia (1609) has this:

    "And forasmuch as it shalbe necessarie for all such our lovinge subjects as shall inhabitt within the said precincts of Virginia aforesaid to determine to live togither in the feare and true woorshipp of Almightie God, Christian peace and civill quietnes, each with other, whereby everie one maie with more safety, pleasure and profitt enjoye that where unto they shall attaine with great paine and perill, wee, for us, oure heires and successors, are likewise pleased and contented and by theis presents doe give and graunte unto the said Tresorer and Companie and their successors and to such governors, officers and ministers as shalbe, by oure said Councell, constituted and appointed, accordinge to the natures and lymitts of their offices and places respectively, that they shall and maie from time to time for ever hereafter, within the said precincts of Virginia or in the waie by the seas thither and from thence, have full and absolute power and aucthority to correct, punishe, pardon, governe and rule all such the subjects of us, oure heires and successors as shall from time to time adventure themselves in anie voiadge thither or that shall at anie tyme hereafter inhabitt in the precincts and territorie of the said Colonie as aforesaid, accordinge to such order, ordinaunces, constitution, directions and instruccions as by oure said Counsell, as aforesaid, shalbe established; and in defect thereof, in case of necessitie according to the good discretions of the said governours and officers respectively, aswell in cases capitall and criminall as civill, both marine and other, so alwaies as the said statuts, ordinannces and proceedinges as neere as convenientlie maie be, be agreable to the lawes, statutes, government and pollicie of this oure realme of England."

    The Second Virginia Charter 1609 < 1600-1650 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

    The Third Charter of Virginia (1611 - 1612) has this:

    "JAMES, by the Grace of God, King of England;, Scotland, France, and Ireland;, Defender of the Faith; To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting. WHEREAS at the humble Suit of divers and sundry our loving Subjects, as well Adventurers as Planters of the first Colony in Virginia, and for the Propagation of Christian Religion, and Reclaiming of People barbarous, to Civility and Humanity, We have, by our Letters-Patents, bearing Date at Westminster, the three-and-twentieth Day of May, in the seventh Year of our Reign of England, France, and Ireland, and the two-and-fortieth of Scotland, GIVEN and GRANTED unto them that they and all such and so many of our loving Subjects as should from time to time, for ever after, be joined with them as Planters or Adventurers in the said Plantation, and their Successors, for ever, should be one Body politick, incorporated by the Name of The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and; Planters of the city of London for the first Colony in Virginia..."

    The Avalon Project : The Third Charter of Virginia; March 12, 1611

    MichaelJ's words are proof within themselves that atheists DO want to outlaw Christianity. They honestly believe that they have a monopoly on what is and is not relevant in understanding America's Christian history and its context. Even when their interpretations are destroyed, they will seek to change the issues. I'm starting at the beginning of our Christian foundations and WILL address their deflections, side issues, myths and half truths. We just need the whole picture, not a piece here or there.
    Notice those events took place well before the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, that all took place when King George had power over the colonies. You're saying there were Christians who came to America. So what? That doesn't mean it's a Christian theocracy, and it most certainly does not mean the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence were at all influenced by the Holy Bible. Like I said earlier, the sentiments of the Holy Bible and that of the U.S. Constitution are antipodal.

    Technically the Native Americans were the first inhabitants (hence, "founders") of the United States, and they weren't Holy Bible humpers until the Pilgrims arrived and the Christian statists threw them in boarding schools.

    Even atheists acknowledge there were Christians who came to America. That doesn't prove atheists want to outlaw Christianity. No atheist in America has ever once violated the Establishment Clause, and they certainly haven't tried to remove that abstract noun from the English dictionary. However, if you do actual research on Christian Dominionism, you'll see socially conservative Christians have violated it a multitude of times.

Page 7 of 59 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14th August 2014, 07:45 PM
  2. Should Theists Be Allowed To Shop/Vote?
    By Xerographica in forum Economics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 29th August 2013, 08:45 PM
  3. Why Should I Give A Shit If Another Country Wants To Be Communist Or Socialist?
    By Distressed American in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 3rd June 2007, 02:08 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed