Feb 2, 2010 -- 10:22PM, Housecall wrote:

This country was started by a christian colony  and even after the signing of the constitution. the proof is in history.

There is nothing in the Constitution about Christianity. If this were meant to be a nation based on Christianity, it would be in there. It isn't. Ergo, we aren't.

It show that who were living at that time, have to be a christian or a heathen.

I don't even know what you are trying to say with that sentence. Care to elucidate?

I don't think that they would elect a government that doesn't believe in Christ.

Governments aren't individuals; they therefore don't have beliefs. They are made up of individuals, and we DO elect non-Christians to government offices. There are Jews, Muslims and atheists who have been elected to Congress, just for example. And it says right in our Constitution that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any  office or public trust under the United States. (Article VI, section 3)

It would of been a wild witch hunt if they did.

Again, I have no idea what you mean by that.

And I stated that this country was based on Christianity.

And you're wrong.

and when a person that want to be a citizen. Should know that this country speaks English

I doubt anyone moving to the United States is unaware that Americans mostly speak English.

and a God fearing country.

What are you trying to say? That no one should move here or live here unless they "fear" a deity? The Founding Fathers, and the laws they made, differ with you.

If I'm staying at a friend house. I'll respect their rules and lifestyle. I wouldn't even think about telling them that they're going to have to change their ways.

Now what the heck are you on about?

If I didn't like their ways, I'll use my feet that God have given me and get up and walk away.

"Scuse me, but I was born in the U.S., of American citizens who were also born in the U.S. I'm as American as (I assume) you are, but I'm not a Christian. Are you seriously trying to tell me that I should leave because of my religion? If so, then allow me to introduce you to another American tradition: the use of the phrase "Them's fightin' words."

Also, Housecall, if you look into the laws of this country - and again I direct you to the Constitution, which is the premiere governing document of the United States, overriding ALL other laws in the country - there is NO stipulation that oaths of office or in court or anywhere else must be sworn on a Bible. There is no stipulation that oaths must be sworn on anything involving religion at all. If someone who is being sworn into office or into court wants to use a Bible, they may, but if they want to use some other religious book, that is also okay under American law. It's also okay under American law for them to use no religious book whatsoever, and even for them to affirm rather than to swear an oath, if oathtaking is against theirbeliefs. Oh - and do you know which religion is well-known in America for affirming rather than oathtaking because they hold oathtaking to be in violation of their beliefs? Quakers. The Quakers are Christian. And Quakers will not swear on a Bible.

Religion is never mentioned in the Constitution, except to say that Congress shall make no law regarding religion, either to promote or to restrict it, and that there shall be no religious test or requirement for holding office. This speaks volumes regarding the desire of the Founders to never entangle religion with government and secular law. They were well aware that mixing religion and government can lead to persecution, and wanted to avoid that at all costs. Their goal was to guarantee the freedom of every American or guest on American soil to practice his or her religion according to the dictates of his or her conscience in accordance with his or her perception of the Divine. The Founders knew that the ONLY way to do this was to set up an entirely secular government that left religion up to individuals.

Housecall, I and the rest of the participants here are talking about the United States and the Founding Fathers thereof. Who, exactly, are you talking about with your thems and theys and such?

Also, we are speaking of whether or not the Constitution of the United States unites or separates church and state. You, on the other hand, do not appear to be discussing this at all, but rather, trying to preach sermons. This is not the place to preach sermons.

We appear to be having very different discussions. Only one of them is actually germane to the topic of this thread.

Feb 3, 2010 -- 2:26PM, Housecall wrote:

Only reason people wanted the scriptures out of their lives is because they don't want to feel threaten while they partying , whoremongers and etc...  The Mythical text teaches how to pleasure yourself all day and night. And even their Gods are fornicating among each other. Even Zeus had a thing for one of the male God. Maybe if we allowed the church back into states affairs, then Clinton wouldn't  had committed adultery with them interns. We all needs a supreme guidance. So, we need God to govern our country or else we will become like the city of Sodom.

The lack of knowledge of the world's religions expressed here is frightening. Obviously it shows a lack of knowledge of things like the Qur'an and Sharia Law if the poster believes that all Islam cares about is "partying, whoremongers, and etc." Which mythical texts are we talking about here? the Jewish Tanakh? the Muslim Qur'an? the Bahá'í Alkitab Alaqdas? the Sikh Guru Granth Sahib? the Shangdi Five Classics? All are monotheistic religions, so I doubt their one God is fornicating with gods that don't exist. Yeah, we could let the the church back into states affairs. That would keep Christians such as Mark Sanford, John Ensign, John Edwards, Chip Pickering, Ted Haggard, and Jimmy Swaggart from committing adultery. Oh, wait, you mean they did commit adultery? Whoops, my mistake. Maybe the church should first solve the problem with their own affairs, then they could worry about the states.