Forcing Cesar to live as a Christian

[The Nihilist]

That's how someone like you would see it, I'm sure. I just want what America was intended to be, a Country of Christian, based of Christianity and Christian values and a country for Christians to worship Christ and live in harmony.

I don't know if you noticed, but none of this is mentioned in the Constitution, which is where it counts.
But the way I really know you're wrong is that while the First Commandment directs that we should have no God but yours, the First Amendment preserves the right for everyone to do just that. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Syntox]

But the way I really know you're wrong is that while the First Commandment directs that we should have no God but yours, the First Amendment preserves the right for everyone to do just that. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

That's not how it was intended.

 

[Shemjaza]

Freedom of religon was designed so that no paticular Christian sect would take power over all other, probably to prevent a Catholic taking control and banning all protestant denoms.

They wouldn't be forced to pray, but would be forced to respect public prayer at ballgames and such by standing and being quiet.

But what counts as showing respect? Wesborrow Baptists think not screaming at people that God hates them and that they and their nation are going to hell shows contempt for God.

Would you also legalise discrimination against non-Christians?

Also, do you have an explanation for why non-Christians do not have a greater tendency towards crime?

The concept of people like you gaining control of the USA terrifies me.

That line wasn't in the version the congress passed almost unanamously.

Yale Law School seems to disagree.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

That's not how it was intended.

Another claim for which no support is offered.

 

[Syntox]

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/tripoli.htm

 

[Shemjaza]

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/tripoli.htm

So... you are disagreeing with us, and you evidence is this:

More generally, we can't imagine how the absence of Article 11 in the Arabic version effects the separationist argument. It was the English version of the treaty that was approved by President Adams and Secretary Pickering, and this version unquestionably contained Article 11. Similarly, when the Senate ratified the treaty, they did so knowing full well that the English version declared that the United States was not a Christian nation. The separationist implications of the treaty can't be escaped by arguing that the Arabic version may not have contained Article 11; the President, Secretary of State, and Senate thought it did, but approved the treaty anyway.

I thought you didn't agree with it?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/tripoli.htm

That page nicely refutes your falsehood.

 

[quatona]

Sounds to me like "Caesar" is trying to force Christians to live like Caesar, e.g. to live like non-Christians and endorse sinful lifestyles.

You aren´t asked nor forced into engaging in what you consider "sinful behaviours", and you aren´t asked nor forced to endorse them.

There's nothing wrong with forcing non-Christians to live like Christians. We Christians are the ones who have something to offer non-Christians -- not the other way around.

That´s the spirit required for Holy Wars.

 

[Bombila]

You know, Margaret Atwood wrote The Handmaid's Tale as fiction twenty-some years ago, but if we have a future with the Syntox's and Lioninoil's of your country in charge, she may have written prophesy. How chilling.

 

[wanderingone]

In Saudi Arabia and Iran, everybody is required to live as a Muslim. I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same thing in America, which is a Christian nation established by Christians, for Christians. As a Christian nation, we can (and should) require everybody to live as a Christian -- or at least offer a higher class of citizenship to Christians. People who do not want to abide by established Christian beliefs and norms are free to live elsewhere.



It should be self-evident to any Christian what a Christian is supposed to believe and how a Christian is supposed to live. As an atheist, you would not know this -- but it still does not relieve you of the responsibility of living like a Christian if you are going to CHOOSE to live in a Christian society.

We are not a Christian nation. But I'll leave you to your fantasy version of American History.

My faith has no meaning if I come to it because it's imparted to me by virtue of my place of birth. My faith has no meaning if I am not able to sustain it unless my government makes laws requiring me to abide by it.

I agree with the OP's friend... because people must come to their beliefs and act upon them independently or their beliefs are false.
-----------------------
Geesh I hate when I realize a thread is ancient after I've posted on it

 

[chaz345]

I don't know if you noticed, but none of this is mentioned in the Constitution, which is where it counts.
But the way I really know you're wrong is that while the First Commandment directs that we should have no God but yours, the First Amendment preserves the right for everyone to do just that. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

So if the Constitution is what counts, then the Treaty of Tripoli which has been oft quoted as proof in this thread must be irrelevant, right?

 

[The Nihilist]

So if the Constitution is what counts, then the Treaty of Tripoli which has been oft quoted as proof in this thread must be irrelevant, right?

Essentially, yes. I read the Treaty of Tripoli as a contemporary commentary, rather than as a law making the United States a nonchristian nation.
On the other hand, it is the fact that no preference for christianity at all exists in the constitution that suggests that its authors did not intend to force anyone to be a christian, and furthermore, that they did not intend for christianity to hold any esteemed place in society above other religions.

 

[Shemjaza]

You know, Margaret Atwood wrote The Handmaid's Tale as fiction twenty-some years ago, but if we have a future with the Syntox's and Lioninoil's of your country in charge, she may have written prophesy. How chilling.

I wouldn't be too concerned. Aside from the many (probably majority) pleasant polite religious pro separation if church and state Americans there are a significant number of brave, savage and well armed libertarian free thinkers who won't go down without a fight.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Essentially, yes. I read the Treaty of Tripoli as a contemporary commentary, rather than as a law making the United States a nonchristian nation.
On the other hand, it is the fact that no preference for christianity at all exists in the constitution that suggests that its authors did not intend to force anyone to be a christian, and furthermore, that they did not intend for christianity to hold any esteemed place in society above other religions.

Then you'd se ethe Treaty of Tripoli as not so much irrelevent, but redundant. The Treaty of Tripoli does not "make" the US a nonChristian nation, but confirms that it already is one.

And even if the Constitution is all that counts, remember that the Constitution does explicity say that the US must abide by and honor any treaty it signs. If it signs a treaty that says we're not a Christian nation, that's a fact so far as the government is concerned.

 

[gengwall]

I wouldn't be too concerned. Aside from the many (probably majority) pleasant polite religious pro separation if church and state Americans there are a significant number of brave, savage and well armed libertarian free thinkers who won't go down without a fight.

Many are one in the same.

 

[chaz345]

As far as the Treaty of Tripoli goes has anyone considered the effect that its intended audience might have had on it's content?

Considering that the other party to the treaty was a Muslim nation who wasn't terribly happy with us at the time, is it not possible that the "unChristianess" of the US was overstated a little in order to accomplish the purpose of the treaty?

 

[Nathan Poe]

As far as the Treaty of Tripoli goes has anyone considered the effect that its intended audience might have had on it's content?

Considering that the other party to the treaty was a Muslim nation who wasn't terribly happy with us at the time, is it not possible that the "unChristianess" of the US was overstated a little in order to accomplish the purpose of the treaty?

Very possible -- but that doesn't make it any less binding.

The Government said it, the Constitution says they have to live with it -- they can't just turn around and say "but we were just making that part up!" as a defense.

 

[chaz345]

Another point to the Treaty of Tripoli. It says that the US was not founded on the Christian RELIGION. It says nothing whatsover about it not being founded on Christian PRINCIPLES. And while those principles are not unique to Christianity, considering that the founders were either Christians or were people who had grown up in a primarily Christian environment, it would make sense to conclude that Christianity was the source of the principles that the country was founded on.

 

[Gracchus]

Very possible -- but that doesn't make it any less binding.

The Government said it, the Constitution says they have to live with it -- they can't just turn around and say "but we were just making that part up!" as a defense.

And the Black Hills will belong to the Dakota as long as the grass grows and the sun shines. A treaty says so.

Another point to the Treaty of Tripoli. It says that the US was not founded on the Christian RELIGION. It says nothing whatsover about it not being founded on Christian PRINCIPLES. And while those principles are not unique to Christianity, considering that the founders were either Christians or were people who had grown up in a primarily Christian environment, it would make sense to conclude that Christianity was the source of the principles that the country was founded on.

Christian principles? What are they?

 

[The Nihilist]

Christian principles? What are they?

Theocracy! The inquisition! Torturing unbelievers! Sometimes pickup trucks!


I think it would be more accurate to say that they had grown up with distinctly western principles, rather than christian principles. As I said, freedom of religion seems to be in complete opposition to the first commandment.