[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate... Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt. You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge Jewish Land Grab Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own. Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human' Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago! Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain? Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish'

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: College removes cross – from chapel!
Source: WND
URL Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52646
Published: Oct 27, 2006
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2006-10-27 12:39:53 by bluegrass
Ping List: *New History*
Keywords: None
Views: 4201
Comments: 252

The cross from the altar area of the chapel at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va., has been removed to ensure the space is seen as a nondenominational area, explains Melissa Engimann, assistant director for Historic Campus.

"In order to make the Wren Chapel less of a faith-specific space, and to make it more welcoming to students, faculty, staff and visitors of all faiths, the cross has been removed from the altar area," Engimann announced in an e-mail to staff.

The cross will be returned to the altar for those who wish to use it for events, services or private prayer.

The cross was in place because of the college's former association with the Anglican Church. Though the college is now nondenominational and became publicly supported in 1906, the room will still be considered a chapel, college officials said.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 201.

#1. To: bluegrass (#0)

This is kind of a private matter - it's not like this came from a court order, etc.

So it really is non of our business.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   12:50:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The chapel is part of the Wren Building, the oldest academic building in America. It's had a cross in it since the chapel was added in 1732.

This is akin to what the Bolsheviks did to Russian religious history during their tyranny.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-27   13:05:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The chapel is part of the Wren Building, the oldest academic building in America. It's had a cross in it since the chapel was added in 1732.

It's a private matter - none of my business or yours.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   14:16:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

It's a private matter - none of my business or yours.

I live in Virginia. W&M is a "public" school.

It's my biz.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-27   14:20:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I live in Virginia. W&M is a "public" school.

Then the cross should be removed since the state should not fund a religous specific chapel.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   14:22:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

By that reasoning, the publicly funded 'Holocaust' Museum in DC should have all of the six-pointed stars removed.

The larger issue is that the State has no business supporting universities.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-27   14:25:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

By that reasoning, the publicly funded 'Holocaust' Museum in DC should have all of the six-pointed stars removed.

A) I am against the existence of the Holocaust musuem in America - if it should exist anywhere it should be in Berlin/Europe.

With that said:

B) The Star of David was used as a identifying symbol by the Nazis so you could not have it removed from a museum that touches on the subject.

C) Was not the schismatic and heretical Anglican church founded by an overweight serial killer?

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   14:28:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The German Nazis used the genocide and 'ethnic cleansing' of Native Americans as one of the models to plan and execute their genocide and ethnic cleansing of those they found odious.

I would keep the museum and make the Shoah exhibit a wing. It needs exhibits showing what happened to 'New World' peoples, and to peoples in all the other corners of the world when their particular 'holocausts' happened.

The lesson that the museum teaches is an important one, it just need to be reorganized and changed to show that this is a sort of thing that has happened in different degrees at different times in human history.

To make it just cover the Shoah, it sends the false message that what the Nazis did was highly unusual, when in fact, it isn't. The museum is needed because this sort of thing will happen again if we don't use all the tools at our disposal to remember history to keep from repeating it.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2006-10-27   14:39:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The German Nazis used the genocide and 'ethnic cleansing' of Native Americans as one of the models to plan and execute their genocide and ethnic cleansing of those they found odious.

I don't know if any Nazi ever said that but they did openly modeled their laws on the Jews on the American South's Jim Crow laws.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   15:01:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

In Nazi Germany, Jews were prohibited by law from marrying non-Jews. There's only one country in the world that still has this law: Israel.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-27   15:15:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

In Nazi Germany, Jews were prohibited by law from marrying non-Jews. There's only one country in the world that still has this law: Israel.

The Jim Crow laws of the South - including laws against race mixing - were defended by referring to the Old Testament as recently as the 1960s.

The Nazi legal system was based on the American Jim Crow laws.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   15:40:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The Nazi legal system was based on the American Jim Crow laws.

As you yourself stated that the Jim Crow laws were also based on the OT, it's only logical that the Nazi laws were based on the same older source. It's a pretzel twisting of logic otherwise.

Streicher himself says that the Nazi race laws were based on the Mosaic laws.

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-27   15:52:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Which is why our Founding Fathers made this a secular nation.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   15:54:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

That's beside the point.

The Nazi race laws were based on Mosaic laws. The followers of that Mosaic law are now ensconced in the power structure of this so-called "secular nation".

bluegrass  posted on  2006-10-27   16:04:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

That's beside the point.

That's exactly the point of this article - secular republic - see conversation above before you introduced the 'Star of David' into the duscussion.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   16:10:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

That's exactly the point of this article - secular republic

I think the article deals with how political correctness overtakes what should be common sense. This college has a historic association with Christianity, ergo the cross in its chapel. The US gov't did not ram a cross into this chapel and promote Christianity as the nation's favorite religion. This cross was in this chapel for how many decades with how many hundreds of students of various denominations coming into the chapel to pray to their own individual Lord, without feeling they were being brow beaten into converting to Protestantism. And now some idiot PC ( or maybe aetheist) desk jockey at W&M is using the excuse of "well this is a tax supported school now" and "well the chapel should be non-denominational because it's all the room we've got for prayer and someone (?) might get offended if we don't make this change"...puhleaze this is so transparent. How can you argue that this obvious PC ploy relates to separation of state and religion...you are better than pushing this type of limp wristed milque toast rationale, destro...

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-27   16:36:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I think the article deals with how political correctness overtakes what should be common sense.

It's not an example of political correctness - the chapel is being designated for non denominational use - like thousands of such chapels in school and hospitals all over America including the military.

Such chapels have no outward signs of religous denomination and symbols are brought ina nd out depending on the services given.

This school long ago gave up its denominational links. W&M is not the property of you or the people - they can do whatever they like.

This is like me getting upset some Protestnat denominations ordain women while at the same time I am not a Protestant. None of my business.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-27   16:57:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

W&M is not the property of you or the people - they can do whatever they like.

This is like me getting upset some Protestnat denominations ordain women while at the same time I am not a Protestant. None of my business.

This is a taxpayer supported college. W&M is not private; it used to be private but not any longer. It is "our" property.

And why are you jumping all over the map with your arguments to support W&M's decision? At first you said that there should be separation between gov't and religion. Now you're claiming this is a private matter even though it says quite clearly in the article that W&M receives taxpayer (gov't) support.

"Though the college is now nondenominational and became publicly supported in 1906..."

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-27   17:15:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This is a taxpayer supported college. W&M is not private; it used to be private but not any longer. It is "our" property.

Even more reason to remove the cross since this "space is seen as a nondenominational area".

Destro  posted on  2006-10-28   15:30:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

destro: W&M is not the property of you or the people - they can do whatever they like. This is like me getting upset some Protestnat denominations ordain women while at the same time I am not a Protestant. None of my business.

scrapper: This is a taxpayer supported college. W&M is not private; it used to be private but not any longer. It is "our" property.

And why are you jumping all over the map with your arguments to support W&M's decision? At first you said that there should be separation between gov't and religion. Now you're claiming this is a private matter even though it says quite clearly in the article that W&M receives taxpayer (gov't) support.

"Though the college is now nondenominational and became publicly supported in 1906..."

destro: Even more reason to remove the cross since this "space is seen as a nondenominational area".

Oh stop it, your flip flops in the positions you have taken in the course of arguing the merits of W&M's decision fool no one and the ensuing spin only give me a headache like watching the theatrics of a Linda Blair understudy for the Exorcist role.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-28   16:18:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

At first you said that there should be separation between gov't and religion. Now you're claiming this is a private matter even though it says quite clearly in the article that W&M receives taxpayer (gov't) support.

What is the contradiction there? W&M is not my property nor yours - mind your business.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-28   17:08:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

What is the contradiction there? W&M is not my property nor yours - mind your business.

W&M is a tax payer supported school - it receives BOTH state and federal funding. I am a taxpayer and therefore and thusly I have every right to consider critically the decisions of the politically correct minions sitting behind desks who are minding my investments in education, as it were.

Speak for yourself if this is not your business - maybe you do not pay taxes - but I do - so shove your condescending remarks up your unemployed welfare consuming a** ( if that's your current situation).

I stand my the comments which I made in my initial #41 post to you( which I re- list below), and your subsequent contradictory arguments that have hopped all over the map have not pursuaded me otherwise.

destro: That's exactly the point of this article - secular republic

scrapper: I think the article deals with how political correctness overtakes what should be common sense. This college has a historic association with Christianity, ergo the cross in its chapel. The US gov't did not ram a cross into this chapel and promote Christianity as the nation's favorite religion. This cross was in this chapel for how many decades with how many hundreds of students of various denominations coming into the chapel to pray to their own individual Lord, without feeling they were being brow beaten into converting to Protestantism. And now some idiot PC ( or maybe aetheist) desk jockey at W&M is using the excuse of "well this is a tax supported school now" and "well the chapel should be non-denominational because it's all the room we've got for prayer and someone (?) might get offended if we don't make this change"...puhleaze this is so transparent. How can you argue that this obvious PC ploy relates to separation of state and religion...you are better than pushing this type of limp wristed milque toast rationale, destro...

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-28   17:31:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

W&M is a tax payer supported school - it receives BOTH state and federal funding.

So?

Want to return teh school to the Anglican church? Then America should not have fought the American revolution.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-28   17:36:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

W&M is a tax payer supported school - it receives BOTH state and federal funding. So?

Want to return teh school to the Anglican church? Then America should not have fought the American revolution.

No we fought the revolution to have our own nation, not to be dominated by others, to be captains of our destiny.

In the course of building a nation we have accumulated traditions and a good deal of history.

Why not leave traditions, history alone when they harm no one except for a small group of politically correct (often bordering on Christophobia)who wish to dominate our nation with their narrow and selfish point of view?

For how many decades have students of various denominations used this chapel to pray to their own faith's Lord and only now a Ms. Melissa Engifinkelstein oops Engimann, assistant director for the historic Campus, wants to remove the cross?

I'm sorry but our forefathers did not fight the revolution to take on the yoke of political correctness and self-serving views as promoted by the likes of Ms. Engimann. The fedgov't did not thrust a cross into the chapel of W&M out of the blue to promote a federally sanctioned religion. This cross has historical import to the school and no contemporary fast fade mortal has the right to dissolve history and tradition with a stroke of a pen to a memo. This self- important administrator should be over ruled forthwith by the university's board of governors. Let Ms. Engimann find a job elsewhere maybe flipping burgers at a non-denominational food outlet - she does not appreciate tradition or history and should be allowed near repositories of those values.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-28   18:17:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Why not leave traditions, history alone when they harm no one except for a small group of politically correct (often bordering on Christophobia)who wish to dominate our nation with their narrow and selfish point of view?

This is what these Founding Fathers had to say on tradition and history:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" -- Thomas Jefferson

Destro  posted on  2006-10-28   18:26:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This is what these Founding Fathers had to say on tradition and history:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" -- Thomas Jefferson

Oh really? What a clever response.

Well you given me 2 out of context quotations and nothing from or about the man who laid down the principles of our Bill of Rights - George Mason - and whom George Washington (Mason's neighbor) and Thomas Jefferson greatly admired.

Fyi, George Mason was a heavy duty man of faith and along with his neighbor, George Washington, served on the [church] building committee of Truro Parish, which consisted of three churches.

There have been books published with George Washington's Prayers and his addresses to the churches. James Madison declared January 12, 1815 " A Day of Public Humiliation and Fasting"..."The two houses of the National Legislature having, by a joint resolution expressed their desire that, in the present time of public calamity and war, a day may be recommended to be observed by the people of the United States as a day of public humiliation and fasting, and of prayer to Almighty god for the safety and welfare of these States, his blessing on their arms and a speedy restoration of peace..."

So all in all I have every reason to believe that George Mason, George Washington, and James Madison would be appalled to see Ms. Engimann's somewhat small minded Christophic behavior. W&M became a public college in 1906, so for 60 long years students and administrators came and went without being offended by the cross in the college chapel and only now, 60 years later, an anti-Christian bureaucrat decides to tear assunder history and tradition "for the common good." Pardon me but I smell something rather odiferous and selfish in Ms. Engifinkelstein ooops Ms. Engimann's action.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-28   19:22:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Well you given me 2 out of context quotations.......

Less of an error religious fundamentalists in America make when they try and usurp the Founding Fathers and portray the Founding Fathers as Southern Evangelical interpretations of what Old Testament patriarchs were like. Washington like Jefferson accepted Christianity up to a point - the philosophy of Christ devoid of the supernatural - a common deist/Freemason line of thinking.

