alt.education

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:32:22 -0600, Nicklas wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:53:51 +0000, ZerkonX wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:46:56 -0400, buckeye wrote:
>>
>>> I challenge you or anyone else to show, with valid primary souce
>>> historical documentation, valid secondary source
>>> documentation/commentary, cites etc by respected scholars that THIS
>>> COUNTRY was ever founded as a CHRISTIAN NATION. (That perhaps most of
>>> the citizens who were religious were Christian does not qualify)
>>
>>You can not dismiss the religion of the citizens nor the religion of the
>>founders. You may want to re-think the ambiguous "CHRISTIAN NATION".
>>Maybe use something more specific like founded as a christian theocracy.
>
> The religious reich claims that this IS a "christian nation"
>
> The religious reich is the main support of the Republican party

I think not but this is another matter.

>
> James Dobson commanded enough power to summon Neut Gingrich and the GOP
> leadership and demanded (and got) HIS agenda as part of the Budget bills
> (which clinton vetoed)
>
> So when a major political party's supporters, via massive media outlets,
> makes the claim "this IS a Christian nation"---then it's not ambiguous.

Only if you concede. It is rendered ambiguous inside any reasonable
discussion.

>>Also, making this christian specific dilutes what some, maybe most, of
>>us see as the original intent in that power of church, any church, was
>>to be kept out of the state.
>
> which other religions were relevant at the time?

Primarily Christianity, which is now and was then it's own 'other'
religion. However, at the time, deism had a significant presence, Paine
had by this time turned Deist, I believe. No small matter, He was the
major influence among most "Common Sense" people.

>
>>For the sake of argument, if most people who founded the nation were
>>christian then it was, in fact, a self-evident christian nation.
>
> Nonsense. Simply because you claim christianity as a personal choice,
> has nothing to do with the formation of a nation.

No, not non-sense. you are looking at it in terms of intent I, here, am
looking at it in terms of a gross historical definition. One does not
mean the other.

>>Your position, which is seen in all your posts that I have read, also
>>starts with a false given. The same fallacy your opponents demand as a
>>given, interestingly enough. That is; a monolithic entity called
>>'Christianity'.
>
> Christianity has more than one god? I didn't know that.

Live and learn.

> Last I heard there was only one---making it a monotheistic religion with
> one monolithic god.

A monotheistic god does not a mono-dogma make. Plus, to get religiously
realistic, the concept of trinity, possibly coming from the hindus, has
been an aspect of Christianity since the beginning. This aspect, as most
other aspects, has been yet another reason of disagreements and feuds.
The divine nature of Christ is another. the Jehovah's do not believe
christ was the son of god but, in fact, the angel michael and who did not
'rise from the dead' but they consider themselves christian none the
less.

The divisions and subdivisions are massive. Uniformity is an illusion
only afforded by being self-cast as a victim.

> There are denominations who make interpretation of that one
> god--however.

bingo.

Look all I am saying is that the argument "christian nation" can be
defeated in many ways. Even to the point of conceding that most founders
were christian. Because after all is said and done it is equally as self-
evident that the intent of making christian dogma into law, which is the
issue, was never done.