Gettin' real sick of the Tea Party. . Said New Founding Father Ever. Quite the opposite was said actually. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." J Gettin' real sick of the Tea Party Said New Founding Father Ever Quite opposite was said actually "As Government United States America is not in any sense founded on Christian religion " J
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (202)
[ 202 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
120 comments displayed.
#7 - anon
Reply 0
(07/12/2013) [-]
Before this stupid ******* goes on too long i would like you all to look up records and letters written by early presidents. The point of separating church and state was to make sure the religious problems plaguing Europe wouldn't come here. Also many time for the first hundred or so years or america the congress building regularly hosted christian sermons and government fund were provided to send missionaries to the indian tribes. George Washington himself sent a large number of letters to the Pope and contacted him on a regular basis for theological concerns. In all honesty the idea of secularism that we understand today did not even exist at this time as there was no real counterargument to creationism. Hell, the basis of the declaration of independence was the concept of being endowed by OUR CREATOR with unalienable rights. The entire basis of this argument is flawed because secularists think that their understanding of secularism is the same as today.
#21 to #7 - osimonmagus
Reply -5
(07/13/2013) [-]
The Founding Fathers were all self proclaimed deists or atheists. Many of them were also Masons, where even though the United States hyper-christian nonsense has plagued the lodges with the Christian God, are actually believes in the Grand Architect of the Universe. Not saying you cannot be a Mason and believe in the Christian God, but prior to the creation of the United States, Masons were very rarely subscribed to any specific religion and were in-fact deists. Sorry, but Bible thumpers are wrong. In God We Trust was not added to money till the 50's and Under God was not in the Pledge until the late 40's This is right around the time where ******* crazy buffet style Christians made their rise and all of a sudden the United States was a Christian nation. Now you have idiots like Glenn Beck and Hannity preaching to the mentally retarded and actually making people of both major parties (Rep. and Dem.) believe that the United States should be governed by Christian law which is as damn near as ridiculous as Sharia Law. Now, class dismissed. You have been schooled enough for one day.
#49 to #21 - I Am Monkey
Reply +3
(07/13/2013) [-]
No founding fathers were "self proclaimed atheists". If you want to speculate, have a field day, but none of them are "self proclaimed". They were all either Deists or Christians. Just off the top of my head; John Jay and John Adams were both Christians, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were both Deists. None of them were Atheists.
#11 to #7 - anon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
The entire basis of this argument is flawed because Christians think that their understanding of Christianiy is the same as today.
#8 to #7 - teranin [OP] ONLINE
Reply +30
(07/12/2013) [-]
Deist is not christian. Our nation is not, nor was ever claimed to be, a christian nation, it is a nation wherein the founders wanted people to be able to rationally choose their own beliefs. George Washington is one of very few founding fathers who never explicitly described what his religious beliefs were, and he could very well have been Christian, but the founding documents of this nation were written by a group of men who were dramatically and predominantly Deist

Every phrase and circumstance are marked with the barbarous hand of superstitious torture, and forced into meanings it was impossible they could have. The head of every chapter, and the top of every page, are blazoned with the names of Christ and the Church, that the unwary reader might suck in the error before he began to read. ~Thomas Paine
#15 to #8 - oedad
Reply -6
(07/13/2013) [-]
Well the Founding fathers were predominately slave owners so i guess that's cool right?
#19 to #15 - osimonmagus
Reply +1
(07/13/2013) [-]
Every culture has had slaves. Just because the United States was the last country that actually means something to the world to have slaves doesn't mean they are any worse than the others.
If you are going to hate on the United States for slavery then you are simply being a bigot for ignoring every single other race and country who has had slaves and singling out one nation and one people.
#22 - xXCorpitoXx
Reply -25
(07/13/2013) [-]
"In God We Trust"
#23 to #22 - dcj
Reply +25
(07/13/2013) [-]
That wasn't added to our money until the 1950s, when we were trying to distinguish ourselves from the more secular Soviets.
That wasn't added to our money until the 1950s, when we were trying to distinguish ourselves from the more secular Soviets.
#28 to #23 - anon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Not true, they had it before that, I have a penny from 1917 that says In God We Trust. Still his argument is stupid.
#39 to #28 - jinapayne
Reply +3
(07/13/2013) [-]
"In God we trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto of E pluribus unum, adopted when the Great Seal of the United States was created and adopted in 1782.[1][2]
"In God we trust" first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864[3] and has appeared on paper currency since 1957.[4] Some secularists object to its use.[5]

