The American Spectator

ddc| 12.16.08 @ 6:38AM

The author mocks the very foundation of this country. The constitution would be a great document establishing an ingeneous means of governance whether the population was hindu, buddhist, or atheist. A fact that the founders recognized by their deliberate restraint from encoding a religeous message in the text and their explicit prohibition from establishing religion. But the author has such contempt for the founders that he would openly deride their wisdom while insulting everyone who does not believe as he does.

stu.b.con| 12.16.08 @ 7:17AM

ddc writes: "The author mocks the very foundation of this country"

ddc you could not be further from the truth. It is you and your fellow travelers that mock the very foundation of our republic. Read the writings of the founding fathers, ddc, or perhaps get out from in front of your screen and visit Washington D.C.
The founders established Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion.

It is you and your fellow travelers who attempt to impose your beliefs ( or lack thereof) on the rest of us. It is you who is insulting to our founding fathers with your callow derision. It is you and your fellow travelers who are dragging this country into the morass...

Melvin| 12.16.08 @ 7:31AM

There surely is one place that atheists must believe in. If I was a betting man that one place would be, "Hell."
These malcontents have single handedly ruined and wiped off the face of this Country a holiday that means many things to many people.
I do not attend organized religion, but I do believe in God in my own personal way, but respect those that do wish to express their religion more openly than I do.
By Atheists using the police powers of government to remove every vestige of, "Religion," in relation to Christmas from every public and private venue that there is, is just as culpable than Christians using the same police power of legislation to establish a state religion.
Word of advice for these Atheists, "Why don't you crawl back under the rocks from whence you came, because you have done enough damage to a holiday, that kids will no longer have memories of."

Justin| 12.16.08 @ 7:56AM

How exactly has Christmas been wiped off the face of the earth? Nobody is being stopped from celebrating or not celebrating Christmas. State and federal buildings have no business displaying religious material, and if they do, other views should be displayed. This persecution complex whereby the Christian majority in the U.S. is somehow under siege is laughable.

frost| 12.16.08 @ 8:39AM

As a Libertarian, I'm with Justin (above). Some may call it maschocism or maybe paranoia? You're entitled to your beliefs, and that's great. Yet, as a Deist and not a Christian, I still send Christmas cards, string the lights, have a tree, and wish everyone with a smile Merry Christmas.
Government usually manages to screw-up everything it touches, so why should it also get involved in messing up this holiday too, 'ay?

ccd| 12.16.08 @ 9:03AM

The atheistic basis for rules against theft, corruption, and murder are logically implied by economics and game theory without recourse to supernatural beliefs (see the works of M.Friedman and J. Nash). The difference between theist and atheist philosophy is that atheists can provide rigorous proofs that their rules are beneficial.
Additionally such prohibitions predate the judeo-christian concept by millenia.

Merry Christmas

ncatty| 12.16.08 @ 9:52AM

In the 1950s it was hard to tell who was a Christian and who was not, so pervasive was the christianized culture. Aside from Jewish people, the rest of the culture was dominated by Christian belief and tradition. It was the mainstream. Now things have changed, and will keep changing. Those who believe the good news of the Gospel will become more distinctive because that belief will become more distinctive in the general culture. When before there was no "cost" to being identified as a Christian, increasingly Christians will have to pay a social, and possibly legal cost, to maintain their belief. This is not a bad thing. Jesus did not come to save a nation, a government, a culture, or a church, but to save human beings. His offer is free, but it costs you everything to accept it. This is a mystery.

Jeffrey Lord| 12.16.08 @ 10:21AM

ccd...

You say that atheistic rules against theft, corruption and murder are "logically implied." One man's logic is another's illogic. I am certainly curious at the notion it is OK to steal everything you have and you won't mind in the slightest. Perhaps you are a saint?

Appleby| 12.16.08 @ 10:24AM

Time to re-read "Lord of the Flies" or, if you are young enough so you don't or cannot read, borrow the audio-book or download it into your Binkie and let someone read it to you.

The children have taken over the running of the country and continue (as the putative governor of Illinois proved over and over again) to crusade for the right to yell POO POO HEAD over and over again. The percentage of Generation Whine and their Grabby Baby offspring who will ADMIT to lying, cheating, stealing, bullying and general malfeasance is 50% or higher. Sexually transmitted diseases are skyrocketing (after all IGOTTARIGHT to do whatever I want with whoever I want whenever I want to!) ...and as we stand idly by and watch two generations implode just before we are about to hand over the country to their soft, manicured hands, we're finally drawing a connection between their having not been taught any better, and the way they turned out?

See you at Galt's Gulch. This is merely the trailer for a show that will make Survivor look like Sunday School.

ccd| 12.16.08 @ 10:36AM

J. Lord - Please explain how a clear statement that rules against theft are principles of econmics implies that I would be amennable to having my property stolen. By the rationale you expound the existance of a commandment against theft must mean that you would be agreeable to having your property stolen. Perhaps you are a saint?

The days of the DAMMED| 12.16.08 @ 11:06AM

ddc
Ref: The author mocks the foundation of this country.

What is the foundation of your country?. Perhaps you should look it up.

Your country was founded on theft murder, rape and violence.

And true to this day, the murder go on, the crime continues, in your own country and the pain in unjustified wars waged against the innocent people of the world.

Your country was founded on the laws of SATAN, the laws of EVIL, the laws of LUCIFER.

Secret Societies, such as Freemasonary, Egyptian Occultism, witch craft, AKHENATON, OSIRIS the god of the dead. Your country is full of Egyptian symbols all over the place and yet you don't notice what these Occult symbols mean. Find out where you come from, and then find out where you are going, and why.

Christmas is not Christ's birthday, it is a middle ages ancient festival connected to the winter solstice of PAGANISM. It has more to do with LUCIFER than anything to do with the god who created this world.

Luciferian soceity, the enlighten ones, in the know, a secret, within a secret, the society who runs this world, to whom does it belong? it's SATAN'S KINGDOM. Based on devil worship, and those who are in high power that is who they serve SATAN.

Google A warning from the grave Freemasonry Elitist, Zionist Popery Jesuits. And the, The true jews that the Zionist tries to hide.

Have a nice day.

JOE| 12.16.08 @ 11:21AM

Wake up DDC. There have been more murder and theft in the name of atheist, Hitler, Stalen, Mao, etc. then the history of the Christian faith.

And atheist have no ethics, other than those they borrow from others and usually change to fit the mood of the day. The end does not justify the means as you would have us believe.

And I do not have the time to correct all of your errors about the country's founding. You would not believe the truth if it hit you in the face anyway.

Finally, don't lump religions together. Well for you who lack understanding it probably is all the same.

frost| 12.16.08 @ 11:30AM

Uh, "days of damned?" (couldn't spell that, 'ay?), your point was...?

ddc| 12.16.08 @ 11:41AM

Joe, Are you saying that the constitution would not be a clever means of organizing a government if the writers were not christian.
I disagree, the constitution is ingeneous and should be respected whether or not one agrees with your faith. But I unlike you think that the constitution is a great document.

Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 11:48AM

Without Christianity we're nothing. Look how little morality there is left. Mikey Jackson and Polanski can molest children and get away with it but if you want a creche' in a public place that is bad?
Today you can look at all the hardcore porn you want but if you broadcast a religious message it is considered bad taste.

Marc Jeric| 12.16.08 @ 11:50AM

Our Constitution prohibits "establishment of religion". To understand this clause in the context of the 18th century one must remember that all states in Europe then had an exclusive state religion; monarchs had to be members of the state religion; all other religions were more or less outlawed, prosecuted, taxed, and otherwise punished. Our Constitution did not prohibit religion, any religion - just prohibited establishment of one favored religion over another. The "liberal" (i.e., communist, Democrat, socialist, progressive, marxist, revlutionary, and other such) interpretations of the "establishment clause" as forbidding any and all religions are just an intellectual garbage.

Michael L. Hauschild| 12.16.08 @ 11:51AM

I have a Nativity scene in my front yard. I have been in pageants (one of the wise men) in my church. But I have to disagree with Grechen, the halls of the State Capital should be for walking about doing the business of government. The separation of Church and State, like anything else, should have boundaries. Keep your religious displays on private property be it either your yard or in the sanctuary of your choice.

Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 11:54AM

Get this: anyone (including children) can hear smutty talk on TV, radio, internet.
but they're worried about the religious!

As if they will come into your bedroom and tell you what to do!

ddc| 12.16.08 @ 12:02PM

When the constitution was written "establishment" may have refered to the state relgions of europe. But back then "arms" meant flinlocks and swords and "free speech" refered to pamphlets and the town square. But I still have the right to carry my S&W;45 while blogging. The writers knew that times change and chose their language carfully to endure, give them and their creation some respect.

Dustoff| 12.16.08 @ 12:03PM

Sardu

Grow up.
jezzzzz another 15yr old who thinks cussing is kool.

PS has any of you walked by the Supreme Court bld?

Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 12:09PM

Sardu,
"altruist kick"?
youre not 15, youre 12.

Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 12:16PM

publik skools today can teach socialism, but not religion?

there is filth everywhere, but religion is a danger? we bend over backwards not to offend macho Arabs and their misogynist religion but we have to apologize for Christianity?

sardu| 12.16.08 @ 12:21PM

Well, I guess you told *me*! Well played, sirs!

John| 12.16.08 @ 12:52PM

Atheists are basically self loathing, cynical, hypocrites, and on their death beds are never as cavalier when staring at their stark end. Yes, they believe what the awesome intelligence that designed this universe had in mind, when he created His most astounding creature, that in the end the human creation would be for nothing but turning into worm sh-t. You have to be certified clinically depressed to hold that view. I wonder if these same Atheists voted for hope and change? In both cases they need medication

Dustoff| 12.16.08 @ 12:57PM

SARDU
Well, I guess you told *me
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No, not really, but if you expect people to read what you have written. Leave out the @ss or cussing. Like many, we just pass you by as if you were a street bum saying the world was going to end.

John| 12.16.08 @ 1:01PM

I am impressed with how effectively two great myths have been established as fact by the Marxist party, formally known as the Democratic Party. Great lie #1 the US Constitution states their must be separation of Church and State. Absolutely doesn't exist. #2, global warming is man made. We even awarded a Noble Prize and an Oscar to a raving lunatic for this one! No wonder Joseph Goebbels wanted to control the German media and entertainment propaganda machines.

ddc| 12.16.08 @ 1:10PM

The constitution does not decree a seperation of church and state. However, Jeffereson expounded on the matter by saying that was what was in mind. The government cannot constitutionally mandate an atheistic country anymore than a Christian country. Religion and faith are and should be a personal matter. I don't want the government giving intruction on matters of faith to me or my children
Take some responsibility and stop whining to the government that bureaucrats should be teaching your kids about your religion.
Merry Christmas

Bob| 12.16.08 @ 1:25PM

What is wrong with ALL of you? I love the holidays, send Christmas/Hanukkah/Atheist cards, and sing lots of songs of all types. Let the Christians display religious scenes and the atheists make their statements. As long as one does not physically destroy the other, go for it. That's what's great about our country. Don't hesitate to say Merry Christmas or light the menorah candles. Have fun. If you are so weak on your beliefs that opposing statements hurt you, it is YOUR problem.

The founders of our country had all sorts of beliefs. Jefferson was a deist and did not believe in organized religion, for example. Hamilton had real problems with any religion in government. You can make an argument that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (although the term "Judeo-Christian" did not exist then) and an argument that it didn't.

So go to the liquor cabinet, pour yourself a nice stiff drink, and chill... Don't restrict anyone's right to say what they believe. That's where Carlson was wrong...

frost| 12.16.08 @ 1:28PM

Alan sez something about "as if they'll walk in your bedroom and tell you what to do," right?
Well, who was that California congressman who wanted to ban the Morning After pill, and how long did it take for contraception to be allowed by those highly Roman Catholic states in the Northeast. So, yes, religion does a whole bunch of influencing in the laws passed, and the groups of pandering legislators in state capitals and DC quake at the thought of not backing those folk. While I am a Deist today, that was because of all the hypocracy seen in earlier years while a choirboy and acolyte in the Episcopal church...
And, as a Libertarian, sorry, but I don't like seeing ANY stuff in those governmental buildings, for or against anything; bad enough that there are so many of those aforementioned governmental buildings....
Have a Merry Christmas all.

frost| 12.16.08 @ 1:38PM

Interesting, the audacity of those who'd presume to label all athiests as miserable folk, as John suggested at 11:52 or so -- his diagnosis of self-loathing and his suggestion of "medication?" Don't know where he obtained the psychological degree, but such charges are oh so interesting. I'm no athiest, but people making such suggestions and painting with such a broad brush, whew!

scotty c| 12.16.08 @ 3:09PM

You've demonstrated zero understanding of the First Amendment.

This piece makes now sense: we honor the first amendment by not following it? backwards, like most christian thought.

The notion that Xian should get preferential treatment by the government is the same logic that gives Jews death camps.

Enjoi your holocaust, i wont have a part in it.

Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 3:21PM

what harm would it be to have a crucifix and creche' in Congress or the senate?
They can have sex with pages, but not a Crucifix on premises?

ddc| 12.16.08 @ 3:41PM

What harm could it be to have a plaque saying "there is no god, it's all a myth." They can have sex with pages but not have a plaque on the premises?

Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 4:59PM

if there is no God then why would a plaque be necessary?
That's like having a big sign on your garage door reading, "there is no car in this garage"

seems like you atheists are awfully worried about a God whom you think doesn't exist

Steve| 12.16.08 @ 5:03PM

I love reading blogs. Everyone ( including myself) is full of their own wisdom and no one is convinced ( excepy myself).

Declaration says that we are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights. If we have no creator, do we have no rights?? It is the essence of nihilism, which I took as the author's point. Oh,well, what the heck!! I've convinced myself again.

ddc| 12.16.08 @ 5:23PM

A plaque isn't necessary just like a crucifix isn't necessary, each is merely a harmless symbol of the beliefs held by a signifcant portion of the population.
If atheists are concerned about swaying people to their view, then where is the harm in treating them with equality and giving them access to government property for the display of their message.
On the other hand this kind of conflict might be what the founders wished to avoid when they wrote that it is not the buisness of government to establish religion. Government should not be sending faith based messages theist or atheist.

Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 5:36PM

ddc,
why not let satanists affix their symbols on govt property too? it's harmless, right? i mean if you think no satan exists then what is the harm?

how about a large plaque in the senate reading "HAIL SATAN!"

ddc| 12.16.08 @ 5:39PM

Excellent Alan, you are now beginning to understand that if one is allowed to then all should be allowed to. But that would be impractical and counter to the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religions.

Larry| 12.16.08 @ 5:58PM

Well, the commenters are all over the lot on this one. And with little cause.

The point of Jeffrey Lord's piece is to point out the religious origins of law, and the moral basis for law. If in fact you believe that morality is simply a calculus of interest for utilitarian purposes (as many libertarians such as ccd believe), that calculus can be changed at whim. If you believe that religion is the fundamental basis for all law (as I do), then you believe that man has a soul, that man is a creature of God, and that the rights of human beings are not rooted in simple utilitarian calculus, but something with a much firmer foundation against which rights can be defined and protected. That is what creates an open society with the kind of freedoms we have experienced. I know of no athiestic foundations of society that have led to anything but dictatorship, death, and destruction. Some of you folks need to read your history books again.

And don't come at me with the "pre-Judeo-Christian" roots of these legal concepts. I know that some of these concepts have pre-Judeo-Christian origins; those societies, however, were also religious societies in that they had a defined notion of their place and purpose in the cosmos and clearly acknowledged a higher power greater than themselves; Voegelin speaks to this rather fundamentally. But these concepts were quite refined by Judeo-Christian thinkers into what we have today, and without Judeo-Christian thought on the subject, we would have what the ancient world had: pagan brutality, where life was cheap.

To ddc: I suggest you do some more reading on the subject of Jefferson and his famous letter describing the "wall of separation." Your implicit admission that it was Jefferson who interpreted the First Amendment to mean a separation of church and state is simply his interpretation and nothing more, nor would I ever consider it as valid precedent for what the Founding Fathers intended as a whole in regard to the clause as it was ultimately crafted in Congress; as Jefferson was not even a part of the Constitutional Convention or of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, it can be said that he was only parroting Madison's views on freedom of religion, which views were rooted in the idea that there should be no direct linkage between the federal government and the various state church establishments of the time, and that the state should not create a religious establishment in order to preserve freedom of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court has vastly expanded this interpretation beyond even what Jefferson and Madison would have intended in the every day activities of government.

Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 6:07PM

children can see (and hear) filth on TV and the web.
wall of separation? how about a all of separation between filth and children?

Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 6:10PM

how about a wall of separation between mediocre and bad teachers in publik skools and children?

Larry| 12.16.08 @ 6:10PM

One more observation - ddc says: "The government cannot mandate an atheist country anymore than a Christian country. Religion and faith are and should be a personal matter."

