Is America a Biblical Nation?

[okinrus]

We have all heard that the founding Fathers were all god fearing Christian men and that this nation rests on a Judeo-Christian foundation. Curiously, these same men created a document - the Constitution - that does not mention god even once! That’s right – not once. Look it up right here;

As to whether they were God-fearing, I do not know. But I do know that they wanted freedom to worship --- that is, freedom to worship God as they please. Whether some of the founding father's felt that God was the Trinity or a Unitarian God, does not matter.

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...n.overview.html).
The Constitution - the supreme law of this land - written by some of the wisest men of their age, does not mention god even once.

Why would it?

The Constitution does however mention religion – once – as part of the 1st Amendment, which reads as follows:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
This clause, “the Establishment Clause”, is the basis for the principle of the separation of church and state.

Yes, seperation of church and state, not seperation of religion from the individual's indentity, whether that be in a goverment building or not.

Some of the Founding Fathers were the descendants of the Puritans. You know the Puritans. They came to the New World to escape religious persecution at the hands of the Church of England. And when they got here they practiced a brand of intolerance far harsher than what they had ever experienced in Europe.

What makes you certain that they practice a brand of religious intolerance far harsher? You need to produce evidence that puritans went around lynching thousands of people because they were not puritan. I'm sure that inside of a puritan community they would live like puritans do; it's as their religion commands.

There is endless debate about what the Fathers “intended” and how they wrote about god and religious matters in their private correspondence to each other all the time. All of that is beside the point.

No, it's quite revelant. Reading literature at the time might give a better analysis of what the Founding Father's actually mean. The spirit of the document contains the evident truths within it that apply for all generations. Although we need not take this too far, the laws of goverment have to be made of the spirit of the consitution, not the literal word disregarding the proper context.

The point is what they actually did! And what they did was to see fit to exclude god and religion from the Constitution.

Not mentioning God does not seem to suggest that the Founding Father's wanted a godless constiution. Rather, they wanted us to choose freely on religous matters thereby choosing whether this freedom was from God or not.

And then they added a safeguard to ensure that the state would take NO role in religious matters.

I'm not speaking of the state. What I'm suggesting is that the individual is free to practice his religious principles within goverment as long as it respects the nature of the institution. Does the constitution define what is justice, or for that matter injustice? No, they cannot. It's been left up to us, the people and of a freely chosen religion, to define what is justice.

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Turduckin
I don't suppose the fact that the declaration of independence mentioning the laws of nature and natures god, or the fact that it assumes that all men are created, enters into your argument about the founding father's beliefs at all.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

The DoI is NOT the Constitution, it was - err - a declaration. If the founders had "wanted" to blather on about god and creation then why didn't they do so??

Again, let's look at what they actually gave us, rather than what you presume they meant to do.

Perhaps we should investigate if any atrocities your direct ancestors committed might effect your particular beliefs.

.

If by this you are referring to my tag - then I applaud your knowledge of history - it is not germain however, as it comes from the first forum I ever joined which happened to be related to WWII flight sims.

What is germain to me - and no doubt the founding fathers -(coming out of the Age of Enlightenment as they did) - is the penchant for fanatics to exterminate those who disagree w/ them.
It matters little whether they are Xtian, Muslim, Marxist, or whatever.

Blind Faith kills - Often literally.

Barkhorn.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
The DoI is NOT the Constitution, it was - err - a declaration. If the founders had "wanted" to blather on about god and creation then why didn't they do so??

It was the concept of one creator that have established grounds for equalities and liberties. It was the premises that we are all created from the same source by a creator that have led to the success of the American constitution. Communism for instance is not based on the same premises that we are created equally..Communism claims that the government is god and all the people are servants for the government...quite conceptually different than the American consitution.

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
Again, let's look at what they actually gave us, rather than what you presume they meant to do.

understanding the intent is the most important factor in understanding and improving our constitution. If you deal with the information literally, then consider our best days to be 200 years behind us.

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
What is germain to me - and no doubt the founding fathers -(coming out of the Age of Enlightenment as they did) - is the penchant for fanatics to exterminate those who disagree w/ them.
It matters little whether they are Xtian, Muslim, Marxist, or whatever.

Blind Faith kills - Often literally.

Barkhorn.

That I agree with....There is a fine line between belief and fanaticism, and many do cross the line. The founding fathers were super carefull in their language from fear of being misunderstood as warrants to cross the line. Yet, that fear should not be construed as lack of beleif from our founding fathers.