--Wikipedia
#6 - Hightower
Reply +18
(07/12/2013) [-]
Quite the opposite was said actually.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." John Adams - Treaty of Tripoli, Article XI 1796
#2 - SkoalKing
Reply -2
(07/12/2013) [-]
I think their freedom of religion meant any denomination of christianity because at the time the whole catholic versus COE in England thing
#26 to #2 - YllekNayr
Reply +1
(07/13/2013) [-]
"Freedom of religion means freedom of these particular religions we're ok with"

Yeah, that's not freedom of religion.
#3 to #2 - teranin [OP] ONLINE
Reply +14
(07/12/2013) [-]
The majority of the founding fathers were Deists, which is to say they did not subscribe to any religion but did believe there was a higher power.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
#4 to #3 - SkoalKing
Reply 0
(07/12/2013) [-]
Sorry I'm Canadian
#5 to #4 - teranin [OP] ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/12/2013) [-]
No need to apologize, you were simply saying what you thought was the case and I took that as a request for some more definitive information.  Oh wait, what am I saying, you're Canadian.
No need to apologize, you were simply saying what you thought was the case and I took that as a request for some more definitive information. Oh wait, what am I saying, you're Canadian.
#9 to #5 - whynotzoidberglol ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Dude, I see you everywhere. You're quite knowledgeable. Or you just know how to get around Wikipedia.
#27 - manwithmanynames
Reply -7
(07/13/2013) [-]
America was founded upon the idea of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So will people stop bashing us Christians for believing our religion.
#166 to #27 - anon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
People bash Christians for being so stupid as to believe in their religion..
#188 to #166 - manwithmanynames
Reply 0
(07/14/2013) [-]
Please don't call me or my belief stupid, for neither of us are.
#56 to #27 - angelusprimus
Reply +1
(07/13/2013) [-]
Hey, I'm absolutely fine with freedom of religion.
you should have absolute right to believe whatever the **** you want.
But once your people are trying to pass laws that limit my rights based on YOUR interpretation of religion, then **** you, that's not freedom of religion.
#33 to #27 - citruslord
Reply +2
(07/13/2013) [-]
It was also founded on the belief of separation of church and state. It's not bashing any religion here.
#40 to #33 - I Am Monkey
Reply +3
(07/13/2013) [-]
Separation of Church and State was intended to prevent religion from dictating government and government interfering with religion. In it's current form it is a blatant overreach of it's original intent. i.e; Banning students from mentioning "Christmas", attempting to remove historically significant "9/11 Cross" from the WTC memorial.
#59 to #40 - angelusprimus
Reply +2
(07/13/2013) [-]
christian conservatives passing laws against abortion and gay marriage, based on their religious beliefs. Also, laws against alcohol, laws against
That's what I call overreach.
#63 to #59 - I Am Monkey
Reply +2
(07/13/2013) [-]
Yea, overreach by them, but two wrongs don't make a right.
#96 to #63 - angelusprimus
Reply +1
(07/13/2013) [-]
I'm not saying it does.
I'm saying that right now there is more push of evangelical christians to... well inflict their own set of beliefs on the rest of us by making them into laws, then there is goverment overreach to push christianty out.
#41 to #40 - lunascape
Reply -4
(07/13/2013) [-]
Thanks George Washington! glad you were there too tell else exactly what you guys ment
#64 to #41 - I Am Monkey
Reply +3
(07/13/2013) [-]
They were pretty explicit. The First Amendment guarantees that there be "No establishment" of a state religion or doctrine. The same damn amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It's insanity that they could apply that to censoring people from using religious speech.
#116 to #64 - citruslord
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Yeah, People in general seem to pick and choose to support their point. Either way, Laws that take rights away from people based on religious beliefs are unconstitutional. Just the same is it unconstitutional to punish people for their beliefs. As for the wtc memorial thing, I could see arguments both ways. I have no qualms with religious things as long as they don't hurt others. (Butthurt doesn't count)
#121 to #116 - anon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
The 9/11 Cross is arguably the most famous artifact from the WTC, it clearly belongs in the museum. It's not like it's being chosen just because it's a religious symbol.
#124 to #121 - citruslord
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I can see that, it's definitely a significant monument, and even though I'm not christian, I have no problems with it being there. However, based on the rule in question, it is a religious symbol on government property, which is a bit iffy. Also, there are people out there who get easily butthurt over things, and if it was a muslim/jewish/pagan symbol, I doubt it would be treated the same way.
#48 to #27 - theseustheminotaur
Reply +3
(07/13/2013) [-]
Let congress pass no law respecting an establishment of religion
#31 to #27 - magmon
Reply +13
(07/13/2013) [-]
Freedom from law based upon any specific religious codex. Christians catch **** for their judgement of others and attempting to pass law from their bible in modern culture.
#35 to #31 - manwithmanynames
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Not all Christians judge people immediately off of one aspect, I know a lot more tolerant Christians than judgmental ones. We do have our views however such as homosexuality being immoral, and abortion being murder, but I know more Christians that overlook these traits and actions than judge upon them. This is because we know that everybody sins... if a few choose to judge don't say all Christians judge. As for bringing religion into law, we do do this I'll admit but usually we make it the broader subjects (with exceptions, of course).
#36 to #35 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