It is no accident that blue blooded WASP Freemason/Skull&Bones man like Bush called Jesus his favorite philosopher.

To a student of the esoteric - such a statement was telling even if it went over people's heads.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-28   20:14:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Less of an error religious fundamentalists in America make when they try and usurp the Founding Fathers and portray the Founding Fathers as Southern Evangelical interpretations of what Old Testament patriarchs were like. Washington like Jefferson accepted Christianity up to a point - the philosophy of Christ devoid of the supernatural - a common deist/Freemason line of thinking.

The Treaty of Tripoli gives a good insight into the mindset of the founding fathers on the issue of relgion. Article 11 of the Treaty says in part:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

Also recall that almost from the inception there was an active movement to pass a Constitutional Amendment declaring the US a Christian Nation. This effort repeatedly failed and the effort was eventually abandonned sometime around the Civil War.

...  posted on  2006-10-28   22:04:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Btw, nice informative post.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-28   23:02:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The type of Christians the Founding Fathers were in no way resembles how the fundamentalists in America make them out to be when they try and usurp the Founding Fathers and portray the Founding Fathers as Southern Evangelical interpretations of what Old Testament patriarchs were like. Washington like Jefferson accepted Christianity up to a point - the philosophy of Christ devoid of the supernatural - a common deist/Freemason line of thinking. The Treaty of Tripoli gives a good insight into the mindset of the founding fathers on the issue of relgion. Article 11 of the Treaty says in part:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Destro  posted on  2006-10-29   0:50:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Didn't you claim to be a Greek Orthodox, or was that just for our benefit?

Diana  posted on  2006-10-29   18:14:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Didn't you claim to be a Greek Orthodox, or was that just for our benefit?

What does that mean? I will enforce religion on the people? Did you not learn from the Pope's comment on what the Byzantine emperor had tos ay about religion and force?

Destro  posted on  2006-10-29   18:23:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Another point that you might want to keep in mind is that before 1800 only about 10% of the population of the US were members of Christian Congregations. I've seen this figure as low as 6.5% and as high as 15%, but the point is that only a very small percentage belonged to organized Christian Churches.

At the time, organized religion had a bad name. The excessess of the inquisition and the witch trials were not that far away from these people. Many of the religious adherents in the colonies were kooks who had been kicked out of Europe for being intolerent trouble makers. They didn't sell with the general population.

Among others, Robert, T. Handy documents this in his book "A History of the Churches in U.S. and Canada," New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

The American Revolution was driven by Enlightenment Thinkers. By and large these people were Diests (Jefferson) or Rational Theists (Franklin). They believed in the Masonic tradition of preserving the Enlightenment from over bearing kings, popes and wild eyed religious nuts. From what I have read of Jefferson (and some of which is bolded above) he did believe in a "wall" of separation between church and state least Christian Taliban types seek to establish a theocracy over rest.

Also recall that true to Jefferson's fear, the Christian Taliban types tried to do exactly what Jefferson feared. For almost 80 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified the minority Christian contingent sought an amendment declaring the US a "Christian Nation". They were shot down time and time again by the founding fathers and finally gave up as the Civil War got underway.

...  posted on  2006-10-29   18:54:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Also recall that true to Jefferson's fear, the Christian Taliban types tried to do exactly what Jefferson feared. For almost 80 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified the minority Christian contingent sought an amendment declaring the US a "Christian Nation". They were shot down time and time again by the founding fathers and finally gave up as the Civil War got underway.

The Second Great Awakening - which saw a rise in the hostility towards Freemasons.

Which is when the Freemasons went underground forming true secret societies like Skull&Bones (no coincidence it was founded during that Second Awakening) and created a dichotomy in America.

Before the Second Great Awakening fervent Christians and those Americans that were deists lived side by side with each tolerating each other. Then the Second great Awakening changed that and drove the deists underground. That is why the upper crust seem to worship a different God than the great unwashed Americans and why there exists a hostility between the upper and lower crusts and maybe why there exists a mood in lower crust America that the upper crust conspires against them.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-29   19:16:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I suggest you read through the historic archives of Library of Congress which clearly demonstrates the Christain connection to the early history of America.

The page heading that Library of Congress associates with the founding of the American Republic is rather telling:

"Religion and the founding of the American Republic"

http://www.loc.gov/exhibi ts/religion/rel04.html

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-29   19:25:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"Religion and the founding of the American Republic"

http://www.loc.gov/exhibi ts/religion/rel04.html

Why did you post this? It does absolutely nothing advance your argument or disprove anything that was said on the other side.

It simply says that there were deeply religious men -- amonst others -- in the group the we call the founding fathers. No one disputes that. The article is fluff for Jr. High School kids writing term papers. If you disagree, post the relevant portion that proves your point. Use your cut and paste function.

My point is that the actual founding fathers published a docment clearly stating that this was NOT a christian nation. It was ratified by Congress. I posted quotes from the primary founding fathers to show that this was no fluke and was in accordance with thier wishes.

...  posted on  2006-10-29   19:59:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Why did you post this? It does absolutely nothing advance your argument or disprove anything that was said on the other side. It simply says that there were deeply religious men -- amonst others -- in the group the we call the founding fathers. No one disputes that. The article is fluff for Jr. High School kids writing term papers. If you disagree, post the relevant portion that proves your point. Use your cut and paste function.

Who are you to criticize my Library of Congress link to archival US history material that has copies of original documents with commentary text that covers multi decades of history of what is known as America, when you and your compadre, Destro, have posted selective quotations out of context and links to a website of a tired old man called Loeflin who has a hard on about fundie Christians (like who doesn't, duh?) Get off your high horse. And fyi the reason I did not cut and paste "relevent portions" is because the whole damn url deals with material that proves that the Founding Fathers were for the most part PRACTISING CHRISTIANS ( cover your eyes!) and that the founding settlers of this great nation were by and large PRACTISING CHRISTIANS! Hello. Everything at the site is pertinent to that point. The Library of Congress is replete with history that supports that common sense observation about the nation called America. The fact that you and Destro say well, the founding fathers voted against naming America a Christian nation and a couple of Founding Fathers might be cynical church goers means what exactly? The 2 of you are high 5-ing about what revelation that only the 2 of you apparently are seeing. Spit it out. Tell us posters who have post graduate degrees. What do you 2 bright lights see that others of us possibly with far better academic credentials do not? The founding fathers did not want to establish a national religion. They wanted Americans to be able to practice their religion free from gov't interference. That is obvious except to someone living under a rock. But you and Destro are trying to jump from that widely known historical fact to promote an false idea about America - that it was not founded by Christians nor is it a Christian nation today. That theory has no support whatsoever. Have you heard of the Pilgrims? Have you looked at US currency? Have you ever watched the inaugural ceremony of the most important executive officer in the land? Have you ever visited the Supreme Court bldg - the highest court in the nation? There are Christian symbols in all aspects of American political and judicial and everyday life - do you think that comes by random chance? "The facts on the ground" speak to America as being founded by Christians as it is peopled by a majority of Christians today. If you don't like living in a Christian nation, sorry, move to Israel or to India or to Saudi Arabia. Perhaps some of those countries will offer you a non-Christian religious ambience which you may care for better. The US gov't has never established Christianity as the official religion but the majority of people who live in this country are Christians. Try as you may to fool yourself that history and facts on the ground today are different, you are wrong. You are in the midst of a Christian nation. Its founders were Christians. Its first settlers were Christians - they were known not as Buddhists, not as Muslims, not as Jews. The first Americans after the Revolution were still primarily CHRISTIANS, just as the first settlers under British rule were known as Christians.

Regardless of the serenade that you and Destro sing to one another, this article - you know what we are supposed to be addressing - has zero to do with the First Amendment or the religion of the Founding Fathers or the early American settlers.

Ms. Engimann does not refer to either subject that you and Destro run off at the mouth about. Ms. Engimann is making the decision to remove the cross from the chapel because of either a) PC hooey or b) because she is Christophobic and wants to take advantage of her position to impose her will and beliefs on W&M. .

Stick to the material at hand. Thank you very much. And btw, just because you are still sore that I shot you down on another thread where you were trying to drum up votes for the Dimwit Party as being oh so different than the Repukes, you don't need to carry a grudge for days on end. Get over it.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-29   23:59:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Who are you to criticize my Library of Congress link to archival US history material that has copies of original documents with commentary text that covers multi decades of history of what is known as America,

Red Herring.

As you know, and as anyone can see from reading above, I didn't criticize the Library of Congress page you posted, I simply said it wasn't on point. And it wasn't or you could have posted the relevant portions here as I asked.

I said before, the article was general fluff put up to help kids do term papers. And that's precisely what it is.

As I also said above, the article basically says that some of the founding fathers were very religious. Nobody disputes this and it has no real bearing on the current discussion.

Over the years I've learned how to counter your tactic of very specific claim allegedly backed up with overly general reference. Becky Saunders on LP used to make very specific claims regarding the Iraq war tactics and then post a reference to the home page of Janes Military Hardware to back them up. Similarly, you claimed that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation - and not as a secular nation - and you then cite the entire Library of congress for support. In addition, you post a link to an article that is pure fluff and which discusses a collateral point, i.e., that some of the founding fathers were religious.

I counter this tactic by asking you to cut and paste the particular sentence or paragraph in the article that backs up your claim. Reading the artcile at the link you posted, I don't think you can do this.

...  posted on  2006-10-30   0:20:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I counter this tactic by asking you to cut and paste the particular sentence or paragraph in the article that backs up your claim. Reading the artcile at the link you posted, I don't think you can do this.

Dear Ms. Clueless,

I don't need to cut and paste - the whole text and original documents at the Library of Congress url speaks to the fact that the USA was founded by Christians, both settlers and framers of the Constitution.

The material also addresses the fact that Christianity was not legislated to be the official national religion - a point that you and Destro appear to believe is known only to the two of you. No one is arguing with you on that point. The LC site that I provide makes this clear. What all other posters including myself are at odds with you and Destro is over your flight of fancy about America not being a Christian nation. That supposition is not born out in fact. Just because Christianity is not legislated to be an official government approved religion does not prove that America is not a Christian nation. America was founded by Christian settlers. America's framers were by and large Christians and church going ones at that regardless of what Destro and old Mr. Loeflin, the owner of the site he refers to, may think.

I don't have a clue who "Becky at LP" is. I don't "know" her. I don't post at LP. If she played games with you, I'm sorry for that. I am not Becky.

If you truly believe that America has no Christian foundation, that today's Americans are in the main a group of non-religious amorphous blobs with no religious identities, good luck to you in surviving the truth when it strikes - Presidential inaugural day when the highest officer in this country puts one hand on the N.T. Bible, when you glance at some currency, when the national anthem is sung...

I'm done with you. Your naivity is too much to bear. I suspect you are quite young. That's probably why you think America is what you make it to be,history and facts on the ground not withstanding. See you. I'm not laying any bread crumbs around, so don't bother following me. I think you have found an intellectual equal and mentor in Destro. God speed.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-10-30   0:51:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

America was a place of refuge for many persecuted Christians.

The German Palatinates (Lutherans) escaping the 30 Years' War, and the Puritans and Quakers before that.

There distinct Protestant denominations in America long before the Revolution. In NY were the Dutch Reformists, in the midwest the Methodists and Weslayans, the Presbyterians (from Ulster and Scotland), in PA, west and south. America invented the Baptists (in 1787 on 2 sides of my family tree, in KY and VA). Then a little later the starving Irish Catholics. Then some more Germans, this time Catholics. Then there were those crazy French Canadians (Catholics) who sailed down the Mississippi (the Cajuns). The Scandinavians were Lutheran. The Italians Catholic. Around WWI the Armenians escaping the Turks, some made it CA, who were Greek Orthodox.

So many people from so many countries from the Pilgrims onward were all Christians.

Up until a few decades ago, all the stores were closed on Sunday. People were not even inclined to travel on Sunday. Everyone went to church. These were real Christians, who studied and worshipped and prayed together. Not the lazy, backsliding apologists we've become today.

I cannot think of one good reason to rewrite American history as being anything other than predominately Christian, but I can think of a few bad reasons.

robin  posted on  2006-10-30   1:23:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Up until a few decades ago, all the stores were closed on Sunday. People were not even inclined to travel on Sunday. Everyone went to church.

I think the stores were closed on Sunday because there were blue laws in place. Some of these were put in place during the Christian revival of the mid 1800s and some came about during the labor reform that took place in the 1880s and then again after WW I. When the blue laws were rescended in the late 1960s Sunday shopping immediately came on line. I don't think it was general holiness that prevented the shopping. Were that the case, it would not be profitable to keep Wall-Mart open on Sunday today.

I could be wrong, but the figures I remember never show church attendance topping about 50%.

But the point isn't whether or not there are Christians in the United States, the question is whether the United States was founded as a Christian Nation. It wasn't and thet's why the effort to pass a constitutional amendment to this effect failed. That's also why the founding fathers clearly stated that this was not a Christian nation in the treaty of tripoli. That is why there is such an thing as the fist Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..". Note that if the United states was founded as a "Christian Nation" Congress, or whoever, would have already made a law "respecting the founding of religion". The words of the fist amendment are plain on their face and 200 years of case law bears out this interpretation.

...  posted on  2006-10-30   1:40:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The Magna Carta is not mentioned in the Constitution either, but its influence is obvious. So is the influence of Christian men as the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Sunday was a day of worship, before the blue laws. The blue laws are because of this belief.

No one needed a law not to shop and travel on Sunday, it was a day that Christian America simply observed in worship.

Do you know why there is a morning and then evening service? To allow time for people to go home, have a midday meal a few farm chores; then return to church.

Midweek there was bible study. The majority of Americans went to church. That you don't see this anymore is no reason rewrite history.

robin  posted on  2006-10-30   1:53:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The Magna Carta is not mentioned in the Constitution either, but its influence is obvious. So is the influence of Christian men as the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. - Thomas Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10, 1814.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-30   9:40:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Thomas Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10, 1814.

The Magna Carta was 1215, well after Christianity was introduced, so using Jefferson's logic, Christianity had influence to its inception and influence in the creation of statute law over common law. The common laws of the time were not very fair to the serfs, that's what made the Magna Carta so important.

Thank you for continuing to make my point of the wonderful influence of Christianity on Western Civilization, this nation and the Constitution.

robin  posted on  2006-10-30   9:51:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The Magna Carta was 1215,

America uses English Common law which predates Christianity - the Magna Carta is not part of the common law. The magna carta was a deal between nobles and the king on what powers he could have over them - it is not a religous inspired document of law.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-30   10:04:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

But English Common Law now includes the influence of the Magna Carta and Christianity.

As I pointed out the common laws of the time Jefferson refers to were so inferior, they did not protect the average serf at all. That's why the Magna Carta was so important. And not until 1215, after Christianity had had plenty of time to influence everything.

from Wikipedia about Statute Law, also used by the United States.

A statute is a formal, written law of a country or state, written and enacted by its legislative authority, perhaps to then be ratified by the highest executive in the government, and finally published. Typically, statutes command, prohibit, or declare policy. Statutes are sometimes referred to as legislation or "black letter law."

In many countries, published statutes are organized in topical arrangements called codes, such as the Civil Code of Quebec or the United States Code.

Washington pointedly avoided the inter-denominational infighting among the various Christian groups, as the quotes you posted are evidence.

And why don't you tell me what makes Israel so racist and intolerant if it is a Democracy with a rule of law?

You have stated that afterall you are not a Greek Orthodox, although you certainly led many of us to believe that.

So what do you believe?

robin  posted on  2006-10-30   10:21:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You have stated that afterall you are not a Greek Orthodox, although you certainly led many of us to believe that.

Do I have to be a worshiper to defend what was done to the Orthodox peoples in by the USA?

I don't understand why also you assume that if I am an Orthodox believer that means I would lie about the nature of the USA like some Protestants do? Or that I want a theocracy? Orthodoxy is against a theocracy - unlike in England where the king/queen is head of the church which is impossible under Orthodoxy or how the pope is king of the Papal States and heads his own govt in the Vatican - forbidden under Orthodoxy or how Calvinists and other Protestant churches ran there own city-states as seen in Switzerland and Germany.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-30   10:37:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't understand why also you assume that if I am an Orthodox believer that means I would lie about the nature of the USA like some Protestants do?

The facts do not lie. Your chosen faith or lack of it, may be the reason you fail to see the importance of the influence of Christianity in the foundation of this nation.

Orthodoxy is against a theocracy - unlike in England where the king/queen is head of the church which is impossible under Orthodoxy or how the pope is king of the Papal States and heads his own govt in the Vatican - forbidden under Orthodoxy or how Calvinists and other Protestant churches ran there own city-states as seen in Switzerland and Germany.

Thanks to the American Revolution and the French Revolution monarchies are mere figure-heads today, and the Vatican has no influence over governments today. America is not a theocracy, but Christianity has played a huge part in its very inception and growth.

Those Calvinist and Protestant churches who ran their own city-states in Switzerland and Germany were undoubtedly very fair, equitable, tolerant and safe places to live.

Twice I have mentioned Israel as having a rule of law, a so-called Democracy, yet totally racist and intolerant. Its very laws are racist and intolerant.

You have not answered my question, how that happened.

I will answer it for you. Because Israel's laws are not founded in Christianity. They are influenced by the Torah, which hates anything non-Jew.

Christianity makes a difference, it is that difference that makes Western Civilization and America different, in a good way; not perfect, but you cannot perfection anywhere on this planet.

robin  posted on  2006-10-30   10:48:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Those Calvinist and Protestant churches who ran their own city-states in Switzerland and Germany were undoubtedly very fair, equitable, tolerant and safe places to live.

Twice I have mentioned Israel as having a rule of law, a so-called Democracy, yet totally racist and intolerant. Its very laws are racist and intolerant

Those Calvinist and Protestant churches who ran their own city-states in Switzerland and Germany were undoubtedly very fair, equitable, tolerant and safe places to live???? Except for those they burned at the stake I assume.

As for Israel? I don't get your point? I don't support a theocratic state like Israel and I consider democracies a form of mob rule. Beyond that I don't get how bringing in Israel out of the blue has any bearing on this conversation.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-30   10:59:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

And I mentioned that they were not perfect, but that no place is.

I don't support a theocratic state like Israel and I consider democracies a form of mob rule.

So what form of govt do you admire?

Israel is an example of a democracy that has a rule of law but is intolerant and racist. And I submitted that one difference would be that the laws were written without any Christian influence.

robin  posted on  2006-10-30   11:04:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So what form of govt do you admire?

The Constitution of our Founding Fathers - a Constitution not based on religion - which went out if it's way not to include God or the Bible in its formulation.

If you are a nut job that thinks Calvinist Geneva was a just place then you are no better than the Israelis you claim you hate.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-30   11:08:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You cannot compare the attitudes and superstitions of people from centuries ago to those of today. Well if you can compare them that shows just how "advanced" that modern nation must actually be.

And again, the reason the Founding Fathers went out of their way not to specify any Christian denomination over another, but to insure religious freedom for all, including future generations, is because they were learned Christians, who understood the teachings of Christianity itself; free will, the equality of man, do unto others as you would have them do unto you (The Golden Rule), etc..

robin  posted on  2006-10-30   11:16:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Some where Christians some were not. The 'some were not' part is what you deny.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-30   11:21:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Jefferson was not, but a deist; Washington and most of them were.

And even those who were not, would have had the benefit of early Christian teachings to help form their ideas.

robin  posted on  2006-10-30   11:25:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Stop dancing around the issue - you are for the imposition of religious values on people.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-30   11:31:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Stop dancing around the issue - you are for the imposition of religious values on people.

If by "imposition of religious values" you mean I think that all men are created equal, that all men are equal under that law, that a man has the right to stand before his accuser, and the right to a speedy trial, that torture is morally wrong, that murder is morally wrong, that we all have the right to private property, freedom of speech, to learn to read, etc; yes, these values (religious or otherwise), I would impose on people.

These are also values that Christians hold dear and I gave the example of Israel to make my point that not all democracies believe these values are important to uphold.

Of course, GW Bush has changed all that, we're looking more like Israel everyday. They have 9,000 Palestinians rotting in jail, without any due process. We're new at this, and the Bush govt won't even say how many they have tortured and sent to secret prisons.

robin  posted on  2006-10-30   11:46:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#202. To: robin (#201)

If by "imposition of religious values" you mean

teaching creationisim or having prayer in school.

Destro  posted on  2006-10-30 12:05:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]