In today's news

[E B]

Why don't you show that chart to the parents of the little boy who died at the Boston Marathon.

Or to all those who no longer have two legs.

Your sanitized charts are numbers.

These are real people who are suffering because of it.

Neither of whom came from countries on the ban list. But you know that already. This is willful.

If you're going to ban people from certain countries, you better have a good reason why. "Because their majority religion has extremists," isn't good enough. There are Christian extremists, too. Toddlers with careless parents have killed more people this year than Muslim extremists, so I guess we should ban guns from households with children. Can't be too careful.

 

[ruby59]

Why don't you show that chart to the parents of the little boy who died at the Boston Marathon.

Or to all those who know longer have two legs.

Your sanitized charts are numbers.

These are real people who are suffering because of it.

How many children are killed by guns each year?

Nearly 1,500 children younger than 18 years of age die from shootings every year. 1 in 3 families with children have at least one gun in the house. There are more than 22 million children living in homes with guns. Most of the victims of unintentional shootings are boys.


http://www.nationwidechildrens.org/cirp-gun-safety

Every parent who has experienced the death of a child by violence is shattered I am sure.. I would be. I hardly think the numbers are sanitized, they are facts. From the tone of your words, it sounds as though you think the death of a child in a terrorist attack is worse than being accidentally shot by your little bro? I hope you don't mean that.

For me the hurting or killing of a child is the worst crime you can commit.

But obviously one is an accident. The other premeditated.

Those brothers deliberately put one bomb there knowing children were nearby.

 

[telephone89]

Why don't you show that chart to the parents of the little boy who died at the Boston Marathon.

Or to all those who no longer have two legs.

Your sanitized charts are numbers.

These are real people who are suffering because of it.

The Boston Bombers aren't from any of the 7 affected countries, they'd be unaffected by this ban. Tell that to the parents of the little boy.

 

[lovedogs]

Why don't you show that chart to the parents of the little boy who died at the Boston Marathon.

Or to all those who know longer have two legs.

Your sanitized charts are numbers.

These are real people who are suffering because of it.

How many children are killed by guns each year?

Nearly 1,500 children younger than 18 years of age die from shootings every year. 1 in 3 families with children have at least one gun in the house. There are more than 22 million children living in homes with guns. Most of the victims of unintentional shootings are boys.


http://www.nationwidechildrens.org/cirp-gun-safety

Every parent who has experienced the death of a child by violence is shattered I am sure.. I would be. I hardly think the numbers are sanitized, they are facts. From the tone of your words, it sounds as though you think the death of a child in a terrorist attack is worse than being accidentally shot by your little bro? I hope you don't mean that.

For me the hurting or killing of a child is the worst crime you can commit.

But obviously one is an accident. The other premeditated.

Those brothers deliberately put one bomb there knowing children were nearby.

....and what does that have to do with Trump's immigration/refugee ban???? The Boston Marathon bombing was carried out by people NOT FROM ANY OF THE COUNTRIES ON THE LIST!!!! You bringing up sad things doesn't make you right, it just means you are talking about irrelevant things.

Or, if you think that Muslims should be banned because of some extremists, then we should definitely ban Christians too, since they have committed equally horrific crimes.

 

[Tekate]

Some question, what's the hurry? Danger from terrorists is imminent. A temporary ban in order to more carefully vet immigrants should have happened before now.

What indication are you aware of that danger from terrorists is imminent? The terrorism color code has been at yellow for quite some time, and is not and has not recently been elevated to red. http://terror-alert.com/ The most recent bulletin on the National Terrorism Advisory System is from November 2016 and speaks of concern about homegrown (domestic) violent extremists. https://www.dhs.gov/national-terrorism-advisory-system

Trump’s executive order signed Jan. 27, called "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States," suspended for 90 days the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry of people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. If the purpose of the ban is to "more carefully vet immigrants" why doesn't the executive order include countries that were the source of the 9/11 attack - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey? Maybe because that's where Trump has business interests.

If the concern is terrorists from Muslim-majority countries, why doesn't the list of banned countries actually reflect the top ten Muslim-majority countries - Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Algeria and Morocco? http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-countries-with-largest-muslim-populations-map.html

If the ban isn't based on religion, why has the White House said Christians get priority for entry to the US?

Great post, thank you for the pointers. I'm sure that all the Jews in America are feeling thrilled at America being called a Christian country.. so much for inclusion and caring.

Jews know this is a Christian country. I live in a very Christian state. No secret here.

NO they don't! We have no national religion Ruby, read the constitution. Jews would find your statement insulting. I live in a state where religion has been waning for years. With many Indians migrating to America we are becoming more Hindu also.. I find your statement so very sad..

 

[ruby59]

Oh lord here we go with the hand wringing dramatics.