But your people pass public judgement and feel self righteous in doing so. That is not okay socially or morally by any means. They, as an establishment, do these things I have listed unto the public and our nation, and that is the thing that our nation was founded to be against.
#37 to #36 - manwithmanynames
Reply +2
(07/13/2013) [-]
Not all Christians do this, fewer do this than don't. Your basing your whole view of Christianity upon the few Christian groups that do. We don't go marching down the streets calling out everybody for their sins, we do not go about publicly judging others as wicked or evil. Those "Christian" groups that do (such as WBB and others alike) are looked down upon, even by the mass Christian followers. We do not go strutting around with our chests puffed out thinking boy, I'm glad I made these people feel bad. The Christian faith as a whole doesn't do this, minor pockets that have strayed a bit do.
#38 to #37 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
The government does this based on their Christian faith. Laws are being written based upon a religion, and we are designed and formed to be against that. And if you have ever heard a judgement of a group or act in church, then you have spoken against people who themselves are human beings. That is feeling superiour. Condemning anyone for who they are is damning in itself. More Christians are self righteous dick heads than are sensible and intelligent about their judgements and beliefs. Not to say that Atheists are the nicest people in the world, but at least they don't tell a man he is burning for eternity for the simple fact that he prefers men. At least they don't tell a woman she is burning for eternity for aborting her rape baby/baby she cannot support/baby whose birth could kill her. She should not be subjected to judgement because you have NO IDEA what is going on with her. gays should not be judged because they WERE BORN gay, and no higher power would create men for hell fodder. Your religion is judgmental and offensive to society who does not agree with them.
#42 to #38 - manwithmanynames
Reply +1
(07/13/2013) [-]
The government doesn't have a Christian faith. And once again you are basing upon the single groups rather than the whole. Christianity is not about judgement, and the mass followers know that. We do not pass judgement upon one being gay or having had an abortion. We ARE understanding about circumstances. If the baby will cost the mother her life and a C-Section won't help, we understand. Rape on the other hand, that would be punishing for the sins of the father, put the child up for adoption, let them have a chance at living life. I know many, MANY Christians who has defended homosexuals against the slurs directed at them from others. We do not judge, not Christians as a whole, people that are Christians will judge, just as people who are atheist, Buddhist, Calvinists, and all other possibilities will judge. The people who do yell and preach hell and brimstone upon those who are homosexual are usually of a small group, such as West Borough Baptist, and the Christian mass looks down on them, though they call themselves Christian. As for passing judgement, are you not passing judgement upon the Christian mass for the actions of the minority?
#44 to #42 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Saying that Buddhists will judge is the ultimate representation of your ignorance. You are wrong, and I hope you will research why and into what you believe and what others believe before you judge the majority based upon the beliefs that your small group may share.
#45 to #44 - manwithmanynames
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I'm not saying Buddhists judge, I'm saying there are people who identify themselves as Buddhists who will judge. Everybody does judge another at some point, I'm not saying Buddhists judge because they don't as a whole. I'm not saying atheists judge, because as a whole they don't. Same with every religion, belief, and political view.
#46 to #45 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
You are mistaking practitioners of a religion with believers. Just because someone tells you they are of a religious following does not mean that they are. You, for example, know very little in terms of actual Christian faith or general knowledge with which to back up your arguments. All you say is "People can be different and stuff" without identifying the problems with such a following and the problems that are farther reaching. You can not say that people don't judge because they as a group do not when their doctrines in themselves judge more often than men with the title of Justice, and you cannot tell me that Buddhists are judgmental when their entire doctrines and teachings are to love and accept people and to better the world as best they can for the benefit of all living things. I am only trying to help you to see and to learn. The world is not always so you have been told, and I only wish for each person to develop their own experience and knowledge through self dedication.
#61 to #46 - manwithmanynames
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Look, I am not mistaking practitioners for believers. I'm simply saying that everybody does judge, even Buddhists. But that doesn't mean the whole religion is based on judgment. And I have identified the specifics with backings.
Also I'm saying they do judge, everybody does. But the Christian faith isn't about judgment, just as Buddhism, atheism, etc. is not about judgment. The Christian faith is about forgiving, accepting, and overall believing. I never said that Buddhists are judgmental, I don't know where you keep getting that I did. I know they aren't, but there are followers who have judged (VERY few, yes) others. For everybody does judge at some point. As for wishing all to develop through there own experience, I have. I do not simply follow the herd, I--of my own choice--believe in the Christian faith. I do not see the as something I have been told. I see the world as through my own experiences. I don't think the world is easy and rainbows, as I've been told. I don't see the world as ruthless and stormy, as I have been told. I see the world through my eyes, and I believe it the way I have seen it to be.

And I know plenty, certainly more than "very little" of actual Christian faith. You seem to think the Christian faith is based upon nothing but judgment and a unforgiving word. That is why I believe you know less of the Christian faith than you perceive you know. Christianity is about knowing that all sin, that all do wrong, that Jesus died upon the cross for us, so that God will forgive us. Therefore we believe in forgiving each other for past wrongs and accepting everybody for who they are. If there are those who view it differently, then so be it... just do not say that all Christians are judgmental, and that I know little of my religion. for I know plenty, including why I believe it.
#70 to #61 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
If that is the case, then I am glad for you, but you are still evading the purpose of what I am trying to say to you. Why do people judge? Who would make a judgment about gays without being told that they are bad? No child that I have ever met, for sure. Children receive their ideals from their elders, and children raised in Buddhism will be much, much different than those raised in Christianity.

I am not attacking the religion. I am attacking its current corruption. I am not saying that Christians are bad. That is the same prejudice as racism.
#76 to #70 - manwithmanynames
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Because it is in our nature to judge, just as it is to sin.
at some point people make a judgment upon whether they think something is right or wrong, some will think it is right, some wrong, some will think that I don't care. But judgment will always be passed by everybody and it doesn't require an influence for the judgment to hit anyone of the slots or make a new slot unthought-of yet.
#79 to #76 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
You continue to speak of things that are unrelated to my point. I am afraid that I cannot express it any more clearly.
#87 to #79 - manwithmanynames
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
How have I missed your point? You asked me why people judged, I answered. It's in our nature. You asked, "who would make a judgment..." and I answered everybody. Not everybody gets their ideas and beliefs from their elders, there are those who think for themselves, and there shall hopefully always be.
#92 to #87 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I stated that children do not judge, and I specifically referenced Nature vs Nurture in reference to the development of such responses. We will likely have to agree that we disagree.
#105 to #92 - manwithmanynames
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
If that is how you feel we should leave it, fine.
Please know I have answered your questions, only to have you say I have not. You have insulted me by stating I was not knowledgeable in my belief, when I have shown that I do have. I agree that we shall leave it as agree to disagree.
#108 to #105 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I meant no insult, I was forming an opinion based upon the information provided, and that is unfair indeed. I presented my questions more in a rhetorical theme in which to establish an idea than to be answered, and rhetoric must be one thing that does not translate well into text.