So, I guess if I believe that man-boy love, or the infliction of torture or pain for my own personal pleasure are a moral good, the government shouldn't interfere in that, should it? There are certain things that cannot just be looked at as "personal matters." Further, the way the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment the past fifty years or so, I think it is quite apparent that the Court is exactly mandating an atheist country, one in which the vestiges of religion are completely eliminated and destroyed. The "promotion" of religion is even prohibited by the Court, and the definition of "promotion" has become quite expansive.

One cannot proclaim a completely "neutral" state when it comes to religious values. That has not been and is not the intent and the basis for the First Amendment. One can and should only prevent particular sects or denominations from becoming the state, in ways that would mandate obedience of conscience to one theology or denomination as a basis for public policy making. To equate the argument for a religious, Christian basis for our Constitutional values, and to encourage a mockery of those values in the public square is to invite the "promotion" of atheism over all other things. This will be the basis for undermining our free society in the end, as Jeff Lord has wisely pointed out.

Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 6:14PM

ddc,
if you are correct in saying if one is allowed to advertise on govt property then all ought to be allowed to,
then why are multiculturalism, feminazism, and socialism allowed in publik skools, but not religion?

ccd| 12.16.08 @ 6:18PM

An excellent analysis Larry.As you recognized my position was to establish that atheists have a rigorous foundation for ethical behavior that is as valid as any other. I would argue, however, that given the fluidity of religious belief (I can name several holy books of the divine and eternal, new editions come out every few centuries) a logical and mathmatical is rather more enduring. You might pray to a different god but logic and math are always the same.

Gazinya| 12.16.08 @ 6:18PM

Wow. Even still Lord Jesus COME! The sooner the better.

Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 6:36PM

thats it, math and logic. Yes.

lets ban social "science", which is pseudo-ecumenical propaganda, from publik skools.

were finally in agreement.

ddc| 12.16.08 @ 6:42PM

Larry, you're confusing the establishing religion with the people's right to legislate. If the populace votes for a law mandate that all women wear a burka then that is a constitutional excercise of police powers establishing a code of decency. If sufficient voters pass a law requireing that people pray to vishnu that is an unconstitutional establishment of religion. A christian has every right to petition that laws be passed such as outlawing abortion but not laws that require others to pray.
Yes, religion and politics mix but that should occur in the mind of the indivdual rather than that of the politician.
And if the court is mandating an athisitc country it doing a very poor job of it. There are more atheists than there once were but there are also more christians, mormons, pagans, and satanists.
And I agree with you the government should not be declaring an atheistic message but atheists should not be discriminated against based upon their sincerely held beliefs.

Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 6:58PM

atheism isnt a 'belief', it is a lack of 'belief'.
saying atheism is a belief is like saying an absentee dad is a parent.
but all i want is if multicultism, castrati-feminism, and crypto-marxism are taught in publik skools, then let religion be inculcated as well. thats it, no public creche', no crucifix...

nick dann| 12.16.08 @ 7:39PM

Congratulations to Stu.b.con
His comments are right on target. The "founding fathers" were Christian so they allowed "other religions" freedom.

The country of murders| 12.16.08 @ 8:42PM

If America is such a Christian country, why is no one in prison for the murder f three of the Kennedy family. Many are under the impression that the Bush family was behind it, under the cover of the CIA at the time.

Do the right thing and prove, you live in a free society, but you don't you live in a country that is run and controled by evil dark forces.

Check youtube who killed JFK Jr. and youtube who killed JFK.

DaveS| 12.16.08 @ 9:26PM

Woe to us, if there are any more sentiments out there like the first one and the one immediately preceding this one (The country of murders).

DaveS| 12.16.08 @ 9:27PM

...and a thank you to Alan Brooks. Keep it coming, Alan.

Patrick Cronin| 12.16.08 @ 9:58PM

This is a seemingly minor point, however, I believe "wringer" is what O.J. should be put through, not "ringer" (Page 2, or around the 12th paragraph). Spelling and grammar go first, then morality and religion follow right behind them (or write behind them, if I'm wrong).

Urs Hugi| 12.16.08 @ 10:04PM

Your article reminds me of a discussion I had several years back with an acquaintance who got fired from his high paying job. He stated that he would kill his ex-boss if he wasn't scared to go to prison for it.
I then asked him if he would kill him if it wasn't against the law, and he replied "absolutely!".
I new then that we are headed for trouble by the ever increasing disregard of our Christian beliefs.

Christian| 12.16.08 @ 11:30PM

There will be no "atheists" in Hell.

Alan Brooks| 12.17.08 @ 12:20AM

people can do what they want, but then they have to pay the price- and everything has a price; if someone has too much freedom then they often misuse it because they dont know how far to press advantage and we know that people press their advantage too far.now i dont doubt that bob and jeremiah and other responsible people dont need Christian guidelines; however many responsible people do need Christian guidelines, esp. families buffeted by the seamy side of existence, and of course irresponsible people need Christian guidelines or at the very least religion that is less powerful but still offering structure & meaning such as, say, buddhism.
So placing a cre'che in a public place or the commandments in a courthouse or having prayers in publik skools is a lesser of two 'evils', albeit the evil is having no public religion at all and thus no social cohesion.

JamesJ| 12.17.08 @ 8:07AM

Uh, ddc, abrtion is not compatible with Buddahism. Do you really think that rampant corruption (everybody does it) by our politicians, lawyers, bankers, etc is because we have too much religion in society?

Marcia| 12.17.08 @ 12:40PM

“It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! - Patrick Henry It is clear that the Founders never intended for moral values based on Biblical priniciples to take a back seat in this government. John Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. " In the early days of this nation, schools were primarily to teach people to read the Bible. Churches sometimes met in government buildings. It was only with the Supreme Court's erroneous ruling that took prayer out of public schools that we began to see a downward spiral in the state of this nation. Indeed, the founders emphasized the importance of Christian morals and values for the continuance of America while allowing freedom to worship as one pleased. All of you who try to argue otherwise are just plain wrong.

Buck Batard| 12.17.08 @ 4:27PM

It’s the law of the land, as negotiated by George Washington in a treaty with the nation of Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and ratified by the United States Senate on June 10, 1797:

Article 11:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

-------------------------

However, if we are going to have religious displays in public displays, the people of Tennessee, West Virginia and Kentucky who handle snakes as outlined in the text of the Bible would be welcome by me to come to malls to show others that everything written in the Bible is absolutely true beyond measure. Bystanders who are not believers who get killed by an accidental snake bite or by taking the "word of God" literally and participating in the grand show would just be considered collateral damage.

It's really disgusting that the Republican party abandoned it's great writer and ideology of men like HL Mencken. This writer has apparently forgotten the great gift he gave to the Republican party and to the nation. That gift was the gift of freedom from ignorance. The writer of this article doesn't seem to have gotten there yet.

Gazinya| 12.17.08 @ 5:15PM

Buck. A religion may have principles but a principle does not create religion. In 1790's there were the English, French, Spainish countries that were on a global colinization spree. In Africa there was an Isalmic colinization. The United States was being held for ransom by the hijacking of U.S. merchants by the Islamics. The Islamics were lumping the U.S with the 'real world powers' and accusing us of joining them in a Cruesade against Islam. George was simply stating the fact that the U.S. is not founded on a Religion, Christian or otherwise but he never told them this was not a Christian nation of Christian priciples. It just is not ruled by any particular Christian Religion as were the countries of England, France, Spain.
It is difficult to grasp, at least it was for me for many years, that faith in Jesus does not require an alligence to a religion. It does require that I have faith that He, God, is in charge of my life and as much as I allow it, my life is cool. By the by, how did that treaty with Tripoli work out?

Don| 12.17.08 @ 9:03PM

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." Thomas Jefferson (Founding Father)

Don| 12.17.08 @ 9:05PM

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.'" John Adams (Founding Father)

Frank| 12.17.08 @ 9:56PM

The text of the 1st admendment states that "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion. . ." Several points should be made: (1) this prohibits actions by the national government, not the various states. At the time that the 1st admendment was ratified, and for some time thereafter, many of the states had established churches, (2) this prohibits the national government from taking action "respecting" the establishment of religion -- in other words, the congress (national government) is prohibited from taking any action against the states concerning their establishment of religion, one way or another. It can neither compell nor prohibit state actions respecting (concerning) their establishing of religion, and (3) their was an attempt on the part of some members of congress to pass the so-called Blaine Admendment, which would have prohibited the states from establishing religion. This was one congress following the congress that passed the 14th amendment and was composed for the most part of the same people. The Blaine admendment was defeated, demonstrating that it was NOT the intention of the congress that wrote and passed the 14th amendment to "incorporate" the non-establishment clause and make it binding upon the states.

That said, I personally am against displays of a religious nature on state-owned property, but I try not to confuse my preferences with the Constitution of the United States.