Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

We need to know our history

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:00 am | Updated: 7:02 am, Wed Oct 27, 2010.

Just like India is a Hindu nation and Thailand is a Buddhist nation and Saudi Arabia is an Islamic nation and Japan is a Shinto nation and France is a humanist nation, the United States of America is a Christian nation. There is no comparison necessary.

Woodrow Wilson succinctly stated, "A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about." Revisionist history is a liar and a thief.

Before you cast your precious vote, do the study and count for something. By the way, did you read the News-Sentinel campaign contribution list for Assemblywoman Alyson Huber and Jack Sieglock? She received $3,900 from Planned Parenthood Advocates Mar Monte Candidates PAC.

As a Christian and pro-life advocate, I am compelled to vote for Jack Sieglock for the Assembly District 10 seat. He is not supported by the death industry.

Willam Van Amber Fields

Morada

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

11 comments:

  • Manuel Martinez posted at 1:55 pm on Fri, Oct 29, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    The points I brought out are indeed relevant to the conversation as the premise of the article is a revision of our perception regarding what kind of country this is. If Justice Hugo Black laid out the limitations the first amendment puts on religious influence on the part of the government to such an extent that any attempt to call this country a Christian country in an official way would be met with charges of unconstitutional conduct, then it behooves us to reason that we are not a Christian nation.

    There is a history of Christian belief in this country: including the great awakenings, the development of the Church of Latter Day Saints, and notable religious leaders influencing the public. Such criteria however does not establish that this nation is a Christian nation, especially when all such actions must be private in nature, and receive no monetary or voiced influence from the government. It is also worth reflecting on the prohibition of requiring individuals to pass a religious test or affirm an oath to a specific or general deity, encoded in Article VI Paragraph III of the constitution.

    Only you consider this information to be irrelevant; ignoring points to the contrary of your previously held stance while simultaneously refusing to establish how this country is a Christian one. If you feel your time is wasted, stop commenting.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:46 am on Fri, Oct 29, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel stated...It is not enough to infer that this nation is a Christian nation by citing a deistic clause; nor is it enough to assert that if the majority of founding fathers were Christian, that the nation they created need by Christian as well. The separation of Church and State allows each one of us to pursue a religion or the absence thereof without powerful influence from the government, and as such, it is indeed fallacious to argue that this secular nation sought to be called a Christian one.

    You wasted everyone’s time in your long dissertation in making points not relevant to the article… very interesting… but not on point. You again and again talk about church/ state issues which is not important to the article. You split hairs and behave like Bill Clinton in his famous response… “it depends what is is.”.

    This is fruitless to discuss this with you as you wish to attempt to win an argument instead of knowing truth. I will accept that you think it is not enough to infer that this nation is a Christian nation by citing a deistic clause; nor is it enough to assert that if the majority of founding fathers were Christian, that the nation they created need by Christian as well… but I also will accept there are no facts that could be presented to you that would satisfy your argument… none that would fit your perception of reality.
    I am also very pleased that you disagree and oppose as it confirms that my thinking is correct.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 10:11 am on Fri, Oct 29, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Ladies and gentlemen, you have just witnessed Darrell's methods at work. Ignore the response, take one line, and twist it to suit your own needs. A tried and true mechanism for avoiding arguments while maintaining one's position.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:51 am on Fri, Oct 29, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel Martinez posted at 8:56 pm How one concludes that these comments are irrelevant to addressing the claim that this is a Christian nation, is beyond me...

    I agree with Manuel 100%... it is beyond him to understand

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 8:56 pm on Thu, Oct 28, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    How one concludes that these comments are irrelevant to addressing the claim that this is a Christian nation, is beyond me. The separation of church and state is an implied clause resulting from the text that you cited: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". It was Justice Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education which made this clear: "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State."

    I have no problem referencing the Declaration of Independence. In fact, I rather like the appeal to state an opposition of tyranny and unchallenged government, whereby redress and representation is prohibited under pain of death or worse, much like a heavenly Theocracy. Note however, that the statements invoking a creator make no attempt to specify which creator. To call a God 'Nature's God' is to embrace the concept that a creator made that which we follow in the wake(nature); a deistic concept. A distinction between Deism and Theism is necessary: Deism is the idea that a creator designed the universe and set it's laws in motion, and engaged in an indefinite retirement. Theism invokes a personal God that intervenes consistently in the affairs of his creation. Noted Deists or individuals influenced by deistic concepts of the time were Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.

