Obama Drops "Creator" from Declaration, Now he Axes Motto

[Night Strike]

not to mention a complete miss on the reference to a power "higher" than the government. That's is why rights come from our creator (whoever/whatever any religion chooses that crator to be.) The rights come from a higher power, therefore, the government can NEVER take them away. They are inalienable. government is below the "creator", no matter how much you worship gov't Player.

Our Creator needs to have made them "inalienable" for us to respect them? We can't just all agree that they are inalienable and live by that?

about as naive as you can get.

Not at all - it's totally pragmatic. Jews in 1930s Germany probably thought God gave them certain inalienable rights, but that didn't stop the Nazis, now, did it?

But those rights never actually went away: they were infringed by the government. You still hold the right to worship as you wish, but the government illegitimately keeps you from exercising those rights. If rights are determined by majority rule (or by who is holding the most power), then the Nazis did nothing wrong as they were the power-party in their country. They could do whatever they wanted to Jews and others because their majority rules said that those groups had no rights, and those groups would have no recourse against them until they became the majority. That's the problem when government define rights: it leads to moral relativism.

[Metsfanmax]

not to mention a complete miss on the reference to a power "higher" than the government. That's is why rights come from our creator (whoever/whatever any religion chooses that crator to be.) The rights come from a higher power, therefore, the government can NEVER take them away. They are inalienable. government is below the "creator", no matter how much you worship gov't Player.

Our Creator needs to have made them "inalienable" for us to respect them? We can't just all agree that they are inalienable and live by that?

about as naive as you can get.

Not at all - it's totally pragmatic. Jews in 1930s Germany probably thought God gave them certain inalienable rights, but that didn't stop the Nazis, now, did it?

But those rights never actually went away: they were infringed by the government. You still hold the right to worship as you wish, but the government illegitimately keeps you from exercising those rights. If rights are determined by majority rule (or by who is holding the most power), then the Nazis did nothing wrong as they were the power-party in their country. They could do whatever they wanted to Jews and others because their majority rules said that those groups had no rights, and those groups would have no recourse against them until they became the majority. That's the problem when government define rights: it leads to moral relativism.

Okay. And those "rights" didn't help the Jews during the Holocaust. Therefore, they were irrelevant during that time. If the Nazis had agreed that the Jews had alienable rights like those to life and property, there would have been no Holocaust. They didn't need to believe in God to agree that those rights existed.

Moral relativism is a pragmatic fact, regardless of whether you think it's a philosophically good idea or not.

[Woodruff]

How about it just does not matter, UNLESS you are trying to insist that we are to be a theocracy.

I find it interesting that you (and certain others) consistently mischaracterize what John9blue, Nightstrike, and Phatscotty are saying. As far as I know, non of them have said the US was to be a theocracy, and yet you continually throw up this straw-man argument. Three times in the last month Obama omitted an integral phrase when quoting/paraphrasing--whatever you want to call it--the constitution, so it was definitely a purposeful omission and not just a slip of the tongue (especially considering that Obama used to hold a professor's position teaching constitutional law). Criticism of his adjustment to the wording of the US' founding document is justified.

But that word is NOT "integral"...it's NOT "a key word" in the statement. It just is not. The statement stands perfectly fine without those three words there (by our Creator). It's significance is not changed.

Actually, as has already been discussed in this thread, that phrase is completely integral. The fact that rights do NOT come from a government was the entire basis for beginning the revolution.

You SAID that, but I certainly don't recall much agreement on that point. In fact, I specifically disagree with the idea that a Creator is necessary for humans to have inherent rights.

If rights are granted by a government, then everything the King of England was doing was legitimate and the revolution had no higher purpose. If rights come from a Creator, then it is realized that all of us are the same in regards to our rights and no one person or group of persons can justly infringe upon them.

Why is the Creator part necessary? It's not. Not at ALL, in fact. If you took the phrase "by our Creator" out of the Declaration, it would not change the significance of the meaning AT ALL.

[Woodruff]

The rights come from a higher power, therefore, the government can NEVER take them away.

If only that were true, but it is not. At least, if one is looking at the issue from a realistic, rather than a philosophical, perspective.

[Woodruff]

not to mention a complete miss on the reference to a power "higher" than the government. That's is why rights come from our creator (whoever/whatever any religion chooses that crator to be.) The rights come from a higher power, therefore, the government can NEVER take them away. They are inalienable. government is below the "creator", no matter how much you worship gov't Player.