You have a good night, and live your life the best way you know how. I don't care what you believe, so long as you live without regret or oppression.

I wish such a perfect living to you, and ask your forgiveness for any unintentional offense.
#111 to #108 - manwithmanynames
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I forgive you for that unintentional offense, and if I have caused any in return, please forgive me.
#112 to #111 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I just like to see those whom, even when an understanding is not reached, can concede the debate like gentlemen. Thank you for that. I respect your maturity.
#114 to #112 - manwithmanynames
0
(07/13/2013) [-]
thank you and I respect you for yours
#43 to #42 - manwithmanynames
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
WE are about forgiveness and acceptance.
#50 to #36 - rocksteady
Reply -1
(07/13/2013) [-]
"But your people"

I can find any group be it Atheist, Jewish, Buddhist, ect. That has done horrid, awful, and inhuman things, then I can just say: But your people blah blah blah.
#52 to #50 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Explain to me the horrors of the peace loving, humanitarian Buddhists. Their disagreement with the harm of any animal to the point of nursing them through age and death instead of mercy killing them. Their acceptance of all men and women who wish to learn to change themselves for the better. I am sure you're right about that one.
#78 to #52 - teamrocketninja
Reply +1
(07/13/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

uh... here. There's extremists in every group.

Not jumping into your argument, just heard something on the radio the other day and was reminded by your comment.
#80 to #78 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I understand that, but if you'll continue on or even read the earlier arguments, I am trying very valiantly to express the effects on current society. Not sure where it all went awry.
#90 to #80 - teamrocketninja
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I think I get the gist of your starting argument, but honestly, whats it really matter if someone who cant do anything to you judges you? Judge them back.
I think I get the gist of your starting argument, but honestly, whats it really matter if someone who cant do anything to you judges you? Judge them back.
#93 to #90 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I am just stating that certain groups tend towards judgment more so than others, and when groups have a larger population, it can become oppressive in legislature and environment for those judged.
#98 to #93 - teamrocketninja
Reply -1
(07/13/2013) [-]
Oh, I certainly agree. But I dont really see Christianity as being worse than any other religious or other social grouping. I dont really have a problem with any group as long as they arent murdering people. It seems pretty benign.
#104 to #98 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I see it as more of a problem here because of the massive popularity of it, especially among those who write laws into effect. The fact that banning gay marriage is even a thought is a testament to how malign the misinformed Christian can be. I am not trying to attack the religion, honestly. I am just saying that people taking two thousand year old doctrine out of context and relevance and writing it into law whilst simultaneously oppressing small groups is just not okay.
#150 to #104 - KazumaKyu
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I am all over the first part of this in particular. I have nothing against Christianity in and of itself, I just see it as a threat to my continued ability to live in a country that is not unduly influenced by the views and beliefs of a theocracy I do not subscribe to.

I don't want the bible or anyone who lives and breathes its teachings to be anywhere near the legislative process. If a politician can't separate their duty as an American with their feelings/beliefs as a Christian (or any other religion, really, Christianity is just the biggest offender at the moment), they have no business being a politician.
#153 to #150 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Oh yeah. I don't want people's personal beliefs to become law because they follow a codec that taught them some moral or rule based solely in that codec.
#125 to #80 - rocksteady
Reply -1
(07/13/2013) [-]
It went awry when you asked me to explain to you the horrors of the peace loving, humanitarian Buddhists, and when I did you had a mental brake down, refused to acknowledge it.
#128 to #125 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
The problem to this very second is your refusal to acknowledge that your information is irrelevant to current times, which was the topic and still is. I could say to you that your ancestors were a form of ape as an insult, and it would be equally relevant.
#129 to #128 - rocksteady
Reply -1
(07/13/2013) [-]
Buddhists in East Asia have committed these acts in current times.

