Which Nation are we?

[Keith Farmer]

Hussein Obama is now evidently throwing out the baby with the bath water by "dissing" this nation's heritage of Christian values:


Quote:
“…the United States and Turkey can send a powerful message to the world through their friendship. …that Turkey and the United States can build a model partnership in which a predominantly Christian nation, a predominantly Muslim nation — a Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents … that we can create a modern international community that is respectful, that is secure, that is prosperous, that there are not tensions — inevitable tensions between cultures — which I think is extraordinarily important.”

Then he says:


[quote]Obama, June 28, 2006 (as delivered): Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. [/quote]

also,


Quote:
that “one of the great strengths of the United States is that it does not consider itself a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. I think modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles.” (CNN)



While the three quotes are not surprising the first is somewhat contradictory to the latter two and the third contradicts the second by saying first that we are a nation of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Non-believers, then he says we are not that nation....man can he just make up his mind?!?

The first quote places our history in perspective while the other two place it on a shelf and simply by fiat it appears we are now a nation based on multi faceted religions (second quote)...then only a "set of values" (third quote). This is important when viewed in the shadow of the third quote where Obama says we are bound by ideals and a set of values. My question, and it should be one of everyone else, is what set of values is Obama referring to? Does he even have a clue what he is talking about?

First) The religions he mentioned have very different values and ideals when compared to each other. The ideals and values THIS nation was founded on were/are those of Judeo Christians...that is very easily provable. What we are seeing now is the devaluing of our national heritage and the ushering in of Eastern values by Obama's decree (what a travesty that this is happening right before our very eyes!).

Second) Turkey may be a secular republic but the country is 99% Muslim. Most Turkish people would say that Turkey is a "Muslim" nation. Not ordered so by the Turkish government but none the less Muslim as a whole. In that light what similar set of PRINCIPLES does Turkey have with America????
__________________

[YardleyLabs]

Keith,

I think Obama's comments are accurate with respect to both the US and Turkey.

Clearly we are a nation of principles, defined by Constitution and law, not by religion. Some of those laws have their roots in Judeo-Christian heritage, but nothing in our laws allows someone to be punished or favored legally based on religiously defined rules. We have elected, from our foundation, to be a secular state. While we are much more inclusive today than we were in the 18th century, even Jefferson spoke of welcoming Muslims to our country.

"Modern Turkey", as referenced by Obama, was also founded as a strictly secular state. In fact, they carried secular law much further than even our ancestors. This is unique among Muslim countries, and that secular commitment is now under attack in Turkey by some Islamists. I suspect that Obama's comments were designed, in part, to indicate support for the continuation of Turkey's secular traditions while also emphasizing his own commitments to preserving our own secular past.

[Keith Farmer]

Clearly we are a nation of principles, defined by Constitution and law, not by religion

Jeff I don't disagree with the parts about secularism in terms of Turkey. My point being that I don't think Obama knows where he stands, what our nation is about, or where he should be leading us. I believe right now he is more concerned with trying to appease for the "past differences" of previous administrations with who he sees as potential allies in the region. However, what happened with his pals from Russia, China, and the like when N. Korea blantanly thumbed their nose at the warnings from Obama?... they all refused to help! Unless Obama learns from his failed efforts during this trip it will be a losing effort in total on his part with the U.S. being the beneficiary of his created mess.

Oh yeah, about our constitution. On what principles, Jeff, was that constitution written? Just in case you have forgotten...here is a portion of our Declaration of Independence (with my emphasis added):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (not evolved as eugenics teaches), that they are endowed by their Creator (that would be Jehovah God) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the puruit of Happiness.


Color it any way you want Jeff but our constitution is a drafted set of values/principles based on unalienable rights bestowed upon all mankind by Jehovah God...not Allah, not Buddha, not the millions of Hindu gods, not any mystical god or a mythical creature...you get the picture don't you? For this reason we are seeing a push towards international law for the UNITED STATES where our constitution will become obsolete. Obama's direction, his beliefs, and the beliefs of those he has chosen as his assistants all point to that end. His statments (like those in Turkey) should send chills down even your spine Jeff...I just don't get it man?!

