For one, I don't know of any other religion that calls their god, "God", with a capital G. Christianity is, as far as I'm aware, the only religion that does this. If I'm wrong please correct me. If, however, I'm right, then the pledge of allegiance IS denoting a Christian god. Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that is not denoting a Christian god for a moment.

It's STILL a breach of the separation of church and state to to have government establishments take part in a pledge that involves a god. Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion, if one so chooses. And having our students, political leaders, etc. recite a pledge with possibly religious implications is, in fact, directly contrary to the view the founding fathers had when writing the Constitution.

Also, as someone else pointed out, the Creator was only mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Which, while an important part of this country's history, is not actually involved in any of the law-making processes. That's the Constitution's job, and it is very clear that church and state are to remain separate. So having a pledge that honors a god, whether Christian or anything else, is a breach of that separation.



My response to this is the same as above.

But they have and continue to do so. Despite claims to moral superiority, Christians are no better than the rest of us mere mortals.


Then why call them Christians if they discarded most of it? Does it make me a Christian to say that Jesus was a peaceful man but to say that I don't believe he was resurrected? Of course there are some good elements to any religion, even I can acknowledge that. What I fail to understand is why you are so determined to claim as a Christian, those who make such a simple observation.


No rush. I'm going to be busy for the next few days and I don't expect to be around much before Tuesday next week.


No need, so I'll guess that my point about cherrypicking really passed you by didn't it?


Perhaps because I understand Spinoza's god. Show me one religion where the chief god (or only god) does not require worship. That is a very deist quote.


Such a nature as neither wanting nor needing worship would make that god a deist rather than theist.


No it is a matter of splitting hairs. Of course the Christian god requires worship from his followers. I think you are being a little dishonest to try to convince me otherwise.


Both. The Judeo-Christian god seems to demand as well as expect and need worship.


"Infinitely above worship" reflects Spinoza's god very well. Above it, neither needing not demanding it.


Well the more I look at it, the more convinced I am that this reflects a deistic position. There is no other god in the history of religion that neither wanted nor needed worship. In deism and pantheism, the opposite is true, that the god they believe in is above and beyond human emotion, if not lacking in comprehension of it in the same way that we humans do not concern ourselves with the worldview of the ant world.


Do you mean Unitarians? I don't even see them as Christian. Their views come across as a directionless mish-mash of anything goes philosophy.


Not really, at least, not until you can demonstrate where the line exists on what constitutes the difference between being a Christians and merely acknowledging that it has some valid things to say in some places at certain times.

Could we claim them as muslims if they once said "Islam has some core beliefs that we ought respect. I personally like these passages in the Koran..."?

Please tell me where that line is drawn between recognising that a religion has something valid to say, and actually being a follower of that religion.


Yes we were. You claimed them as Christian.


Same problem as above. Where is the line drawn between acknowledging some philosophical validity of a particular religion and actually subscribing to that religion?


He is talking about acknowledging the philosophy and criticising those who ascribe magical powers to Jesus, the saints etc. Acknowledging the philosophy in no way makes him a Christian. I happen to think there are very good elements about neo-paganism about caring for the environment, respecting all life, about doing no harm to others. I couldn't give two hoots about the god and the goddess, or earth magic, or their very dodgy ideas about history and ancient religions. Does the acknowledgement of good elements in their philosophy make me a neo-pagan?


You missed the entire point there. My point being that cherrypicking proves nothing. When I did it I was doing it to prove a point that when a person is lazy enough to think they can prove something by merely providing a small extract from a long quote, then another quote can be providing by the person on the opposite side to prove the complete opposite. I don't use quotes to prove my point, I'd rather let my argument do that and use quotes as dressing or enhancement.


No, no. What I am saying is that we shouldn't use quotes - any of us - to replace an argument. It is lazy and more often than not, dishonest.


Which is practically what I just said.

I can't speak for all Christians but I do not believe that "spiritual tyranny" is the norm. I don't expect to get anywhere with you on this particular argument though, so all I'd like to say, with regards to your tongue-in-cheek comment at the end there, is that I do not believe I'm better than anybody else because I'm a Christian. I make mistakes all the time and I don't look down on anyone who does the same. But getting back to the point. . .



First of all, if somebody claims he is a Christian, then I'm not going to fight him over it. I don't decide who is and who isn't a Christian. However, later in this thread, I will give you a couple basic guidelines of what one would believe to most likely be considered Christian. My point is that the Founding Fathers embraced a Judeo-Christian philosophy, and that most of them (especially once you start getting into the lesser known, from Sam Adams on down) were pretty traditional, practicing Christians.

Secondly, do you have evidence to back up that the Founding Fathers "discarded most" of the Christian belief system? Particularly the resurrection of Christ?



I think there's a difference between cherrypicking (pasting quotes without much argument, which I'll admit I did in my first post on this thread, but only to spur further discussion during which I've elaborated) and posting a bonafide quote from an individual that persuasively shows their position and then commenting on it. Is it your position that George Washington did not believe in the providence of God in helping to direct human affairs?



And I understand the Christian God. And no Christian believes that God needs worship. He is regarded as perfect in every way; I can't think of anyone who says that God's perfect state is dependent upon whether we worship him or not.



I'm not being dishonest at all. I thought about this for a long time and I concluded that the word "require" has two very different connotations, both of which I posted. And if you can't prove that Franklin wasn't talking about a God who was above needing worship, then that quote could quite easily be interpreted as something that fits within the Christian worldview.



Not true. God does not need worship. He may expect it, command it, hope for it, but he does not need it.



Yet one interpretation reflects the Christian god just as well. So until you prove to me your interpretation is correct, that he was solely talking about God "demanding" (though I'd probably use a different word to describe it) worship, then you really can't say that quote is definitively deist.



The most I can give you here is that while I can understand how this quote can be interpreted as deist, I don't think it is definitive by any means. The most I can ask of you is that you at least understand how the quote can be interpreted as Christian as well (particularly based on the fact that Christians do not believe God needs worship), but I won't be holding my breath on that.



I think the phenomenon is much further reaching than just Unitarians. It's hard to pin down who exactly it is, but a growing number of Christians reject the idea of Christ's resurrection- such people would probably be described under the "Liberal Christianity" bracket. And while most churches' official positions still declare their doctrine to be that Christ resurrected, many individual denominations within the mishmash Protestant world have broken away from the concept. I could try to do a little more research on this but I do know this is being experienced by a growing number within the Christian world.



Like I said before, I don't think it's really possible to define exactly what a Christian is, but I would consider it to contain at least these 2 elements which would keep with the topic at hand:

1. That Jesus Christ was divine.
2. That God cares about humanity and at times intervenes in human affairs.

I think most of the Founding Fathers believed the first point, though some may not have been particularly valiant in expressing such a testimony (though I would be curious if any of them ever said anything to contradict such a belief). And I believe all the Founding Fathers believed in the second point, a point which I'm more concerned with in regards to this debate, because it is directly in conflict with your assertion that they were deists.



I don't see where in the thread I said that quote ("No, we were talking about..."). I don't see it in my previous post. Perhaps I missed it but I want to make sure that's something I really said.



I tried to draw a line above for you regarding Christianity. But regardless of where that line is drawn, this quote from Jefferson doesn't prove much. He said Christianity (a philosophy "most sublime and benevolent," by the way- doesn't sound like he was too opposed to it) had become perverted. Well, what does that mean? Does he mean perverted from the start (i.e. the resurrection of Christ) or does he mean perverted in recent times (i.e. false doctrines creeping their way in after Christ)? The distinction is important because if he still believes in the core doctrines of Christianity while accepting there has been perversion of doctrine along the way, then he could still be considered Christian. Actually, being a Mormon, I believe very similarly about Christianity- that it had become corrupted and needed to be restored. That doesn't make me any less of a Christian.



Where does he criticize those who ascribe magical powers to Jesus? This particular quote is way too much of a generalization to decisively conclude he was talking about that.



No, it does not, and that's why I gave you two basic guidelines to which you could likely deem someone a Christian. And it is my position that most of the Founding Fathers believed in Christ's divinity and that virtually all of them believed in God's providential role in human affairs.



Looking back on the way I wrote that, I didn't mean it that way. I agree with you quotes should not be used in lieu of an argument. All I meant was that we should both be able to use the sources we deem fit and comment on them as to what those sources are saying.



I think that for all intents and purposes, we agree with each other on the cherrypicking thing. So unless you have some issue with me, I'm fine with letting this side issue die and let the debate speak for itself.

A quick glance at the basic information regarding Judaism and Islam shows me that all such people believe in "God;" I'm not really sure how the Christian "God" would be different from the other two. (I would submit that Islam and Judaism would be even more inclined to the monotheistic "God" than Christianity, considering its belief of a Trinity, which I wager would make Muslims and Jews think we have a trace of polytheism in our beliefs). So thus, an "under God" statement would encompass the belief system of practically all of Western Civilization, not just Christianity.



I disagree. And where does the Constitution express anything about "freedom FROM religion?"



True, but the Declaration is a good indicator of the principles upon which the United States was founded.



Again, I don't see "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, and I feel it is a reach to believe as such. And yes, I'm aware Jefferson used the phrase, but I do not feel that the intent was ever to remove any and all influence to God in the government.

I think it's also important to ask you, FTA, where do people obtain their rights from? And what do you honestly think the Founding Fathers would have answered to that question?

MDaniel93, there's a special place in hell for people who don't capitalize "he" and "him" when talking about God.

What about people who only write in languages like Hebrew, where there are no such thing as capital letters? Would be a drag if the people who actually wrote the Bible got sent to Hell because they, umm... wrote the Bible...

I can't wait!

Except that Judaism and Christianity's god is pretty much one and the same, with the exception that the Jews don't believe their God has sent the Messiah. Apart from that, the Judaic and Christian "principles" on which a country could be founded are rather similar, and to attempt to make a distinction between them is pointless.

And if you really expect me to believe that the people that added the phrase "under God" into the pledge intended for it to include Allah, you're barking up the wrong tree. Even if they did, to include this phrase, with the capitalization, denoting a singular all-powerful god, is still an encouragement of monotheistic religions over polytheistic ones, which is still a breach of separation of church and state.



What is the point of freedom of religion if not to have freedom from? To me, the two logically follow, if they aren't virtually the same thing.



But not important enough to include in the Constitution, the real law-making document, from which a deity is notably absent.



First you want to claim we should have god in this country because the founding fathers intended for it, even if they didn't state it explicitly. Now you're saying that when one of them DOES say something explicitly, that we should somehow try to interpret it differently. He said separation of church and state. What other interpretation is there than that god should not be involved in the process of law-making?



The question of morality? Really? I don't know what your thoughts about morality coming from evolution are, but it's something that I very much subscribe to. Actions which cause the least damage, preferable none, to as many people as possible, preferably everyone, are the most moral. That's all there is to it.

People obtain their rights from the fact that they are human beings, and as another human being, I have a stake in the continuation of my own species. The best way to ensure that is to make everything as fair as possible, which means everyone gets treated equally, and no one should have harm of any kind (physical, emotional, psychological, philosophical, etc.). That is where our rights are derived from.

Whether or not the founding fathers believed god had a part to play in this is irrelevant. I'm sure some of them did, and possibly even the deistic ones believed that their deistic god was the bestower of morality. I can't say for certain. What I can say is that they tried to make the Constitution as fair as possible, and purposely gave it the ability to change and be amended so it could reflect the issues of the times. To think that they wanted us to honor or believe what they did is ridiculous. If they had, they wouldn't have created the Constitution to be the mutable document that it is.

Thus, the founding fathers answer to that question is not at all an important one. What's important is what we consider moral now and how we decide it. To be fair, that has remained largely unchanged in the 275+ years since they lived, but the fact remains that the concept of non-religion is gaining proponent, and needs to be just as recognized and respected as Christianity or any other religion. If that means secularizing (not atheist-izing, but secularizing) the government, then so be it. The non-religious have just as much right to their "practice" as you do.