The problem is this: It went awry when you asked me to explain to you the horrors of the peace loving, humanitarian Buddhists, and when I did you had a mental brake down, refused to acknowledge it.

#130 to #129 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
That detail would have been relevant if used sooner. Shame you literally shot down the only part of the argument that did not at all matter.
#132 to #130 - rocksteady
Reply -1
(07/13/2013) [-]
If you look back at comment #50 you will see it is the only part that mattered making it the most relevant.

I get it, you can't admit you are wrong. A lot of people can't, being stubborn is a common flaw, and you will fight to the ends of the Earth to not admit something.
#138 to #132 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
If you look at the rest of the conversation, you'll see that you are being a hypocritical and unobservant child.
#140 to #138 - rocksteady
Reply -1
(07/13/2013) [-]
I am not, you are just saying that to make yourself feel better.

I am sorry this is so hard for you, look at it as a chance to grow.
#142 to #140 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
State whatever it is that allows you to sleep in satisfaction.
#144 to #142 - rocksteady
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
The Irrefutability of nonsense-arguments and implications

When someone losses an argument, but can not admit it they use this ^

magmon, you are a strong case. Throw out an off-topic implication such as how someone sleeps at night, or their grammar to avoid that they were wrong.

#154 to #144 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
You actually started both of those, I was just staying on your topic. So what does that mean for you?
#156 to #154 - rocksteady
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I did not start that conversation. I have to tell you to look at comment #50 for a second time, it was a reply to a conversation you started back on comment #27.

So what that means for me is that you are wrong and can't admit it.
#157 to #156 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
You know, it's like talking to an ignorant rock.
#158 to #157 - rocksteady
0
(07/13/2013) [-]
It is amazing that you have been proven wrong so clearly, yet you lack the ability to admit it.
#58 to #52 - rocksteady
Reply -2
(07/13/2013) [-]
I will explain it to you.

Buddhists in East Asia slaughtered, tortured and condemned others for not being Buddhist.

Explain to me the horrors of the peace loving, humanitarian Christians. Their disagreement with harm of humans to the point of making it a Commandment that we don't kill our neighbor, harm our neighbor, or even desire what our neighbor has; more over, that we love them.

Get the picture?

Take it from a guy who just finished a level 3000 Sociology class in medical school, if there's one thing I learned it was that every single group in history has said one thing and done the opposite at one point or another.

I can get my books out and we can talk about this all night, they are literally 3 feet away from me in my book bag.

So don't start arguments with "But your people"
#65 to #58 - manwithmanynames
Reply +1
(07/13/2013) [-]
Thanks rocksteady for helping me out.
#69 to #65 - rocksteady
Reply -2
(07/13/2013) [-]
No problem, its people like magmon who ruin this world. If you read his reply you can tell he doesn't even have the brains to get my point.
#71 to #69 - manwithmanynames
Reply +1
(07/13/2013) [-]
I have, and I agree. He hasn't grasped your point, just as I think he missed mine.
#73 to #69 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I hope that one day rocksteady will read and respond to the conversation at hand. I hope that his superiourity will be overcome, and that he may evolve past this yearning to be recognized.
#82 to #73 - rocksteady
Reply -2
(07/13/2013) [-]
I have responded, proved you wrong and embarrassed you.
#85 to #82 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
You have only embarrassed yourself with your need to prove yourself right. Shame. If you'd like to continue babbling and pretending like a child, I will not stop you, but you are certainly no scholar.
#91 to #85 - rocksteady
Reply -2
(07/13/2013) [-]
>Says shame if you like to continue babbling
> Is babbling while proben wrong.

You have been proven wrong you are very embarrassed. I am sorry you were so wrong about Buddhist history, and that you are to stupid to understand posts.
#62 to #58 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Not only are you wrong, but you are hilariously wrong.

How about we discuss the Crusades? Or, maybe Catholics aren't "Christian enough" for you. We can talk about the Inquisition.

Or, we could talk about social effects upon modern society. That Dalai Lama sure has a horrible effect on the world, just like the Westboro baptists or our corrupt government which world polices based upon the principles it draws from a two thousand year old doctrine despite the initial founder's ideas of freedom and separation from policing their own nation with the beliefs of any single religion.