    It is not enough to infer that this nation is a Christian nation by citing a deistic clause; nor is it enough to assert that if the majority of founding fathers were Christian, that the nation they created need by Christian as well. The separation of Church and State allows each one of us to pursue a religion or the absence thereof without powerful influence from the government, and as such, it is indeed fallacious to argue that this secular nation sought to be called a Christian one.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:24 pm on Thu, Oct 28, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel, Thank you for confirming that you were attempting to confuse the issue and intent that the article made. State church, church, or practice of religion is irrelevant to the article. Your foundation to establish that the authors argument is fallacious is completely without merit . Now you are the one revising history. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about a "wall of separation" between church and state, either directly or indirectly. In addition, The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
    The the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

    Most of the founders were Christian… God is abundant in many original writings. I am not Christian or religious myself, but I would be disingenuous if I stated USA foundation was not created mainly by Christians.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 11:14 am on Thu, Oct 28, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    I sought to bring up the absence of an official church as an implication that we are not a Christian nation. A well known issue of history was the opposition to the state church of England, and it's attempts to persecute rival sects. When the constitution makes no mention of God, when it prohibits the use of a religious test as a means of qualifying for a position of representation or administration(Article IV section 3), when it establishes a wall of separation between church and state, it then becomes fallacious to argue that this is indeed a Christian nation. The United States is a secular nation, and rightfully so.

    If the premise of the article is to reestablish an idealized view of history on the part of the author, than my comments and the comments of Ms. Bobin are therefore relevant as a means to counter the premise.

    There was an article by Susan Jacoby in my post Darrell...

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:15 am on Thu, Oct 28, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Joanne Bobin posted...but he does not have the right to foist those beliefs on his neighbors...

    Ms Bobin is commenting on Martinez, whose comments had nothing to do with the article, in turn, her comments have nothing to do with the article as well....interesting...
    Mr Fields simply made a comment about how our country was founded, by whom it was founded, and that the founders were overwhelmingly Christian. Maybe it would be informative if Ms Bobin and Mr Martinez could site all the non Christian people's names that participated in the founding of our country, it would help to understand what they are talking about.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:06 am on Thu, Oct 28, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Manuel Martinez posted...opens his blog with...I would argue that it is you, that seeks to revise history...
    then follows with...The United States has no official church...

    Since the article has nothing to do with church... or church and state..., it appears that Mr. Martinez is attempting to confuse and change the intent of the article. Maybe Mr. Martinez could articulate more clearly and clarify just how Mr. Fields is seeking to revise history... I wonder which report, study, or book he will site as supporting his argument.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 5:05 pm on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Good comments, Mr. Martinez. Mr. Fields is certainly welcome to have his beliefs, the right to which is given under the First Amendment, but he does not have the right to foist those beliefs on his neighbors.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 11:52 am on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    I would argue that it is you, that seeks to revise history. The United States has no official church(unlike a handful of European countries), and relies on a mandate to be religiously neutral in the course of it's duties in accordance with the 1st amendment. The separation of church and state serves a reciprocal purpose; protecting each individual or faith from zealous persecution by federal edict under the control of a particular sect or branch of faith, while simultaneously prohibiting federal(and state through the 14th Amendment) government from abridging the free exercise of faith that harms no one.


    http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/10/the_constitution_is_not_a_graven_idol.html#more

     

Recent Comments

Posted 11 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: California extends review of $25 billio…

Rather see something like this (or several of them) go in in the southern parts of California. A series of wave generators/solar/wind woul…

More...

Posted 11 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Friend’s car was wrongfully tow…

Well that strange in two ways. Mr Ed talk with mr Schmidt about Arizona and no problem with the mr Ed until now with topic of poor child a…

More...

Posted 12 hours ago by Sarah Elizabeth Tygert.

article: Letter: Surprised by water bill

Mr. schmidt hit the nail on the head. It's called a drought. It would seem "god" is not providing water and we must use man-made …

More...

Posted 14 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: La Raza does support illegal im…

Kevin: I'm sorry, but from you're point of reference, it may be a while before another republican is elected president. I see no worthy c…

More...

Posted 14 hours ago by Eric Barrow.

article: Letter: We should reconsider using firi…

I'm a little concerned about anybody that is not opposed to war, I imagine even the Military would rather not have to go to war.

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists