• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do Athiests have morals?

1robin

Christian/Baptist
So all these women in Africa are contracting HIV/AIDS from homosexuals?
That is irrelevant. Of course you can find a huge number of heterosexuals who have aids because there are a huge number of heterosexuals. The point I made was that homosexuals spread aids at a much greater rate for how many there are and they do not have any justification for the cost.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I don’t think these people exist. Someone doesn’t “change preference” as a result of conversion therapy. They are merely taught to suppress their true sexual orientation, to the detriment of their mental, emotional, and sometimes physical well-being.
That shows your bias. You don't want them to exist to you bury your head in the sand and pretend they don't. I know a couple within just the few gay people I know personally. I know of many through those who work in these ministries. Rats I did it again.



You should know that conversion therapy is bogus and scientifically unsupported. You and these ministries appear to operate under the false assumption that homosexuality is some kind of disorder that can be, or needs to be “cured.” Here’s what the APA has to say about it:

Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts



How do you know this?



I personally know who and what I am attracted to. I see no reason to assume other human beings do not know these things about themselves.



A little bit, but I don’t know all that much about it. What does it have to do with homosexuality?



I’m referring to what is commonly called “conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy” which I think is what you’re talking about when you reference your dealings with ministries.



You kind of sidestepped it several times.

How can you think sexual orientation is a choice for those who are homosexual, if you, as a heterosexual, had no choice in the matter?



I know a bunch of heterosexuals who have died young. So what?



Why shouldn’t they get to experience the same loving an fulfilling type of relationship that anyone else is apparently entitled to simply because your religion disagrees with their sexual orientation?

And I think it’s bear.



I’m guessing these acts you are referring to were non-consensual in nature?

What if I slightly alter my question like this:

Sure, in public we do. Behind closed doors nobody seems to care what consenting heterosexuals do. It’s apparently only when consenting[/] homosexuals get together behind closed doors that everybody starts getting all worked up.

No what?
Not doing the homosexual discussion thing.[/QUOTE]
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
That shows your bias. You don't want them to exist to you bury your head in the sand and pretend they don't. I know a couple within just the few gay people I know personally. I know of many through those who work in these ministries. Rats I did it again.
Not doing the homosexual discussion thing.
What I described is what conversion therapy actually is.

You're the one burying your biased head in the sand if you don't understand that.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
National Capital


Claim: E-mail describes religious symbols and references in U.S. capital buildings and the words of America's founders.
Status: Multiple — see below.


Origins: Although the intent of this piece is to demonstrate a government endorsement of Judeo-Christian tradition through the symbols and words used in U.S. federal buildings and the writings of America's founding fathers, much of the information it presents is inaccurate.

As you walk up the steps to the Capitol Building which houses the Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view — it is Moses and the Ten Commandments!

  • The United States Capitol does not house the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court has met in its own building since 1935.

  • The representations of Moses described above both present him in a context in which he is depicted as one of several historical exemplars of lawgivers, not as a religious figure. (This is why, for example, the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003 rejected appeals to overturn a decision ordering the removal of a monument to the Ten Commandments from an Alabama courthouse: they ruled that the monument did not present the Ten Commandments in a context other than as quotations of Biblical verse and was therefore deemed an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion.)

    The depiction referred to here is a sculpture entitled "Justice the Guardian of Liberty" by Hermon A. McNeil, which appears on the eastern pediment of the Supreme Court building. (The eastern pediment is the back of the Supreme Court building, so this sculpture is not something one would see "walking up the steps to the building which houses the Supreme Court." The front entrance is on the western side.) The sculpture was intended to be a symbolic representation of three of the Eastern civilizations from which our laws were derived, personified by the figures of three great lawgivers: Moses, Confucius, and Solon (surrounded by several allegorical figures representing a variety of legal themes):


    McNeil described the symbolism of his work thusly:

    Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The "Eastern Pediment" of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment.

    The two other lawgiver figures (Confucius and Solon) are not "facing [the] one in the middle" (i.e., Moses) as claimed above — all three of the lawgivers are depicted in full frontal views, facing forward. (The allegorical figures who flank the three lawgivers are indeed facing towards the middle, but they are looking in the direction of all three men, not just Moses.) The two tablets Moses holds in his arms are blank, without inscription.

    As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.
  • The doors of the Supreme Court courtroom don't literally have the "Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion." The lower portions of the two doors are engraved with a symbolic depiction, two tablets bearing the Roman numerals I through V and VI through X. As discussed in the next item, these symbols can represent something other than the Ten Commandments.

    1

    As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall right above where the Supreme Court judges sit a display of the Ten Commandments!
  • The wall "right above where the Supreme Court judges sit" is the east wall, on which is displayed a frieze designed by sculptor Adolph A. Weinman. The frieze features two male figures who represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of Government, flanked on the left side by a group of figures representing Wisdom, and on the right side by a group of figures representing Justice:


    In a letter on file in the archives of the Supreme Court, Adolph Weinman, the designer of this frieze, states that the tablet visible between the two central male figures, engraved with the Roman numerals I through X, represents not the Ten Commandments but the first "ten amendments to the Constitution known as the 'Bill of Rights.'"

    2

  • The friezes which adorn the north and south walls of the courtroom in the Supreme Court building (also designed by Adolph Weinman) depict a procession of 18 great lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south wall); Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon (north wall):



    According to the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court of the United States, these figures were selected as a representation of secular law:

    Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this, [architect Cass] Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law.

    Moses is not given any special emphasis in this depiction: his figure is not larger than the others, nor does it appear in a dominant position. Also, the writing on the tablet carried by Moses in this frieze includes portions of commandments 6 through 10 (in Hebrew), specifically chosen because they are not inherently religious. (Commandments 6 through 10 proscribe murder, adultery, theft, perjury, and covetousness.)

    James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all 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."
  • Actually, this statement appears nowhere in the writings or recorded utterances of James Madison and is completely contradictory to his character as a strong proponent of the separation of church and state.

    Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians ... not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".
  • Another spurious quotation. These words appear nowhere in the writings or recorded utterances of Patrick Henry.

    They attached to Henry via an April 1956 article that appeared in The Virginian (reprinted in September 1956 in The American Mercury) in which a snippet from his will was followed by comments penned by the article's author. Those comments included the "founded by Christians" statement now mistakenly attributed to Henry.

    Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher ... whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
  • Congress has indeed retained paid (Christian) chaplains since 1789 (not 1777) to open sessions with prayer and to provide spiritual guidance to members and their staffs upon request. That practice was strongly opposed by James Madison:

    "The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion," Madison wrote. "The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?"

    Continued Madison, "[If] it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense."

    Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.
  • The diverse beliefs and religiosity of America's founding fathers is a complex subject, one which cannot be so neatly encapsulated by an (inadequately substantiated) statement such as the one quoted above. (See, for example, this critique of the above-quoted statement and similar material.)

    Thomas Jefferson worried about that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law ... an oligarchy ... the rule of few over many ...
  • Yes, Thomas Jefferson was concerned about courts overstepping their authority and making (rather than interpreting) law, as was James Madison, who said: "As the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper."

    However, this issue really has nothing to do with the subject at hand (the endorsement of Judeo-Christian tradition by the federal government), other than in the tangential sense that some people feel one of the areas in which U.S. courts have overstepped their bounds is the body of decisions prohibiting the use or display of religious symbols and references in state-operated institutions.

    The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
  • John Jay, one of the framers of the Constitution, was appointed by George Washington in 1789 to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (and later served two terms as governor of New York). He wrote, in a private letter (1816) to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray:

    It certainly is very desirable that a pacific disposition should prevail among all nations. The most effectual way of producing it is by extending the prevalence and influence of the gospel. Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war.

    Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
snopes.com: Religious Symbols in the U.S. National Capital

It also includes some pictures of the parts of the building in question, but I can't seem to post those.
Hang on a second. This article seems to be a refutation of claims I did not make. Only one has anything in common with what I said. I will only comment on that one (the first). I have no idea why snopes said the supreme court building is not in the capitol building, no one mentioned the supreme court. This article really looks like who ever wrote really did not like the facts and did everything they could to minimize their impact. Anyway.

If you look over the podium in the US house of representatives you will see carved into marble the phrase in God we trust. Which God is obvious from the fact 95% of our founding fathers were Christians.

If you stood there looking at that phrase and spun around 180 degrees you will find Moses. His name written under his likeness. It does not say as snopes does that he is only pictured as a law giver. It just has his face and name.

Since snopes seem to only trying to mitigate the impact of claims I never made I guess anything goes so I will add a few pot shots below.

All of the eight large paintings in the Rotunda present aspects of our Christian history. A few include: The Landing of Columbus — Columbus said he was convinced to sail because “it was the Lord who put into my mind” and that “the Gospel must still be preached to so many lands.” The Baptism of Pocahontas — This shows the baptism of one of the first converts in the Virginia colony . The Virginia charter said they came to propagate the “Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God.” Departure of the Pilgrims from Holland — shows the Pilgrims observing a day of prayer and fasting. William Brewster is holding an open Bible upon which is written: “The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” “God With Us” is written on the ship’s sail.

Also in the Rotunda are carved reliefs including: Penn’s Treaty with the Indians — Penn called his colony “a holy experiment” and said of it that “my God that has given it to me . . . will, I believe, bless and make it the seed of a nation.” The Landing of the Pilgrims — “having undertaken for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith.”

In God We Trust, our national motto, is inscribed in letters of gold behind the Speaker’s rostrum in the House Chamber. Also in this chamber, above the central Gallery door, is a marble relief of Moses, the greatest of 23 noted law-givers (and the only one full-faced). In 1867 the House Chamber was the meeting place for the largest Church congregation in America. This was not unusual for Churches had been meeting in the Capitol from its beginning.

Statues of many early leaders are displayed throughout the Capitol. Most of these people were Christians (and many were ministers), including George Washington, James Garfield, Samuel Adams, Rev. Peter Muhlenberg, Rev. Roger Williams, Rev. Marcus Whitman, Daniel Webster, Lew Wallace, Rev. Jason Lee, John Winthrop, Rev. Jonathan Trumbull, Roger Sherman, and Francis Willard. Many plaques in the Capitol declare our faith as well, including: In God We Trust, placed above the Senate main door; “What hath God Wrought!” — the first message sent over the telegraph in 1844, found on the Samuel F.B. Morse Plaque outside old Supreme Court Chamber.

The Prayer Room contains an open Bible sitting on an altar in front of a stained window showing Washington in earnest prayer. Behind him is etched the first verse of Psalm 16, “Preserve me, O God, for in Thee do I put my trust.”
In God We Trust: America's Historic Sites Reveal her Christian Foundations | Providence Foundation

The Library of Congress

Within the Great Hall of the Jefferson Building are two climate controlled cases, one contains a Gutenberg Bible and the other a hand-copied Giant Bible of Mainz. The display of these two bibles is very appropriate because, in the words of President Andrew Jackson, “The Bible is the rock upon which our republic rests.” Many Biblical inscriptions can be found on the ceiling and walls including: “The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not”; and “Wisdom is the principal thing therefore get wisdom and withall thy getting, get understanding.”
In God We Trust: America's Historic Sites Reveal her Christian Foundations | Providence Foundation

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Religious Liberty Archive : Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Colorado Springs, CO


Apparently even I drastically underestimated the number of verses in the capitol and prominent Washington land marks but I could only find what they specifically were in two cases in the few minutes I had.

When the Capitol Building was built, its designers were well aware of the dependence of the members of Congress upon God and prayer. The 83rd Congress designated a small room in the Capitol, near the rotunda, that is always open for the private prayer and meditation of members of Congress. This room is open whenever Congress is in session, and stands as a witness to the need for prayer by our nation's leaders. The focal point of the room is an intricate stained glass window that depicts George Washington kneeling in prayer. Surrounding him are words from Psalm 16: "Preserve me, O God, for in Thee do I put my trust."

Inscription on a wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are a gift from God?"

The Washington Monument stands as a lofty and inspiring tribute to our first president, George Washington. It is the anchor on the west end of the National Mall. Few people know that engraved on the metal cap to the monument, towering 555 feet above the ground are the words, "Praise be to God." In addition, several tribute blocks line the staircase, and they are inscribed with Bible verses: "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for such is the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:16)," "Search the Scriptures (John 5:39; Acts 17:11)," and "Holiness unto the Lord (Exodus 28:36); 39:30; Zechariah 14:20)."
Our Nations Capitol

I rarely dismiss anything based on bias as my 10,000 posts will clearly show but that snopes thing you quoted is drenched in bias and barely even brushes against anything I actually claimed. I will also predict since our foundations in God are displayed all over Washington and constantly referenced in the founding fathers comments and can't be denied that you will also only try to diminish their impact instead of refuting their prolific existence.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Hunted around, and can only find reference to the following; Commandments 6-10 are shown on a carved tablet carried by Moses.
There are also carvings on the door of the Supreme Court showing a tablet with numbers I through X in Roman Numerals. Some see these as depicting the Commandments. However, this is repeated on a frieze within the court room, and the designer of that frieze (Adolph Weinman) claimed it represented NOT the commandments, but instead the Bill of Rights. So effectively, you're left with commandments 6-10 near as I can tell. Various sources, but Snopes was pretty handy on this.
I finally managed to take a look as well and found 8 Scriptures carved into the capitol, or other prominent Washington iconic buildings. I found "IN GOD WE TRUST" inscribed over the house of representatives and a carving of Moses in the same building plus the supreme court. My post above to skeptical thinker contains the details.

I will leave it here because I can't remember what the argument was. Were you denying that Christianity was a massive part of our foundation as a nation?



Understand your opinion, simply don't agree with it. There have been 'secular revolutions' before. Indeed, it would be quite possible to view the Enlightenment itself as a secular revolution, and this greatly informed the very foundation of your nation. Secular doesn't equate to atheism.
The enlightenment as a much or more a Christian movement. It is thought by some to have been secular because it was the casting of the church's yoke, but it wasn't because faith was not cast off. No doubt secularism had a large rill in it but Christianity had as much of more of a roll.


As for God not being in politics...well, I suspect we'll run into the problem of 'No True Scotsman'. When an open atheist is elected, that may have some credence. When senior government officials of the country can say things like this;

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

...and barely even raise an eyebrow, or potentially even WIN votes, it has none.
Its' funny you said this today as the whole morning all I heard on the radio was how the president was denigrating Christianity last night. I don't know who said that or when. The nation is still 80% Christian so your always going to find a few faith based quotes here and there but the avalanche of legislation, morality, legal theory, and public practice is heading the other way.

I see little evidence of that.
If you don't see the socialist/communist tendencies in Holder, Hillary, and Obama and the legions that have al but deified them I don't think I could convince you.



Too many issues to deal with there, so here's a quick pass comment on each. Happy to explore any in detail, but exploring all in detail would be derailing.

FAITH IN PARTY PLATFORMS - The 2012 Democrat one included the following;


CONGRESSIONAL CHAPLAINS
Sorry, I'm not across the details of this. To my knowledge, attempts to remove this as a violation of Church and State have been unsuccessfully going on since the 1850's. Despite that, Congress commences with a prayer. The Chaplain apparently doesn't have to be Christian (but invariably is) and when a guest chaplain spoke a Hindu prayer, they were howled down, not by secularists, not be atheists, but by Christians.
Congress no longer hires Chaplains but only uses volunteers from the local area and: The practice was challenged in federal court by American Atheists during the 1980s in the suit _Murray v. Buchanan_. First filed on June 13, 1980, as _Murray v. Morton,_ 505 F. Suppl. 144 (D.C. District Court, 1981), the final decision in the suit was in 1982 as _Murray v. Buchanan,_ 674 F.2d 14 (D.C. Cir. 1982). In its decision, the federal district court held that the matter was a political issue and was not ripe for adjudication by a federal court. The merits of the case were not reached.
Getting Rid Of The Congressional Chaplains

So there is no longer any official paid congressional chaplains and the entire idea of even allowing volunteers is being challenged in court these days. I think the trend I mention is fully justified.


MENTION OF CHRIST IN MILITARY PRAYERS
The very concept of mandatory prayer in the military is not a great place to dig in your flag, so to speak. There are a thousand examples of mandatory prayer, no matter what the official rules say. You'd have to be more specific in terms of what you see as a problem here, honestly.
I served 9 years in the military. I did not have one mandatory prayer ever given. Even as far back as the civil wars prayers were not mandatory in general. The case I am talking about is one in which a chaplain spoke on in a suicide prevention briefing. The issue was over a handout which on one side had the army/slash humanistic argument against suicide and on the other he had included the theological argument against it. Only one atheist out of all those present had a problem and through official channels I think it went all the way to the White house and the Chaplain was told: During mandatory training briefings, it is imperative you are careful to avoid any perception you are advocating one system of beliefs
Army Chaplain Punished for Mentioning Faith | FrontPage Magazine

His only mention of God was to explain how he overcame his own bought with suicidal thoughts.

MOMENTS OF SILENCE
Question for you. Why does the Christian prayer need to be spoken out loud? What is it about speaking it aloud that you see as important? It's not to do with your relationship with God.
I am not arguing here whether Christianity is true or not, but whether our society has changed since the secular revolution.

ABORTION - Meh, I'll leave this. It's not going to lead anywhere, simply do to our difference of opinion.
There is an old saying, the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing about it. I would add an ever worse factor. It is only necessary that men no longer call evil as evil. Chesterton once said "It is easy for man to agree on what is wrong, but we differ on which wrongs to excuse". We agree killing the innocent is wrong but some simply excuse it in the case of abortion.

DRUG ABUSE - It's a major problem. It's a societal problem, but unless you can see a correlation between religiousness and drug use that I can't, I don't see the point you're making.
I only know that the stats about drug use took a nose dive corresponding to the secular revolution.

SEXUAL VIOLENCE - C'mon now. Are you really going to argue that sexual violence is worse now, and that this is linked to secularism? This may fly if you completely ignore the claimed religious affiliations of perpetrators, and exclude things like spousal rape.
Actually that one might have been a force of habit. I had been talking to some folks about homosexuality and it's higher rates of sexual violence. Since the secular revolution homosexual behavior has been legitimized so I deduced sexual violence has increased but I did not verify it.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS - School violence is a major issue. No doubt.
Yes and it has existed for a long time but it got significantly worse in the late 50's and is even worse now. School shooting, gang activity, and violent events are much worse these days.

VIOLENCE AND SEX ON TV - Meh...I'm less worried by that than by linking it to any sort of impact, but I'll deal with that more in your point below;
Well forget the impact, TV is a great indicator of the publics taste. In the 50's we wanted to see Goober tell white lie and have his conscience bother him so bad he came clean in the same episode, now we want zombies eating each other brains.

Interesting. I don't see television as a particularly accurate representation of the world it lives in, honestly. Do you think Leave it to Beaver accurately represented society? Compare Stanley Fafara's life to his character...
TV programming may be the most accurate indicator of what the public wants and desires to see. I don't see how anyone could disagree.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Then I misread. My bad
No problem.

It doesn't matter if we were founded by Christians or not. I was just showing you how it feels from my persepctive. Having an actively religious government and leaders acting for religion would be the same for Christianity or Islam for me. Just as you would not be okay with Islam I am not okay with Christianity having that kind of power over my government. And while we are on the topic of the founding fathers it is clear that they wanted a secular nation. Many were deists and several more to use the term "not terribly religious".
This issue was not how you feel about this nations true heritage. It is about what that heritage is. I am probably going to go to Saudi Arabia in about a year or so for 9 months. I will disagree with their political foundations but I will not question their right to chose their own heritage and remain true to it.

Then it skews it. It seems that the higher rate of teen pregnancy is more to the fact that we are asking our youth to belay their bodily needs several years beyond the threshold that was kept in the past. Asking teenagers not to have sex is like asking a fish not to swim. The only thing that has any statistical data on how to reduce teen pregnancy is proper sexual education and access to birth control.
The only moral issue at hand is teen pregnancy outside of wedlock. The family unit is coming apart at the seems since secularism reared it's head. Your also assuming that the former early marriage days were the right timing, your also assuming that the right time in one period is the right time in all periods. You can rationalize teen pregnancy all you want but it is has a horrific effect on human well being. IOW secularism has increased human suffering in this respect.

Sexual violence is not a function of the secular movement. You may associate it with the secular movement but that would only pull us back into the homosexual debate which I think we have agreed would be a pointless battle.
I know for a fact at least in some respects it is. What I do not know is what percentage of the whole that accounts for.

I agree that this is a troubling problem. I just don't think that it has as much to do with secularization as you think.
The point was we could and have always had access to guns, and even had school shootings, what we did not have until the secular revolution in large quantities was these miserable atheists executing kids because of their faith and the volume of school violence that spiked in correlation with the secular movement. Things have never been perfect but things got much worse since secularism gained traction.

I am familiar with the surveys. Surveys are not good in terms of judging the past and present. There are many psychological and sociological phenomenon that can shift the personal view. The first is that there has been massive changes over the years and anyone who was old enough to know of the morality 30 years ago would feel as thought it has changed to an unhealthy degree. However that doesn't make their perspective correct. It simply means that it is different than the way it was. It doesn't have to be worse and it could even be better but their own subjective experiences and selective memories would have shifted the favor in an almost unbeatable way to the past. So for the elder folk they are unreliable as a measuring stick of the change in morality.
It would not be all that profound if that is all there was but (and there are many of them) these surveys added to all the other mountains of data create a case that can't be denied.

The second is this idea that life was so much better before. The grass is greener on the other side effect. There is very little data to suggest that life was better or in any way more moral in days gone by compared to now.
That is a whole other conversation. I am discussing whether moral have eroded coinciding with the secular revolution. As is life better that can be based on al kinds of arbitrary things like technology, finding natural resources, what other nations are doing or have stopped doing. That subject is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.

What we do have an argument for is that there is a difference in "traditional" moral views and the more modern moral views. This will always be apparent but more so in times of drastic change. For example the 60's and early 70's changed far more than what has changed now. We have the Civil Rights movement, new drug experimentation, new clothing, rise of feminism, anti-war propaganda, anti-American propaganda for the first time, draft dodgers, introduction to life information from television and radio from far far away, and finally the subsequent backlashes against all of these movements. But I wouldn't say that the 70's were less moral than the 40's. What was considered moral changed but I wouldn't say it was worse.
Our core moral principles remained almost static between our founding and the early 50's, while some of the applications and second tier issues would drift over that time the central themes not too much. For example the civil rights issue was founded on the documents hat were written when we became a nation not on secularism. I can add a lot of interesting detail about civil rights if you want but will not do so unless requested. However since the secular revolution morality has radically changed in almost every single way (I should point out I mean primarily in policy) and in almost every statistic for the worse.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
What I described is what conversion therapy actually is.

You're the one burying your biased head in the sand if you don't understand that.
How do you know what every ministry does? You can't know your right even if you were and I am not continuing this them any longer. Look I am trying to be nice and give you a comment so you don't think I am ignoring you but your leaving me no choice but to simply not answer these posts on this issue.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
This issue was not how you feel about this nations true heritage. It is about what that heritage is. I am probably going to go to Saudi Arabia in about a year or so for 9 months. I will disagree with their political foundations but I will not question their right to chose their own heritage and remain true to it.
Then we will agree to disagree on what it means to honor heritage.
The only moral issue at hand is teen pregnancy outside of wedlock. The family unit is coming apart at the seems since secularism reared it's head. Your also assuming that the former early marriage days were the right timing, your also assuming that the right time in one period is the right time in all periods. You can rationalize teen pregnancy all you want but it is has a horrific effect on human well being. IOW secularism has increased human suffering in this respect.
Actually secularism has had very very little to do with the fact that we have later marriages. This has far more to do with the public funding of the education system and the higher esteem placed on those that finnish high school as being more functional and capable adults. So now it is less desirable to get married at 16 and go into the unskilled labor force but rather wait till after you are 18 or even 19 to get married and get your education down first.

Though I admit it has been hard to find the actual statistics on teen pregnancy over the last 80 years but it has been in solid decline over the last 2 and a half decades. So I will need to see some numbers on this.
Trends in Teen Pregnancy and Childbearing - The Office of Adolescent Health
The point was we could and have always had access to guns, and even had school shootings, what we did not have until the secular revolution in large quantities was these miserable atheists executing kids because of their faith and the volume of school violence that spiked in correlation with the secular movement. Things have never been perfect but things got much worse since secularism gained traction.
I would like to see evidence that the majority of these kids were atheists. In fact it seems to me that the evidence has proven that they were mostly Christians. This doesn't indicate that Christianity is the problem but just that the majority of teenagers are Christian.

I also haven't seen any information linking even correlation much less causation. Do you have anything for it or is it speculation or personal views?
It would not be all that profound if that is all there was but (and there are many of them) these surveys added to all the other mountains of data create a case that can't be denied.
What are some of these other evidences? The only thing that we have really seen so far is that school shootings are up (which is a problem) and that you don't agree with abortion. So we agree to disagree about abortion and both agree that school shootings is a problem what other aspect of life has gotten worse? It is a new secular morality but it seems to be more effective than the pre-social revolution religiously dominated morality. At least by the numbers.
Our core moral principles remained almost static between our founding and the early 50's, while some of the applications and second tier issues would drift over that time the central themes not too much. For example the civil rights issue was founded on the documents hat were written when we became a nation not on secularism. I can add a lot of interesting detail about civil rights if you want but will not do so unless requested. However since the secular revolution morality has radically changed in almost every single way (I should point out I mean primarily in policy) and in almost every statistic for the worse.
Our founding documents are secular. The only thing even slightly considered non-secular would be the Declaration of Independence and that was the mention of a creator. Our morals as a country have changed fundamentally in the dynamic of society from the founding to the 50's. The fact that you think otherwise is simply wrong. People are still people and if someone from today was planted back in that time period as a child they would most likely absorb that culture. But that culture is vastly different. We have seen massive changes in attitudes towards race, towards violence, towards religion, science, ect. It was vastly different depending on WHERE you were up until the recent years of mass communication.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Then we will agree to disagree on what it means to honor heritage.
Fine, but I do not see why. I was not challenging what you meant by honoring a heritage, I was explaining what the United States heritage is and why it should be honored.

Actually secularism has had very very little to do with the fact that we have later marriages. This has far more to do with the public funding of the education system and the higher esteem placed on those that finnish high school as being more functional and capable adults. So now it is less desirable to get married at 16 and go into the unskilled labor force but rather wait till after you are 18 or even 19 to get married and get your education down first.
I did not say secularism did, but it actually might indirectly. For example secularism shifts the balance between the career and the family. Now days everyone identity is the job title and so people are putting off having a family until much later, also the full Man and women family unit is no longer so important in these secular times. But that was not my point. My point was that secularism has de-stigmatized sex outside of wedlock and made promiscuity almost a virtue. So now that marriage is less important sex is even more important and more teen pregnancies result.

Though I admit it has been hard to find the actual statistics on teen pregnancy over the last 80 years but it has been in solid decline over the last 2 and a half decades. So I will need to see some numbers on this.
Trends in Teen Pregnancy and Childbearing - The Office of Adolescent Health
This is a point that needs mentioning. There was a regression in secularism in the Reagan era. So many of the stats start rising in the late 50's then peak in the late 70's, start dropping and eventually hit a low point but then start trending back up.

U.S. Teen Pregnancy, Birth and Abortion Rates Reach Historic Lows
Teen Pregnancies Rise Again, Experts Debate Reasons Why - ABC News
Rise in teenage pregnancy rate spurs new debate on arresting it

What your seeing are local trends not over all data from the 50's to today. Below is a link to the whole data set. Look at the second graph from the top as it is the average overall. Teen pregnancy never has been as low since it spiked in the late 50's until today as it was in the early 50's.
Products - Data Briefs - Number 89 - April 2012

Keep this in mind local trends within a decade or two are misleading in our context here.

I would like to see evidence that the majority of these kids were atheists. In fact it seems to me that the evidence has proven that they were mostly Christians. This doesn't indicate that Christianity is the problem but just that the majority of teenagers are Christian.
I did not say the majority were atheists. I said we did not have these atheist verse anyone of faith school shooting back in the 20's. You think that majority of who were Christians. Keep this in mind as well. Even being a Christian (especially a nominal one) does not mean you do not get caught up in the secular trends of the age, and most Christians are nominal. Being a Christian is not proof against acting immorally, in fact it is logical that Satan would be after those who believe not the ones he already has deceived. Satan targets his greatest threat the same as our military does, not his our allies (with the exception of Obama and Israel).

I also haven't seen any information linking even correlation much less causation. Do you have anything for it or is it speculation or personal views?
Causation is much harder to show, it is not a matter of simple stats but when virtually all the stats spike at the same moment secularism went on the offensive it is hard not to see causation. I can get into the theoretical reasons why secularism causes these things but I am not sure how to go about proving it.

What are some of these other evidences? The only thing that we have really seen so far is that school shootings are up (which is a problem) and that you don't agree with abortion. So we agree to disagree about abortion and both agree that school shootings is a problem what other aspect of life has gotten worse? It is a new secular morality but it seems to be more effective than the pre-social revolution religiously dominated morality. At least by the numbers.
Well the surveys I mentioned were about what people think the moral condition is today verses decades ago. So in addition to that is the statistical proof that shows that their opinions are factual, and there are a mountain of them. Again I have posted maybe a hundred of them, and linked thousands and you can search for them if you want. It took a long time to dig them al up and I just can't stomach going through that again.

Our founding documents are secular. The only thing even slightly considered non-secular would be the Declaration of Independence and that was the mention of a creator. Our morals as a country have changed fundamentally in the dynamic of society from the founding to the 50's. The fact that you think otherwise is simply wrong. People are still people and if someone from today was planted back in that time period as a child they would most likely absorb that culture. But that culture is vastly different. We have seen massive changes in attitudes towards race, towards violence, towards religion, science, ect. It was vastly different depending on WHERE you were up until the recent years of mass communication.
Well lets take a look at a sample and see. There are so many I can only give one at a time. Here our original founding document.

The Five References to God in the Declaration of Independence Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. Says Dr. Pease: It always amazes me when otherwise intelligent people are unable to find evidence of God in our governing documents. The Declaration of Independence, the signing of which we commemorate July 4th, alone has five references to God - two in the first paragraph, one in the middle, and two in the last. "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Who is responsible for "the laws of nature" but God - certainly not man nor nature itself? From the "laws of nature" sprang an awareness of natural law (sometimes called common sense), understood by early philosophers to be a source of higher law that never changes. This was best explained by Cicero, a Roman politician, as early as the 1st Century B. C. -even predating the existence of Christianity when he wrote: "Nor may any other law override it, nor may it be repealed as a whole or in part... Nor is it one thing at Rome and another at Athens, one thing today and another tomorrow, but one eternal and unalterable law, that binds all nations forever." Of "Nature's God," the second reference to deity is, of course, more explicit and needs no explanation. The third reference to God is the word "creator" found in the second paragraph. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This boldly identified our base for at least three unalienable rights as God, and the Founders identified this truth as self-evident. Any person endowed with common sense or reason would/could come to this conclusion. So passionate were they with respect to these three "God-given rights" that such was identified as the purpose of government. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."Moreover, their right of revolution hinged upon the denial of these "God-given rights." "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations ... evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security." Once again, an appeal to natural law, which emanates from God, was noted and the loss of which always justifies revolution. The fourth and fifth references to God are found in the last paragraph. The rightness of our cause was left to God as judge. "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown..."The fifth and last reference to God asks for his divine protection in our revolutionary course of action. "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. "There was no dissent noted with respect to these references to God and their placement or emphasis in this document by any of the participants then, nor should there be now.

Our national motto is "In God we trust" and is inscribed over the podium in the house of representatives for pity sake. And if you spun around you would find that face and name of Moses in just that one room.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
How would I or you know. All I know is that there are thousands upon thousands who prefer one sex for a long time then another later on, some even switch back.

All this stuff is pure assumption and conveniently assumed in accordance with your world view. I on the their hand am taking them at their word. None of this matters anyway. Even if orientation was not a choice, it does not make it normal, nor does it mean acting on the desire is not a choice. We all have to restrain our sexual (and countless other) desires most of the time or what is currently merely awful would devolve into insanity. And none of this no mater the truth will force me to re-open the never ending debate again. This will end the discussion of that topic for me in this thread with you and I intend to repeat this statement to anyone who brings it up for now.
No, it is not assumption. It's something that is known from the study of psychology.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
No, it is not assumption. It's something that is known from the study of psychology.
This seems out of it's chronological place. It also seems to be about the subject I said I don't want to discuss. If someone says they don't want to talk about secondary issue X, and the other person just keeps posting on it over and over it seems obsessive at best and downright antagonistic at worst. I would think either beneath you.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Every human being has a sense of morality, which is borne out of compassion and empathy. Only full-blown psychopaths do not, since they lack any empathy or conscience.
So we should have 6 billon fiefdoms where each persons opinion or preference about what is empathic, and to who or what we should be empathic towards then. This kind of general theorizing works fine in thought experiments for an individual but it makes a poor foundation for a societies needs.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
So we should have 6 billon fiefdoms where each persons opinion or preference about what is empathic, and to who or what we should be empathic towards then. This kind of general theorizing works fine in thought experiments for an individual but it makes a poor foundation for a societies needs.
He did not say it is impossible to find patterns or to create understandings, though.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
He did not say it is impossible to find patterns or to create understandings, though.
I don't know what he said was impossible or not but it is a terrible grounds for common morality.

Hitler literally thought he was acting on empathy when he decided to exterminate the weak to make the strong even stronger. He used nature as a pattern, he thought if he could remove those who burden mankind and restrict it's advancement then mankind as a whole would become stronger and advance faster.
Now my morality makes what he did inexcusable but it is impossible to show his actions if carried out in this context would not have produced what he claimed. It works in nature, why not for us?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Hang on a second. This article seems to be a refutation of claims I did not make. Only one has anything in common with what I said. I will only comment on that one (the first). I have no idea why snopes said the supreme court building is not in the capitol building, no one mentioned the supreme court. This article really looks like who ever wrote really did not like the facts and did everything they could to minimize their impact. Anyway.

This is what you had said:

“The greatest, most benevolent, the most powerful, the most prosperous, and most advanced nation in human history was founded by a people 95% Christian. It is firmly rooted in Christianity, it has a bible in it's greatest monument's corner stone, scriptures carved into the marble of the capitol building, and it's greatest leaders have openly used Christian fundamentals to resolve the nations greatest difficulties and found it's greatest examples of exceptionalism. This is still largely true even after the secular revolution since the late 50's has begun it's corrosive inevitable effects.”

Snopes obviously isn’t replying directly to the comments 1Robin made. But the claim you had made that there are scriptures carved into the marble of the capitol building, was contained within in. I actually just posted it to help you out since you had said you couldn’t remember which scriptures you were talking about.

If you look over the podium in the US house of representatives you will see carved into marble the phrase in God we trust. Which God is obvious from the fact 95% of our founding fathers were Christians.

Is “in god we trust” part of scripture?

Apparently those words were added to that podium in 1962. Long after the founding of your country.

If you stood there looking at that phrase and spun around 180 degrees you will find Moses. His name written under his likeness. It does not say as snopes does that he is only pictured as a law giver. It just has his face and name.

Won’t you also find depictions of Hammurabi, Solon, Gaius, Justinian I and various other historical lawmakers? So could you also conclude that American law is “firmly rooted in” ancient Babylonian history, for example?

Since snopes seem to only trying to mitigate the impact of claims I never made I guess anything goes so I will add a few pot shots below.

Again, Snopes isn’t responding directly to 1Robin’s claims. It’s a more general discussion surrounding an email that had circulated about Christian symbolism in and around the capitol buildings. You have to pick through it to find your claim(s).

All of the eight large paintings in the Rotunda present aspects of our Christian history. A few include: The Landing of Columbus — Columbus said he was convinced to sail because “it was the Lord who put into my mind” and that “the Gospel must still be preached to so many lands.” The Baptism of Pocahontas — This shows the baptism of one of the first converts in the Virginia colony . The Virginia charter said they came to propagate the “Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God.” Departure of the Pilgrims from Holland — shows the Pilgrims observing a day of prayer and fasting. William Brewster is holding an open Bible upon which is written: “The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” “God With Us” is written on the ship’s sail.

Also in the Rotunda are carved reliefs including: Penn’s Treaty with the Indians — Penn called his colony “a holy experiment” and said of it that “my God that has given it to me . . . will, I believe, bless and make it the seed of a nation.” The Landing of the Pilgrims — “having undertaken for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith.”

Sounds to me like you’re the one reaching here.

There’s also a painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Discovery of the Mississippi by De Soto, General George Washington Resigning His Commission, and Surrender of General Burgoyne. Seems to me like those are depictions of historical events in your history, not simply “Christian” historical events.

Didn’t the Pilgrims come to America in search of religious freedom?

In God We Trust, our national motto, is inscribed in letters of gold behind the Speaker’s rostrum in the House Chamber. Also in this chamber, above the central Gallery door, is a marble relief of Moses, the greatest of 23 noted law-givers (and the only one full-faced). In 1867 the House Chamber was the meeting place for the largest Church congregation in America. This was not unusual for Churches had been meeting in the Capitol from its beginning.

You already mentioned these above.

Were any of these things created at the time your country was founded?

Statues of many early leaders are displayed throughout the Capitol. Most of these people were Christians (and many were ministers), including George Washington, James Garfield, Samuel Adams, Rev. Peter Muhlenberg, Rev. Roger Williams, Rev. Marcus Whitman, Daniel Webster, Lew Wallace, Rev. Jason Lee, John Winthrop, Rev. Jonathan Trumbull, Roger Sherman, and Francis Willard. Many plaques in the Capitol declare our faith as well, including: In God We Trust, placed above the Senate main door; “What hath God Wrought!” — the first message sent over the telegraph in 1844, found on the Samuel F.B. Morse Plaque outside old Supreme Court Chamber.

And? It’s a depiction of important historical figures in US history.

How about the frieze in the Supreme Court building that depicts all kinds of different lawmakers throughout history which includes Mohammad, Draco, Confucius, Menes, Hammurabi, Charlemagne, etc. What do you make of that?

The Prayer Room contains an open Bible sitting on an altar in front of a stained window showing Washington in earnest prayer. Behind him is etched the first verse of Psalm 16, “Preserve me, O God, for in Thee do I put my trust.”

In God We Trust: America's Historic Sites Reveal her Christian Foundations | Providence Foundation

The Prayer Room was opened in 1955. There do appear to be some scriptures found within the room so you’re right about that, however, the Office of the Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives website claims that, “In the design and decoration of the room, it was important that no part of the furnishings and no symbol used would give offense to members of any church.” It also says that at the time the room was established, Members of the House said it was,

“…A lasting monument… to this government of ours which has ever been in the forefront of the fight for human liberties and particularly for the right to worship God in accordance with the dictates of one’s own conscience.

It is my hope that the establishment of the common room will serve not only to symbolize the diversity within unity that characterized the United Sates, but that it will serve also as an instrument for the advancement of understanding, of tolerance, and truth.”

Congressional Prayer Room, Office of the Chaplain

The Library of Congress

Within the Great Hall of the Jefferson Building are two climate controlled cases, one contains a Gutenberg Bible and the other a hand-copied Giant Bible of Mainz.

The display of these two bibles is very appropriate because, in the words of President Andrew Jackson, “The Bible is the rock upon which our republic rests.” Many Biblical inscriptions can be found on the ceiling and walls including: “The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not”; and “Wisdom is the principal thing therefore get wisdom and withall thy getting, get understanding.”

In God We Trust: America's Historic Sites Reveal her Christian Foundations | Providence Foundation

The Library of Congress page describes it this way:

“In the Great Hall of the Library of Congress, two monumental Bibles face each other as if in dialogue: one, the Giant Bible of Mainz, signifies the end of the handwritten book—and the other, the Gutenberg Bible, marks the beginning of the printed book and the explosion of knowledge and creativity it would engender. This exhibition explores the significance of the two Bibles, and, through an interactive presentation, the relationship between the Mainz Bible, the Gutenberg Bible, and sixteen selected Bibles from the Library’s collections.”

It goes on to say that the Bibles are surrounded by six murals which are collectively referred to as “The Evolution of the Book.”

Library of Congress Bible Collection | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

Exhibition Overview - Library of Congress Bible Collection | Exhibitions - Library of Congress


So it appears that its significance as far as it is contained within the Library of Congress, actually has to do with the history of the printed word and the transmission of information and knowledge. Makes sense.

I can’t seem to find a primary source for the Andrew Jackson quote anywhere. Do you have one?

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Religious Liberty Archive : Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Colorado Springs, CO

I don’t know what this is here for.

Apparently even I drastically underestimated the number of verses in the capitol and prominent Washington land marks but I could only find what they specifically were in two cases in the few minutes I had.

There are apparently some Biblical quotations and references, but there are just as many secular references as well. Focusing on the former while ignoring or downplaying the latter seems to be the problem here.

When the Capitol Building was built, its designers were well aware of the dependence of the members of Congress upon God and prayer. The 83rd Congress designated a small room in the Capitol, near the rotunda, that is always open for the private prayer and meditation of members of Congress. This room is open whenever Congress is in session, and stands as a witness to the need for prayer by our nation's leaders. The focal point of the room is an intricate stained glass window that depicts George Washington kneeling in prayer. Surrounding him are words from Psalm 16: "Preserve me, O God, for in Thee do I put my trust."

Already discussed above.

Inscription on a wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are a gift from God?"

Is that from scripture?

The Washington Monument stands as a lofty and inspiring tribute to our first president, George Washington. It is the anchor on the west end of the National Mall. Few people know that engraved on the metal cap to the monument, towering 555 feet above the ground are the words, "Praise be to God." In addition, several tribute blocks line the staircase, and they are inscribed with Bible verses: "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for such is the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:16)," "Search the Scriptures (John 5:39; Acts 17:11)," and "Holiness unto the Lord (Exodus 28:36); 39:30; Zechariah 14:20)."

Our Nations Capitol

This was constructed long after the founding of your country in dedication to a man who was clearly religious in his personal life.

I rarely dismiss anything based on bias as my 10,000 posts will clearly show but that snopes thing you quoted is drenched in bias and barely even brushes against anything I actually claimed. I will also predict since our foundations in God are displayed all over Washington and constantly referenced in the founding fathers comments and can't be denied that you will also only try to diminish their impact instead of refuting their prolific existence.

I don’t see that it’s “drenched in bias.”

Why ignore all the secular references and depictions?

Not to mention that just because some people were religious in their personal lives, doesn’t mean they thought Christianity or any other religion should be forced onto the American people. And I think it’s kind of a shame you feel the way you do, because a lot of people like me, from other countries of the world look fondly upon your country as the only one in existence that was established on secular principles.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
How do you know what every ministry does? You can't know your right even if you were and I am not continuing this them any longer. Look I am trying to be nice and give you a comment so you don't think I am ignoring you but your leaving me no choice but to simply not answer these posts on this issue.
Because I read a lot. But if you think I'm wrong, please feel free to describe the types of "therapy" the ministries you have dealt with engage in.

Answer or not, it's your choice. But I'm sorry, I can't just let comments like this go without saying anything. That's just me.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Hello ST. I just saw 9 posts come in and you made 7 of them. Slow day at work or what?

Day off from work. ;)

That is actually a good question. Not that part about cutting open a living person but I actually don't know what would be immoral about say watching a live operation. I have a 9 year old relative who dreams of separating conjoined twins and watches nothing but surgical shows. Let me change that (despite your missing the "live" part of the dissection) to actual murder.

I can’t watch because it grosses me out. When it came time to dissect frogs in high school I let my partner do most of the work. :D I had to watch a live dissection of a cow eye in university once, which despite being disgusting was actually extremely interesting and informative.

But if you can handle it, like your 9 year old relative apparently can, then all the power to you. It’s extremely educational and I think it would do more people some good to learn about how the human body works.

I don't remember seeing this before. Everyone who was sane and watched that show knew it was a comical threat and not a real one, but let's pretend it was real. I am not saying TV in the 50's lacked any immorality but if let's say we applied an immorality factor of 2 on a 1 - 10 scale to TV of that period todays would be a 9. I am not even saying there are not good wholesome shows on today. But in general the moral decline is obvious to anyone without preferential blinders in TV programming. I recently have been watching the boring but wholesome show Mayberry RFD and paying attention to the worst immoral acts in every episode. In one it was littering, another I had the closed captioning on and it said "hoofers" I chalked it up as them saying hookers and was shocked, turned out they did say hoofers (it meant dancer), in another goober told a white lie it took him a whole day to admit to. I change channels to a modern series and someone's head explodes, adultery is a joke, and promiscuity is a virtue.

I don’t know how comical it is for a husband to threaten to beat his wife.

I have a feeling that people in the 1950s were just as outraged by movies and programming as some of us are today. It’s all a matter of perspective, I think. If you read up on that Jane Russell movie I mentioned, I think you’ll find that people were completely outraged at the prominent role her breasts played in the movie.

I think if we did away with reality shows, we’d all be better off for it. What a waste of time those are.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Oh I see, anyway signing a document is not an act of obedience to what it contains. Heck terrorist nations signed most of them. I only have military experience with what is probably one of the more obedient nations to those treatise. Would you like to know how many times I actually saw us break them and I was not even in ground combat? It was 20 years ago and so I don't think Obama will come get me if I give you a few examples.
Not necessarily. But it is an act of declaring that you agree with what is contained within it.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
No problem.

This issue was not how you feel about this nations true heritage. It is about what that heritage is. I am probably going to go to Saudi Arabia in about a year or so for 9 months. I will disagree with their political foundations but I will not question their right to chose their own heritage and remain true to it.

The only moral issue at hand is teen pregnancy outside of wedlock. The family unit is coming apart at the seems since secularism reared it's head. Your also assuming that the former early marriage days were the right timing, your also assuming that the right time in one period is the right time in all periods. You can rationalize teen pregnancy all you want but it is has a horrific effect on human well being. IOW secularism has increased human suffering in this respect.

I know for a fact at least in some respects it is. What I do not know is what percentage of the whole that accounts for.

The point was we could and have always had access to guns, and even had school shootings, what we did not have until the secular revolution in large quantities was these miserable atheists executing kids because of their faith and the volume of school violence that spiked in correlation with the secular movement. Things have never been perfect but things got much worse since secularism gained traction.

It would not be all that profound if that is all there was but (and there are many of them) these surveys added to all the other mountains of data create a case that can't be denied.

That is a whole other conversation. I am discussing whether moral have eroded coinciding with the secular revolution. As is life better that can be based on al kinds of arbitrary things like technology, finding natural resources, what other nations are doing or have stopped doing. That subject is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.

Our core moral principles remained almost static between our founding and the early 50's, while some of the applications and second tier issues would drift over that time the central themes not too much. For example the civil rights issue was founded on the documents hat were written when we became a nation not on secularism. I can add a lot of interesting detail about civil rights if you want but will not do so unless requested. However since the secular revolution morality has radically changed in almost every single way (I should point out I mean primarily in policy) and in almost every statistic for the worse.
Teen pregnancy rates appear to be much lower in the more secular countries of the world than they are in the US. What do you make of that, in connection with your argument about the immorality of secularism?
 
Top