Take another class, please.
#68 to #62 - rocksteady
Reply -2
(07/13/2013) [-]
Sad, you are to stupid to understand.

My point was that Christians say to do this:

"Explain to me the horrors of the peace loving, humanitarian Christians. Their disagreement with harm of humans to the point of making it a Commandment that we don't kill our neighbor, harm our neighbor, or even desire what our neighbor has; more over, that we love them. "

Then commit the Crusades

Buddhists have done the same, along with every other organization, faction or religion known to man. Saying "That Dalai Lama" has no bearing on my previous comment, you can take any passive religious leader, "That Pope Benedict XVI"

I fear you are to stupid to get this though.
#72 to #68 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I love all of your attempted insults with such a horrid lack of grammar. You have taken no such class, it is apparent, because of your obvious lack of even medium level schooling.

It seems you miss the point beyond all points: The current effects, as was my main point and has been in every argument. Please, try harder.
#75 to #72 - rocksteady
Reply -2
(07/13/2013) [-]
Society by John J. Macionis

We will cover the chapter on Religion and Culture if you wish

You miss placed a comma while trying to say I have bad grammar by the way.

#77 to #75 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Actually, you lack the observation of British English. You spelled misplaced wrong.
#81 to #77 - rocksteady
Reply -2
(07/13/2013) [-]
You have taken no such class, it is apparent, because of your obvious lack of even medium level schooling.

you have to write it "such class; it is apparent, because of your"

You put a comma where a semicolon has to go. It is a common mistake.
#83 to #81 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
It is not a mistake. I can refer you to Gary Paulson, who frequents this style of punctuation. His editor sure doesn't think the commas are misplaced.
#84 to #83 - rocksteady
Reply -2
(07/13/2013) [-]
You should just admit that your grammar is wrong, and you are making stuff up.

You are embarrassing yourself badly
#89 to #84 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I refer you to Gary Paulson, who frequents this style of punctuation.
I'd like if you'd look before attempting to seem anything but uninformed.
#94 to #89 - rocksteady
Reply -2
(07/13/2013) [-]
Well I understand that you are embarrassed, and know you are wrong and I am right. I also understand you should have used a semicolon instead of a comma. It's going to be ok magmon. Even though I know your stubbornness does not allow you to admit you are wrong now, you will use it correctly from here on out.
#97 to #94 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Yes, internet preteen, you must be right. I am also positive you have taken advanced classes in both literature and religious history. Use of belligerence in the stead of argument makes you right in all occasions, as you attempt to frustrate people into simply giving you the instant gratification you can afford no time to achieve in actual value.

You must be right.
#109 to #97 - manwithmanynames
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I believe that the argument should stop, for you are both using bluster now.
#119 to #109 - rocksteady
Reply -1
(07/13/2013) [-]
Yeah, whats your question

p.s. Conversations with this many attachments stop letting you reply at certain points, so I may have to answer it under different boxes, but your notifications should shoot you to it.
#122 to #119 - manwithmanynames
0
(07/13/2013) [-]
How can I apply to add someone as a friend?
#117 to #109 - rocksteady
Reply -1
(07/13/2013) [-]
Sorry, that was an auto-comment set to this convo. I have it when I notice people are not reading the entire posts.

That guy would just skim it and then rant, I could tell because he needed to read the same thing a few times to have different responses on it as a whole.