One liberal view, proffered by John Kerry during a Bush debate, says that the constitution assures rights given by government. That, in my opinion, is the idea behind Turkey's constitution...much like the EU constitution (which by the way was voted against by the people of Britain, France, and others but shoved down the people's throats none the less). Only in America do we have a constitution based on a belief that God is sovereign and He alone holds our "rights" in His hand. Our government is supposed to protect those rights...they don't extend them!

[YardleyLabs]

....

Oh yeah, about our constitution. On what principles, Jeff, was that constitution written? Just in case you have forgotten...here is a portion:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (not evolved as eugenics teaches), that they are endowed by their Creator (that would be Jehovah God) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the puruit of Happiness.

Strange, my copy of the Declaration of Independence says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I see nothing about evolution or Jehovah or any particular notion of god or religion. The Constitution has even less except for one section, the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Color it any way you want Jeff but our constitution is a drafted set of values/principles based on unalienable rights bestowed upon all mankind by Jehovah God...not Allah, not Buddha, not the millions of Hindu gods, not any mystical god or a mythical creature...you get the picture don't you?

One liberal view, proffered by John Kerry during a Bush debate, says that the constitution assures rights given by government. That, in my opinion, is the idea behind Turkey's constitution...much like the EU constitution (which by the way was voted against by the people of Britain, France, and others but shoved down the people's throats none the less). Only in America do we have a constitution based on a belief that God is sovereign and He alone holds our "rights" in His hand. Our government is supposed to protect those rights...they don't extend them!

Once again, your are talking about the Declaration of Independence which only specifically discussed the rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as creator given rights. The Constitution actually enumerates the rights and limitations of government -- presumably given by the People.

[Franco]

I'll be dang, Jeff and I agree on something!

Let us not forget that the main-framer of the Constituition, Mr Tom Jefferson was a Deitist. So was John Adams though he was sipping some excellent French wines at the time of its writing, over in France. Oh, and so was George Washington and many others.

They saw the wisdom of seperating chruch from state and their use of the word God/Creator is used in a generic sense. Not a Christian God or any other organized religion god, thank Rama!

[Keith Farmer]

Ok Jeff. That was the Declaration of Independance I quoted with my additions...not the Constitution.

So I guess you think are correct due to that error. Are you saying (like Obama) that we are not, never have been, and certainly will not in the future be a nation whose founding principles were derived from Christian standards.

I would like to know from your perspective from where the founders derived the laws that govern the land? What foundation or set of values did the founding fathers draw from in order to establish this more perfect union?

By the way Booty, they were deists, not deitists...but what do words mean anymore? That argument comes up everytime someone says that our country was founded on Christian principles..."they were deists". Well, I could fill pages with quote after quote supporting my position. I would ask that you guys tell me which god our founders were referring to if not Jehovah God of the Holy Bible? Do you guys honestly believe these men were willing to die for a falsely held belief in some made up deity? or worse yet, just any deity? You cannot be saying that...can you?!

About evolution...do you honestly believe the founders would use the word Creator if they held out a belief that they were the result of evolution?!

Did the founders actually mean to point to evolution as endowing us with our unalienable rights, or were they correct that our Creator did that? If it is true that they actually did say and mean Creator then who was the Creator they were referring to? History is full of clues...no, facts...about who they were referring to...so who was it in your mind, I am really curious to know?

It is said that a man is willing to die for what he truly believes in...he will not die for what he knows to be a lie. I contend that our founders were faithful men who had divine insight and were placed in their positions by divine appointment. You can believe they were just lucky stiffs who believed in a wild fantasy about a separated land from mother England or whatever...I do not accept your view however you dress it up...our history dictates otherwise!

In terms of separation of church and state...this has been beaten up for years. The truth is that the clause was placed there to protect churches from government interference...not what it is being touted as today.

Here is an exerpt from a case (I added the underlining for emphasis) (I'll leave it alone after this)...the entire case can be read here (I suggest reading the entire case):

http://www.moseshand.com/studies/db400yrs.htm

THE INCORPORATION OF DIVINE LAW
INTO AMERICAN COLONIAL LAW

12. The Ten Commandments are a smaller part of the larger body of divine law recognized and early incorporated into America’s civil documents. For example, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut - established in 1638-39 as the first written constitution in America and considered as the direct predecessor of the U. S. Constitution - declared that the Governor and his council of six elected officials would “have power to administer justice according to the laws here established; and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God.”

