The debate "The founders wanted our country founded on Christian values desiring the country guided by God" was started by
September 16, 2015, 11:49 pm.
45 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 59 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
sloanstar1000 posted 1 argument, goldfox1987 posted 3 arguments, Alex posted 24 arguments to the agreers part.
sloanstar1000 posted 4 arguments, desght posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 13 arguments, Alex posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 12 arguments, pajrc1234 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
goldfox1987, brokuk20, kayla, Zeno, Ryan, Alex, josejose, Hitmenjr, Eechyobooty, stevenchen, opinionsvsfacts, dudemark, AstroSpace and 32 visitors agree.
steven_kh, sloanstar1000, PsychDave, wayneSPEC, desght, sidhant, historybuff, Skeetc15, Specimen, Sosocratese, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, gouthamabi, athinus, pajrc1234, Yuki_Amayane, rrdallas22, shawncola, drumman22, ailasorecarg, KyleLedford, nofear, leprechaundances, otakunime00, MisterScott, fuckthehatersss, deca808, shawnster, liamjosephcash, Aletin, Concerned_Liberal, Gman119 and 28 visitors disagree.
we're talking about Hitler, because you claimed that Hitler persecuted Christians which really isn't the case.
but you're right, that's not the subject. the founders clearly state in the Constitution that religion needs to be separate from government, America actually has the first secular constitution to ever exist.
What does Hitler have to do with the founding fathers?
How does the argument that the church had to tell the faithful to stop hating the Jews support the argument that the founding fathers wanted a Christian nation?
I thought the French did not like Hitler, they submitted, yes, but they were weak.
They did hate the jews until vadican II when the church made this document that states it not moral to hate or even dislike the jews, or Muslims.
Catholics had hated Jews for centuries. before Hitler came France was the most antisemitic. This was the accepted view. Catholic France was the most antisemitic country. that is religious hate. not racism.
Hitler made a religion called hate the jews, and forced people to join it, these people may have been Christians. but he never used Christains, or any other religion to kill the Jews.
I can believe that. ^
The jews are actually a race and religion. Never heard of the Hitler church, but he may have done it.
Hitler used hate for other religions/races. He did not say "Christians come with me"
He said "Jews die, and a few others"
Anti semitism is religious hate. Jews are not a race. they are a religion. Getting people to hate them based on their religion is religion.
Hitler tried to create the Protestant Reich Church. That sounds like a way if controlling people using religion to me.
Hitler did NOT use religious beliefs to influence people, he used RACISM.
What you seem to have forgotten is that the point was that religion can be used to manipulate and control people, as the founding fathers knew. The monarchy in England did so, leading to them wanting to make a division between religion and state. Hitler did use people's beliefs to manipulate them, and it has been done by many other leaders throughout history.
Rome is not very far from Germany. there are German bishops all over Germany. he knew all about the attacks on Jews. he made no public statements about it. neither did any German church officials. the current Pope has made more statements about wars half a world away than that Pope made about hate crimes across the border from him.
I said not that much, because ISIS is common knowledge
The Pope has spoken out against ISIS, as well as against equating Islam to violence.
What should he have said? According to you he knew the same amount of info as the US. Also it was a war, people were fighting Hitler. Today is the Pope speaking out a lot about the Christians being killed in the middle east? No, not much. What good would the Pope do if He spoke about something clear people knew about. Unless he had new info, Wich is unlikely
The Pope could have spoken out against it. Inability to fight it doesn't equate to inability to talk about it.
What could the Pope have done? It was a war. It may be the Pope did not do all he could to alert people, but he certainly did not aprove WWII.
The Pope certainly knew he was arresting them and throwing them in ghetos. Taking all of their property. he probably didn't know about the mass murder. but he knew enough that he should have spoken up. he tacitly approved by not resisting it.
If the Pope knew that Hitler was killing Jews in mass numbers he would have not kept it a secret. When the US, a powerful country who could stop Hitler found out, they reacted fast. When the Austrians found out it was to late to fight back, their country was gone. Australia willingly let Hitler come without too much resistance, they did not know Hitler was going to kill the Jews. if they know before, they would have done something.
Austrians not Australians.
The Australians did know. they knew even better after annexation because it happened there too. the Pope and the Catholic church didn't publicly talk about t
it to anyone. communication between countries was not difficult. they could have told anyone. they didn't.
People in Austria had no idea of the Jews, they thought "New leader, new country, same life" They did not know about the Jews.
When america knew of the deaths of the Jews they really started to fight. The Pope would never have supported Hitler because killing Jews is a matter of Morals and he is infallible. The Pope has no army, what was he supposed to do? Info was hard to get he could not travel during the war, how could what he said reach america?
Also,not everyone knew about the death camps. It was not limited to a few people, alot of people knew. but it wasn't exactly public knowledge. but everyone knew about the persecution of the jews. the ghettos were public knowledge. the arrests, the burning of their shops. everyone knew.
And with the annexation of Austria (which was highly Catholic) that number shot up. so during the war it would have been higher.
The question of the church's complicity is complicated. they knew about the persecution. the Pope himself knew. they took very little effort to do anything about it and never spoke publicly about it. Many church officials disapproved but they were mostly worried about the rights of Catholics.
I thought 98% sounded too high.
however did these Christians know Hitler was killing the jews and being super racist? No know one besides a few closest to Hitler know what he was going to do until half the jews were in the camps.
Do not tell me the Catholic Church, and Pope supported Hitler.
correction. Catholics made up approximately one third of nazi Germany's population prior to the annexation of other countries which changes the numbers a bit.
And it worked. He succeeded in controlling people based on their religious beliefs. Why would he use it as a method of controlling people and gaining their support if it didn't work? You seem to have lost sight of the fact that you were arguing against people being able to be manipulated by their religion.
Beyond that, lots of "good Christians" followed Hitler. Look up the Milgram experiment if you want more information on the reasons, but the basics is that otherwise good, normal people will do terrible things if someone with sufficient authority tells them to. The experiment was planned to show the opposite, thus refuting Nazis argument that they were "just following ordera" as a valid defense.
Considering 98% of Germany was Catholic, and Hitler has overwhelming support, including from a former Pope I might add. Your idea that "good" Catholics didn't support him is stupid.
Hitler didn't care about religion, he was extremely racist and may have said the stuff about Jesus to get supporters.
No he used hate for the Jews, and propaganda. No good Christians supported Hitler. Hitler was not an example of a good Christian doing as Jesus would.
just to clarify, The Nazis didn't persecute Christians in any significant way at all. 98% of Germans were Christian in 1939 according to the census. Jews, Romanian gypsies the mentally ill and the disabled were targeted.
Even if Hitler wasn't a Christian, despite him saying he was doing the work of Jesus, he used Christianity to manipulate the population.
Hitler was racist, he only wanted the people with the certain eye color/hair to live. After the jews were all dead, then he would have killed anyone else who did not match his perfect race.
Jews are also especially at that time a race of people along with a religion.
Hitler did persecute Christians, but not nearly as much as the jews. Hitler persecuted the jews mostly because in Germany jews were already hated and blamed for defeat in WW1.
If the Christians or any other religion was hated he would have killed them. If Hitler was Christian then he was the worst Christian in history.
It's actually very easy to get controlled by religion. It tells you how to live your life, and if you don't you are bad. There are wars today that are based off religion. Another follower means that they will keep going on.
We can actually confirm that religion causes violence by looking at the Holocaust. Many think Hitler was atheist, but think about why he did it. He caused genocide to people that were different. If he was atheist, a lot of deaths would have been Christian, along with other religions. Since we know that he hadn't been going for (specifically) them, we can conclude he was a Christian.
One could create a government that has Christian values, but also religious freedom. with religious freedom it is impossible for persecution. that is what we started with In America and what we are supposed to have today.
You're right. no government or laws works 100%. But secular government and laws work much better than religious ones which are prone to persecution.
Yes. they tried but no goverment is perfect and just. and nothing will work, and no form of government and laws has worked 100%.
And we have demonstrated that theocratic governments are a terrible idea. It is Sen throughout history and around the world today. Secular governments are less prone to persecution of groups based on beliefs. Racism is still a problem, but by removing religion from the law and government we get a more fair and just society. The Founding Fathers recognized this and tried to prevent church and state from mingling.
The church has done crusades. I am not saying they were right or wrong. I am saying today we are not killing people that disagree with us like some Islams are.
Islam grew out of Christianity the same way Christianity grew out of Judaism. Jewish people could just as easily claim that Jesus was a false prophet and that the Bible is not divinely inspired.
That aside, the Catholic Church HAS killed, and has encouraged killing throughout history. They did not distance themselves from terrorists in Ireland, they sponsored multiple crusades and they have for years attacked the human rights of groups they disagree with. If you want to argue that this is not so you will either need to present some evidence to support your claim or put your fingers in your ears and sing louder because history is against you.
we are of topic here. the point is the founding fathers created this country and it's laws to be under God and moral in the eyes of God. the laws have since changed and lost morality.
So your entire argument is that your faith is right and everyone else's is wrong because you said so?
" we do not kill like the Islams, or the gays"
The Catholic Church states its opinion an things today. We do not kill like the Islams, or gays. the Catholic faith is based on Jesus being the Son of God. Islams to not belive that so they are not close. Muhammed was taught by false bishops who had left the faith. the Islam Quran is not the bible, and is not inspired. the Torah is part of the bible so it is inspired.
I seem to know more than you about both Islam and Catholicism. The Catholic Church has sponsored multiple crusades (genocidal wars) as well as many other atrocities. While the current pope has been a moderating influence, the Catholic Church has been one of the strongest attackers of the rights of same sex rights, reproductive rights and has attacked the education system by insisting that religious dogma be taught in place of scientific evidence.
I don't feel like explaining the roots of Islam, but the very brief history is that the Torah and Bible are divinely inspired with all of the Jewish and Christian prophets being guided by God (they include Jesus in this list). They believe that there was another prophet, Mohammed, who was the final prophet. Up until him, they believed very much the same thing as Christianity, save that they regard Jesus as a prophet not the son of God. Islam is as closely related to Christianity as Christianity is to Judaism. Both believe that the older religion is right, but missing the most recent word of God, and therefore incomplete.
the Islamic book is not inspired and logical like the Catholic bible is. We do both believe in one God and in abraham. Some Muslims belive God wants them to kill catholics, and others. if there are any Christians who think it is morally right to kill they should be excommunicated. I have never met a Christian like that and doubt there are many. Also you must not know much about the Catholic faith and the Islamic beliefs because they are quite different.
You are aware that Islam is based on the same God and same religious texts. Islam is a judeo-christian religion.
Furthermore, there is not a great deal of distinction between the hate some Christian groups preach and that of Islamic extremists. Both preach that gay people are an abomination, and for the same reasons. Both are willing to resort to violence (firebombing abortion clinics and killing doctors, attacking gay people). It is a matter of degrees and one of legality. The Islamic extremists are more violent because no one is a position to stop them, the western Christian extremists would get, and have sometimes been arrested.
I do not in any way mean to imply that all Christians are like this. The vast majority are good people, just as the vast majority of Muslims are good people. But in both cases there are extremists who turn religions into to tools of hate and violence.
Finally, why do you feel that religion is the only source of morals? There are many wonderful people who are atheists and monsters who are religious. Religion is not the only source of morality, and as you are abdicating your judgement in favor of what someone else says God wants it is not necessarily the best source. If the religious leader is a good one, the congregation will tend to be moral. If the religious leader calls for jihad or crusades against the wicked, the congregation is likely to follow. Religion can be a powerful tool for good or bad, depending on who controls the message.
Personally I have no objections to religious politicians, nor do I mind atheist or agnostic leaders. As long as they are capable and good leaders, their personal beliefs are irrelevant.
each person in government needs to be grounded by God and the Bible, not in control of the church and the church not in control of government. without a moral compass we fall.
and we are not talking about the middle eastern nations, we are talking about this nation founded on judeo-Christian values and faith.
You both agree that having the nation run by religion was what the founding fathers wanted to avoid to prevent problems like those of England, but still maintain that faith should guide the nation. How is the belief in God related to being a capable, just leader? Islamic nations are guided by God, and I sincerely doubt you would suggest that this is better than a secular government.
What they ment by a separation of church and state ment that the government would not have an official religion for the country like England and Spain did. When the founding fathers created the country they tried to make it different from England. Have no kings, religious freedom ect.
I don't believe you understand what I mean by having the country guided by God. I am not saying that one should dominate the other. instead that the leaders of government nees to be servents of a higher power, be it God or buddah or allah. this understanding that we need a moral code buit upon something larger and more powerful than ourselves was and is necessary for a proper government and civilization.
James Madison - We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.
John Adams - Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.?
George Washington - It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible
You may want to brush up on your history before claiming to speak for the founding fathers.
Thomas Jefferson repeatedly talked about a wall of separation between church and state.
James Madison wrote that "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both." Considering he is described as the Father of the Constitution, that should carry quite a bit of weight.
The Founding Fathers were very firmly against having a mix of religion and government and wanted to prevent a national religion from ever being established because they were afraid it would damage the nation.
the writings of the founders clearly show a nees for a moral people. they all point to providence, the almighty, etc as the source of morals and the foundation of our laws and constitution. the separation of church and state was to protect both institutions from direct control by the other. but nowhere do you find the express desire to forbid one from the other.
Many of the founding fathers weren't even religious.
if you're going to disagree with me, by all means, explain why.
if you ignore that the US was the first country with a secular Constitution, sure