What is the Trump administration doing to prioritize mental health? Since it would seem our greatest terror threat isn't some mysterious band of "criminals" that lurk the streets of Rhode Island, but rather domestic terrorism from our own.

But Obama was gonna take away everyone's guns! Who do we blame???!!!! Someone tell me who to be mad at!

The Boston Marthon as an example - these people were not mentally insane. They knew exactly what they were doing.

As far as Florida, the man went into an FBI office and told them he was hearing voices. They took his gun away? So why again did they give it back to him? And this was under Obama's Presidency by the way.


And the ones who roam Rhode Island are gangs. No mystery to the police. But here in our crazy state, law enforcement does not have a clue.

We are having a problem with pan handlers on every corner. ACLU says we cannot do anything about them. So what is the bright idea our State had to combat it - punish with a $50 fine the person in the car who gives them money.

So a panhandler can come up to your car, knock on your window and harass you. No problem. But if you give him money so he will leave you alone - big problem for you.

 

[E B]

(Sorry for essentially copying your post, Tekate! It took me a while to type on my phone and I didn't see it! )

 

[missy]

Some question, what's the hurry? Danger from terrorists is imminent. A temporary ban in order to more carefully vet immigrants should have happened before now.

What indication are you aware of that danger from terrorists is imminent? The terrorism color code has been at yellow for quite some time, and is not and has not recently been elevated to red. http://terror-alert.com/ The most recent bulletin on the National Terrorism Advisory System is from November 2016 and speaks of concern about homegrown (domestic) violent extremists. https://www.dhs.gov/national-terrorism-advisory-system

Trump’s executive order signed Jan. 27, called "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States," suspended for 90 days the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry of people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. If the purpose of the ban is to "more carefully vet immigrants" why doesn't the executive order include countries that were the source of the 9/11 attack - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey? Maybe because that's where Trump has business interests.

If the concern is terrorists from Muslim-majority countries, why doesn't the list of banned countries actually reflect the top ten Muslim-majority countries - Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Algeria and Morocco? http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-countries-with-largest-muslim-populations-map.html

If the ban isn't based on religion, why has the White House said Christians get priority for entry to the US?

Great post, thank you for the pointers. I'm sure that all the Jews in America are feeling thrilled at America being called a Christian country.. so much for inclusion and caring.

Jews know this is a Christian country. I live in a very Christian state. No secret here.

NO they don't! We have no national religion Ruby, read the constitution. Jews would find your statement insulting. I live in a state where religion has been waning for years. With many Indians migrating to America we are becoming more Hindu also.. I find your statement so very sad..

Kate, reading what Ruby thinks sadly does not surprise me. And yes it is incredibly sad and insulting all at the same time.
But let's face it a great many people think the way she does I fear because look at where we are right now.

 

[ruby59]

So all those "criminals" are immigrants?

Big difference between immigrants and illegals.

My grandparents were immigrants. They had to get a sponsor. Then they had to go through Ellis Island.


But to answer your question, when some of these criminals are identified or sentenced it is mentioned in the article that after they serve their sentences, they will be deported back to their country. These are not the immigrants of our forefathers.

Immigrants now have to go through a process. They don't just walk in without any process or checking.

Also I have no clue what "article" you are referring to, or how your grandparents have anything to do with your mention that the sanctuary city near you is "run by criminals" at night. In the article you linked I see no mention of deportation for criminals. What Trump did was block anyone from those 7 countries for 90 days, and block refugees for 120 days. Again, that is completely irrelevant to your claim that the city is "run by criminals" unless you are claiming that those criminals are all from those 7 countries.


EDIT: here is how immigration works now. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works..... Any idea that immigrants can currently "just walk in" is based on incorrect fear-mongering, which is exactly how Trump and others scare people into agreeing with his insane rules. Which, BTW, are unconstitutional.

Yes, immigrants have to go through a process. And what Trump is saying is that process is not good enough.

As far as why I brought my grandparents into the conversation and what it has to do with my article, the conversation morphed a bit after I made my initial post as they often do.

And I know how immigration works. But judging by all the violence that has been happening here lately, something is obviously not working.

And you think the solution is a blanket ban? Or more "extreme vetting?

And what violence makes you think that something about immigration as it currently stands isn't working? There simply AREN'T recent examples of "terrorists" from the 7 banned countries doing anything violent.

If you read my response in another thread I agree with you about being confused about the 7 countries he picked. I would like an answer to that as well.

 

[telephone89]

The Boston Marthon as an example - these people were not mentally insane. They knew exactly what they were doing.

As far as Florida, the man went into an FBI office and told them he was hearing voices. They took his gun away? So why again did they give it back to him? And this was under Obama's Presidency by the way.


And the ones who roam Rhode Island are gangs. No mystery to the police. But here in our crazy state, law enforcement does not have a clue.