Read the entire case...it will become clear that the Word of God referenced here is not some abstract deity's word...rather it is the Word of Jehovah God.

[Pete]

Strange, my copy of the Declaration of Independence says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I see nothing about evolution or Jehovah or any particular notion of god or religion. The Constitution has even less except for one section, the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Jeff
your chitin me right

You are a liberal of all liberals

What created man ---the big bang. I never heard science say man was CREATED by the big bang. Something else usually takes the credit for being created. Its obvious to anyone with a a lick of sense to figure it out. And 200 years ago I guarentee it was God almighty they were refering to.,,,especially since back then worshipping God with out terrany was a big deal. After all thats why they came here in the first place and thats what they fought to presearve.


Today the only type of religion we must hide in the closet is christianity.


You tend to over think the simplest stuff.
Life is simple. Liberals can complicate something as simple as taking a crap.

You surprised me on that one.
The constitution is based on biblical priciple not religious principle by the way. The 2 are not the same.

Pete

[Franco]

Here are some exerpts from letters written by Thomas Jefferson.

There is no question Jefferson rejected the Bible as divine revelation and rejected the divinity of Jesus. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson's appeal was to the God of the Deist, "Nature's God," not specifically to the God of Christianity (see letter dated Sep. 14, 1813, to Jefferson from John Adams equating "Nature's God" with "the revelation from nature").
As President, Jefferson occasionally attended church services; but, he was not a communing member of any Christian church. Further, he refused to proclaim any national days of prayer or thanksgiving.
Jefferson says he was a "Materialist" (letter to Short, Apr. 13, 1820) and a "Unitarian" (letter to Waterhouse, Jan. 8, 1825). Jefferson rejected the Christian doctrine of the "Trinity" (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788), as well as the doctrine of an eternal Hell (letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817). Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian who moved to America) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said: "I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith" (letter to Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). Therefore, without using the actual words, Jefferson issued an authentic statement claiming Deism as his faith. The 1971 (ninth edition) Encyclopedia Britannica, 7:183, states the following: "By the end of the 18th century deism had become a dominant religious attitude among upper-class Americans, and the first three presidents of the United States held this conviction, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence." Therefore, it is appropriate to quote the two following paragraphs from the correspondence of President Thomas Jefferson wherein he wrote specifically about deism, as taught by Jesus.
"In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, and even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient [ancient] philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, . . . . I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, and doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice and philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, and even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark . . . that his system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers." (Ltr. to Joseph Priestly, Apr. 9, 1803.)
"I had believed that [Connecticut was] the last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other States a century ahead of them. ... I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character. If by religion we are to understand [i.e., to mean] sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.' But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, 'something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell.'" (Ltr. to Adams, May 5, 1817,Writings,A.A.Lipscomb,15:108-109.)

[Pete]

Booty
It doesn't matter weather jefferson believed in God or not.


It must have been divine intervention because the constution is made of mostly biblical principle. Name me one thing in the constitution that is not a biblical principle. I'm not talking religion here. The Jesus he refers to is associated with organized religion. ,,,which is often counter what you will find if you practice biblical research standards of I peter 1 20 could be II Pete which means it must interpret itself There are no other choices. Organized religion has corrupted the word for cneturies,,,hell we have the bunny rabbit and a fat guy in a red suit to proove it. The religious leaders in the bible were no different,,,Most of them made God puke.
If God could puke that is,,,and if God can't does that make him not a God.

Anyway Jefferson probably saw them for the pukes that they were. But that doesn't mean thats the way it is in the bible. Its only someones doctrine,,,not Gods. If it were we wouldn't be in the trouble we are in today.

Pete

[twall]

Our constitution was written for a moral people. In the hands of immoral people it is bent and twisted so that it will soon be, if it already isn't, unrecognizable to our founders.

Still clinging to my God and guns,

Tom