America founded as a Christian nation?

" Why does any one care if two gays get married as long as you dont have to sleep between them .Or for that matter if a guy has three wives .How does either one of these things adversely affect the lives of any one making posts here?The constitution may not specifically grant these rights .But its wording along with the founders writings would indicate that people do have these rights .As the ninth amendment states the enumeration of certain rights should not be construed to deny others .Which means freedom of choice to do as we please as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others .No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24
"[The] best principles [of our republic] secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Wilmington, 1809. ME 16:336
"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority." --Thomas Jefferson to New London Methodists, 1809. ME 16:332 .Government has drifted so far from the constitution and the peoples rights of freedom and liberty and pursuit of happiness
Thats whats destroyed the fabric of our country .People thinking they have the right to dictate their idea of morals and life style over other people .In things that neither are any of their business or adversely affects their life or infringes on their rights .Its no more right that if gays said heterosexuals can't mary or polygamists said you have to have more than one wife . Its no ones business but the people who are mutual agreement of it . Freedom ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness .Where does the constitution grant government or any one authority determine another's happiness.and life style .It does say states will pass no laws affecting an individual's right to unlimited contract In order to have liberty your self you have to able to grant it to others . "

" Do you think if Japan and Germany had taken over the rest of the world that we would still have our FREEDOM! Also how long do you think this would be a free country if we did not have a military! Veterans are the reason we live in FREEDOM! Are you really that uncaring and unable to figure things out! All veterans have helped defend our FREEDOm by their service! "

" Why does the DGC print things on this thread that are ANTI VETERAN by saying they don't protect our freedom,but when somebody says something positive about veterans the DGC won't print it??????????????? "

" Forget about stupid people that don't know that Germany and Japan if they had taken over the rest of the world would have taken our FREEDOM too! If this country did not have a military we would not have our freedom long! So ALL VETS serve to protect our FREEDOM!!! SO forget the uncaring people that don't have brains and have not been able to figure that out! They are probably just friends of Bill Ayers and also anti american!!!!!!!!GOD BLESS OUR VETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

" @ FYI

Thanks for the post, I actually found it funny, I have thin skin, and can take a joke, and have a good sense of humor. Look I could care less if you or anyone else knew that I have an MBA or frankly what my education level is. The point I was trying to make to roflcopter is that he is wrong to accuse people of being uneducated because they don't happen to agree with his positions. Anyway, I am glad I could provide some laughter for you lol. OH yeah nice reference to the Chuck Norris roundhouse kick, and Walker Texas Ranger....great show! Check out the new Chuck Norris joke book...its pretty sweet.

@ J

You keep asking me for a reason not to allow gays to marry based on a non moral or non bigoted response. First of all I don't necessarily appreciate your assuming that my stance on this issue is bigoted, thats your opinion much like I have my opinion of your stance but I choose to keep it to myself. Secondly you still want to walk around my polygamy question.....why? Is it because you may sound like a hypocrite if you answer it how you truly feel? If you re-define traditional marriage then where does it end? Also if you disagree with my saying that someone is trying to force a gay agenda down America's throat just look at the protests all over the place.

As for your procreation argument it is ridiculous......a man and a woman can procreate, no not always but since when have you known a man and a man or woman and a woman to ever procreate....?

Look fact of the matter is go back to when our founding documents were written and ask people what they would think about allowing gay "marriage" I doubt you would even get the civil union or domestic partnership thing through back then so we have come a long way in that sense. You don't have to agree to disagree I could care less what you think and I am sure that you could care less what I think. My non moral or non bigoted argument would be for you to show me in the constitution where it shows a provision for gay marriage? I know you will come back at me with all of the language and amendments or whatever I don't care about that. Every group in America can seemingly "interpret" the conversation to fit whatever agenda they may have. So should we allow a man to marry multiple women? Can you answer that now?

I don't care whether you think my argument is weak, based on your liberal viewpoint...I personally don't. I find gay marriage morally reprehensible, and not right. Thats my take on it and I really could care less if you agree with it or not. Fact of the matter is that ultra liberal viewpoints are tearing at the very fabric of this country and its founding principles. "

" Sorry Jay but when someone is being denied a basic civil liberty afforded under the Constitution I can't just "agree to disagree" as they say. You say I haven't answered your polygamy question but neither you nor anyone else has given ONE legally-justifiable reason to not allow gay marriage. You define marriage as between one woman and one man, why? For procreation? But we allow a couple who is infertile to marry. We don't require married couples to have children (thank God). I just don't see this whole "slippery slope" you're arguing. Our system is set up to allow slow, steady progress. That's what allowing TWO adults who wants to committ to each other for life (no matter their gender) is...progress. So the courts won't just allow someone to marry 4 people, or marry a dog, or marry their car just because they allowed two adult males or females to get married. That's now how our system is set up.

Until you can give me one reason that doesn't relate to your morals or your bigotry, I can't even begin to give any credibility to your arguments. Oh and it's also hard to imagine someone using the phrase "gay agenda" being as well-spoken as you are, so kudos. "

" Does everyone know that Jay has an MBA? He is also much younger than your average old person. I’m just saving him the trouble of typing that when he gets challenged. This is assuming he hasn’t already typed this already in this thread. Jay you are where fun goes to die. Get a sense of humor man. You aren't going to change the world or even anyone's mind by posting on the forums of a local newspaper. However, indirectly, you have brought some fun back to the discussions by giving ROFLCOPTER something to feed on. And for that I commend you sir. Actually the more I type about you the more I like you. Would you like to be friends? No probably not, earlier I accused you of fun homicide. Gee willickers, I hope you don't smack me with your MBA, or execute a perfect "Walker Texas Ranger" round house kick to my mid-section with your young and superior intellect. Gosh, this post is rife with Psychological problems. I hope Jay or J will help me out. "

" thanks for serveing... serving in the wars which in no way ever involved our freedoms. I get tired of veterans pounding the "freedom" drum when they want a hand out. Unless you served in the revolutionary war or war of 1812, YOU DID NOT KEEP US FREE! Our freedom has not been threatened in any other subsequent war. Lets look at the 20th century: WW One-How was our freedom threatened by the German-english-french conflict? ww2-could japan actually have invaded the USA? NO, the sneaky japs bombed pearl harbor and all and I'm glad they got their asses kicked but the freedoms of the american citizens were never in jeoprady. The rest of the wars were USA aggression against other nations...we challenged the freedoms of other nations. If vets wanted to fight for our freedom, they'd be protesting against Big government which is taking away our freedoms.

I THANK VETS FOR SERVING...they did a duty not many people wanted to do...Again, .THANKS! But don't ring that tired old "we ft fought for your freedom" bell and expect intelligent americans to automatically salute. Did all those kids that got chewed up in Iraq fight for my freedom OR did they fight for oil companies and Bush's revenge? Ever notice that Bush, a non-veteran (except for his questionable stint in Air National Guard courtesy of George SR)., kept saying that while he and his buddies made billions? AGAIN, thanks for your service...but you did not fight for my freedom....you fought for other reasons...some more honorable than others. One more thing, "funny" how Bush and non-serving pals smeared John kerry A REAL WAR HERO, and you all joined in on it. "

" 360,222 Union casualties isn't reparations enough? "

" WHY! Do you enjoy making liberals look like unfeeling people? We are the people that care! If you really care then stop trying to help us because you are a nightmare to our cause ! "

" @ J

First of all my thoughts on marriage and what you perceived my thoughts to be are incorrect. I define it as ONE MAN & ONE WOMAN. So sorry you trying to make me look like a hypocrite didn't work. But you on the other hand tip toeing around my polygamist question shows where some of your argument falls apart. It was a simple yes or no question....so feel free to answer it if you like. Your argument about polygamists not being a big enough or large enough portion of our society to worry about also shows your inability to make a valid argument.....don't you believe that everyone should have the same rights regardless of size.......are you telling me that you don't? I don't think gays should be allowed to marry any more than polygamists should...on that I am consistent. Plus why should we allow one group to strong arm their agenda on American's that strongly disagree with it, whats next? The people have spoken and their will should be recognized. Also I will go ahead and stick with my "bogus" stats, many of these studies that you have shown me would probably be conducted to advance the gay agenda....I am not buying it. I will agree with you on the divorce rate being high, this is a direct example of how the institution of marriage is not given the proper weight that is deserved.....but is no reason to change the definition of marriage.

Lets face it I am not going to push my beliefs on you and change your mind no more than you are going to change mine, no matter how many stats we throw at each other, so lets just make peace with that fact and get on with it. "

" @ 'Dan':

I think you take the Interwebs too seriously. "

" ONE GOD, ONE BIBLE (more than 2,000 years old), ONE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks, Nila. "

" To all those opposed to gay marriage. After you boil it all down, what is the MAIN reason that you oppose it? My guess would be that it is against the will of your god. All the other reasons stated below have been used before, when the Supreme Court said you couldn't stop blacks and white from intermarrying. At that time we heard that it would lead to polygamy, oh lord what's next, child marriage?

There is no LEGAL reason to deny them the same rights you or I have. As someone else has said, if you keep your religion out or my government, I'll make sure my government keeps out of your religion.

Oh and BTW 99% of all statistics can be made up on the spot without any research needed. "

" First off slavery is over, has been for a very long time. It wasn't right and it was stopped get over it.

As for gay "marriage", who really cares ???? Why do all of you FEAR gay people getting married ???? Are you jealous, because they acctually fond some one to fall in love with ???? I dont get it. They are people just like every one of you on this site. What if your son or daughter came to you and said, "mom/dad I am gay" ???? Hopefully you would be understanding and not press your bigoted ideals on to them. People you need to get over gay marraige. It will be legal some day and we wont have to talk about it any more.

Now for abortion, it was brought up a couple times. Lets say your 14 year old grand daughter was raped by 4 differant cracked up guys of a differant race than her. A couple weeks later you find out she is pregnant. Should she be forced to carry that child to full term, knowing it could cause physical and or mental problems to your grand daughter ??????

Lastly ...
I dont care what color you are, what sex you are, what kind of car you drive, what church you do or dont go to, how much education you have, or anything else people tend to complain about. This is a FREE country. Get out and live your lives and stop trying to force people to live your life.

Next time you see a veteran, shake thier hand and say thank you. They did what you wouldnt do. "

" DO US LIBERALS A FAVOR ROFLCOPTER AND BECOME A CONSERVATIVE. IT IS THE BEST THING YOU COULD DO FOR US. "

" How anyone can dare argue about the "sanctity of marriage" in a culture with a 50%+ divorce rate among HETEROSEXUAL couples is deplorable. I don't understand what the big deal is. Two adults want to form a legal union, who are you to say otherwise? I don't care if you don't want to send them wedding gifts, but the US government should recognize them. Also, to Jay: I notice you didn't say anything about the comparison between homosexual marriage rights and interracial marriage rights. I mean what's the difference? Before Loving, marriage was "traditionally" defined one way then the Court said it wasn't Constitutional. So are you against interracial marriage too? I mean that's not how marriage is "traditionally" defined.
Also, while we're all entitled to our opinions there are some "opinions" that we shouldn't allow to color our laws. I might be of the opinion that all relgious behavior is offensive and coercive in nature so therefore we shouldn't give tax-exempt status to churches. Should we base a law on my opinion?
As for your arguement asking "what's next", again I bet the white folks in Virginia were asking "first blacks marry whites, and the next thing you know we have men marrying chickens." While my quote is a little silly it's not any more ignorant than what you and "what's next" said. Much like all legal concepts, "marriage" already is an evolving legal relationship. It started as one thing and through political and social pressure, changed to reflect a more tolerant society. Until polygamist become a larger and more accepted part of the US I don't think we have to fear them. However, homosexual people are a large portion of our society and to exclude them from the benefits of marriage based SOLELY on their sexual orientation is ludacris and embarassing to this country.
Finally, you should look at Lawrene v. Texas where the Supreme Court said that the government needs more than just a "moral and historic" reason to make a discriminatory law. Other than your bogus stats that children raised by a hetero couple are better than children raised by a gay couple, {Feel free to go here: [http://www.bidstrup.com/parenbib.htm] to read any of the 28 different articles that say you are incorrect in your assertion.} give me one non-moral, non-historic reason that gays should not be allowed to LEGALLY marry. "

" To Roflcopter: If you had any knowledge you'd understand that a "GED in Psychology" does not exist. You are an antagonist and quite annoying. I'll not describe why a GED can't be in Psych, it'd probably confuse you.

REAL homophobia does fit into the description. So, good for you for being so freaking brilliant as to link a "PHOBIA" to a disorder. (Again, I'll not define phobia, because you'd be confused). Technically speaking, though, most people who might be labeled as homophobic are actually just people who don't like homosexuals or their lifestyles. For example, someone may not like snakes but not have ophidiophobia.

Now, I could just oversimplify the definition of a disorder by calling it some psychological or behavioral pattern that is seen as socially, mentally, or physically maladaptive. Most psychologists use this to some degree to determine disorders. If you think of all the ways being gay is maladaptive then why wouldn't it be considered a disorder?

BTW, I have an undergraduate degree in psychology and a postgraduate degree as well. "

" I get so tired of hearing black people complain that white people owe them! I don't owe you anything. You are not a slave and you never have been. Your ancestors were slaves NOT YOU. FYI, white people didn't make you slaves, Africans made you slaves first. White people just bought your ancestors and brought them to this country. Give you a million dollars, please! Get out and work for it like everyone else. Incase anyone forgot, we just elected our first black President. I think, for the most part, this country has overcome it's racism. There will always be people who are racist and not just against blacks. There is racism against blacks, whites, mexicans, women, religion, gays etc. There will always be people out there that think they are above someone else, but the majority of the people don't think that way.

No matter what anyone thinks this country was founded on Christian beliefs. GET OVER IT! The majority of this country is Christian and, since we still live in a democracy, the majority rules. The majority of the people don't believe in same sex marriage. I have nothing against homosexuals, that's your business not mine. However, I also agree same sex marriage is wrong. If the courts decides same sex marriage is allowable, where does it end? Maybe someone wants to marry a child or an animal or have 50 wives or husbands? When do we decide it's wrong? They will claim that they love whoever or whatever they love, that doesn't make it morally right. I could care less if people think I am being racist because I think same sex marriage is wrong. My beliefs are based on the Bible. Jesus died for all of us so I will continue to always try to do his will not mans, regardless of who feels offended by it.

If I remember history correctly this country was started because we were tired of being heavily taxed by the English. Too bad, we couldn't get back to that principle. "

" Well I was almost speechless when I read this.....almost. The stupidity of some people amaze me sometimes. You deserve a million dollars no more than I do. Plus don't be spouting your nonsense about America being built on the backs of blacks, there were plenty of Caucasians, Asians, Germans, Irish, etc etc that helped build this country into the amazing one that it is today, where are the million dollars for them? Plus the phrase "you whites owe us a great debt" shows just how dumb, narrow minded and racist you really are. Slavery was horrible, it has been recognized, you have been apologized to, where would the million dollars come from for your handout? Good question huh? The reason that the race issue will never die or at least progresss is because of people like you, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc etc, get over it and quit looking for a handout. Your argument is dumb and shows your real level of intelligence. Oh yeah, didn't the slave trade originate in Africa? With your own people selling you into slavery??? Hmmmmmmmm interesting. "

" @ 'RE Copters Jefferson quote':

Finally, someone intelligent. "

" Now that Obama is president, perhaps we can begin to heal the old festering wounds of slavery. The first step will be $1 million reparations to every black person in the USA. White America was built on the backs of black men and women. You whites owe us a great debt...and the monetary reparations would be good-faith gesture of your intent to keep your promises of equality and freedom. I hope the settlement is made soon and the descendants of slavery can feel a measure of justice. "

" Yet another unverifiable quote, not found in any of Jefferson's writings.

Or maybe that was Copter's point. "

" To the Black person that made the comments about 'all you white people' you are stereotyping CAUCASIAN people, and you will be the one to stand up and whine about being stereotyped. With your spelling, I think you need to get some lessons. I am a WHITE person whose family never owned slaves. I am related to many people of color and I see no color as to which judge a person, can you say the same? "

" @ roflcopter

Just because people don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean that they are homophobic, so lets not skew that point. The sanctity of marriage is something that should absolutely be protected and not allow some group re-define it by coercion and intimidation, no matter how radical the protests. As I said earlier you know that it wouldn't fly in this country to allow polygamists to re-define it so why the gays? Domestic partnerships, civil unions, thats fine but "marriage" no.

Also this country was founded to promote freedom through a code of morality based on Judeo-Christian principles, not on the Christian religion itself I agree, but the principles...absolutely. "

" Thomas Jefferson believed in SLAVERY and also used the females for SEX! So I guess your saying that we should be like him! Thanks no, I am not a RACIST like you apparently are since he seems to be your GOD! "

" To Sanctity of.. Oh yes they are interfering. It seems to be more of these issues such as gay marriage that they want to get involved in. Our government as of recent is straying way away from what the constitution was intended for regarding religion and state. Every President has their corks when it comes to religion and state and religion in general. The thing is though some have used there Presidency to push their religious beliefs. "

" @ 'Dan':

Please use your G.E.D. in psychology to define "normal". Or better yet, use your G.E.D. in psychology to define a uniform national culture. Or best of all, use your G.E.D. in psychology to explain how homophobia doesn't fit that description.

@ 'Nila "Quotez MEAN EVARYTHiNGS" Jobe':

Look, I can too!

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson

The country was founded on freedom, not Christianity. "

" Food for thought:
definition of mental disorder: is a psychological or behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture.

tell me in what ways homosexuality doesn't fit that category. "

" @ what's next

That's exactly my point, I was the one the posted right under you. If we change definition of marriage on every groups whim who knows how far it will go, and while I am staunchly against both polygamy and homosexual marriage I fail to draw the distinction between the two. "

" So if same sex marriage is allowed how long before people should be able to practice polygamy? And if you know anything about it's history it usually includes underage girls! But isn't it a persons right to marry ten women if they want? Also there is an organization in this country that believes that adult men should be allowed to have sex with underage boys, and I assume some of them would like to marry them to! Shouldn't they have the right to true happiness? Where does it all stop? You can say having sex with children is illegal but
that is your complaint about not having same sex marriage! So if you can change one law for peoples individual rights why can't you change laws for other people and what they want! Why don't we just forget about laws altogether and just live like wild animals and the weak die and the strong survive! I don't want to live in a world like but maybe others would! I could care less if somebody is gay! But just like religion I don't want somebody's sexual orientation thrown up in my face! I don't see heterosexuals having parades saying that is what they are, but gays do!! Don't throw your religion in my face and don't throw your sexual preference in my face either! "

" First of all, I was trying to keep the religion portion out of this so don't hop on that like you did, I didn't accuse you of being an atheist or whatever you are so don't accuse my church of being bigoted your opinion holds no more value than mine or my churches for that matter. My opinion is my opinion, yours is yours, it just so happens that a better part of 70 something % of American's agree with me. Listen, I beg to differ about not pushing the gay lifestyle on people, first of all the whole hmmmm where do I need to start with these examples.....
-the whole "im here, im qu***, deal with it"
-Gay pride parade....can you imagine how many people would be apalled by a straight pride parade or anything else that would look to demean gays......
-Just look at what is going on with the horrible protests b/c the gays didn't get their way...one such instance where an old lady was tossed to the pavement for holding a sign....if the situation were reversed that would be a hate crime and you know it.
-while I don't agree with homosexuality you can give them the same rights as a married couple without having to recognize it as a marriage.....but not to have children.....I know that one will probably get you steamed but its how I feel. Plus where do you find that not allowing gays the right to get married is a violation of 14th amendment rights under the Equal Protection Clause?? If you are going to play that game then check out the court decision of Skinner v Oklahoma, where the courts tied the right to marry to the right to procreate, also the 14th amendment gives the Congress "the right to the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” which would include the correct definition of marriage. We can play the intrepretation of the Constitution game all day so lets not waste each others time.

As for your argument not based on personal opinion or bigotry how about the fact that we could take the whole adopting kids as an example...where it is PROVEN that kids develop better psychologically in a parent where there are two dads or two moms.

Let me ask you a question then.....if you think gays should be married do you also thing that it should be the right of some extreme polygamists beliefs to marry multiple partners? What are your thoughts on that?

Look I have no problem with homosexuals, but when they want to force their way into an institution that has been around for ages I do not agree with it and neither does a vast majority of America, thats a fact. So you have your opinion I have mine and we can just leave it at that. "

" Saying that gays "should be given the same basic human and civil rights" as straight people but yet shouldn't be allowed to get married is ignorant. Unless homosexuals are allowed to be LEGALLY married (I don't care if your bigoted church doesn't want to recognize it, as long as the government does) then they are not getting the Equal Protection afforded to ALL individuals under the 14th Amendment.
All this "they're pushing it on us." stuff has to end too. No one is "pushing" a homosexual lifestyle on anyone. There are no gay "recruiters" working the streets. Homosexuals are no more deviant than heterosexuals so stop portraying them as some predators.
I have yet to see someone offer an argument against gay marriage based on anything but religious ignorance, personal morals or just plain bigotry. Some say "marriage is traditionally...". What a joke. Before the Supreme Court heard Loving v. VA marriage was "traditionally" between only people of the same race. So if the folks in VA voted over and over to ban interracial marriage, we should all be OK with that? Democracy or not, we should not allow even the voters of a state to defy the US Constitution. "

" You do not necessarily have to be religious to oppose same sex marriage. Many people me included are repulsed by the fact that they can change definition of marriage from its traditional roots. What is even more repulsive is how in a Democracy where the people have a voice they can vote for an amendment to the state constitutions like in CA and have it overturned by the Supreme Court then vote on Prop 8 and once again guess where it is going....back to court where it will likely be overturned. Most American's don't have a problem with homosexuals being allowed to live lives as they choose, but when they start pushing it on everyone and trying to muscle their way into the laws is where people will fight back. Just my opinion but Gays should not be afforded the same marriage rights, but they should be given the same basic human and civil rights, that is not the issue. "

" Have any of you ever wondered why racism and bigotry will never truly die? Oh thats right, because people like black is beautiful continually bring it up. Look slavery was a horrible and unjust thing, an overwhelming majority of country realizes and understands that. Your comment was pretty racist so maybe you should look into the mirror before you accuse others. The more that Sharpton and Jackson bring this stuff up will only fuel the divide and things will never come closer maybe you should think of stuff like that. There were people who were against slavery back then as well so your argument there falls apart.

As far as "what you are owed" by this country get real. You live in the greatest nation on God's green earth and you should be happy you have the opportunities, if you aren't happy with it go somewhere else. Besides if slavery hasn't personally affected you which is hasn't you need to move on and quit living in the past. One more point, I do believe the slave trade originated in Africa, so you may want to look to place some blame there. Better yet next time you post why don't you come with a better argument so that you don't sound like a racist fool. "

" The one thing that everyone has failed to ask is, which god is the writer talking about?

Our nation was founded on the principal that all religions bring something good to the table and to deny anyone the right to worship as they see fit is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone. We all can learn something from other religions. Our country is a big mix of all religions from Buddists to Wiccans to Muslims to Christians. We all have the right to worship how we want to without our government involving itself in any way.

That was what the founding fathers intended by the "seperation of church and state". So to "go back to our roots" is to remain where we are now, enjoying the freedom our country gives to everyone.

Besides, if we want to quote Presidents, I remember one as saying that he felt our country would do good to have a revolution ever 20 years. Do we want to follow THAT advice too? I sure don't. "

" As has been stated here, you can't have your cake and eat it too. We either go back to the principles our country was founded under or we evolve like a "grown-up" civilization. Either we're a theocracy or a democracy. I would like to think that as we evolve we learn about ourselves and see our mistakes. For example, blacks and whites couldn't marry for a long time in this nation, a fact we are all pretty ashamed of. In a decade we will likely look back at this time in our nation's history and wonder why anyone cared if two women wanted to marry each other.
I also wonder how all of you Christian Nation supporters would feel if Barack Obama really was a Muslim who decided to institute Muslim ideals into our government and laws. It would be UNTHINKABLE but yet you insist on governing me by your Christian doctrines. Again, you can't pine for the "old days" when those days included slavery and no rights for women. Even the Bible isn't a real friendly place for women. So why should we stick with the outdated and unjust views our forerfathers brought to this nation? We should, rather, try to better ourselves and our people.

Leave your God out of our government and we'll leave our laws out of your churches. "

" Speaking of slavery..."America Serves" on change.gov

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year"

You retired people are mentioned in there too! Yes, you just THOUGHT you'd retired. If this is mandatory, we'll be serving as slaves to our first new dictator. "

" All you white peopls familys owned slaves so dont just say washington did So all the familys yu come from ar just as guilty which makes yu all guilty to.Yur familys if they didnt own slaves didnt do somthen to stop it . We will never be given what we owed by this white hate country. "

" I LOVE seeing people like you on this site! It is fun to see you crush people like this no mind FOR A POINT HERE! Some people deseve to be crushed like you crushed them! Keep up the good work! This country under god or not is for just the right kind of people not people like that no mind! "

" Jefferson wasn't metioned because he is considered the founder of the democratic party! "

" YES, these men did realize that slavery was wrong and did have them, they also knew that it was something that would need to be phased out as something that was so common back then could not be just immediately stopped. You are right we don't live in a perfect country and people do have their flaws, but when you stop trying to find flaws and realize that these men were brave and noble in their cause and stood against great odds so that we could have the kind of life we enjoy today. America is NOT perfect, but there is no place in the world I would rather live. If you are so unhappy here why don't you move to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, or any number of places..... "

" I dont doubt Washington't understood the moral contradiction of slavery in a newly established free nation BUT he sure did keep using them. In a way, his acknoweldgement of the evils of slavery yet his insistence on owning them is worse than simly owning them. I don't feel any compassion for the man...HE OWNED SLAVES...HE KNEW IT WAS WRONG. I guess it was "okay" for him to keep on doing the wrong thing because he was "special".

I also note that Jefferson wasn't mentioned in your reply. We all know what he did with one of his slaves....she bore his children.

The lesson today kids is: From these two founding fathers we learn that its okay to keep on doing something inherently wrong as long as its convenient for you AND its okay to have sex with someone you own although owning them is wrong and having sex outside marriage was considered a sin. Sounds like modern day Washington to me. "

" George Washington did own slaves but tried to bring up that it should be abolished! He was not able to get it done but predicted the country would pay a price for it! This country is not perfect but cannot forget everything we were suppose to try and be. "

" To It's Me: I am not arguing against anything you have said, but I do have one quick question that bothers me after reading this paragraph:
'The First Amendment- although that phrase does not exist in this amendment, the idea is there. The point of the First Amendment is to ensure private or organized religious beliefs are removed from government control or attempted control. It also ensures that government does not get involved in creating, enforcing, or mandating religious beliefs.'

Why is our government trying to define what a marriage is (or what a marriage isn't)? Is not marriage something that is recognized by God, not Government? How old is the institution of Marriage? I believe that it goes back further than 1776. Why do we need Government to define something that is recognized by God before Government.

Personally, "marriage" is a religious binding between two people recognized by any church. The Government should have an institution that is completely separate from this definition, then, and only then, will we treat fairly.

I mustn't forget bringing morals of any kind into legislation. If the reason a bill is going to be proposed and passed because of morality--that, I believe, is brining in "morality". Who's to say what is immoral? Personally? A Church. If the argument for a proposed law is to sustain order or civility, that is more acceptable.

Is the reason to outlaw abortion a matter of morality or civility?

...Open for debate... "

" First, while the founding fathers (thinking of Jefferson and Washington here) were espousing all those high and mighty ideas, tihey also owned slaves. So one could argue they thought that slavery was a-okay (an idea we find horrifying today) OR they were typical politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths (not so far-fetched given the similarity of politicians today). So who cares what the founding fathers thought? We use the constitution as a guideline for our democracy but acknowledge that times change and so must the laws we live under. We have freedom of religion but we recognize that not everyone worships as we do....so we don't let christian zealots (or any other brand) dictate our laws.

Hey I'm all for a return to the AS-written consitution...no income tax (never discussed), you can own a tank (2nd amendment), abortion on demand (never discussed), etc. By the way Ms Jobe, your return to the "good old days" would eliminate your right to vote...women weren't given that right.until the early 20th century. "

" Let's get it right. The church of England had long been ran by the whims of the king or queen in deciding which flavor of religion would be practiced. Up until 1536 the only bibles that were allowed by the king were those that were translated in Latin. No common man or woman could read it. William Tyndale was on of the first who tried to translate it into English and in 1536 was burned at the stake for heresy for going up against the church and the English bibles were outlawed. Soon after in other less dangerous countries completed the translations. The pilgrims fled to the new world to keep state out of religion" Fact is, people will try to remove God from our country and erase him from our history. But if you are able to do that, you still will not erase Him from the heart of His people. You can choose any side you like on this argumemt, but make sure you choose the right one, because a day will come when the answers are revealed and the line is formed, and the battle fought, and His glory will shine. "

" American History amatuer hour is correct on Patrick Henry. That quote appeared in 1988 in a David Barton book. There is no credible source on this one.

Nowhere does the Constitution contain the phrase "separation of church and state" it contains the principle of "separation of church and state". Likewise the words "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." do not appear in it either.

The First Amendment- although that phrase does not exist in this amendment, the idea is there. The point of the First Amendment is to ensure private or organized religious beliefs are removed from government control or attempted control. It also ensures that government does not get involved in creating, enforcing, or mandating religious beliefs.

Point being nobody can deny that the First Amendment guarantees religious liberty in principle. It also guarantees separation of church and state in principle, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist. "

" "Separation of church and state" was implemented to keep the government out of the church. Not to keep the church from enfluencing the government. Public schools do not teach anymore the real history of the founding of America. Christians were the ones who came over on the Mayflower searching for a new place to worship God in their own way, not the way of England. Remember the "pilgrims" and the "strangers" or the "separatists"? God has always been part of our nation.

I commend Nila for her article. The vast majority of this nation is Christian minded. Those of you who don't like it, please don't ruin it for the rest of us. There are plenty of godless nations in which to live if you don't want God to be a part of where you live and where your forefathers died. "

" It troubles me that Ms. Jobe suggests as truth that the USA was founded as a Christian nation, while at the same time using quotes that are taken out of context, manipulated to fit her own conclusions, or outright fabrications.

John Adams was not talking about a Christian nation; he was talking about a nation founded on basic Christian principles - two entirely different concepts. One basic Christian principle of the founders was eliminating government sanction, support and interference in private religious matters (separation of church and state) that allows each individual to worship in his/her own way. Religious freedom was, and continues to be, one of the fundamental reasons that people flock to this nation. Calling the US a Christian nation is an insult to this Constitutional guarantee.

Thomas Jefferson's quote is taken out of context. Jefferson's writings containing this quote deal with the specific issue of slavery in Virginia, not religious considerations in forming a government. This tactic is used frequently by religious fundamentalists, conspiracy theorists and amatuer historians - come to a conclusion first, then use snippets of information taken out of context to supposedly prove the point.

Benjamin Franklin's quote is also taken out of context. It comes from his motion to have a clergyman start each session of the Constitutional Convention with a prayer. The motion was never acted on. This is the first 'cringe' referred to by Ms. Jobe. Even then the founders were careful not to sanction any one religion, including Christianity.

Patrick Henry's quote is not a quote. No verifiable source exists for it. In other words, he never said it. Using falsehoods to promote an argument is a sadly transparent attempt to fool the reader. In the end, the only one fooled is the writer.

John Jay's quote is yet another taken out of context. It's from a letter written 20 years after the ratification of the Constitution, and a careful look at the entire letter clearly shows that Jay was talking about creating Christian leaders for all nations, not about creating Ms. Jobe's so-called Christian nation.

Anyone can cut-and-paste 'facts' from religious websites to 'prove' their point. Maybe Ms. Jobe should first make a concerted effort to read and research the founder's actual words on the founding of this nation (start with Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"), and then come to a conclusion on whether the USA was founded as a Christian nation. What she will find is that the basic premise of her letter is false. "

" Founded as a Christian nation? No? But a country founded on Christian principles....absolutely. You cannot deny this fact, all that you need to do is read the quotes above and also other readings. The American Revolution in and of itself was not religious in nature but the founding of the colonies had its roots in spreading Christianity to the natives. The fact of the matter is that people fail to see both sides, in many cases the separation of church and state has gotten out of hand where history is distorted in and out of the classroom and stripped from our national monuments. Children should absolutely be given a moment of silence at school to pray to whatever deity that they choose, look at how bad things are in schools these days, some kind of guiding principles need to remain in place. As for separation there should be separation in some arenas I totally agree, there should never be a religious litmus test for public office, but religion plays a sufficient role in who is elected. We get so wrapped up in political minutae these days that things that should be priorities are not.....for example....why is it so bad to say Merry Xmas, or Happy Hannukah, and why do people get so offended when a well intentioned individual says that to someone who may not celebrate that holiday? Fact of the matter is that this country's framework contains those guiding principles of Christianity. "

" Hmm, founded as a Christian nation? Let's look at our founding document, the Constitution. Well, Article IV says that no religious test shall be required for public office. The First Amendment restricts government from being religiously partisan. And the number of times God is mentioned in the Constitution? Only a trvial mention in the date signature.

That doesn't sound like a Christian founding. In fact, the founders took great pains to make sure the Constitution remained non-religious.

As for our roots, sorry, but "One Nation Under God" wasn't in the original Pledge of Allegiance. That was added during the McCathy Communism paranoia. The phrase "In God We Trust" was made a national motto during that time, also. The last fifty or so years does not constitute "roots" in any way. "

" I guess I get lost, as to the purpose of this article, after I recite the phrase "separation of church and state" "