The part I bolded is, in my opinion, very intriguing. It says here, "the laws of nature, and of nature's God." This doesn't imply the Theism of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. In fact, "nature's God" would tend to imply either Deism - reason based faith as opposed to revelation based, or Pantheism.

Likewise, in the same document:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator"

Their creator, not The Creator, not God, not Yaweh, not Jehovah. Again, I'm assuming that *their* means the citizens of the colonies/States. I think it would be reasonable to assume that by using "nature and of nature's God," along with "by their Creator," the founding fathers - in essence - laid a precedent stating that their reference was to each individual's personal creator/belief, or lack thereof. 

"Nature's God" was clearly the God of deism in all important ways. That Jefferson included God in the "Declaration of Independence" is very significant because it helped lay the foundation for a civil religion in America. Paul Johnson addressed the civil religion begun by the founders in his article, "The Almost-Chosen People,"[20] saying that the United States was unique because all religious beliefs were respected. People were more concerned with "moral conduct rather than dogma." So Jefferson helped create a society in which different religions could coexist peacefully because of the emphasis on morality over specific belief.[21]"

( http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html )

Further, "laws of nature," implies that under natural law, there are certain unalienable, natural rights (or human rights). The Declaration was simply stating that the citizens of the colonies had the naturalright to their rights, because they existed outside of government.

As I stated, "nature's God," to me, implies Deism; however, there is a Christian Natural Law - so I feel that while the founding father's were leaning heavily toward implying a reason based faith, I feel they were aware enough to know that there wasn't just reason based faith.

"The term "nature's God" refers to that which responsible for human (and the rest of) nature being what it is. It is a way of speaking of God insofar as God is knowable by human reason. In other words, our minds, unassisted by divine revelation, can figure out that there is such a thing as human nature, and that there are laws or rules that we must follow if we are to live justly and well. Reason can see that if we violate those laws, we will suffer such evils as death, slavery, or misery. A New England preacher explained the concept in this way: "The law of nature (or those rules of behavior which the Nature God has given men, . . . fit and necessary to the welfare of mankind) is the law and will of the God of nature, which all men are obliged to obey. . . . The law of nature, which is the Constitution of the God of nature, is universally obliging. It varies not with men's humors or interests, but is immutable as the relations of things." (Abraham Williams, Election Sermon, Boston 1762.)"

(Oddly enough, a number of our founding fathers were Deists, who when they put together our founding documents, etc. - knew full well that they based it off of the Enlightenment; which btw has basis in Deism.Coincidently, when Thomas Paine - my all time favorite writer and founding father - wrote The Age of Reason, there was for fact, a Deistic revival/surge. Though it was brief, i feel it gives credence to the possibility that (some of) the Colonists found basis in reason, versus revelation.)

I'm curious then, as to your view on the consistant attempt to divide, both by religious and non-religious? What do you see as being stripping of culture? BTW, one person's PC is another's infringement of speach; you can just as easily be PC about Christianity (or Judaism, Isliam, Hinduism...) as you can about anything else.

~Alderic

Nice back peddling.  If that was what you meant, you wouldn't have said: "And the facts say that history had those things without the references to a god. ".  How is the Pledge "those things".

And, yes, it does matter when it happened, or are you ignoring why I made the statements in the first place?  It's about our heritage and culture.  Our founding government obviously had Christian influences, so how can it not matter?

I'll start this by stating again- I'm not Christian, but I recognize that most of the US is Christian.  What is the culture of the US?  Compare our country to, say, Japan.  For Japan, I can give you some terms that describe them or their overall culture.  Obviously, this is not true for every single person, but it is the majority and what is known as their "culture":
1) They speak Japanese
2) They wear Kimonos on special occasions
3) They have many types of martial arts that started in Japan
4) "Anime" is a cartoon art form from Japan
5) They have a "tea ceremony" which techniques have been handed down for generations
6) Daily baths are important to them.
7) They bow to each other and the type of bow changes depending on the reason
8) They don't wear shoes in their houses
9) Moms pack Obento for their children
10) Sushi originated in Japan
11) Shintoism and Buddhism are their top religions, and it's not uncommon to see large Buddha statues all over the country, on candy, in businesses, or just about anywhere.

OK.  So, can you make a list like that with America?  Just about everything we have is stripped from another country.  At least there have been a few things that have lasted through time, but those things are what people want to strip in the name of "rights".

Who has the ultimate "right"?  Not everyone can get what they want, so who gets to decide?

If I may provide an answer: Because if the US government was to promote one religion or another, there stands the chance of that religion becoming too powerful. If human action is any indication, we're not the most wise or intelligent or logical (or tolerant) species. With the government behind, say, Christianity - everyone would be subject to its power and sway. Hence, it could lead to people being jailed for practicing a different faith, having an abortion, etc. This may sound like paranoia or fear mongering, but I assure you that is not my intention. I'm merely saying, take a look at nations where religion is either a large force, or backed by the government. See any freedom of speech? See any freedom of religion? The very essence of the freedom of (or from) religion, and subsequent government neutrality - is American. It's one of our principles.

Btw, you're full of it. There is indeed a part in the US Constitution that forbids our government from favoring, or putting any religion on a dias - so to speak; it is the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

~Alderic

In a church on the East Coast during a discussion an Arab who became a Christian called himself a Messianic Muslim.  Since he spoke Arabic and was now a believer he believed that since Allah was simply an Arabic word he could use it to represent Jesus Christ or the entire Godhead (trinity).  He was unwilling to use the word Jehovah (YHWH) because it was not in his native tongue. 

He felt just as Messianic Jews had discovered that Jesus was Yahweh, he had discovered that Jesus was Allah.  Could he not continue to use the term Allah in that light? 

Israel had always been looking forward to a Redeemer, Savior, and Messiah and the Messianic Jew has recognized that Jesus was in fact that Messiah, the fulfillment of their hope.  A devout Muslim however looks back at the life of Christ.  Muhammad who knew the teaching of Jesus as Lord rejected Him.  The rejection of Jesus claim to lordship is, in fact, a fundamental tenet of Islam.

"As they say the Beneficient has taken to Himself a son.  Certainly you make an abominable assumption.....It is not worthy of Allah that He should take to himself a son.  (Surah 19:88-92)

A Muslim who accepts Jesus as Lord must therefore reject his or her former religion, which explicitly denies Christ as God.  Christianity is not the fulfillment of Islam's hope, but it rejects Islam at its core.

That's why I can say that the Jews and the Christians do recognize the same God but can't say that about Islam. 

Mmm, I would say they believe in something, and that in a sense, they say Christian by default.

As for the so called stripping, I feel it is nothing more than the constant clash between the past and the future; e.g. conservativism versus liberalism - to an extent. I would say that progressivism is more so the antonym (though a thesaurus says otherwise) for conservatism.

Likewise, I don't think it's one big conspiracty. It is just the natural, and expected outcome for a society as diverse as our own. It's inevitable; the only choice really is whether you choose a side and probably wind up where the Dems/Reps and the fervently claimed culture war has brought us, or recognize the diversity of our nation, find a common ground.

~Alderic

Muslim or ARAB?

Muslims beleive that jesus was a PROPHET (not a messiah)... in islam there are three prophets:

1. Moses

2. Jesus

3. Muhamad.

Each one "updates" the information... if an issue has been addressed by muhamad, then he is right no matter what the other two said, if muhamad never mentioned it, go by what jesus said, if he never mentioned it, go by what moses said.

exactly Taltimir

Jesus was Jewish.  Olive skin.  Dark eyes.  Typical Jewish features. 

this is not true.  Not for God they don't...including the two brothers (Muslim Christians) I just quoted to you.  It's in their book they're saying you can't be a Christian Muslim and still call God Allah because of what I wrote you earlier.  You have to denounce Islam when you come to Christianity because Islam rejects Christ outright after he came,  but you don't have to denouce your Jewishness when you come to Christ  as they looked forward to his coming someday. 

No, that's not true either.  They don't believe that the Messiah was God.  They believe he was just a prophet.   To be Messianic you accept his claim as God. 

AldericJourdain get your panties out of a bunch... first of all i said that he was a prophet, so that means I AGREED with you that he was not a MESSIAH. because propthet and messiah are two different things.

Secondly, no you should not accept their words, I know some hindus of indian descent living here in america and they tell me hindus are vegetarian because cows are sacred, when asked why not eat pork they have no explanation. The CORRECT response is that the hindus beleive in reincarnation, and that piglet might be their reincarnated grandma trying to learn life lessons that only living as a pig can teach.