We are having a problem with pan handlers on every corner. ACLU says we cannot do anything about them. So what is the bright idea our State had to combat it - punish with a $50 fine the person in the car who gives them money.

So a panhandler can come up to your car, knock on your window and harass you. No problem. But if you give him money so he will leave you alone - big problem for you.

Can you clarify what panhandlers have to do with this thread? You have no answers to actual questions and responses to your posts, so you pull something else out? Where is that red herring thread again?

 

[lovedogs]

The Boston Marthon as an example - these people were not mentally insane. They knew exactly what they were doing.

As far as Florida, the man went into an FBI office and told them he was hearing voices. They took his gun away? So why again did they give it back to him? And this was under Obama's Presidency by the way.


And the ones who roam Rhode Island are gangs. No mystery to the police. But here in our crazy state, law enforcement does not have a clue.

We are having a problem with pan handlers on every corner. ACLU says we cannot do anything about them. So what is the bright idea our State had to combat it - punish with a $50 fine the person in the car who gives them money.

So a panhandler can come up to your car, knock on your window and harass you. No problem. But if you give him money so he will leave you alone - big problem for you.

Can you clarify what panhandlers have to do with this thread? You have no answers to actual questions and responses to your posts, so you pull something else out? Where is that red herring thread again?

Nothing. I think the idea is to say random things that make the country seem dangerous in order to distract from the fact that there's literally no way to defend this idotic ban

 

[telephone89]

The Boston Marthon as an example - these people were not mentally insane. They knew exactly what they were doing.

As far as Florida, the man went into an FBI office and told them he was hearing voices. They took his gun away? So why again did they give it back to him? And this was under Obama's Presidency by the way.


And the ones who roam Rhode Island are gangs. No mystery to the police. But here in our crazy state, law enforcement does not have a clue.

We are having a problem with pan handlers on every corner. ACLU says we cannot do anything about them. So what is the bright idea our State had to combat it - punish with a $50 fine the person in the car who gives them money.

So a panhandler can come up to your car, knock on your window and harass you. No problem. But if you give him money so he will leave you alone - big problem for you.

Can you clarify what panhandlers have to do with this thread? You have no answers to actual questions and responses to your posts, so you pull something else out? Where is that red herring thread again?

Nothing. I think the idea is to say random things that make the country seem dangerous in order to distract from the fact that there's literally no way to defend this idotic ban

Methinks you are correct

 

[ruby59]

Why don't you show that chart to the parents of the little boy who died at the Boston Marathon.

Or to all those who no longer have two legs.

Your sanitized charts are numbers.

These are real people who are suffering because of it.

Neither of whom came from countries on the ban list. But you know that already. This is willful.

If you're going to ban people from certain countries, you better have a good reason why. "Because their majority religion has extremists," isn't good enough. There are Christian extremists, too. Toddlers with careless parents have killed more people this year than Muslim extremists, so I guess we should ban guns from households with children. Can't be too careful.

EB again look at my other post from yesterday where I posted that I agreed with you about the 7 countries that were mentioned, and why were those picked over others.

I would like an answer to that as well.

And again, children killed with guns is just as tragic, but it is an accident. Not premeditated like the killing of children as collateral damage during a terrorist attack.

Those brothers put those bombs low for a reason and that is to maim as many people as possible.

 

[telephone89]

EB again look at my other post from yesterday where I posted that I agreed with you about the 7 countries that were mentioned, and why were those picked over others.

I would like an answer to that as well.

And again, children killed with guns is just as tragic, but it is an accident. Not premeditated like the killing of children as collateral damage during a terrorist attack.

Those brothers put those bombs low for a reason and that is to maim as many people as possible.

How many kids were killed by those muslims at Sandy Hook?

Oh right, it wasn't a muslim.

BTW, it was 20. 20 children killed. Where is your outrage for that towards this.

 

[ruby59]

Why don't you show that chart to the parents of the little boy who died at the Boston Marathon.

Or to all those who no longer have two legs.

Your sanitized charts are numbers.

These are real people who are suffering because of it.

The Boston Bombers aren't from any of the 7 affected countries, they'd be unaffected by this ban. Tell that to the parents of the little boy.

And for the fourth time, I stated last night I too would like an answer as to why these 7 countries were picked.

And the reason I use the Boston Marathon as an example is that one hit very close to home as my son and his family were in the crowd watching the event.

 

[ruby59]

Some question, what's the hurry? Danger from terrorists is imminent. A temporary ban in order to more carefully vet immigrants should have happened before now.

What indication are you aware of that danger from terrorists is imminent? The terrorism color code has been at yellow for quite some time, and is not and has not recently been elevated to red. http://terror-alert.com/ The most recent bulletin on the National Terrorism Advisory System is from November 2016 and speaks of concern about homegrown (domestic) violent extremists. https://www.dhs.gov/national-terrorism-advisory-system

Trump’s executive order signed Jan. 27, called "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States," suspended for 90 days the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry of people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. If the purpose of the ban is to "more carefully vet immigrants" why doesn't the executive order include countries that were the source of the 9/11 attack - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey? Maybe because that's where Trump has business interests.

If the concern is terrorists from Muslim-majority countries, why doesn't the list of banned countries actually reflect the top ten Muslim-majority countries - Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Algeria and Morocco? http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-countries-with-largest-muslim-populations-map.html

If the ban isn't based on religion, why has the White House said Christians get priority for entry to the US?

Great post, thank you for the pointers. I'm sure that all the Jews in America are feeling thrilled at America being called a Christian country.. so much for inclusion and caring.

Jews know this is a Christian country. I live in a very Christian state. No secret here.

NO they don't! We have no national religion Ruby, read the constitution. Jews would find your statement insulting. I live in a state where religion has been waning for years. With many Indians migrating to America we are becoming more Hindu also.. I find your statement so very sad..

Jews would find the truth insulting? Read a bit about my home state. It is what it is.

Christianity in mine is as strong as ever, especially around Christmas, where there are tree lighting services in almost every city.

My state sent 8 buses sponsored by the Catholic churches to the Pro Life March.

 

[ruby59]

Some question, what's the hurry? Danger from terrorists is imminent. A temporary ban in order to more carefully vet immigrants should have happened before now.

What indication are you aware of that danger from terrorists is imminent? The terrorism color code has been at yellow for quite some time, and is not and has not recently been elevated to red. http://terror-alert.com/ The most recent bulletin on the National Terrorism Advisory System is from November 2016 and speaks of concern about homegrown (domestic) violent extremists. https://www.dhs.gov/national-terrorism-advisory-system

Trump’s executive order signed Jan. 27, called "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States," suspended for 90 days the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry of people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. If the purpose of the ban is to "more carefully vet immigrants" why doesn't the executive order include countries that were the source of the 9/11 attack - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey? Maybe because that's where Trump has business interests.

If the concern is terrorists from Muslim-majority countries, why doesn't the list of banned countries actually reflect the top ten Muslim-majority countries - Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Algeria and Morocco? http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-countries-with-largest-muslim-populations-map.html

If the ban isn't based on religion, why has the White House said Christians get priority for entry to the US?

Great post, thank you for the pointers. I'm sure that all the Jews in America are feeling thrilled at America being called a Christian country.. so much for inclusion and caring.

Jews know this is a Christian country. I live in a very Christian state. No secret here.

NO they don't! We have no national religion Ruby, read the constitution. Jews would find your statement insulting. I live in a state where religion has been waning for years. With many Indians migrating to America we are becoming more Hindu also.. I find your statement so very sad..

Kate, reading what Ruby thinks sadly does not surprise me. And yes it is incredibly sad and insulting all at the same time.
But let's face it a great many people think the way she does I fear because look at where we are right now.

So you find what I feel as a Jewish woman, is sad.

 

[missy]

Ruby yes I feel sad when I read most of your posts and replies.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_reasons_america_is_not_--_and_has_never_been_--_a_christian_nation

 

[mary poppins]

Why don't you show that chart to the parents of the little boy who died at the Boston Marathon.

Or to all those who no longer have two legs.

Your sanitized charts are numbers.

These are real people who are suffering because of it.

The Boston Bombers aren't from any of the 7 affected countries, they'd be unaffected by this ban. Tell that to the parents of the little boy.

And for the fourth time, I stated last night I too would like an answer as to why these 7 countries were picked.

And the reason I use the Boston Marathon as an example is that one hit very close to home as my son and his family were in the crowd watching the event.

Sorry for your trauma but that incident has nothing to do with this thread topic as has already be pointed out several times.

 

[ruby59]

EB again look at my other post from yesterday where I posted that I agreed with you about the 7 countries that were mentioned, and why were those picked over others.

I would like an answer to that as well.

And again, children killed with guns is just as tragic, but it is an accident. Not premeditated like the killing of children as collateral damage during a terrorist attack.

Those brothers put those bombs low for a reason and that is to maim as many people as possible.

How many kids were killed by those muslims at Sandy Hook?

Oh right, it wasn't a muslim.

BTW, it was 20. 20 children killed. Where is your outrage for that towards this.

Because I did not bring this particular situation up, means I am not outraged by it?

Again, the Boston Marathon one for me was the one where my family could have been collateral damage. It does not mean I do not cry every time I hear about a child being hurt or killed.

 

[ruby59]

Why don't you show that chart to the parents of the little boy who died at the Boston Marathon.

Or to all those who no longer have two legs.

Your sanitized charts are numbers.

These are real people who are suffering because of it.

The Boston Bombers aren't from any of the 7 affected countries, they'd be unaffected by this ban. Tell that to the parents of the little boy.

And for the fourth time, I stated last night I too would like an answer as to why these 7 countries were picked.

And the reason I use the Boston Marathon as an example is that one hit very close to home as my son and his family were in the crowd watching the event.

Sorry for your trauma but that incident has nothing to do with this thread topic as has already be pointed out several times.

And Sandy Hook does? Or am I the only one who cannot stray from the conversation?

 

[ruby59]

Ruby yes I feel sad when I read most of your posts and replies.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_reasons_america_is_not_--_and_has_never_been_--_a_christian_nation

And why is that, Missy?

 

[ruby59]

The Boston Marthon as an example - these people were not mentally insane. They knew exactly what they were doing.

As far as Florida, the man went into an FBI office and told them he was hearing voices. They took his gun away? So why again did they give it back to him? And this was under Obama's Presidency by the way.


And the ones who roam Rhode Island are gangs. No mystery to the police. But here in our crazy state, law enforcement does not have a clue.

We are having a problem with pan handlers on every corner. ACLU says we cannot do anything about them. So what is the bright idea our State had to combat it - punish with a $50 fine the person in the car who gives them money.

So a panhandler can come up to your car, knock on your window and harass you. No problem. But if you give him money so he will leave you alone - big problem for you.

Can you clarify what panhandlers have to do with this thread? You have no answers to actual questions and responses to your posts, so you pull something else out? Where is that red herring thread again?

Stretch a bit, please.

I and many others are sick and tired or the criminals running the asylum. They seem to have more rights then law abiding citizens do.

We have enough home grown, so I can understand why President Trump wants to prevent anymore from coming in.

 

[ruby59]

Ruby yes I feel sad when I read most of your posts and replies.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_reasons_america_is_not_--_and_has_never_been_--_a_christian_nation

http://



www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/christians/christian/state/rhode-island/

 

[missy]

Ruby yes I feel sad when I read most of your posts and replies.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_reasons_america_is_not_--_and_has_never_been_--_a_christian_nation

And why is that, Missy?

Ruby, I don't know you IRL and you don't know me so we only know each other through our PS posts so I hesitate to reply to your question though it is a fair one.

I'm sad there are so many people who are ruled by fear and let that fear overtake them in the face of doing the right thing. I am sad that this country is ruled by fear and hate and the actions they are taking because of it. I am sad love and kindness and generosity and tolerance isn't beating the fear and the hate and all the anger I see around me. And I am sad that without kindness and compassion I see little hope ahead. We cannot let ourselves be ruled by fear because then we all will lose. If only we could that we are all more similar than we are different and we are all part of the human race.

 

[mary poppins]

Why are people so surprised? This is what Trump said he was going to do during his campaign.

If you look past emotion and consider the substance of what people are saying, maybe you will understand the issues.

Also, during his campaign, Trump said he was going to ban all Muslims and that was even posted on his website at one point. That's not what his executive order does, though it would be alarming on its own if it did.

 

[ruby59]

Ruby yes I feel sad when I read most of your posts and replies.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_reasons_america_is_not_--_and_has_never_been_--_a_christian_nation

And why is that, Missy?

Ruby, I don't know you IRL and you don't know me so we only know each other through our PS posts so I hesitate to reply to your question though it is a fair one.

I'm sad there are so many people who are ruled by fear and let that fear overtake them in the face of doing the right thing. I am sad that this country is ruled by fear and hate and the actions they are taking because of it. I am sad love and kindness and generosity and tolerance isn't beating the fear and the hate and all the anger I see around me. And I am sad that without kindness and compassion I see little hope ahead. We cannot let ourselves be ruled by fear because then we all will lose. If only we could that we are all more similar than we are different and we are all part of the human race.

A healthy dose of fear equals survival.

Sorry, but there are evil people in this world that want to do us harm.

Do you lock your doors at night?

Do you wear your expensive diamond jewelry on the subway?

Do you let strangers into your home?

Would you walk down a dark alley in a dangerous part of town alone?

 

[mary poppins]

Why don't you show that chart to the parents of the little boy who died at the Boston Marathon.

Or to all those who no longer have two legs.

Your sanitized charts are numbers.

These are real people who are suffering because of it.

The Boston Bombers aren't from any of the 7 affected countries, they'd be unaffected by this ban. Tell that to the parents of the little boy.

And for the fourth time, I stated last night I too would like an answer as to why these 7 countries were picked.

And the reason I use the Boston Marathon as an example is that one hit very close to home as my son and his family were in the crowd watching the event.

Sorry for your trauma but that incident has nothing to do with this thread topic as has already be pointed out several times.

And Sandy Hook does? Or am I the only one who cannot stray from the conversation?

She appeared to raise the Sandy Hook matter to show neither it nor Boston are relevant to Muslims or travel ban. It would be helpful if other posters didn't stray to irrelevant matters, also.

 

[missy]

Ruby, no matter how many links you share we still are not a Christian nation.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_reasons_america_is_not_--_and_has_never_been_--_a_christian_nation

5 Reasons America Is Not—And Has Never Been—A Christian Nation
The myth that America is a Christian nation is not only untrue, but promotes the pernicious idea that non-Christians are second-class citizens.

"The United States is a Christian nation.” If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard this statement at a religious Right meeting or in the media, I wouldn’t be rich—but I’d probably have enough to buy a really cool iPad. The assertion is widely believed by followers of the religious Right and often repeated—and, too often, it seeps into the beliefs of the rest of the population as well. But like other myths that are widely accepted (you use only 10 percent of your brain, vitamin C helps you get over a cold, and the like), it lacks a factual basis.

Over the years, numerous scholars, historians, lawyers, and judges have debunked the “Christian nation” myth. Yet it persists. Does it have any basis in American history? Why is the myth so powerful? What psychological need does it fill?

I’m not a lawyer, and my research in this area has been influenced and informed by scholars who have done much more in- depth work. The problem with some of this material, great as it is,is that it tends to be—how shall I say this politely?—’dense.’ If I were a lawyer (the kind found on television dramas, not a real one), I would present the case against the Christian nation myth in a handful of easily digestible informational nuggets. Swallow them, and you’ll be armed for your next confrontation with Cousin Lloyd who sends money to Pat Robertson.

There are essentially five arguments that refute the Christian nation myth. I’m going to outline them here and then take a look at the history of the myth. From there, we’ll briefly examine the myth’s enduring legacy and how it still affects politics and public policy today.

1. The Text of the Constitution Does Not Say the United States Is a Christian Nation

If a Christian nation had been the intent of the founders, they would have put that in the Constitution, front and center. Yet the text of the Constitution contains no references to God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity. That document does not state that our country is an officially Christian nation.

Not only does the Constitution not give recognition or acknowledgment to Christianity, but it also includes Article VI, which bans “religious tests” for public office. Guaranteeing non-Christians the right to hold federal office seems antipodal to an officially Christian nation. The language found in Article VI sparked some controversy, and a minority faction that favored limiting public office to Christians (or at least to believers) protested. Luther Martin, a Maryland delegate, later reported that some felt it “would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.” But, as Martin noted, the article’s language was approved “by a great majority . . . without much debate.” The Christian nation argument just wasn’t persuasive.

In addition, the First Amendment bars all laws “respecting an establishment of religion” and protects “the free exercise thereof.” Nothing here indicates that the latter provision applies only to Christian faiths.Finding no support for their ideas in the body of the Constitution, Christian-nation advocates are left to point to other documents, including the Declaration of Independence. This also fails. The Declaration’s reference to “the Creator” is plainly deistic. More obscure documents such as the Northwest Ordinance or personal writings by various framers are interesting historically but do not rise to the level of governance documents. When it comes to determining the manner of the U.S. government, only the Constitution matters. The Constitution does not declare that the United States is a Christian nation. This fact alone is fatal to the cause of Christian nation advocates.

2. The Founders’ Political Beliefs Would Not Have Led Them to Support the Christian-Nation Idea

Key founders such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed mixing church and state. They would never have supported an officially Christian nation.

Jefferson and Madison came to this opposition in two ways. First, they were well-versed in history and understood how the officially Christian governments of Europe had crushed human freedom. Moreover, they knew about the constant religious wars among rival factions of Christianity. Second, they had witnessed religious oppression in the colonies firsthand.

Remember, Madison was inspired to fight for church-state separation and religious liberty because he had witnessed the jailing of dissenting ministers in Virginia. Madison and other founders wrote frequently about the dangers of governments adopting religion; they often worked alongside clergy who made similar arguments. John Leland, a Massachusetts pastor and powerful advocate for church-state separation, said it best: “The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever.”

Jefferson’s Virginia Statue for Religious Liberty, which many scholars consider a precursor to the First Amendment, guaranteed religious freedom for everyone, Christian and non-Christian. Attempts to limit its protections to Christians failed, and Jefferson rejoiced.


In his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” Madison observed, “Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion.”

In his Notes on Virginia Jefferson observed, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Alexander Hamilton, writing in “Federalist No. 69,” speaks bluntly to the religious duties of the U.S. president: There aren’t any. In this essay, Hamilton explains how the American president would differ from the English king, outlining several key differences between the two. He writes: “The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church!”

3. The Key Founders Were Not Conservative Christians and Likely Would Not Have Supported an Officially Christian Nation

To hear the religious Right tell it, men such as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were eighteenth-century versions of Jerry Falwell in powdered wigs and stockings. This is nonsense.

The religious writings of many prominent founders sound odd to today’s ears because these works reflect Deism, a theological system of thought that has since fallen out of favor. Deists believed in God but didn’t necessarily see him as active in human affairs. The god of the Deists was a god of first cause: he set things in motion and then stepped back.

Although nominally an Anglican, George Washington often spoke in deistic terms. His god was a “supreme architect” of the universe. Washington saw religion as necessary for good and moral behavior but didn’t necessarily accept all Christian dogma. He seemed to have a special gripe against Communion and would usually leave services before it was offered.

Washington is the author of one of the great classics of religious liberty—the letter to Touro Synagogue (1790). In this letter, Washington assures America’s Jews that they would enjoy complete religious liberty—not mere toleration—in the new nation. He outlines a vision not of a Christian nation but of a multi-faith society where all are free to practice as they will:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. . . . All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.

John Adams was a Unitarian. He rejected belief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, core concepts of Christian dogma. In his personal writings, Adams made it clear that he considered the concept of the divinity of Jesus incomprehensible.


In February of 1756, Adams wrote in his diary about a discussion he had had with a man named Major Greene. Greene was a devout Christian who sought to persuade Adams to adopt conservative Christian views. The two argued over the divinity of Jesus. When questioned on the matter, Greene fell back on an old standby: some matters of theology are too complex and mysterious for human understanding.

Adams was not impressed. In his diary he writes, “Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

Jefferson’s skepticism of traditional Christianity is well known. Our third president did not believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, original sin, and other core Christian doctrines. Jefferson once famously observed to Adams: “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Although not an orthodox Christian, Jefferson admired Jesus as a moral teacher. He even edited the New Testament, cutting away the stories of miracles and divinity and leaving behind a very human Jesus, whose teachings Jefferson found “sublime.”

Perhaps the most enigmatic of the founders was Madison. To this day, scholars still debate his religious views. Some of his biographers believe that Madison, nominally Anglican, was really a Deist. Notoriously reluctant to talk publicly about his religious beliefs, Madison was perhaps the strictest church-state separa- tionist among the founders, opposing not only chaplains in Congress and the military but also government prayer proclamations. As president, he vetoed legislation granting federal land to a church as well as a plan to have a church in Washington care for the poor. In each case, he cited the First Amendment.

4. Shortly After the Constitution Was Ratified, Conservative Ministers Attacked It Because It Lacked References to Christianity

Ministers of the founding period knew that the Constitution didn’t declare the United States officially Christian—and it made them angry.

In 1793, just five years after the Constitution was ratified, the Reverend John M. Mason of New York attacked that document in a sermon. Mason called the lack of references to God and Christianity “an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate.” He predicted that an angry God would “overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing and crush us to atoms in the wreck.”

Conservative pastors continued whining well into the nineteenth century. In 1811, the Reverend Samuel Austin thundered that the Constitution “is entirely disconnected from Christianity. [This] one capital defect [will lead] inevitably to its destruction.”

In 1845, the Reverend D. X. Junkin wrote, “[The Constitution] is negatively atheistical, for no God is appealed to at all. In framing many of our public formularies, greater care seems to have been taken to adapt them to the prejudices of the INFIDEL FEW, than to the consciences of the Christian millions.”


These eighteenth- and nineteenth-century pastors knew that the Constitution was secular and granted no preferences to Christianity. They considered that a defect.

5. During the Post-Civil War Period, a Band of Politically Powerful Pastors Tried Repeatedly to Amend the U.S. Constitution to Add References to Jesus Christ and Christianity

Nineteenth-century ministers knew that the Constitution was secular and that the nation was not officially Christian. They sought to remedy that through an amendment that would have rewritten the preamble to the Constitution.

The drive was led by the National Reform Association (NRA), a kind of early religious Right organization that sought an officially Christian America. This NRA had ambitious goals. It sought laws curtailing commercial activity on Sunday, mandating Protestant worship in public schools and censorship of material deemed sexually explicit or blasphemous. (Thanks to the NRA, freethought societies of this period often had difficulties mailing periodicals to supporters. The U.S. Postal Service was under constant siege by the NRA.)

The NRA was successful in many of its legislative endeavors, but it was never able to secure passage of the Christian nation amendment. The group’s proposed preamble read as follows:

We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the inalienable rights and blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to ourselves, our posterity and all the people, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

Congress did consider the amendment, but the House Judiciary Committee voted it down in 1874, declaring its awareness of the dangers of putting “anything into the Constitution or frame of government which might be construed to be a refer- ence to any religious creed or doctrine.” The proposal was reintroduced several times after that; in fact, versions of it were still appearing in Congress as late as 1965.

While the NRA was never successful in getting the Christian nation amendment passed, the group had better luck with another policy objective: adding “In God We Trust” to coins. That practice was codified in the North during the Civil War.

Obviously, there would have been no need to amend the Constitution to declare America officially Christian if the document already said as much. But it didn’t, which is why the NRA felt so strongly about its emendation.

The Origins of the Christian-Nation Myth

This last point provides the key to understanding the staying power of the Christian-nation myth. The myth’s origins go back not to the founding period but to a much different time in history—the post-Civil War era.

During this period, the country came as close it ever would to being officially Christian. Many laws did reflect the tenets of that faith. For example, books, magazines, and even stage productions were banned if they were deemed insulting to the Christian faith. Protestant prayer and worship were common in many public schools. Laws curtailed Sunday commerce. Even the Supreme Court flirted with the Christian-nation concept in its infamous decision in the Holy Trinity case.

The post-Civil War era was also a period of great social upheaval. The end of slavery in the South created dislocation and confusion, which left people grasping for answers in the chaos. Other social changes loomed. Late in the century, women began advocating for the right to vote. Not surprisingly, some people reacted to these changes by latching onto reactionary religious views.

Despite the social unrest, in many ways this period of history is the religious Right’s ideal society. Think about it: public schools were pushing conservative forms of Protestantism. Religiously based censorship was common. All people were required to abide by a set of laws based on Christian principles, with the government playing the role of theological enforcer. Significantly, this was also a time of rigidly enforced gender roles and official policies of racial segregation.

Many of these principles still inspire the religious Right’s agenda today. So when religious Right leaders or television preachers hearken back to our days as a Christian nation, remember that they are not talking about the founding period. What they long for is a return to an aberrant era in late-nineteenth- century America.

The attempt to “19th-century-ize” modern America continues into the present. It’s not uncommon to hear the Christian-nation myth invoked in battles over religion in public schools, displays of religious signs and symbols on public property, and other church-state disputes. It has also been raised in questions dealing with tax aid to religious groups through school vouchers and “faith-based” initiatives. The argument is that it’s only to be expected that large amounts of taxpayer money will end up in the coffers of Christian groups because we are, after all, a Christian nation.

The myth also feeds several psychological needs. It assures religious Right supporters who fear the pace of social change that things like same-sex marriage and the rise of secularists are aberrations that run counter to the “real” Christian nature of the country. It also invokes a “stolen legacy” myth—the idea that a grand and glorious history (in this case, a Christian one) exists but that it is being covered up or denied by usurpers who seek to suppress the nation’s history as part of a power grab.

The Christian-nation myth also has political ramifications. Put simply, it is often used to motivate people to vote a certain way. Increasingly, the theocrats of the Far Right are assailing what they call the “secular Left,” an all-purpose bogeyman guilty of many crimes, including denying the Christian-nation idea.

But the myth is by no means limited to the religious Right. Polls show great confusion in this area: in 2007, for example, 55 percent of respondents told the First Amendment Center they believed the Constitution establishes America as an officially Christian nation.

Misinformation like this has especially bad consequences for secular humanists. The myth promotes the pernicious idea that non-Christians are second-class citizens in “Christian America.” It leads to the idea that the law mandates only a grudging tolerance of nonbelievers rather than what the Constitution really extends: full and equal rights to all Americans, regardless of what they do or do not believe.

That the Christian-nation myth has many supporters among the religious Right doesn’t mean it has validity. It is, in fact, a form of “historical creationism” that mainstream scholars have repeatedly shown to be fallacious. But, like “scientific creationism,” the Christian-nation myth still has great power and wide acceptance. Humanists must confront—and debunk—the myth wherever it appears.

To answer your questions:

Do you lock your doors at night?

Do you wear your expensive diamond jewelry on the subway?

Do you let strangers into your home?

Would you walk down a dark alley in a dangerous part of town alone?

Yes I lock my doors but when my bell rings I don't automatically think oh no who is coming to hurt me. Rather I say who is it and then I usually allow them to come in.

Yes I do wear my jewelry on the subway. But I am smart about it.

If I have to walk down a dark alley at night I try to make sure I have company. And I remain alert and aware of my surroundings.

And yes I have let strangers into my home. I make smart decisions about who and when and if. There are no blanket rules I live my life by but instead am constantly re-evaluating things trying to make the best choices I can.

And I make smart decisions that help me remain safe all the while knowing I cannot control every single thing and to live my life in fear makes my world smaller and me a smaller person as well. And to close my mind and my heart hurts me.


Here is some food for thought. I hope you will read it.
https://www.lionsroar.com/buddhist-teachers-respond-to-news-of-trumps-presidential-win/

 

[ruby59]

Missy, I just wanted to acknowledge your very thoughtful response to me.

I am going to need a bit of time to read through it, so I did not want you to think I was ignoring it.