 

[okinrus]

Blind Faith kills - Often literally

Well, if you can say how someone's faith in Love can kill then perhaps you will know. It's surely not faith that kills, but rather faith in the wrong things. If mankind truely had faith, then they would believe in love. But because mankind has faith in destruction they do destruction.

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Sigh!!! You are a thick one aren't you?

Originally posted by okinrus
As to whether they were God-fearing, I do not know. But I do know that they wanted freedom to worship --- that is, freedom to worship God as they please. Whether some of the founding father's felt that God was the Trinity or a Unitarian God, does not matter.

Yea, that's why there is a seperation clause - re: the Puritan experience again!.

Why would it?

If god is so central to public and private life - as Xtians claim him/her it to be - one would expect that this would be affirmed in a document that is the law of the land.

Yes, seperation of church and state, not seperation of religion from the individual's indentity, whether that be in a goverment building or not.

Here you are clearly wrong - religion in a government building is tantamount to endorsment of said religion. But suppose you are right here - the WHICH religion would the one chosen as being OK for a government building??

What makes you certain that they practice a brand of religious intolerance far harsher? You need to produce evidence that puritans went around lynching thousands of people because they were not puritan. I'm sure that inside of a puritan community they would live like puritans do; it's as their religion commands.

Hmm...how about;
1. The restoration of the English monarchy after some years of Puritan rule.
2. The Salem Witch Trials

Read some history.

No, it's quite revelant. Reading literature at the time might give a better analysis of what the Founding Father's actually mean. The spirit of the document contains the evident truths within it that apply for all generations. Although we need not take this too far, the laws of goverment have to be made of the spirit of the consitution, not the literal word disregarding the proper context.

Hey, this kind of approach may work for bible apologists and "progressive" judges but the rest of us need to stick to what's actually on the page.

Not mentioning God does not seem to suggest that the Founding Father's wanted a godless constiution. Rather, they wanted us to choose freely on religous matters thereby choosing whether this freedom was from God or not.

1st sentence = maybe
2nd sentence = that's what I've been saying!!!!!

I'm not speaking of the state. What I'm suggesting is that the individual is free to practice his religious principles within goverment as long as it respects the nature of the institution. Does the constitution define what is justice, or for that matter injustice? No, they cannot. It's been left up to us, the people and of a freely chosen religion, to define what is justice.

Dude, no one is trying to take your religion away from you. We just don't want to have it thrown in our faces at school, at court, in work, etc.

I'll make a deal w/ you - I'll let you hang the 10 Commandments in my courthouse and host prayers before a HS football game - if you allow me to come and teach evolution in Sunday school.

Barkhorn.

 

[okinrus]

Here you are clearly wrong - religion in a government building is tantamount to endorsment of said religion. But suppose you are right here - the WHICH religion would the one chosen as being OK for a government building??

No, I said individual. Clearly someone who is Christian remains Christian, and will performtheir respective duties within a goverment office. Of course this would not forbid making moral judgements and choices with regard to religion as long as they do not discriminate people of other religions.

Dude, no one is trying to take your religion away from you. We just don't want to have it thrown in our faces at school, at court, in work, etc.

I don't understand what you mean by thrown at you. For instance, if a member of a jury prayed in order to discern the evidence, would this be a breach of law?

I'll make a deal w/ you - I'll let you hang the 10 Commandments in my courthouse and host prayers before a HS football game - if you allow me to come and teach evolution in Sunday school.

Well I don't see the Ten Commandments as a religious symbol, but a historical one. What if some cult starts worshiping paper? Do we throw out paper from all goverment buildings? I also believe in evolution as a scientific field, but not on the level of faith.

 

[Raithere]

I decided to cheat a bit here and offer a list of quotations. The quotations from the Supreme Court (towards the bottom) are of particular importance as it is the function of the Supreme Court to interpret, explain, and rule upon the meaning of the Constitution. Sorry guys but the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that there is indeed a separation of church and state.

Source (along with many more quotations):
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

Enjoy!

~Raithere

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."--First Amendment to the U.S.A. Constitution

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], ... - "Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797.

E PLURIBUS UNUM ... is the Latin motto on the face of the Great Seal of the United States; .... This phrase means one out of the many. It refers to the creation of one nation, the United States, out of 13 colonies. It is equally appropriate to today's federal system. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, members of the first committee for the selection of the seal, suggested the motto in 1776. It can be traced back to Horace's Epistles [65-8 BCE]. Since 1873, the law requires that this motto appear on one side of every United States coin that is minted. (Donald H. Mugridge,World Book Encyclopedia, Volume 6 (E), Chicago: Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, 1976, p.2. "E Pluribus Unum" has appeared on most U. S. coins, beginning in the late 1790s. The motto "In God We Trust" did not appear on any U. S. coin until 1864, when "Its presence on the new coin was due largely to the increased religious sentiment during the Civil War Crisis," according to R. S. Yeoman, A Guide Book of United States Coins, 38th ed., Racine, Wisc.: Western Publishing Co., p. 89. The religious motto did not appear regularly on U. S. paper money until the 1950s.)

Many of the states [in the period between the Revolution and the adoption of the U. S. Constitution], in order to obviate any suggestion of a religious establishment, prohibited all clergymen from sitting in the legislation. - Gordon S, Wood, The Creation of the American Republic

In the mid-eighteenth century, America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom. American religious statistics are notoriously unreliable, but it has been estimated that in 1800 about one of every fifteen Americans was a church member ... (Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life

Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate....The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual matters between men or between man and his maker ... spiritual matters are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion. - U. S. Supreme Court, Melvin v. Easley

[Chief Justice Morrison Waite, in Reynolds vs. U.S., a Supreme Court decision in 1878] cited Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785, in which, said Waite, "he demonstrated "that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,' was not within the cognizance of civil government." This was followed, said Waite, by passage of the Virginia statute "for establishing religious freedom," written by Jefferson, which proclaimed complete liberty of opinion and allowed no interference by government until ill tendencies "break out into overt acts against peace and good order." Finally, the Chief Justice cited Jefferson's letter of 1802 to the Danbury Baptist association, describing the First Amendment as "building a wall of separation between church and state." Coming as this does, said Waite, "from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured." (Irving Brant, The Bill of Rights: Its Origin and Meaning, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1965, p. 407.)

Supreme Court Justice Rutledge stated in 1947 that the First Amendment was not designed merely to prohibit governmental imposition of a religion; it was designed to create "a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority...."

"the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." - Justice Hugo Black, U. S. Supreme Court

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Justice Hugo Black, U. S. Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education

The preservation of the community from division conflicts, of government from irreconcilable pressures by religious groups, of religion from censorship and coercion however subtly exercised, requires strict confinement of the state to instruction other than religious, leaving to the individual's church and home, indoctrination in the faith of his choice.... The extent to which this principle was deemed a presupposition of our Constitutional system is strikingly illustrated by the fact that every state admitted into the Union since 1876 was compelled by Congress to write into its constitution a requirement that it maintain a school system "free from sectarian control." ... (Justice Felix Frankfurter, U. S. Supreme Court, in McCollum v. Board of Education

Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of nonreligion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. (U. S. Supreme Court, Epperson v. Arkansas

 

[Flores]

Well I don't see the Ten Commandments as a religious symbol, but a historical one. What if some cult starts worshiping paper? Do we throw out paper from all goverment buildings? I also believe in evolution as a scientific field, but not on the level of faith.

So is it a deal or not? Can the dude teach evolution in Sunday school?

I want another deal with you. Just as historic as the Ten Commandments and the bible, the Quran is equally historic. So my deal to you is that I would particiapte in christian prayer before the football game on the condition that you read one Sura out of the Quran before every game and in Sunday school.

 

[Flores]

So is it a deal or not? Can the dude teach evolution in Sunday school?

I want another deal with you. Just as historic as the Ten Commandments and the bible, the Quran is equally historic. So my deal to you is that I would particiapte in christian prayer before the football game on the condition that you read one Sura out of the Quran before every game and in Sunday school.

I have received more requests from other groups.

Inorder to allow the christian prayer in the name of Jesus before the football game,

1- The muslims want one Sura to be read out of the Quran.
2- The Jews want to perform a public circumsizion.
3- The buhdist want to make a special prayer for all the little ants that we are actively stepping on.
4- The Atheists want to make a special prayer that someone comes to their rescue and proof to them that god exist.
5- The Satanist would like to light a fire and pray for Satan.
6- People that believe in vampires would like to perform a live feeding.
and many more requests...

Can we do anything in life, let alone watch a simple football game if we let religion interfere or even becomes part of our public life.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I have received more requests from other groups.

Inorder to allow the christian prayer in the name of Jesus before the football game,

1- The muslims want one Sura to be read out of the Quran.
2- The Jews want to perform a public circumsizion.
3- The buhdist want to make a special prayer for all the little ants that we are actively stepping on.
4- The Atheists want to make a special prayer that someone comes to their rescue and proof to them that god exist.
5- The Satanist would like to light a fire and pray for Satan.
6- People that believe in vampires would like to perform a live feeding.
and many more requests...

Can we do anything in life, let alone watch a simple football game if we let religion interfere or even becomes part of our public life.

----------
M*W: Is there no end to being politically correct?

7- The gays want to be acknowledged by the waving of the rainbow flag while the National Anthem is played at all games.
8- The Brahmans want to have a ceremony worshipping a cow, but they are willing to do it during half-time.
9- Women want to be honored as goddesses while all the men in the stadium bow down to them as they strut across the field from end zone to end zone.
10- Jehovah's Witnesses aggressively demand that they be allowed to distribute The Watchtower to everyone entering the stadium.
11- Taoists humbly request to participate in the half-time show by performing Tai Chi on the field.
12- Street People plan to carry a sign that says "Will Work For Food" as they barge in with their tin cups and infiltrate the spectators begging for money (but NOT "food").
13- Feminists demand a pre-game talk show on TV with women athletes ONLY.
14- Rednecks want to parade their pick-up trucks around the stadium while chewing tobacco and listening to Johnny Paycheck's "Take This Job and Shove It" as loud as they can.
15- Blondes request that they be treated like brunettes with bleached hair.

...and the list goes on and on and on....

 

[Turduckin]

Again, let's look at what they actually gave us, rather than what you presume they meant to do.

.Barkhorn.

The establishment clause and the absence of any mention of God in the Constitution indicates an intention on the part of the founders - and I am in agreement with you and the framers on that intention - to keep the federal government from establishing or promoting religion. A few things bother me about the form of your argument, though. What they acutally gave us is, at times, subject to interpretation. But apparently it's ok for you to speculate on what impact the Puritans may have had on the motivations of the framers, but it is somehow wrong for others 'endlessly speculate' on what the framers meant to do. By exhibiting strict construction for the founding document and yet making the freewheeling assertion they did not care about freedom to worship, or imply that they weren't influenced by Judeo-Christian principles - you follow the same rational form as the 'fanatics' you argue against, namely - strict construction on the founding document (bible) and freewheeling assertions about the intentions or influences of the framers to bolster a position. That sounds fundamentalist to me.

 

[Flores]

By exhibiting strict construction for the founding document and yet making the freewheeling assertion they did not care about freedom to worship, or imply that they weren't influenced by Judeo-Christian principles - you follow the same rational form as the 'fanatics' you argue against

This is true, yet Barkhorn1x have succeeded in stating his objective clearly and honestly, regardless of whether it's true or false, which makes his assertions less dangerous and easier to understand, while you didn't. I understand Barkhorn1x objective clearly. He is clearly set to proof that the subject of this thread "Is America a biblical nation" to be false based on the constitution and supreme court findings...Now, you need to state your objective "clearly". What are you trying to achieve a connection between the constitution and the bible principles?...Do you wish to proof something in specific as barkhorn1x is trying to proof? State your position and please don't tell us thatyour devil advocate remarks is just for the heck of stimulating this discussion.

 

[Turduckin]

This is true, yet Barkhorn1x have succeeded in stating his objective clearly and honestly, regardless of whether it's true or false, which makes his assertions less dangerous and easier to understand, while you didn't. I understand Barkhorn1x objective clearly. He is clearly set to proof that the subject of this thread "Is America a biblical nation" to be false based on the constitution and supreme court findings...Now, you need to state your objective "clearly". What are you trying to achieve a connection between the constitution and the bible principles?...Do you wish to proof something in specific as barkhorn1x is trying to proof? State your position and please don't tell us thatyour devil advocate remarks is just for the heck of stimulating this discussion.

Fair enough. The formulation of the thread is muddy in that it attempts to bypass the actual argument of the Christian Right in an effort to create a stronger platform from which to argue: Specifically I site the opening text of the link:

The myth that the United States is founded on the "Judeo-Christian Bible" persists and prospers despite readily available evidence. Contrary to popular belief, the Founding Fathers rejected the biblical model in favor of a secular model of government.

Using the phrase "Judeo-Christian Bible" makes the assertion much easier to prove and, indeed, I agree with it.

The actual argument of the American Christian Right however, is that the American government, and democracy itself is based on Judeo-Christian PRINCIPLES and this makes for a much more complex and interesting argument on both sides of the issue. The simplest argument is that the intellectual environment of the time was framed by the issues raised in the Bible. Unitarianism was a response to the Biblical concept of the Trinity. Deism was an attempt to reconcile new observations of a natural world run by mechanical laws with the Biblical concept of a sovereign God that could change those laws at will. But stating that the intellectual environment of the time is was affected by Judeo Christian principles and therefore the the country was founded on them is a weak argument. A stronger argument reaches back to Luther's rediscovery of a central tenant of Christianity that even some Christians don't like - the priesthood of the beleiver - the idea that each man is free and responsible to stand in relationship with God on his own without a mediator or authority externally imposed. That idea was radical in Christ's time, it was radical in Luthor's time and it is foundational to the concept that man could govern himself democratically. This idea is fully and eloquently explored in Thomas Cahill's book - The Desire of the Everlasting Hills. Before Jesus, nothing changed and no one expected things to change from one generation to the next. The strong conquered the weak and that was the way things were. After Jesus, the idea, the possibility of radical transformation existed. As the Age of Reason stands solidly and squarely on the shoulders of the Protestant Reformation, America is founded solidly and squarely on Judeo-Christian principles.

 

[Hastein]

Above is a little comical twist I made to an old NAZI WWII belt buckle. The wording on it is the same as the original however and means, "God with us".

For the SS, the reference was not towards the Christian god, but to Wotan. Many people often confuse this. It still stands that the Nazis used Christianity as a propaganda machine, but the movement itself was rather anti-Judeo-Christian.

 

[okinrus]

So is it a deal or not? Can the dude teach evolution in Sunday school?

Evolution would be off-topic in sunday school because it is not in the respository of faith. But then so is other scientific theories. I'd imagine that some discussion on Evolution might be possible when studying Adam and Eve.

I want another deal with you. Just as historic as the Ten Commandments and the bible, the Quran is equally historic.

Well, while I said that the Ten Commandments were historic, obviously other people are free to say that they were not. In either case, I don't think most historians would deny the effect that the Ten Commandments have on morality.

So my deal to you is that I would particiapte in christian prayer before the football game on the condition that you read one Sura out of the Quran before every game and in Sunday school.

You cannot pray unless if you believe in what you saying, and do it in the spirit of truth and honesty. I don't have objections to having silent time in class to pray or meditate in class however one wishes, but this would be hard to put into practice.

 

[Rappaccini]

In regard to the original query (seeing as that's all I read), no, I don't believe that the United States is a nation founded with Christian values in mind. I think property rights were indefinitely more important to the Founders than religious scruples.

 

[Barkhorn1x]

A few things bother me about the form of your argument, though. What they acutally gave us is, at times, subject to interpretation. But apparently it's ok for you to speculate on what impact the Puritans may have had on the motivations of the framers, but it is somehow wrong for others 'endlessly speculate' on what the framers meant to do. By exhibiting strict construction for the founding document and yet making the freewheeling assertion they did not care about freedom to worship, or imply that they weren't influenced by Judeo-Christian principles - you follow the same rational form as the 'fanatics' you argue against, namely - strict construction on the founding document (bible) and freewheeling assertions about the intentions or influences of the framers to bolster a position. That sounds fundamentalist to me.

You, know - in hindsight - I agree w/ you. I should not speculate for I have no hard proof here. So - junking my interpretation of the influence of the Puritan experience - I reiterate my original point. The framers were quite clear on the separation of church and state and fundies want to erase this separation because they feel that w/o the wonderful influence of the xtian god we are all going to hell in a handbasket - a laughable assertion.

Barkhorn.

 

[Flores]

Evolution would be off-topic in sunday school because it is not in the respository of faith.

You are wrong, many scientists that believe in this theory have strong faith that it's correct and holds the answer to the purpose of life for humanity. Why do you belittle their faith compared to your christian faith? On what basis do you establish appropriatness of faith.

Well, while I said that the Ten Commandments were historic, obviously other people are free to say that they were not. In either case, I don't think most historians would deny the effect that the Ten Commandments have on morality.

What do you mean by historic? The past??? Well, the entire past is historic including Pharonic era and all rules regarding Pharonic government....Again why do you even bring history to this discussion.

You cannot pray unless if you believe in what you saying,

not really, you have no idea regarding the truthfullness of your own priest while praying...So why not just pray in private? Why do christians congregate while it's impossible to enter another heart and check purity. Why do christians go againest their own bible that asks them to pray in private and even enter closets to pray. Do christians hide from others and trust unto the father that sees them in secret and pray to the father only when they are alone? Or do they make a social party out of the act of praying to the son of the father?

Matt.6
[6] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

and do it in the spirit of truth and honesty. I don't have objections to having silent time in class to pray or meditate in class however one wishes, but this would be hard to put into practice.

Yes, it would be hard to be put into practice and we are dealing with silence, so why do you support the mixing of religion and state if you already recognize the hurdles behind the implementation.

 

[okinrus]

You are wrong, many scientists that believe in this theory have strong faith that it's correct and holds the answer to the purpose of life for humanity. Why do you belittle their faith compared to your christian faith? On what basis do you establish appropriatness of faith.

Yes, but it's not on par with my faith in God because God has not revealed that Evolution is true. In particular, how life actually got started is difficult to explain without God's divine providence.

What do you mean by historic? The past??? Well, the entire past is historic including Pharonic era and all rules regarding Pharonic government....Again why do you even bring history to this discussion.

I'm sure that many goverment buildings have historical figures and statues. Fact is, that what we consider religious is completely based upon our view. For instance, if the Ten Commandments were replaced with "Thou shalt not write God's name in a goverment building" is that religous? I think it is.

not really, you have no idea regarding the truthfullness of your own priest while praying...So why not just pray in private?

Jesus says that whenever we gather as a group in prayer the Father is in our mist.

Why do christians congregate while it's impossible to enter another heart and check purity.

The Holy Spirit can reveal this to someone if was such an impediment.

Why do christians go againest their own bible that asks them to pray in private and even enter closets to pray. Do christians hide from others and trust unto the father that sees them in secret and pray to the father only when they are alone? Or do they make a social party out of the act of praying to the son of the father?

You are trying to prove your own righteousness by praying in private. Christ says in Matthew to pray behind close doors; however, if prayer is done as group, it is not hypocritical because all have joined in prayer. As is written, the Apostles would gather in prayer unceasingly, and besides, is it not written in Surah 107 that Musilms should pray in secret?

Yes, it would be hard to be put into practice and we are dealing with silence, so why do you support the mixing of religion and state if you already recognize the hurdles behind the implementation.

No, I did not say I supported it. I said that I had no objection to it.

 

[Flores]

Jesus says that whenever we gather as a group in prayer the Father is in our mist.

Show me the scripture in regards to group prayer.

The Holy Spirit can reveal this to someone if was such an impediment.

How, again, show me scripture asserting that the holy spirit can show man the heart of another man?

You are trying to prove your own righteousness by praying in private.

What???Proof it to who exactly...I'm in a closet without anybodies knowledge addressing god? I'm trying to proof my own righteousness to god..of course, isn't that the point??? Plus, are you accusing the bible of promoting self righteousness, for it clearly compulses us to pray in private:
[6] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Please address the biblical scripture.

Christ says in Matthew to pray behind close doors; however, if prayer is done as group, it is not hypocritical because all have joined in prayer.

But the bible says that the potential of hypocracy is very high in groups, plus it singles out and calls for private religion, so what is your point, if you even have one?

As is written, the Apostles would gather in prayer unceasingly, and besides, is it not written in Surah 107 that Musilms should pray in secret?

But, you are not an apostle, you are YOU and you have no way of telling the content of any bodies heart beside yourself. Plus, you misunderstood Surah 107.
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.


[107.1] Have you considered him who calls the judgment a lie?
[107.2] That is the one who treats the orphan with harshness,
[107.3] And does not urge (others) to feed the poor.
[107.4] So woe to the praying ones,
[107.5] Who are unmindful of their prayers,
[107.6] Who do (good) to be seen,
[107.7] And withhold the necessaries of life.

Surah 107 speaks of those that are unmidfull of their prayers...Now I ask you, how more mindfull can you get when you in private inside a closet with no environmental or social disturbances praying to the object of your love and affection. When one loves one wife or husband, do they have to go to church and have sex with them infront of everyone to see, or do you cover underneath the covers and enjoy each other's intimacy with the minds completely concentrating on each other without bringing any other mental picture to your union.

Okinrus, you are obviously not comfortable in the private company of yourself and your creator...please reassess because that's not a healthy nor a real relationship.

No, I did not say I supported it. I said that I had no objection to it.

And what is the difference....?