Same with many american jews who watch a lot of holliwood movies and think jews beleive in hell, there never was nor will there ever be a hell a in jewish philosophy. There isn't even a "heaven" so to speak. there was the the garden of eden, we were cast out, when a jew die his soul rests with his remains until the end days where the messiah will come, at which point all jews come back to life (eternal life), and god judges their acts in life and decides "who is to live and who is die" (eternal death?)

point of it all is, most people are horribly ignorant of their own religion, try opening a book (not a book ABOUT their religion, but the direct source, their own holy text). And furthermore, make sure you ask someone who is actually RELIGIOUS and not just BORN to parents of that "religion"... secular religious people are what I like calling "closet atheists". If they didn't even read their own holy text from cover to cover at least once they don't really care to know about their own "religion"

Where is that common ground?  And, if other countries can embrace the "major" beliefs as acceptable in society, why can't we?  What is "progressive" about stripping away any shred of what founded America and got us to this point?

ha!  I like that term.  You are so correct.  This goes with what I said on my blog site; people are content in taking what they "hear" as good enough instead of what they know (which is nothing).  It's much easier to just take what someone else tells them without going through the trouble of researching on their own.  I see this everyday.  One day when God does come back, they will have no excuse.  We stand before him along and some will be very naked. 

that's not what I did, nor is it what the Caners did.  What could be a better source than Christians who grew up in Islam to tell us the background?  They would know alot more than I would so of course I would defer to them.  It would be arrogant to say I knew more. 

Don't go after them, go after what they are saying.  What did they say that was wrong?  I'm thinking you don't like them (calling them bashers) because they are hitting the nail on the head here.  Their own father disowned them for becoming Christians.  Now they are educating others about the differences between the Islam God (and practices) from  the Christian God (and practices).  I think it's a perfectly good source and unless you show me where they are in error I will continue to use ex-Muslims in their assessment of Islam. 

I'm not an expert on Islam.  I'll be the first to say so. 

But what's not kosher about what I said? 

I know that being a Christian fundamentalist is not a popular thing to be these days, but I will take that as a compliment.  Did you hear the latest coming down from the Homeland Security Administration that is labeling people like me (strong belief in Jesus, pro-life, anti-homosexual laws, belief in country's foundation as Christian led, gunowners, etc) are being labeled as "extremists?" 

Oliver North just wrote quite an article about this.  It's very scary.  Everybody should be sitting up straight when they hear what's going down right down under this current administration. 

It's all been prohesied so we really shouldn't be surprised.  It's all to pave the way for a one world government and a one world religion.  Basically a one world order.  We will still have our individual religions like we do now but with very strict regulations under one head.  Sort of like our 50 individual states under one Federal Head.   So as long as we do what the head says is ok, we'll be ok.  America as the largest most powerful Christian Nation (now post) needed to get taken down quite a bit first before this whole thing will work.   The Christians will, I predict, go underground before too long.  We will have no choice.  The government (before too long) will be telling the churches to accept certain behaviors or they will lose their tax exempt status (the beginning).  This will separate the "chaff (closet atheists-my new word) from the "wheat." 

This will be basically the opposite of what the founding fathers were afraid of.  They were afraid of the government with too much power trying to impose a Federal Religion.  They did not want that.  Instead we will have  pseudo religions (run by seculars)  permitted by the Government and anyone like me "biblically literate" will be labeled as extreme and not politically correct. 

Like I said read Oliver North's latest article.  It's pretty scary but not unexpected.  This was not suppsed to get out to the public. 

Exactly...friggin' white Jesus. 

I believe the common ground can be found somewhere at the corner of respect for traditions, and the progression of society (i.e. the adopting of new traditions, culture, styles, etc.).

As society grows, so does it change. It's a typical thing in any society; Rome had this issue, Greece had this issue, every society has.What do you mean by of what founded America/got to this point? Would you mind including examples?

~A

No. To be Messianic you accept his claim to be the Messiah.

There are several Christian sects that don't believe that Jesus is G-d.

In Islam Jesus has a very special status. Islam also teaches the virgin birth (if I recall correctly, it's been a while that I read the Quran) and that he performed miracles. But Islam denies the cross thing.