lol I'm aware of this.. And it's why I'm against what has been happening. That doesn't mean the country wasn't founded on those principles, though.

---

Tebow denies Wonderlic incident 

by Mike Florio

The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

As far as "In God we Trust", that did not appear on any US coinage until the Civil War (1864), or on any paper currency until 1957.

"In God we Trust" did not become the official motto of the USA until 1956.

The motto E Pluribus Unum (Latin for "One from many" or "One from many parts.") was approved for use on the Great Seal of the United States in 1782. It still appears on coins and currency, and was widely considered the national motto de facto until 1956.

+1 to the first person to identify the source of the phrase "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."

That phrase is, by the way, the supreme law of our land.

---

Well said, but for the word "proselytizing". More accurately, Christianity is a "witnessing" religion.

"I'm a Christian" is good, even required.

"I'm saved," is okay.

"I'm going to hell if I don't pray" is okay as a statement of faith, but bad theology.

"You're going to go to hell if you don't listen to me" is where the rub comes in.

If you're personally called to prophesy, then the terms of your call may include being what others think an officious, meddlesome prick who doesn't mind his own business. Because if it's indeed your call, that "gentleness and respect" that Peter calls for will still be interpreted badly by many. (Witness the end to which Peter and Paul both came.)

On the other hand, if you aren't called to prophesy, but to do something else in God's service (teaching say, or helping lepers or Democrats), then you should keep your mouth silent about the damning of others and concentrate on your own soul.

The problem is that it is too easy to claim such a call. I think that is what bothers me about too many public figures who are vocal about their religion. I just don't buy the prophesy and judgment part.

I don't know, but I think this may be part of the reason that many denominations develop "ordination" type requirements. Because those who hit the pulpit inevitably are going to play the prophesy and perhaps even the judgment role. (Not judgment of individuals, that remains God's job alone; but the judgment of acts taken by individuals, which may sometimes be necessary.) Ordination provides a way to help the prospective prophet identifies the true call.

Because, unlike Saul on the road to Damascus, God does not appear and say "this is what you are supposed to be doing for me, Wade. Sure, there's the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule and all that, but none of that says what the *individual* in particular must do.

Finding one's call is a very deliberative process. One can be "born again" in an instant, but figuring out one's call tends to take a lot longer.

I assume that Tebow is sincere in his expressions of belief. I assumed that Reggie was sincere. I even assume that Deion Sanders is sincere in his. But I don't buy either Tebow or Sanders as prophets of the Word just yet. (Indeed, I admit, I was always skeptical of Reggie in this regard, too.)

Because "getting the call right" is more than being sincere. It's more than just believing that Christ is our Lord and Savior and that anyone who doesn't do so will be damned by their sin and their sinfulness. "Having faith" and "having a particular call" are two different things.

But all that said, I also know that teaching of Paul's that we should tread lightly in criticizing those people of faith whose theology we disagree with. I might think Tebow's theology a bit juvenile and more than a bit misreading of the Bible. But I cannot judge whether he is a believer "full of faith" or not. And, in the end, whether he gets the theology right or not, that "full of faith" is God's only requirement.

And satisfaction of that requirement only God can determine.

Everything else, well it's just the world trying to distract you from the Great Commandment.

So, Tim, if you're out there reading, here's what I think. I think that if you keep reading and praying diligently you'll eventually come to realize that a bunch of what you are doing today is kind of silly. But in the meantime, if you think God wants you do it, keep doing it. Because you're trying to please God -- and trying to please God is what you're here for. Nothing else.

No matter what I or other naysayers might think is silly or annoying.

---

You know your history. :thumbright:

PRINCIPLES.

Hence the Second sentence you read when reading the Declaration of Independence. "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."

Those words, my friend, weren't written by an atheist.

I guess the days of prayer and fasting prior to finally all agreeing on the Declaration of Independence had nothing to do with how this country was founded..

::roll:

---

IIRC it was used in a treaty made in either Washington's or Jefferson's administration, but I can't be sure. and I'm too lazy to check.

For me, this "founded on the Christian religion" is one of the reasons I'm not a conservative, but a libertarian/anarchist.

Governments are founded upon ideologies. And since a religion is a kind of ideology (you can't define your religion except by differentiating it from other religions, just as you can't define "conservative" without pointing out how it is "not liberal").

But, IMO, belief in Jesus is not a religion, but a relationship. I can have a relationship with Jesus regardless of whether other people do or not have such a relationship, for the same reason Rourke (or anyone else) can have relationships with more than one person regardless of whether I have a relationship with them. That's the way relationships work.

But government is not just a relationship. It's an agreement that doesn't just say "yes" to something, it's an agreement that says "no" to something else. We went with federalism in the Consitution because a certain group (the ones who prevailed) believed not-Confederation preferable to Confederation. European nations chose parliamentary government rather than US style republicanism in part because of what it was not. Same for the Bolsheviks or the Maoists or Gen Y voiting for Obamaism. They were't the Tzar. They weren't the empire. They weren't Bush.

But Christian belief doesn't work that way. The notion that Jesus's teaching's can or should be reduced to an ideological stance, either in 1787 or in 2010, strikes me as repugnant.

Because while the Consitution may be the supreme law of the political entity named the United States, that only makes it the supreme holder of second place.

And the notion that some yahoo from the Trinity network or some nabob from the state department can make it otherwise....well, at best its a silly idea.

IMO, the phrasing of the supremacy clause is unfortunate. To quote:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The way I was long ago taught this emphasized that it was all about the essential principle of federal superiority over state, and legislative superiority over judicial, when it comes to "making law." And I think that is what the founders probably intended.

But that is not what the clause says. The clause puts Constitution and legislation and treaties on the same level as "supreme law". And that, IMO, is pernicious. It forces a choice between the "supremacy" clause and the notion of "enumerated powers" (see amendments 9-10).

And "supreme" trumps everything else, by definition.

People like me like to complain about the emasculation of Amendments 9 and 10, but given the way the supremacy clause reads, we shouldn't be surprised.

---

wat?

lol Anyway, I liked how you brought up how belief in Jesus is a relationship vs. religious.

---

Ah. But saying that the founders were believers is not the same thing as saying that the US system of government is based on Christian religion.

The first statement I agree with. IMO the "deism" argument is a simplistic one foisted upon us by sloppy academics who don't understand the difference between a "religion" and a "belief", and, often, between a belief in a particular conceptualization of God and a belief in God. Or between belief in the existence of God and trusting in God in a particular way.

But the second I cannot. I'm not sure what it means to say the Constitution is based on " Christian religion." Beliefs of those thinking themselves "Christian", yes. "Christian belief" even, yes. "Christian religion, no. The first two are positions of faith, positions that we are guided by a desire to serve God first. But the last is saying "we know what God wants of society and what God doesn't want of society.

If anything would violate Matthew 7, I think that would be it.

---