#118 to #117 - manwithmanynames
0
(07/13/2013) [-]
If that is what you believe, then fine. Can I ask a question?
#99 to #97 - rocksteady
Reply -2
(07/13/2013) [-]
Well I understand that you are embarrassed, and know you are wrong and I am right. I also understand you should have used a semicolon instead of a comma. It's going to be ok magmon. Even though I know your stubbornness does not allow you to admit you are wrong now, you will use it correctly from here on out.
#115 to #99 - manwithmanynames
Reply +1
(07/13/2013) [-]
Rocksteady, I ask you to drop it please. You have used some bluster yourself in this argument, to be fair.
#126 to #99 - manwithmanynames
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Thank you, I'll send one to you. Im somewhat new btw (longtime viewer, recent account)
#120 to #99 - manwithmanynames
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
How can I apply to add someone as a friend?
#123 to #120 - rocksteady
-1
(07/13/2013) [-]
You go to their profile page, I think there are options like add friend, or send Instant Message.
#110 to #99 - magmon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
I am disappointed more than anything else at this moment. I hope you can mature and make something of your life and your relationships from this point forward. Good night.
#113 to #110 - rocksteady
-2
(07/13/2013) [-]
Well I understand that you are embarrassed, and know you are wrong and I am right. I also understand you should have used a semicolon instead of a comma. It's going to be ok magmon. Even though I know your stubbornness does not allow you to admit you are wrong now, you will use it correctly from here on out.

So you were wrong about Religion, and you embarrassed yourself a little about grammar. You will get over it.
#133 - arrisarrad
Reply -5
(07/13/2013) [-]
Except, you know...a lot of them. Just not the ones anybody puts on money.
#139 to #133 - KazumaKyu
Reply +5
(07/13/2013) [-]
Except, you know... literally not a single goddamn one.

Since, you know... they drafted and signed a document stating the exact opposite of that nonsense.
#145 to #139 - arrisarrad
Reply -4
(07/13/2013) [-]
Only a few were involved on the drafting and as for signing, the document said and failed to say several things that were part of the common cultural opinion. For example, "All men a created equal." Nice bit of grammatical trickery by Jefferson, but it was interpreted to mean "All property owning, white, western European descended, protestants." It was the same with them not raising stink over religion. It was just expected, so it would have been superfluous. So the large majority of representatives who signed it (founding fathers) cooperated with the more secularly minded fellows like Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin. In fact, there were a few who wanted to put religious stuff in there, but the others were like, "Nah, that's too much, we already know everyone's gonna go with us on the God thing anyway, so let the weinies have this and we'll argue over slavery and other things. Choose your battles, Bro."
#159 to #145 - KazumaKyu
Reply +2
(07/13/2013) [-]
And yet we then look to the Treaty of Tripoli, wherein it is literally stated:

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

No matter what you think about the circumstances behind the signing of the various documents that define our country, that line up there is as bald-faced literal as you can get.

"Dudes, seriously, I thought we hammered this out in the first document. Not Christians, guys. I know how much that disappoints some of you dudes, but tough titties. Fo' srs this time."
#12 - vonspyder
Reply +5
(07/13/2013) [-]
Its **** like "Our laws are christian laws, we are a christian nation herpaderp" that drove me to leave the republican party and join the libertarian party. Both mainstream ideologies in the end are ******* nuts.
#18 to #12 - anon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Libertarianism- more useless than the two parties that are ruining everything.
#137 to #12 - anon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Anybody that identifies with a single political party at this point is ********* retarded
#167 - stimpiltan
Reply +4
(07/13/2013) [-]
tl;dr the whole entire comment section
tl;dr the whole entire comment section
#102 - bobbysnobby
Reply +4
(07/13/2013) [-]
What is America's True Form of Government?
The American government also is not a Democracy. Clarkson is ready for your rage.
#135 to #102 - anon
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
All people have to do is say the pledge of allegiance and they'd figure that out.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands; one Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." 1924-1954 Version

"one Nation under God" Was not originally in there but was added in 1954 (the 4th time the pledge was changed). The pledge was formally adopted by Congress in 1942 (was written in 1892).

Just a couple random tidbits to add to yours.
#136 to #102 - MikedelScorcho
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
That only surprises really young Americans, cause it's easier to explain than the concept of a constitutional republic. By 9th grade or so, most all of us know
That only surprises really young Americans, cause it's easier to explain than the concept of a constitutional republic. By 9th grade or so, most all of us know
#66 - angelusprimus
Reply +4
(07/13/2013) [-]
Actually Founding Fathers stated outright that USA is NOT founded any sense on Christian religion.
Read up on the treaty of Tripoli.
The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington DJ 4DM1Nistration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams DJ 4DM1Nistration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty.