McCain says nation founded on Christian principles

[bigsixfive 328]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9izhjnaLa3M

Look at the comments. That's just downright scary. Even if the man was wrong, people shouldn't act like that.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9izhjnaLa3M

Look at the comments. That's just downright scary. Even if the man was wrong, people shouldn't act like that.

Isn't everyone here part of "the internet crowd?"

[AURaptor 1,126]

That should be retitled " the democraticunderground / airamerica / dailyKOS / crowd lashes out. "

There you go...The Mgt.

[bigsixfive 328]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9izhjnaLa3M

Look at the comments. That's just downright scary. Even if the man was wrong, people shouldn't act like that.

Isn't everyone here part of "the internet crowd?"

Let me rephrase... the "youtube-digg.com-myspace-etc" crowd.

The future is going to be scary.

[sogaaufan 27]

I pretty well agree with what he is saying, but i have to admit, he sounded VERY uncomfortable and tongue tied discussing religion. I think this was an obvious attempt to suck up to the evangelicals and it didn't sound very convincing.

[bigsixfive 328]

I pretty well agree with what he is saying, but i have to admit, he sounded VERY uncomfortable and tongue tied discussing religion. I think this was an obvious attempt to suck up to the evangelicals and it didn't sound very convincing.

Did you not catch the hacked editing job they did? I think that contributed a lot to it.

[otterinbham 0]

Oh, I'm devout, but I think it best if this country considered itself secular. Keeps the loonies from all faiths at bay.

[autigeremt 6,717]

I think you have to look at what got us here and why we exist. Protestants fleeing oppression by the catholic church being one of those.

[WinCrimson 61]

I pretty well agree with what he is saying, but i have to admit, he sounded VERY uncomfortable and tongue tied discussing religion. I think this was an obvious attempt to suck up to the evangelicals and it didn't sound very convincing.

That's because he is a say anything to win pu**y.

Oh, I'm devout, but I think it best if this country considered itself secular. Keeps the loonies from all faiths at bay.

That's because you're fair minded and educated.

[CircleDrill 178]

Hey I got an idea. Let's find some video clips of someone talking about their faith, take them out of any context whatsoever...edit them and put them on YouTube and see what people say!

[bigsixfive 328]

That's because he is a say anything to win pu**y.

Wow.

[autigeremt 6,717]

WinCrimson is showing us all what it's like to be a BAMMER, no matter what the race, sport, or political tie.

Unreal!

[otterinbham 0]

I think you have to look at what got us here and why we exist. Protestants fleeing oppression by the catholic church being one of those.

Ummm...I think you need to bone up on your colonial history a bit more. If you're referring to French Huegenots (One of my ancestors), then sure. But almost all the others settling here for religious reasons were Protestants escaping other Protestants. After all the Pilgrims were Calvinists fleeing England, which was run by the Anglican Church.

So when these people fled to the eastern seaboard to escape religious oppression, what did they do? They began cheerfully repressing other religions. After all, Roger Smith and the Baptists had to flee Massachusetts. Catholics were not allowed into most of the colonies, which led to the foundation of Maryland, etc. etc.

And that's the problem. There are very few consistent theological beliefs held by all Christians. Public prayer, evolution, the relationship between church and state, etc. etc. etc., are all subject to fierce debate by people who can all cite scripture to support their particular argument.

Heck, in the United State's first treaty with the Barbary Pirates, approved unanimously by the United States Senate, Article 11 goes like this:

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 tranquility of Musselmen; and, as the said States have never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

Now, if Christianity was the bedrock of the republic, why would the Senate unanimously approve a treaty worded in this way?

Getting back to my original point. It impossible to develop any public policy that will satisfy all Christian denominations, let alone non-Christians. So, yeah, I have a big problem with politicians pandering to people of faith and claiming to speak for my views.

[WinCrimson 61]

That's because he is a say anything to win pu**y.

Wow.

He is. So is Hillary, if you like to see some bipartisan venom.

The John McCain of 2008 could be described by no better word. I had tons of respect for him in 2000, but the Bush mud he's slopped in for the past eight years zapped all of that.

His policies are not what bugs me. What he's done to his former image and the reasons behind it are. Thank God he's going to be nowhere near the presidency.

[autigeremt 6,717]

Otter.....I stated ONE of the reasons. No the MAIN reason. Your information and point is well taken.

I know enough colonial history. I also know that every history book and every publication is filled with "fluff". I also know that there's no denying that the U.S. was created with the purpose of free will in mind, and that a supreme being was part of the founding hope for free will.

[otterinbham 0]

Otter.....I stated ONE of the reasons. No the MAIN reason. Your information and point is well taken.

I know enough colonial history. I also know that every history book and every publication is filled with "fluff". I also know that there's no denying that the U.S. was created with the purpose of free will in mind, and that a supreme being was part of the founding hope for free will.

Well, you just ticked off the Presbyterians, or at least the hard-core believers in predestination.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Otter.....I stated ONE of the reasons. No the MAIN reason. Your information and point is well taken.

I know enough colonial history. I also know that every history book and every publication is filled with "fluff". I also know that there's no denying that the U.S. was created with the purpose of free will in mind, and that a supreme being was part of the founding hope for free will.

Well, you just ticked off the Presbyterians, or at least the hard-core believers in predestination.

Which proves the old adage "You can't please them all." Or "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing."

Here's a couple for McCain: "Age is a state of mind,not a measure of time." "Time flies...." John McCain is nearly as old as the adage, "you're only as old as you feel".

And several for Obama: "Beware of the law of intended consequences." "You have been weighed, measured and found wanting"

Or several that warn against voting for Obama: "Woe to the home where the child is King" ""If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't!"

If "opposites attract", why am I not an Obamaphile?

[autiger4life 3]

I wonder what would happen if McCain had said the country was not founded on Christian principles. I imagine that the out lash would be as equal if not worse except from the other side.

[bigsixfive 328]

I wonder what would happen if McCain had said the country was not founded on Christian principles. I imagine that the out lash would be as equal if not worse except from the other side.

People wouldn't viciously lash out as this crowd does. I do think it would be huge news, since the country WAS founded on Christian principles.

[otterinbham 0]

I wonder what would happen if McCain had said the country was not founded on Christian principles. I imagine that the out lash would be as equal if not worse except from the other side.

People wouldn't viciously lash out as this crowd does. I do think it would be huge news, since the country WAS founded on Christian principles.

Well, if this country were founded on Christian principles, would we:

1. Have allowed slavery, then racial discrimination, for so long?

2. Invaded Iraq?

3. Allow torture?

4. Disallowed Catholics from running for office?

5. Stolen land from the Indians and massacred them by the tens of thousands?

And the list goes on and on. I love my country, but that doesn't make me blind to some of its historical wrongs. To look at the record and then say that we're founded on Christian principles is kind of laughable if you ask me.

When the Republic was founded 90% of the population was unchurched--a far lower percentage than today. Heck, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were deists. Thomas Jefferson wrote and published the Jeffersonian Bible where he actually omitted any references to angels, prophecy, miracles, Christ's resurrection, and Christ's divinity, concentrating instead on Christ's ethical teachings. Since Jefferson was the author of our Declaration of Independence, and was the genius behind our Bill of Rights, it becomes very hard to reconcile his theological beliefs (or, to be more accurate, the lack thereof) with the notion that he intended the new nation to follow religious principles.

The other two major influences on how we were governed today also would not fit neatly into your thesis. Alexander Hamilton vacillated back and forth in terms of religiosity, actually cracking rather bawdy religious jokes during the constitutional convention. James Madison, considered by legal scholars to be the author of the Constitution, wrote long essays against the appointment of chaplains for the armed forces of the United States. What's more, given how heavily the Constitution was influenced by the ideas of John Locke, a man held as anathema by established churches everywhere, it's again difficult to see how the founding principles of the constitution jibe with orthodox Christianity.

[bigsixfive 328]

Well, if this country were founded on Christian principles, would we:

1. Have allowed slavery, then racial discrimination, for so long?

2. Invaded Iraq?

3. Allow torture?

4. Disallowed Catholics from running for office?

5. Stolen land from the Indians and massacred them by the tens of thousands?

And the list goes on and on. I love my country, but that doesn't make me blind to some of its historical wrongs. To look at the record and then say that we're founded on Christian principles is kind of laughable if you ask me.

Historical wrong-doings have nothing to do with the foundation. In a perfect world, that foundation would be built upon by the actions of the country's citizens and nothing but good events would transpire. Obviously, that's never going to be the case as people aren't perfect.

When the Republic was founded 90% of the population was unchurched--a far lower percentage than today. Heck, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were deists. Thomas Jefferson wrote and published the Jeffersonian Bible where he actually omitted any references to angels, prophecy, miracles, Christ's resurrection, and Christ's divinity, concentrating instead on Christ's ethical teachings. Since Jefferson was the author of our Declaration of Independence, and was the genius behind our Bill of Rights, it becomes very hard to reconcile his theological beliefs (or, to be more accurate, the lack thereof) with the notion that he intended the new nation to follow religious principles.

It seems that you're quoting a common myth about Jefferson.

So what about the Jefferson Bible, that miracles-free version of the Scriptures? That, too, is a myth. It is not a Bible, but an abridgement of the Gospels created by Jefferson in 1804 for the benefit of the Indians. Jefferson's "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians" was a tool to evangelize and educate American Indians. There is no evidence that it was an expression of his skepticism.

...

Jefferson's outlook on religion and government is more fully revealed in another 1802 letter in which he wrote that he did not want his administration to be a "government without religion," but one that would "strengthen … religious freedom."

Jefferson was a true friend of the Christian faith. But was he a true Christian? A nominal Christian – as demonstrated by his lifelong practice of attending worship services, reading the Bible, and following the moral principles of Christ – Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian. In 1813, after his public career was over, Jefferson rejected the deity of Christ. Like so many millions of church members today, he was outwardly religious, but never experienced the new birth that Jesus told Nicodemus was necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Nonetheless, Jefferson's presidential acts would, if done today, send the ACLU marching into court. (What, involving Christianity doesn't send them marching into court?) He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church.

I don't know much about Hamilton, but from what I read he went through a period where he questioned his faith, but came out strong.

[autiger4life 3]

People wouldn't viciously lash out as this crowd does. I do think it would be huge news, since the country WAS founded on Christian principles.

Well of course not. Christians never lash out in violent ways, thats only for the pagans.

[bigsixfive 328]

People wouldn't viciously lash out as this crowd does. I do think it would be huge news, since the country WAS founded on Christian principles.

Well of course not. Christians never lash out in violent ways, thats only for the pagans.

Did I say Christians? No. Thanks for playing, though.

[tiger88 934]

WinCrimson is showing us all what it's like to be a BAMMER, no matter what the race, sport, or political tie.

Unreal!

Yes, you can send them to school and give them as much education as possible, but you cannot remove the backwoods bammer mentality.

We all know win would throw his back out if he attempted to lift McCain's jocks so we can just snicker at the ridiculously rude comments of a young, naive bammer who thinks he knows it all.

[WinCrimson 61]

WinCrimson is showing us all what it's like to be a BAMMER, no matter what the race, sport, or political tie.

Unreal!

Yes, you can send them to school and give them as much education as possible, but you cannot remove the backwoods bammer mentality.

We all know win would throw his back out if he attempted to lift McCain's jocks so we can just snicker at the ridiculously rude comments of a young, naive bammer who thinks he knows it all.

I'm "backwoods?" You've obviously never met me.

Also, I don't think I know it all. Far from it. Thanks for the assumption, though. You're really on a roll.