Hindu Prayer Interrupted in US Senate

[Nineveh]

Religious freedom is not subject to minority approval. For which you should be very, very, grateful, Nineveh.

Why do you want to over look who is/was honored for the authority which underpins our rights? Why is this such a hard thing for you to even acknowledge let alone accept?

 

[Nineveh]

And yet, all these Christians, firm believers in Jesus, some of whom declared a belief in God to be essential to a just society, did not want America to be based on Christianity. And pointedly said so in an official document.

Error. Religion promoted by the government was what they stood against. There is a big difference between what was said your revision.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Religious freedom is not subject to minority approval. For which you should be very, very, grateful, Nineveh.

Why do you want to over look who is/was honored for the authority which underpins our rights?

You've misrepresented others, and now you're starting on me? Bad idea. The point is, we don't get our rights from the majority. The Constitution assumes that there are natural rights, not subject to the will of the majority or any human.

Why is this such a hard thing for you to even acknowledge let alone accept?

Nineveh, until you can accept that people have rights, even if they disagree, with you, there is no hope for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And yet, all these Christians, firm believers in Jesus, some of whom declared a belief in God to be essential to a just society, did not want America to be based on Christianity. And pointedly said so in an official document.

Error. Religion promoted by the government was what they stood against. There is a big difference between what was said your revision.

It's precisely what they said in the treaty with Tripoli. Washington, Adam, and the United States Senate, composed of the founders.

A NOTE ON THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI. This treaty with the Bey of Tripoli was negotiated by the administration of President George Washington, and finally signed and ratified in the administration of President John Adams, in 1797. Article 11 of the English-language version says "the United States is in no sense based on the Christian religion".

You don't agree with them, because you have fundamental philosophic differences with American values.

 

[Balder]

I lost this argument, Nineveh? In your dreams! You just had to say "mea culpa" because you were trying to treat an act as a crime when it wasn't. Essentially, you've admitted there are no legal prohibitions against the Hindu praying in the Senate -- at least no more than would prevent a Christian from praying there.

I understood your example (of thanking the pagan neighbor for Dad's gift) the first time. What you are having a hard time grasping is that I do not share your beliefs about who is the real "donor," and that the founding documents of our nation do NOT sanction Evangelical Christianity as the truth nor are they based upon it.

 

[Nineveh]

This proves nothing as Washington, for an example, was a member of an Episcopalian congregation, refused communion, and was privately a deist. Membership in a Christian church proves just that: your membership. I'm surprised, Nineveh, that you of all people are using this kind of argument.

The discussion you are replying to is about the Declaration. While there were a lot of Georges in the list (how many?) was it just an over site you mention Washington instead of one of the deists that actually had something to do with the DI (don't you know who they were? Or those one(s) that actually changed their affiliation?) Tell you what granite, you keep telling me how ignorant of American History I am while you are so wise. If you repeat it enough, maybe the simple answers to the questions of basic American History will come to you. God forbid you actually learn something about it.

 

[Nineveh]

It's precisely what they said in the treaty with Tripoli. Washington, Adam, and the United States Senate, composed of the founders.

Here is something you may not want to read. It's the rest of the story you and balder fail to mention.

 

[Nineveh]

I understood your example (of thanking the pagan neighbor for Dad's gift) the first time.

Yet... nothing.

Why is that balder?

 

[The Barbarian]

His argument is that Washington, Adams, and the Senate didn't know what it was?

Now I have to decide whether the Founders were idiots or your guy is an idiot.

Not much of a choice, really.

 

[Nineveh]

...until you can accept that people have rights, even if they disagree, with you, there is no hope for you.

Rights granted by Who? Who did the founders cite? Can you even bring yourself to acknowledge it?

 

[Nineveh]

His argument is that Washington, Adams, and the Senate didn't know what it was?

Maybe you should invest more than two minutes reading a bit of history, you might actually learn something. Scary I know... Especially when it goes against everything you were taught in pullik skool.

 

[Balder]

Yet... nothing.

Why is that balder?

Because it is not relevant to the question at hand: whether, in a representative democracy which ensures freedom of religion, a non-Christian may also pray before the Senate. Like it or not, the Constitution is not a sacred religious text; it is a secular document, and it does not endorse Christianity as the official religion of the government or the people. Some of its important framers were not even Christian.

With others here, I think there are two obvious choices: either do away with prayer in government proceedings, or -- in a representative democracy in a pluralistic society -- allow members of other faiths to lead prayer as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian on Nineveh's "expert":
His argument is that Washington, Adams, and the Senate didn't know what it was?

Now I have to decide whether the Founders were idiots or your guy is an idiot.

Not much of a choice, really.

Maybe you should invest more than two minutes reading a bit of history,

How many college hours of American History do you have, Nineveh? What were your grades? You don't want to try that argument with me. Fact is, both Washington and Adams read the treaty, and Adams signed it and sent it to Congress where it was read aloud, and then unanimously approved.

Especially when it goes against everything you were taught in pullik skool.

You trusted people who told you they were Christian, and you got burned. Now, you're trying to retreat in a screen of screechy insults. It won't work. You better get some facts together, if you want to come out of this in one piece.

Oh, and on your argument that some religions are more equal than others...

The Sage of Monticello was living in Paris at the time, serving as U.S. minister to France. Years later, in his autobiography. Jefferson recalled how happy he was to learn from Madison that the broad protections in his bill had remained intact.
The Christians-only language, Jefferson noted, "was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every denomination."
http://candst.tripod.com/boston4.htm

Not a good day, um, Nineveh?

 

[Damian]

Do you even have any clue how many men signed the DI? Do you have a clue (beyond the pagan's poster child of Jefferson) to what religion each confessed?

Here is a little quiz for you:

__________ men signed the DI. Here are their confessed religions, can you tell me how many of each there were?

Congregationalist?
Episcopalian?
Presbyterian?
Catholic?
Anglican?
Church of England?
None/Other?
Deist?

Who were the deists? Of the deist, how many (if any) changed their religion later in life? If any, what were their names?

Guess what? They signed off to a deist. It's as if a Hindu said a prayer in the Senate, and all present said "Amen."

 

[Granite]

The discussion you are replying to is about the Declaration. While there were a lot of Georges in the list (how many?) was it just an over site you mention Washington instead of one of the deists that actually had something to do with the DI (don't you know who they were? Or those one(s) that actually changed their affiliation?) Tell you what granite, you keep telling me how ignorant of American History I am while you are so wise. If you repeat it enough, maybe the simple answers to the questions of basic American History will come to you. God forbid you actually learn something about it.

The point being that church membership is no indicator of the sincerity of someone's convictions as a Christian--a point made by Christians on TOL all the time. You can't have it both ways, Nin. Washington is a fine example of a church member who was not orthodox by any stretch of the imagination. That many founders belonged to churches is no surprise given the structure of the society at the time and the prevailing mores of the day. Their words, and actions, speak louder than the hours they spent on a Sunday morning.

 

[Nineveh]

Tell ya what boys.

I've been down this debate before and put loads of time and effort into it. So when one of you gets serious about an American History debate, just PM the answers to Damian's little quiz and I'll set up a whole new thread for us.

Until then, I'll borrow a line from Paul, "But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant."

 

[ApologeticJedi]

You trusted people who told you they were Christian, and you got burned.

Are you seriously arguing that Adams was not a Christian?

Madison? Perry? Hancock? Wilson? Livingston? Floyd? Mason? McHenry? Pinckney? Chase? Rev. Witherspoon? Are you arguing any of these were not professed Christians?

The only founding fathers I can think of that didn’t publicly claim to be Christians in the traditional sense are Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine (there may be a few others I am missing). If you want to pretend these are the only founding fathers we have, then in such a fantasy world maybe there is a case, but that the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers were Christian is fairly silly to argue against.

Was Washington a Christian? He publicly professed to being one. I’m not sure either you or I have enough information to “out” him as not being one over his own profession. Do you think you can say you know his beliefs better than he did himself? I find that assertion incredible.


Now, having said that, I agree that everyone has the right to pray to their pagan god. And we have just as much right to mock them, as those that mock when Christians pray (which I've pointed out is applauded - hypocritically - by many here).

 

[kbagra]

Not exactly. I think those who say, "ours is the only way and the only truth," are wrong.

You have hit the nail on the head with that one Balder. I really liked your posts, you don't preach hatred.

I am new here, I read you guys posts and I am amazed by the in depth knowledge of most of the people here.
But I did observe there are certain people who are here just to argue, not to learn. If you keep your mind so closed how can you expect to learn anything?

Why does anyone has to protect their God? Isn't God Almighty, All Powerful being? Can't he/she/it protect himself/herself/itself?

We Hindu's don't come to USA to convert Christians and make them Hindus then why does Christians and Islamists have to do that in our country?

Its about being tolerant to others thoughts. It's only insecure people who tend to oppress.

I don't think this thing that happened one year back was a good thing.

Regards
KB

 

[One Eyed Jack]

We Hindu's don't come to USA to convert Christians and make them Hindus

This has to do with a difference in religious teachings. After all, according to Hindu beliefs, we've done something in a past life to deserve our unenlightened status.

then why does Christians and Islamists have to do that in our country?

Again, it comes to a difference in beliefs. You guys think you'll just be reincarnated after you die. We believe you'll spent eternity seperated from God, which is as bad as it can possibly get, and we don't want that for you.

Its about being tolerant to others thoughts. It's only insecure people who tend to oppress.

I don't see anything particularly oppressive about spreading the Gospel. Your average Christian missionary is more likely to be armed with a walking stick than a gun. Now Muslims are a different case. They actually do believe in spreading their religion by the sword.

 

[ExCalvinist]

Are you wrong when you say, "it is not a performative contradiction"?

Ooops, apparently you took him by surprise here. Balder, you have to dumb things down for this crowd.