Our Creator needs to have made them "inalienable" for us to respect them? We can't just all agree that they are inalienable and live by that?

about as naive as you can get.

Not at all - it's totally pragmatic. Jews in 1930s Germany probably thought God gave them certain inalienable rights, but that didn't stop the Nazis, now, did it?

But those rights never actually went away: they were infringed by the government. You still hold the right to worship as you wish, but the government illegitimately keeps you from exercising those rights.

That sounds nice and all, but now...what really is the functional difference between not having a right and not being able to exercise that right?

If rights are determined by majority rule (or by who is holding the most power), then the Nazis did nothing wrong as they were the power-party in their country. They could do whatever they wanted to Jews and others because their majority rules said that those groups had no rights, and those groups would have no recourse against them until they became the majority. That's the problem when government define rights: it leads to moral relativism.

Incorrect, and about as arrogant as possible. This presumes that we as humans cannot possibly hold a moral compass or act ethically outside of religion. I find that perspective to be repugnant, ignorant and ridiculous.

[Metsfanmax]

Incorrect, and about as arrogant as possible. This presumes that we as humans cannot possibly hold a moral compass or act ethically outside of religion. I find that perspective to be repugnant, ignorant and ridiculous.

Yep.

[Night Strike]

You SAID that, but I certainly don't recall much agreement on that point. In fact, I specifically disagree with the idea that a Creator is necessary for humans to have inherent rights.

If rights are granted by a government, then everything the King of England was doing was legitimate and the revolution had no higher purpose. If rights come from a Creator, then it is realized that all of us are the same in regards to our rights and no one person or group of persons can justly infringe upon them.

Why is the Creator part necessary? It's not. Not at ALL, in fact. If you took the phrase "by our Creator" out of the Declaration, it would not change the significance of the meaning AT ALL.

I never said you all agreed with it, I just said it had been discussed. And I've already outlined a clear case as to why Creator is necessary, so I can't help that you all don't buy the case. That's your choice. But your choice leads to a dangerous conclusion when governments define the rights.

Okay. And those "rights" didn't help the Jews during the Holocaust. Therefore, they were irrelevant during that time. If the Nazis had agreed that the Jews had alienable rights like those to life and property, there would have been no Holocaust. They didn't need to believe in God to agree that those rights existed.

You're right that the Nazis didn't agree that Jews had inalienable rights. That's the EXACT point I've been making. When governments define what rights are inalienable, they have the same power to define whether or not certain groups get those rights. The Nazis chose that Jews did not have rights, and under the system of man-decided rights, they were completely within their power to do so.

Incorrect, and about as arrogant as possible. This presumes that we as humans cannot possibly hold a moral compass or act ethically outside of religion. I find that perspective to be repugnant, ignorant and ridiculous.

Yep.

No matter what moral compass humans possess, it will change over time or place. If these morals change, then the rights granted by those morals will also change. That by definition means those rights are not inalienable. Inalienable rights are the same regardless of time or place.

[Woodruff]

You SAID that, but I certainly don't recall much agreement on that point. In fact, I specifically disagree with the idea that a Creator is necessary for humans to have inherent rights.

If rights are granted by a government, then everything the King of England was doing was legitimate and the revolution had no higher purpose. If rights come from a Creator, then it is realized that all of us are the same in regards to our rights and no one person or group of persons can justly infringe upon them.

Why is the Creator part necessary? It's not. Not at ALL, in fact. If you took the phrase "by our Creator" out of the Declaration, it would not change the significance of the meaning AT ALL.

I never said you all agreed with it, I just said it had been discussed. And I've already outlined a clear case as to why Creator is necessary, so I can't help that you all don't buy the case. That's your choice. But your choice leads to a dangerous conclusion when governments define the rights.

Night Strike...the fact IS that governments DO define the rights. That is reality, that is fact. There is no functional difference between not having a right and not being able to exercise a right. You failed to respond to that point...why?

Incorrect, and about as arrogant as possible. This presumes that we as humans cannot possibly hold a moral compass or act ethically outside of religion. I find that perspective to be repugnant, ignorant and ridiculous.

Yep.

No matter what moral compass humans possess, it will change over time or place. If these morals change, then the rights granted by those morals will also change. That by definition means those rights are not inalienable. Inalienable rights are the same regardless of time or place.

You mean, for instance, how the rights of blacks and women have changed over time? How did the Creator help them out with their inalienable rights, Night Strike? You're really making my point for me.

[PLAYER57832]

not to mention a complete miss on the reference to a power "higher" than the government. That's is why rights come from our creator (whoever/whatever any religion chooses that crator to be.) The rights come from a higher power, therefore, the government can NEVER take them away. They are inalienable. government is below the "creator", no matter how much you worship gov't Player.

Our Creator needs to have made them "inalienable" for us to respect them? We can't just all agree that they are inalienable and live by that?

about as naive as you can get.

Not at all - it's totally pragmatic. Jews in 1930s Germany probably thought God gave them certain inalienable rights, but that didn't stop the Nazis, now, did it?

But those rights never actually went away: they were infringed by the government. You still hold the right to worship as you wish, but the government illegitimately keeps you from exercising those rights. If rights are determined by majority rule (or by who is holding the most power), then the Nazis did nothing wrong as they were the power-party in their country. They could do whatever they wanted to Jews and others because their majority rules said that those groups had no rights, and those groups would have no recourse against them until they became the majority.

I see, so that's why you feel it is OK to claim discrimination of Muslims is OK... they are not the majority now.

That's the problem when government define rights: it leads to moral relativism.

You are missing the real alternative. You wish to claim only 2 options. Rights came from the creator OR they came from the government. You ignore the third option.. that these rights are simply inherent and whether one religion finds it convenient to recognize them or not , whether any government decides to honor them, is utterly irrelevant.

If, as you claim, these rights were inherently from God, then why has Christianity partaken in so much absolute discrimination.

[Night Strike]

You mean, for instance, how the rights of blacks and women have changed over time? How did the Creator help them out with their inalienable rights, Night Strike? You're really making my point for me.

Governments have realized that they were in error by keeping blacks and women from having the same rights as white men. Those rights always existed, but the government kept those rights from being exercised. If the government defines rights, then blacks and women had no justification for demanding the same rights as white men. They would only gain those rights if the white men deemed them to gain those rights. But that's not what we saw in history. When fighting for things such as the right to vote, the argument was that these groups had the same rights as white men and should not be discriminated against. Their ability to exercise their rights was demanded, not requested. If governments grant rights, the only reason blacks and women can now vote is because the white men deemed that they could. (That is the difference between having a right and being able to exercise a right.)

[Woodruff]

You mean, for instance, how the rights of blacks and women have changed over time? How did the Creator help them out with their inalienable rights, Night Strike? You're really making my point for me.

Governments have realized that they were in error by keeping blacks and women from having the same rights as white men. Those rights always existed, but the government kept those rights from being exercised. If the government defines rights, then blacks and women had no justification for demanding the same rights as white men. They would only gain those rights if the white men deemed them to gain those rights. But that's not what we saw in history. When fighting for things such as the right to vote, the argument was that these groups had the same rights as white men and should not be discriminated against. Their ability to exercise their rights was demanded, not requested. If governments grant rights, the only reason blacks and women can now vote is because the white men deemed that they could. (That is the difference between having a right and being able to exercise a right.)

You've almost gotten the point here, Night Strike, so allow me to further the comparison (re-reading that, it sounds very condescending...I apologize for that, but I can't figure out how to reword it...I did not intend the condescension though). You point out accurately that the government kept those rights from being exercised. But they were able to do that EVEN WITH THE PHRASE REGARDING THE CREATOR there in the Declaration. You see, referring to the Creator did not change anything, just as I have been saying. You stated that by taking a Creator out of the equation, then governments would be free to make rights change as the populace desired...yet that happened with a Creator in the equation too, as I just showed.

So my point stands...regardless of whether you look at that section of the Declaration through the view of a Creator-endowed set of rights or through the view of a humanistic-endowed set of rights, the situation is precisely the same. Thus, the "requirement" for those three words (by our Creator) are unnecessary, and absolutely NOT "key words" nor "integral".

[Night Strike]

You've almost gotten the point here, Night Strike, so allow me to further the comparison (re-reading that, it sounds very condescending...I apologize for that, but I can't figure out how to reword it...I did not intend the condescension though). You point out accurately that the government kept those rights from being exercised. But they were able to do that EVEN WITH THE PHRASE REGARDING THE CREATOR there in the Declaration. You see, referring to the Creator did not change anything, just as I have been saying. You stated that by taking a Creator out of the equation, then governments would be free to make rights change as the populace desired...yet that happened with a Creator in the equation too, as I just showed.

So my point stands...regardless of whether you look at that section of the Declaration through the view of a Creator-endowed set of rights or through the view of a humanistic-endowed set of rights, the situation is precisely the same. Thus, the "requirement" for those three words (by our Creator) are unnecessary, and absolutely NOT "key words" nor "integral".

I didn't read it as condescending until I read your parenthetical, so don't worry about that.

Ok, I think I need to frame the argument in a slightly different way. The right to vote is the easiest example to use, so I'm just going to run with that one.

If man/government is the entity that establishes rights, neither blacks nor women had the right to vote until white men granted them that ability (ultimately meaning the white man holds all the power in society). That right did not exist prior to when permission was given, and that right can be taken away at any time from those groups or any other group as soon as the majority desires. And the majority is justified in whichever action they take as they get to decide what the rights are.

If there is a Creator who established rights, then that right exists at all times for all people. If a government fails to allow groups to exercise those rights, then they are an unjust government and have failed to govern with the consent of the people. Rights coming from a Creator means the oppressed can demand those rights as they do not exist at the whim of the majority.

With that frame of reference, if the government defines rights, then they are not at fault for treating people unequally as they have decided that those people do not get the same rights as others. If rights are from a Creator, then a government prohibiting the exercising of rights is unjustified and needs to be stopped either by revolution or outside forces to protect the innate rights of the person. In practice, these may appear to be the same thing, but for a philosophical basis, they are diametrically opposed. In one view the majority has the unstoppable ability to oppress others while the other establishes that any form of oppression is unjustified.

[Metsfanmax]

With that frame of reference, if the government defines rights, then they are not at fault for treating people unequally as they have decided that those people do not get the same rights as others. If rights are from a Creator, then a government prohibiting the exercising of rights is unjustified and needs to be stopped either by revolution or outside forces to protect the innate rights of the person. In practice, these may appear to be the same thing, but for a philosophical basis, they are diametrically opposed. In one view the majority has the unstoppable ability to oppress others while the other establishes that any form of oppression is unjustified.

So, let me get this straight - if I believe in God-given rights, then I'm allowed to overthrow the government when minorities' rights are infringed upon, but I suddenly lose that option if I choose not to believe in God-given rights?

[Woodruff]

You've almost gotten the point here, Night Strike, so allow me to further the comparison (re-reading that, it sounds very condescending...I apologize for that, but I can't figure out how to reword it...I did not intend the condescension though). You point out accurately that the government kept those rights from being exercised. But they were able to do that EVEN WITH THE PHRASE REGARDING THE CREATOR there in the Declaration. You see, referring to the Creator did not change anything, just as I have been saying. You stated that by taking a Creator out of the equation, then governments would be free to make rights change as the populace desired...yet that happened with a Creator in the equation too, as I just showed.

So my point stands...regardless of whether you look at that section of the Declaration through the view of a Creator-endowed set of rights or through the view of a humanistic-endowed set of rights, the situation is precisely the same. Thus, the "requirement" for those three words (by our Creator) are unnecessary, and absolutely NOT "key words" nor "integral".

I didn't read it as condescending until I read your parenthetical, so don't worry about that.

Ok, good.

Ok, I think I need to frame the argument in a slightly different way. The right to vote is the easiest example to use, so I'm just going to run with that one.
If man/government is the entity that establishes rights, neither blacks nor women had the right to vote until white men granted them that ability (ultimately meaning the white man holds all the power in society). That right did not exist prior to when permission was given, and that right can be taken away at any time from those groups or any other group as soon as the majority desires. And the majority is justified in whichever action they take as they get to decide what the rights are.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

If there is a Creator who established rights, then that right exists at all times for all people. If a government fails to allow groups to exercise those rights, then they are an unjust government and have failed to govern with the consent of the people. Rights coming from a Creator means the oppressed can demand those rights as they do not exist at the whim of the majority.

I've already asked this once, but didn't see a response...What really is the functional difference between not having a right and not being able to exercise that right?

With that frame of reference, if the government defines rights, then they are not at fault for treating people unequally as they have decided that those people do not get the same rights as others.

No. I've said this before also, and you didn't respond to it then...This presumes that we as humans cannot possibly hold a moral compass or act ethically outside of religion. I find that position to be unsupportable. Religion may make it easier for SOME people to find a moral code, it absolutely is not necessary nor even helpful for everyone to find a moral code.

If rights are from a Creator, then a government prohibiting the exercising of rights is unjustified and needs to be stopped either by revolution or outside forces to protect the innate rights of the person.

If rights are from a government, then a government prohibiting the exercising of rights is unjustified and needs to be stopped eitehr by revolution or outside forces to protect the innate rights of the person. There is no difference.

In practice, these may appear to be the same thing, but for a philosophical basis, they are diametrically opposed. In one view the majority has the unstoppable ability to oppress others while the other establishes that any form of oppression is unjustified.

But that's my point...it's all philosophy and not reality it all. It is PRECISELY the same as the idea that "Communism really is a great idea" (which it is!), but human weaknesses simply won't allow it to happen. The philosophy about it is nice and all, but the reality is that it just doesn't work.

[PLAYER57832]

Just because I speculate as to Obama's motivations for removing the word, doesn't mean I advocate a theocracy or even any religious involvement in government at all. It's called questioning authority and it's part of being an informed citizen and human being.

Use of the word "creator" is religious expression. When you question a political leader on ground of religious expression, it is approaching theocracy and definitely means you are advocating religious involvement in the government.

The Constitution never barred religious involvement in government. It barred the government establishing a national religion. Those are HUGE differences.

not to mention a complete miss on the reference to a power "higher" than the government. That's is why rights come from our creator (whoever/whatever any religion chooses that crator to be.) The rights come from a higher power, therefore, the government can NEVER take them away. They are inalienable. government is below the "creator", no matter how much you worship gov't Player.

Why is it more powerful because a creator is supposed to have given them to us, as opposed to being innate in what it is to be human.

Either way, you get the same result. Ironically, your belief is actually LESS powerful, because we can see welll how little human rights were considered up until recent times, even within Christianity. Instead, what we have seen is an evolution of thinking, a move toward understanding that the harm you do to others is directly reciprocated to us.

The lesson of th 60's was that it harms ALL OF US to keep a certain group of people supprressed. When we cannot acknowledge the humanity of other people, we deny our own humanity. That is far more fundamental than any one religion.

Now granted, I believe that God created us the way we are and therefore, yes, God endowed us with these qualities. However, to claim that those who deny God cannot see those selfsame qualities is just idiotically myopic.

[john9blue]

night strike, what if two different religions have two different Creators that give us two different sets of rights? which one wins?

[Night Strike]

night strike, what if two different religions have two different Creators that give us two different sets of rights? which one wins?

It is clear that our founders believed in the Judeo-Christian God, so that's who they believed provided those rights. Since Christianity teaches that there is no other god, that scenario would have never played into their foundations.

[Woodruff]

night strike, what if two different religions have two different Creators that give us two different sets of rights? which one wins?

It is clear that our founders believed in the Judeo-Christian God, so that's who they believed provided those rights. Since Christianity teaches that there is no other god, that scenario would have never played into their foundations.

Were you going to respond to my questions, Night Strike?

[john9blue]

night strike, what if two different religions have two different Creators that give us two different sets of rights? which one wins?

It is clear that our founders believed in the Judeo-Christian God, so that's who they believed provided those rights. Since Christianity teaches that there is no other god, that scenario would have never played into their foundations.

yeah but it doesn't sound like you're talking specifically about the US, or specifically about the Christian god.

what if God hypothetically didn't intend for females to vote? you act as if the Christian God is already proven and everyone can just look to Him and agree on what He says. that's not how it works at all. if i told you that my Catholic God didn't approve of women voting, and that the founders would agree with me, what would you say? you can't just assume that everyone agrees with your version of God, because people tend to superimpose their own moral values onto their God.

[PLAYER57832]

You mean, for instance, how the rights of blacks and women have changed over time? How did the Creator help them out with their inalienable rights, Night Strike? You're really making my point for me.

Governments have realized that they were in error by keeping blacks and women from having the same rights as white men. Those rights always existed, but the government kept those rights from being exercised. If the government defines rights, then blacks and women had no justification for demanding the same rights as white men. They would only gain those rights if the white men deemed them to gain those rights. But that's not what we saw in history. When fighting for things such as the right to vote, the argument was that these groups had the same rights as white men and should not be discriminated against. Their ability to exercise their rights was demanded, not requested. If governments grant rights, the only reason blacks and women can now vote is because the white men deemed that they could. (That is the difference between having a right and being able to exercise a right.)

Uh, no Nightstrike. The church was very much up there declaring that blacks and women were not to be treated like white males. Even today, many churches won't accept female priests. Most Pastors have finally decided that telling an abused women to "return and submit" to her husband is not great advice, but only in recent decades. And, I am quite old enough to remember when women were chastized for "leaving the home" to work and "abandoning" children, sometimes even when her not working meant serious economic hardship.

In fact, the change actually came in society BEFORE it come in many churches. Even today, I can point you to plenty of churches where men are instructed to be "Promise Keepers", and women are regaled in how "glorious" it is to stay home instead of doing anything other than changing diapers and cleaning toilets.

[The Bison King]

night strike, what if two different religions have two different Creators that give us two different sets of rights? which one wins?

It is clear that our founders believed in the Judeo-Christian God, so that's who they believed provided those rights. Since Christianity teaches that there is no other god, that scenario would have never played into their foundations.

WTF does that matter? you totally missed the point of the hypothetical. The founding fathers were mostly Christian sure, but America is NOT a christian nation. Using the term creator is purposefully ambiguous as to which creator it refers to. To me "Their Creator" as opposed to "the creator" clearly denotes that the people this document blankets believe in many creators, and that regardless of which specific god you prey to certain rights are inherent to all men.


Also keep in mind that the man who wrote this document had slaves, and in no way was a perfect man, and that this document isn't scripture.

[PLAYER57832]

I am, above all else, a Christian. Yet, few things terrify me more than the thought that a particular church's beliefs, even my very own, would be held up as law.

Some examples of beliefs I disdain:
Women are inferior to women... or just "different" (wink, wink)

Wearing revealing clothing means a woman is "asking for it" and if she gets raped, well... not good, but it is partly her fault.

Women who are abused usually have done something to aggravate their husbands. Even in the few cases where that is not the case, it is her role to submit and therefore condemn her husband by her sanctity.

Of course women just don't have the skills, are not as talented as men in certain areas [fill in the blank..]

Blacks and whites should be separate.. it says so in the Bible.

If your great, great, great, great, grandfather or grandmother was a bastard, then you bear the shame of that sin.


ETC.

[Phatscotty]

night strike, what if two different religions have two different Creators that give us two different sets of rights? which one wins?

It is clear that our founders believed in the Judeo-Christian God, so that's who they believed provided those rights. Since Christianity teaches that there is no other god, that scenario would have never played into their foundations.

WTF does that matter? you totally missed the point of the hypothetical. The founding fathers were mostly Christian sure, but America is NOT a christian nation. Using the term creator is purposefully ambiguous as to which creator it refers to. To me "Their Creator" as opposed to "the creator" clearly denotes that the people this document blankets believe in many creators, and that regardless of which specific god you prey to certain rights are inherent to all men.


Also keep in mind that the man who wrote this document had slaves, and in no way was a perfect man, and that this document isn't scripture.

Yes but he knew slavery was wrong, and that many of his countrymen did not feel the same way he did. He wrote that there was no way to abolish it immediately, but what was needed was a new way of thinking, something along the lines of "All men are Created equal"...

We are not a Christian nation in a direct manner, but we were founded on Christian Principles. Without Christianity, we would have very different morals.

Our government system was/is based on morality to a certain extent. When society becomes immoral, government becomes immoral. The culture for corruption thrives in this environment.

[PLAYER57832]

We are not a Christian nation in a direct manner, but we were founded on Christian Principles. Without Christianity, we would have very different morals.

This is a circular argument, because the fact is that Christianity has been much shaped by the US, by the west, in general. Compare standard US Christianity to Greek Orthodoxy, for example.

Also, many of those things you attribute to Christianity can be found within other religions. In particular, you can see echoes of our constitution within the Iroquois Federation. What truly made the difference was not adherence to Christianity, but the realization that we could live together without agreeing about religion. It began with diversity within Christianity, simply because Christianity was the predominant religion. However, this claim that we are supposed to be only founded upon Christian faith implies that there is no true freedom. And, make no mistake, first comes questioning other religions, next comes narrowly defining what Christianity means. You already fall into that tract, as does jay. You each have more than once either outright stated or implied that I am not fully Christian because my political or economic views differ from your own. That is very dangerous indeed!

Our government system was/is based on morality to a certain extent. When society becomes immoral, government becomes immoral. The culture for corruption thrives in this environment.

Morality does not stem solely from Christianity. That is your mistake. Morality exists regardless of religion, even in atheism.

[HaireWolf1]

Obama believes in god but to him god is allah...small g