Texas GOP says U.S. is Christian nation
 

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...2118-3161r.htm


The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation, and the public acknowledgment of God is undeniable in our history," said the platform, approved during a meeting earlier this month in Austin.

The statement said: "Our nation was founded on fundamental Judeo-Christian principles based on the Holy Bible. The party affirms freedom of religion, and rejects efforts of courts and secular activists who seek to remove and deny such a rich heritage from our public lives."

The Washington Times reported Sunday the Republican National Committee has refused to criticize the Texas party faithful.

The national party "doesn't control the state parties' platforms," said RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke. "Each state party determines what their state platform will say."

But others have been strongly critical of the move.

"This is part and parcel of who the GOP and their conservative base are," said David Harris, spokesman for the National Jewish Democratic Committee. "While this is nothing new, it certainly raises to new excesses the lengths this Republican Party is going to in order to tear down the wall separating church and state


I think this a a bad move in that it does cross the line of church/state seperation and sets up the Christian religion as the "chosen" one.

Just as with Islam, and any other religion for that matter, Christianity is peppered with its' fundamentalists and zealots. No big surprise here. They have an agenda, and they are ready and willing to push it. So long as there is oposition (and there is plenty)...I'm content with that.

The Texas GOP can go screw themselves.

Okay, that's harsh. But I hate when people speak on the part of the entire nation. Especially when such people are religious nuts.

I am encouraged by all of the oppostion as well.

Every member of the Texas GOP deserves to be smothered with a pillow.

Bullshit revisionist historians. Our most prominent founding fathers were Deists. Which is basically that they believed in A God. But that God has no basis in any earthly religion.

First
The First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

Article VI, Section 3
“...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Founding Father Quotes.
Some of our Founding Father Deists:
Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams,
James Madison, Ethan Allan, Ben Franklin, Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee.

This doesn't surprise me. All you hear is this BS Christian Nation garbage.

Many Christian fundamentalists believe that "American values" are intrinsically and inextricably bound up in Christian philosophy to the extent that they are unable to view society outside of those parameters. As Superbelt has pointed out, one need only read the writings of the Founders to see that the assertion that the U.S. is a Christian nation is wholly without merit.

The Founding Fathers (something on the order of 54 men I believe) were a mixture of Deists and Christians (at least according to classifications made by present day "scholars" who have studied their writings, teachings, vocations, etc.)

Since a relative few were Deists that means the majority were Christians.

What difference it makes I have no idea. Whatever their faith they all held strong beliefs in God and quite a few of them were seminary teachers and theologists.

Many of the Judeo-Christian principles carry over into Deism making the following statement perfectly applicable:

You can be a Deist and still have Judeo-Christian values/principles.

It wasn't a relative few. And the ones who really counted. The leaders were mostly diests. It is telling that a MAJORITY of our founders voted down this line: "Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion." (as shown in my Jefferson Quotes). The majority of our founders wanted to keep religion out of our government. Many, despite their personal beliefs. This nation is areligious. Not athiest like communist countries. Because that is still preferential. Our government is supposed to have no commitment to any religion whatsoever.

The influences for our constitution come from many sources. We took heavily from Hammurabi's Code and Romes Twelve Tables(451 BC) as our basis for civil and criminal law. The framework for our government was directly lifted from Roman Republican Law. Specifically Polybius's History of the Rise of Rome. That is where we got our system of checks and balances. All three branches. Those sources are hardly Judeo/Christian. Other influences are: The French Declaration of rights of man, British Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Athenian Constituion by Aristotle, the Iriquois Constitution, and Yes the Bible.
The bible was a source and influence but not a primary, God given source. It is a source of order and law from one of the worlds, great, ancient cultures. Same as the Greek, Roman and Mesopotamian sources that we also used.

I suspect that the majority of Texas Republicans will be happy to go along with this, and that it will alienate a few while drawing the majority closer together. I don't approve of such a blatant endorsement of the connection of church and state, but I don't think that there's going to be any court order telling them to stop any time soon. Something about a mob of Atheist Republicans suing the GOP over this seems ... absurd.

The "Judeo-Christian" principles are shared by many if not all religions. It has simply become acceptable to label them as Judeo Christian. All religions share a belief in a higher power, of being good to one another, of following some sort of ethical code of conduct, of being diligent in deeds, supporting one another, of not killing, etc, etc, etc.

Additionally, the calls in this thread to label the National Republican Party with this action are as ridiculous as me saying the DNC wants Rumsfeld killed because of the actions outlined in the below article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...tm?POE=NEWISVA

But they said
No the acceptable term would be basic human decency or basic human morality. These same morals are also shared by athiests by the way. The TexGOP didn't mean it as YOU said it. They meant that our country was formed based on the christian bible. They are very clearly saying we are a religious country. Not secular as we should be and were formed as. Our leading founding fathers had very harsh things to say about religion and it having any role in our government. THEY would take great offense to the TexGOP statement.

This sums up Christianity's role in our government...

--Ben Franklin

Or if you want to take another angle, if the founding fathers were split between Christian and Deist, most of them were Masons. I invite everyone to look at the back side of the 1 dollar bill and look at the eye of the watcher. At the base of the picture there is a phrase in Latin "Annuit Coeptis" which roughly translates to something along the lines of "May HE bless our undertakings".

Superbelt is only right to an extent. This country was largely held and founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy, seeing as to many of the framers and just about every citizen was of a christian denomination, if you argue this well... At any rate they were respectful enough of the Seperation because they didn't want to end up like England with all that fun Aglican shit. Plus people back then were all down with God, I don't think they ever invisioned anything like what we are going through.

does anyone else find it odd to assume that people who identified as christian two hundred years ago would automatically back anything done in the name of any christian church today? it seems naive to act as if the church has not evolved over the last two centuries and that the interpretation of the bible that christian churches now have might be different than the popular interpretation at the founding of the USA. Science and society have changed vastly over the last two centuries and I don't think anyone is qualified to make assumption on what the founding father would think if they were alive today.

For ANY political party to claim one religion is eventual political suicide for that party. The Prohibitionists, who in the early 1900's were strong enough to get an amendment for their cause did so in the name of "Christianity".

While in a previous post I have fought for GOD to be left in, I also argued that GOD meant ANY religion. I still hold to that.

If the Texas GOP (and trust me I feel this is the National party testing the waters.) want to proclaim themselves as the "Spiritual Party" and encompass all spiritualities and religions then that would be fine. But to deduct it down to one specific religion is wrong.

It may help them win the Bible Belt but it will cost them everywhere else. That does stink of blatant religion in politics. And that is totally wrong.

The government must encompass all religion or none. Since it is impossible to not recognize religious traditions of ALL religions then it is impossible and impractical to not recognize any. (this means recognizing holidays, wearing veils on state ID's, etc.).

Let the Texas GOP show their true colors and the National GOP follow and they will fail. The liberal Christians will even see through this as being a thinly veiled attempt by the Pat Robertson religious right as a power play. And that base will be lost for a long time.

It is not a stretch seeing as to God actually played a role in those peoples lives, and society revolved largely around the church.

At some point I'm going to post something more substantial to one of these threads on sep of church and state, but for now I'd like to say that in terms of my feelings about the Texas GOP trying to proclaim themselves high and mighty and in touch with JEE-sus - I don't give a flying fliggedy what any of the Founding Fathers had to say about separation of Church and State, or would say now. Not on a personal level. The fact of the matter is that I was naieve enough when I was growing up to believe that Americans saw themselves as the "melting pot" of culture, where people could come and be included. I suppose if the GOP wants to become the Christian Party for the Advent of Jesus as President, I don't really care - but it's just another reason that I wouldn't consider voting for a GOP candidate. I would almost prefer they make this statement outright, so I can point them out to friends and family. My problem isn't so much with these people, whom I would consider distasteful to say the least, but with the fact that they get elected.

Religions:
Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989)

This is from the CIA world fact book.

Lets see 84% Christian, kinda looks like a Christian nation to me.

And how many of those 84% don't understand, or disagree with, the concept of separation of church and state?

Reccon - I don't think there's any point in arguing over whether most Americans from some survey say they are Christian or not. My guess is that most people probably will default to that stance, even if they haven't seen the inside of a Church in twenty years. "Who? Jesus? Yeah, I'm down with Jesus...pass me a beer and get of the way, I can't see the T.V." As I said before, if that's the stance the Texas GOP wants to take, then far be it from me to tell they can't. I would, however, say that a statement such as " The Republican Party of Texas recognizes that the United States of America is a nation founded from traditional Judeo-Christian values, and that these views have strongly shaped our society", for example, would be quite different from " affirm that we are a Christian nation, and the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history." The altered version states a fact and tip of the hat to the Christian value system, which most people might at least claim to share. The second sounds like we are a Christian nation, united under Christ and his loving example. While the "public acknowledgment" part, if it's not a recognition of the historical appearance of Jehovah's Witness, Southern Baptist's yelling on the corner, and the Mormons, I would have to say (especially after the first bit) sounds like someone wanting recognition of God from a public (government) position. Which is illegal.

If this was a Christian nation then 100% would need to be Christian. Also I have seen figures as low as 58% Christian and as high as 93.5% all from supposed government sources (and within the las 2 years).

Here is a good article from a totally non-biased religious tolerance web site called the Ontario consultants on Religious Tolerance:

The shift away from Christianity and other organized religions:
The United States appears to be going through an unprecedented change in religious practices. Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. Since World War II, this process had been observed in other countries, like the U.K., other European countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. But, until recently, affiliation with Christianity had been at a high level -- about 87% -- and stable in the U.S.

Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:

81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion: 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S. 52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
24.5% are Roman Catholic.

1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months. 4,5 Wiccans in Australia have a very similar growth pattern, from fewer than 2,000 in 1996 to 9,000 in 2001. 10 In Canada, Wiccans and other Neopagans showed the greatest percentage growth of any faith group. They totaled 21,080 members in 1991, an increase of 281% from.

14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together. 6
The unaffiliated vary from a low of 3% in North Dakota to 25% in Washington State. "The six states with the highest percentage of people saying they have no religion are all Western states, with the exception of Vermont at 22%." 6

A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years. Results include:

About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)
About 33% consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" (up from 30%)
About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious. 6
for the rest of the article: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

I'm an atheist. Personally, as long as the Constitutional barriers between church and state are respected, I have no problem with anybody saying this is a Christian nation, because it is--most people here are Christian. Just like Israel is a Jewish nation, even though not EVERY SINGLE person there is Jewish.

Although I think they're misguided and need to quit taking fairy tales seriously, I can't say I have a problem with Christians. Their extremists rant about how AIDS was made to punish gay people and dinosaur fossils were planted here by Satan. Which is stupid, but considerably better than strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up women and children, or flying passenger jets into skyscrapers.

don't forget that madison (i think) in the treaty with tripoli (circa 1800, i believe) states that the US is not and was not founded as a christian nation. (anyone want to find it exactly?)

also, even if 100% of the country indentified themselves as christian, there a lots of different sects and none of them are recognized as the official religion of the country, therefore we are not a christian country.

The nation has no official religion and that's good enough for me - there is no reason to label a country a "such and such" nation when it has no official label. Until there is (hopefully not), then it wouldn't be much sense.

I'm just a bit annoyed at the twisting of history

And irseg - i'd be careful about saying those things about other religions. Everyone who is religious wouldn't like to have their religion offended. Yes some people might not care, but I know that others don't like it when they are told their religion is wrong or worse or whatever. People often feel very strongly for their religion. It would be pretty provocative in the first place to slam another person on where they might be most sensitive.

This is that exact quote at the treaty of Tripoli Harry. I just didn't identify it as such in my John Adams quotes.

Agreed. Isn't it comforting to know that, unlike the Republican response to the Texas GOP remarks, many Democrats were quick to note that they don't "condone this kind of stupidity".

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/13/dem.ad/

What principles, exactly, are you talking about?

Claiming the foundation of the US is Christian is far from calling for the killing of a rival politician. A case can at least be made in calling the majority of founding fathers Christian. There is no validity in calling for the killing of Rumsfeld.

Yeah but do two wrongs make a right?

I don't think its that big of an issue - I just don't like others telling me what I should beleve in.

I want the government away from these issues because I don't think its their right to tell people ho to live (or encompassing everyone into the same lump) , plain and simple.

I never said two wrongs make a right. I specifically said that anyone making sweeping generalizations about the National GOP based on the actions of the Texas GOP was wrong and I provided an extreme example to drive the point home.

I agree that i don't think its right to make a sweeping generalization but then again I don't think its right to make one right back.

How did I make one right back?

I didn't word that well but I'm saying even if its to proe another point, you're still using a generalization. There, though now that I think about it, this little thing feels so stupid

I think you read that wrong. I the claims in this thread would be as ridiculous as me claiming the same thing in the case of the St Petersburg group. I did not actually say it (nor do I believe it).

I hope one particular Texas republican looses his job in Nov. These religous nuts need to get their agenda out of my government. Take it back to your church.