Obama says: We are no longer a Christian Nation, at least not JUST!

[JimFromTN]

"Of the fifty-six signatories of the Declaration of Independence, only nine can definitely be identified as Freemasons, while ten others may possibly have been. Of the general officers in the Continental Army, there were so far as documentation can establish, thirty-three Freemasons out of seventy-four. Granted the known Freemasons were, as a rule, more prominent, more instrumental in shaping the course of events than their unaffiliated colleagues...
"On 11 June, (the Continental) Congress appointed a committee to draft a declaration of independence. Of the five men on this committee, two - Franklin and...Robert Livingston - were Freemasons, and one, Robert Sherman, is believed, though not confirmed, to have been. The other two, Thomas Jefferson(known Diest) and John Adams - were not, despite subsequent claims to the contrary. The text of the declaration was composed by Jefferson. It was submitted to Congress and accepted on 4 July 1776. The nine signatories who can now be established as proven Freemasons, and the ten who were possibly so, included such influential figures as Washington, Franklin and, of course, the president of the Congress, John Hancock. The army, moreover, remained almost entirely in Freemasonic hands...As we shall see, it is in the Constitution that the influence of Freemasonry is most discernible...

"At last, on 25 May 1787, the Constitutional Convention opened in Philadelphia and commenced its efforts to devise the machinery of government for the new nation. The first voice to make itself heard in any significantly influential way was a characteristically Freemasonic one, that of Edmund Randolph.. Randolph...a member of a Williamsburg lodge, had become Washington's aide-de-camp. Subsequently he was to become Attorney-General, then governor of Virginia and Grand Master of Virginia's Grand Lodge. During Washington's presidency, he was to serve as the first Attorney-General of the United States, then the first Secretary of State.

"...There were ultimately five dominant and guiding spirits behind the Constitution - Washington, Franklin, Randolph, Jefferson and John Adams. Of these, the first three were active Freemasons, but men who took their Freemasonry extremely seriously - men who subscribed fervently to its ideals, whose entire orientation had been shaped and conditioned by it. And Adam's position, though he himself is not known to have been a Freemason was virtually identical to theirs. When he became president, moreover, he appointed a prominent Freemason, John Marshall, as first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."

[SHOOTALL]

so whats your point ?

[JimFromTN]

The point being that our nation was not founded on Christian beliefs but rather those of freemasons and diests and therfore the United States is not just a Christian nation.

[SHOOTALL]

have you ever attended a lodge meeting ?

[JimFromTN]

Whats your point?

[Cabin4]

"When the Virginia bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

So our founding fathers did consider inserting Jesus into the preamble. They decided not to insert Jesus, but it does not erase the fact that they were Christians, that came together to form a nation based on Christian foundational principals of inclusion.

[SHOOTALL]

my point is to understand your post . if you have attended it would seem they are mis informed  if you have not then it is just lack of experince on the subject . just my opinion mind you as the cermonies and meetings i attended were nothing as you decribe . Nor was God omited .

[JimFromTN]

"When the Virginia bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

So our founding fathers did consider inserting Jesus into the preamble. They decided not to insert Jesus, but it does not erase the fact that they were Christians, that came together to form a nation based on Christian foundational principals of inclusion.

To me, it sounds like they did not want The United States to be just a Christian nation, hence "The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."

[Cabin4]

"When the Virginia bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

So our founding fathers did consider inserting Jesus into the preamble. They decided not to insert Jesus, but it does not erase the fact that they were Christians, that came together to form a nation based on Christian foundational principals of inclusion.

To me, it sounds like they did not want The United States to be just a Christian nation, hence "The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."

I don't think anyone is arguing that point. They did try to make it inclusive, not Christian centric because the basis of Christianity is suppose to be inclusive not exclusive and they wanted the country to be based on this Christian pricipal. The point is, the fact that they made it inclusive is a fact that they were "Christians" and they based it on Christian principals. If they would have inserted Jesus, by default it would have been exclusive and thus not a Christian pricipal.

[SHOOTALL]

In public school in the great commonwealth of Va. back when history was important and not twisted as much as today . It was taught that it was the intent that no one religion gain control of govt. like existed in the land they had broken away from . Not to water down the relationship between God and man.

[JimFromTN]

my point is to understand your post . if you have attended it would seem they are mis informed  if you have not then it is just lack of experince on the subject . just my opinion mind you as the cermonies and meetings i attended were nothing as you decribe . Nor was God omited .

I never said God was omitted, I said Jesus was omitted.   Although many here feel there is no difference because of their religious beliefs, there is a difference.  If Jesus is part of the freemason doctrine, then I think it may alienate the Jewish and Muslim freemasons which would make me wonder why they joined in the first place.  I got my information from books and articles written by Freemasons.

[JimFromTN]

"When the Virginia bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

So our founding fathers did consider inserting Jesus into the preamble. They decided not to insert Jesus, but it does not erase the fact that they were Christians, that came together to form a nation based on Christian foundational principals of inclusion.

To me, it sounds like they did not want The United States to be just a Christian nation, hence "The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."

I don't think anyone is arguing that point. They did try to make it inclusive, not Christian centric because the basis of Christianity is suppose to be inclusive not exclusive and they wanted the country to be based on this Christian pricipal. The point is, the fact that they made it inclusive is a fact that they were "Christians" and they based it on Christian principals. If they would have inserted the Jesus, by default it would have been exclusive and thus not a Christian pricipal.

In other words, Obama was right when he said we were not just a Christian nation which has been my point all along.

[SHOOTALL]

nope

[JimFromTN]

In public school in the great commonwealth of Va. back when history was important and not twisted as much as today . It was taught that it was the intent that no one religion gain control of govt. like existed in the land they had broken away from . Not to water down the relationship between God and man.

Exactly.  Thats what the freemasons were all about.  The only issue is that some people here seem to think that relationship between God and man has to be a christian based relationship which was never specified and never intended as written by Thomas Jefferson.  We are not just a christian nation.

[SHOOTALL]

are you some kind of spin doctor ?
We are/were a christian nation that allows all others to worship as they wish .

[Cabin4]

"When the Virginia bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

So our founding fathers did consider inserting Jesus into the preamble. They decided not to insert Jesus, but it does not erase the fact that they were Christians, that came together to form a nation based on Christian foundational principals of inclusion.

To me, it sounds like they did not want The United States to be just a Christian nation, hence "The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."

I don't think anyone is arguing that point. They did try to make it inclusive, not Christian centric because the basis of Christianity is suppose to be inclusive not exclusive and they wanted the country to be based on this Christian pricipal. The point is, the fact that they made it inclusive is a fact that they were "Christians" and they based it on Christian principals. If they would have inserted the Jesus, by default it would have been exclusive and thus not a Christian pricipal.

In other words, Obama was right when he said we were not just a Christian nation which has been my point all along.

No, you’re not getting the point. Obama's proclamation and context is far deeper then the simple surface fact that we allow and have always made is easy for people to live here of other religions or non-religions for that matter. This has ALWAYS been the case, so you must then ask yourself why did he make this proclomnation if in fact we are designed as an inclusive country?   He said "we are no longer a Christian Nation". This implies that we are changing something in our foundational principals. If this is not what he meant, then his proclamation is false because we have never been an exclusive nation when it came to religion. So, Obama is either a constitutional idiot, and he knows NOTHING about our formation or he meant something else....Well  guess what?? Obama is a schooled constitutional lawyer. So he know damn well that we are an inclusive nation based on the Christian principal of inclusion. His point with this statement is to try and create the shroud that our foundational principals are going to change. It sets the stage for his other sweeping "Changes we can believe in". He first must shatter our history to create a new order or foundation as he sees fit.

To the obamanation, the constitution and our founding principles are obstacles. He must find a way to divert people’s attention away from these two aspects. To say we are no longer a Christian Nation, is a means to ignore or rewrite history, discard the principals espoused by our founding fathers. This is something that works for his ends. Our history and our founding principles are obama and the liberal socialist worst enemy.

[teamnelson]

The concept of a natural law is the common bond between Christians, Deists, Jews, Masons and even Muslims. As a Christian that makes sense to me; God is the author of general revelation, so in as much as you do not need to be a Christian to observe gravity, neither must you be one to observe the sanctity of human life. It does not bother me to state that we have never been a Christian nation. One thing our "founders" all recognized was a law greater than themselves, a natural law that is not defined by the people, but if not intentionally protected, may become victim to mob rule. Its clear in the documents themselves that they believed these things to be "self-evident" and not to be "infringed."

What has changed in our nation is that we have left our Democratic ideal which was anchored by natural law, and replaced it with mob rule in which there is no law greater than ourselves (social darwinism), or whatever a simple majority can agree on. In so doing we have lost the very thing which protected our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Obama is proof of the danger of mob rule, even an intellectual mob or an enlightened mob will descend into brutality when they do not submit to natural law.

[JimFromTN]

"When the Virginia bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

So our founding fathers did consider inserting Jesus into the preamble. They decided not to insert Jesus, but it does not erase the fact that they were Christians, that came together to form a nation based on Christian foundational principals of inclusion.

To me, it sounds like they did not want The United States to be just a Christian nation, hence "The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."

I don't think anyone is arguing that point. They did try to make it inclusive, not Christian centric because the basis of Christianity is suppose to be inclusive not exclusive and they wanted the country to be based on this Christian pricipal. The point is, the fact that they made it inclusive is a fact that they were "Christians" and they based it on Christian principals. If they would have inserted the Jesus, by default it would have been exclusive and thus not a Christian pricipal.

In other words, Obama was right when he said we were not just a Christian nation which has been my point all along.

No, you’re not getting the point. Obama's proclamation and context is far deeper then the simple surface fact that we allow and have always made is easy for people to live here of other religions or non-religions for that matter. This has ALWAYS been the case, so you must then ask yourself why did he make this proclomnation if in fact we are designed as an inclusive country?   He said "we are no longer a Christian Nation". This implies that we are changing something in our foundational principals. If this is not what he meant, then his proclamation is false because we have never been an exclusive nation when it came to religion. So, Obama is either a constitutional idiot, and he knows NOTHING about our formation or he meant something else....Well  guess what?? Obama is a schooled constitutional lawyer. So he know damn well that we are an inclusive nation based on the Christian principal of inclusion. His point with this statement is to try and create the shroud that our foundational principals are going to change. It sets the stage for his other sweeping "Changes we can believe in". He first must shatter our history to create a new order or foundation as he sees fit.

To the obamanation, the constitution and our founding principles are obstacles. He must find a way to divert people’s attention away from these two aspects. To say we are no longer a Christian Nation, is a means to ignore or rewrite history, discard the principals espoused by our founding fathers. This is something that works for his ends. Our history and our founding principles are obama and the liberal socialist worst enemy.

Actually, he said "we are no longer just a Christian Nation.  There is a big difference.  He was wrong because we have never been just a Christian nation.  It was never the intent of the founding fathers to be just a Christian nation.  You can't say that we protect the rights of all americans to practice whatever religion they want but we are just a Christian nation.  It does not make sense.  Its kind of alienating, don't you think?  Thats not to say that there have not been influences in this country to make it seem like just a Christian nation because there has been a christian majority and not everyone truly believes in freedom of religion.  Obama is trying to get us away from that and back to where the founding fathers had intended.

[SHOOTALL]

guess his wife can be proud of America once again also ?

[JimFromTN]

The concept of a natural law is the common bond between Christians, Deists, Jews, Masons and even Muslims. As a Christian that makes sense to me; God is the author of general revelation, so in as much as you do not need to be a Christian to observe gravity, neither must you be one to observe the sanctity of human life. It does not bother me to state that we have never been a Christian nation. One thing our "founders" all recognized was a law greater than themselves, a natural law that is not defined by the people, but if not intentionally protected, may become victim to mob rule. Its clear in the documents themselves that they believed these things to be "self-evident" and not to be "infringed."

What has changed in our nation is that we have left our Democratic ideal which was anchored by natural law, and replaced it with mob rule in which there is no law greater than ourselves (social darwinism), or whatever a simple majority can agree on. In so doing we have lost the very thing which protected our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Obama is proof of the danger of mob rule, even an intellectual mob or an enlightened mob will descend into brutality when they do not submit to natural law.

I agree with you totally except for the fact that Obama is no more proof of mob rule than George W Bush or any othe president for that matter.  Its just a different mob in charge and those who aren't in it sure do complain allot,  even about the silliest things.  I know I sure did allot of complaining about the last mob in charge.

[teamnelson]

Obama is trying to get us away from that and back to where the founding fathers had intended.

Uh, no ... if that were the case then religious identity would not have been the context of his statement. Where he's taking us is away from plurality and towared ecumenism, where the significance of diversity is diluted. Under the founding fathers, Maryland could be a Catholic state. Obama would not stand for that. He is far more politicizing religion in his statement than the founders would have agreed to by their own words.

And I never said Obama was the first and only example. It started in the 19th century; he is to my mind far more flagrant in his abuse of power than some others have been, but he's not alone.

[SHOOTALL]

Abe , Grant , T.R. , F.D.R. Johnson , Carter , Clinton ---- he is in "good" company

[JimFromTN]

Lets not forget Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Bush.

[JimFromTN]

Obama is trying to get us away from that and back to where the founding fathers had intended.

Uh, no ... if that were the case then religious identity would not have been the context of his statement. Where he's taking us is away from plurality and towared ecumenism, where the significance of diversity is diluted. Under the founding fathers, Maryland could be a Catholic state. Obama would not stand for that. He is far more politicizing religion in his statement than the founders would have agreed to by their own words.

And I never said Obama was the first and only example. It started in the 19th century; he is to my mind far more flagrant in his abuse of power than some others have been, but he's not alone.

You must have been sleeping the last 8 years.  Maryland can no more be a Catholic state than Alabama can be a white state.

[lakota]

I would agree with his statement. Judging by the last three hacks that have been elevated to president by this electorate I would say that stupidity is the primary religion of the country now

[SHOOTALL]

jimfromtn, I didn't forget , just don't think the fit the profile !

[teamnelson]

Throwing up red herrings like Bush or Racism, or engaging in ad hominum attacks (accusing your opponents of sleeping), are earmarks of someone possessed of more passion than reason. If you truly want to defend Obama and his statement, which is the topic of this thread, trying listening, asking good questions, and addressing the concerns of the other side.

Maryland was Catholic, just as Virginia was Anglican, and Utah was Mormon. The fact that they are not today is indicative of the state determining for itself what was best; a concept supported by the founding fathers. There is no federal legislation requiring states be ecumenical yet. The only thing close are the anti-religion requirements placed on federal funds. If Illinois and Michigan decided to become Muslim, that is still their right under current legislation. In fact, when Sharia law is introduced into effect you will see exactly how much freedom our states really have.

[powderman]

Some of this I've read here is utter horsecrap. There were no budhists, hindus, muslims, or any other Godless cult that landed at Plymouth rock. Call em what you want but America was founded by CHRISTIANS and based our laws on Christian principles, not sharia law or promises of sacred cows. Osama obama went to a church for over 20 years that preached hatred of white America and openly supported Africa over the United States of America. He believes in killing babies as birth control, and that homosexuality is just another lifestyle that we should all embrace. He's right, we are not a Christian nation anymore, and he's certainly no Christian himself. POWDERMAN. 

[mirage1988]

WE ARE SO SCREWED!

[teamnelson]

There were no budhists, hindus, muslims, or any other Godless cult that landed at Plymouth rock. Call em what you want but America was founded by CHRISTIANS and based our laws on Christian principles, not sharia law or promises of sacred cows.

What powderman adds is an historical truth. The Puritans arrived in 1620, fleeing religious persecution in England. The original colonies formed from the Puritans. Later, Catholics came, also fleeing persecution from the Anglican church, and settled Maryland. Then the Anglicans showed up and took the Virginia area. They actually fought each other over the issue of religious freedom - Virginia wanted everyone to convert to the C of E. There was a Puritan Army stood up to protect from the influx of non-Puritan colonists. While there may have been a Jew or two, there was no evidence of any Muslim (Mohammedan at the time), Buddhist or Hindhu presence in the colonies except for perhaps on the merchant vessels. Anyone who was born and raised in the colonies, as all of the founders were, was absolutely aware of the situation, and learned at their parents knee the stories of the conflicts that eventually led to a stable sense of religious plurality. And the evidence is clear that it was because of their Christian faith that they recognized the need for protection from the establishment of a state religion, because they had all been abused by it under the crown.

The law sprang from their values, which sprang from their majority Christian beliefs, which sprang from their worldview which included the God of the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus Christ. The 18th and 19th centuries are marked with tremendous country-wide Christian revivals, awakenings, etc. The Bible was the book everyone had at least 1 of, and classroom instruction was based around it. We were a nation of Christians, I agree.

But I don't think we were ever a Christian nation, and I make the distinction intentionally because from day 1 we valued religious freedom; we cherished it because of the suffering that led the colonists here in the first place. As the population has become more religiously diverse, the laws that were intended to insure the we could practice Christianity are now protecting those who are opposed to Christianity. That's a necessary risk for our own protection.

Obama is not taking us back to the peaceful coexistence of religious plurality the founders codified. He is taking us down the path of religious unity, where those opposed to the mob will be deemed unintellectual, heretical, psychotic, and a threat to the good order and discipline of the state. It does not matter if he's not the first to do so - he is at the wheel NOW, and his foot is to the floorboard.