<p><<what should=“” i,=“” as=“” a=“” jew,=“” feel=“” about=“” living=“” in=“” christian=“” nation?=“”>> </what></p>
<p>I should think you would feel blessed. Jews are often the first “to go.”
When America is by any arguable measure no longer Christian - Jews will, undoubtedly know first.</p>
<p>We are NOT a Christian nation…</p>
<p>-The use of ‘God’ in all of the founding documents is ambiguous. They could be referring to any God, or they could be a collective reference to the God(s) of all religions. Thus, there is no way to infer from such references that we are a ‘Christian nation’.</p>
<p>-Do you even know what the founding fathers believed? Most of them approached theology from a very liberal perspective. Benjamin Franklin was an adamant Deist and wrote a lot about his opposition to organized religion. John Adams was a Unitarian and didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus (he was also against the authority of the Roman Catholic Church). Thomas Paine was a Deist and even went as far as calling Christianity a ‘parody’.</p>
<p>I think it is hilariously hypocritical that people say we are a Christian nation because we were founded on Christian principles, when the people who make such a claim would label many (if not most) of the founding fathers as hell-bound heretics.</p>
<p>It’s ironic, isn’t it, that our current President is a more orthodox Christian than was George Washington?</p>
<p>Ben Franklin @ Constitutional Convention, 1787</p>
<p>“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His consenting aid, we should succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”</p>
<p>“The general principals upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity.”
John Adams in a letter to Abigal the day the declaration was approved</p>
<p>-Those references to God/Christianity are out of context with the founding documents, which are the principle statements of our nation.</p>
<p>-The Christianity they refer to is far different from what modern Christianity is. One of the quotes you provided was by John Adams…But he didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ. If someone walked up to you and said, “I’m Christian, but I don’t believe in the divinity of Christ” you would either think or flat out tell them that they are not really Christian.</p>
<p>So where do you stand…Was John Adams a Christian or not? He didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ…Yet you are using a quotation of his to prove that he was Christian and helped find a Christian nation.</p>
<p>February 27, 2009 “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is preparing to rescind regulations which made explicit the existing legal protections for medical workers who object to cooperating in abortions.”</p>
<p>One of the posters in this thread “corrected” another poster’s characterization of Obama as being “pro-abortion,” making the claim that he is only “pro-choice.” Now whether you support his appearance at Notre Dame or not, to claim that he is somehow neutral is either disingenuous (to put it politely) or naive. In 2008 he told Planned Parenthood that signing the Freedom of Choice Act would be his number-one priority as president, so he obviously supports forcing health care providers to act against their principles. If you don’t see anything odd about the use of the word “choice” here, there’s no room for dialogue, but I trust that anyone who owns a dictionary will have to acknowledge the irony.</p>
<p>Who will be forced to act against their principles? I assume they can still act on their principles by quitting, right?</p>
<p>am not attempting to prove who is or is not Christian
am humbly refuting claims that Christianity did not have sufficient cultural influence to frame the very system created by the founders - whether they were Christian or not.
Christianity was not merely a sufficient cause for our system - it was a necessary condition.</p>
<p>to remove the influence of Christianity from the system necessarily changes the original system - whether that be good or bad is simply a matter of position
to change the original system requires the removal of orthodox Christianity from society.
the job is almost done.</p>
<p>Guys, with all due respect, this has nothing to do with Obama at Notre Dame.</p>
<p>We are a nation which espouses freedom of religion, and we are a nation founded by Christians. We aren’t, nor should we be, a “Christian Nation.”</p>
<p>OTOH, Notre Dame was founded by Catholic Priests, and should be, but isn’t any longer, a Catholic University.</p>
<p>Hunt: And you think it’s fine for doctors to be forced out of their profession and for Catholic hospitals to shut down because they won’t comply with someone else’s ideology and exercise of power? Is this what freedom means to you?</p>
<p>What Catholic hospitals will be forced to shut down? You mean the ones that are spending my money? Maybe I don’t understand the legislation well enough, but I thought it only applied to those spending public money.</p>
<p>If abortion is a fundamental right that can never be infringed, then EVERY hospital would have to perform abortions. There doesn’t seem to be any other way to read this, and as noted above neither would personal opposition matter (I mean below the institutional level). Public funding appears to have nothing to do with it. This to me is an ethical nightmare.</p>
<p>Here’s an article from Catholic News Service about what the legislation would and wouldn’t do: [CNS</a> STORY: Rumors aside, FOCA legislation no threat to Catholic health care](<a href=“http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900402.htm]CNS”>http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900402.htm)
Of course, there’s plenty in it for Catholics to oppose, even if it won’t shut down Catholic hospitals.</p>
<p>There’s disagreement about the effect it would have on Catholic hospitals, but given its clear intention to screen out anyone who’s opposed to the practice one would certainly be justified in assuming the worst. </p>
<p>Soon after Roe, some medical schools were routinely asking applicants whether they would perform abortions, and the purpose of this was obvious. This is one of the reasons there are legal protections at this point.</p>
<p>Here’s a report about the bishops’ conference:</p>
<p>The bishops also expressed concern about FOCA because it could overturn protections for Catholic hospitals that don’t want to do abortions.</p>
<p>Some of the bishops, during the discussion, went as far as saying the Catholic Church should be willing to close some health facilities rather them allow them to be subject to a mandate to do abortions from the Obama administration.</p>
<p>Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago spoke up about the threats to Catholic health care under the bill.</p>
<p>It could mean discontinuing obstetrics in our hospitals, and we may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely, Paprocki said. It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions. That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil.</p>
<p>I do not think Im being alarmist in considering such drastic steps, he said. We need to respond in a morally appropriate, responsible fashion.</p>
<p>During the campaign, Obama promised the bill would be the first he would sign as president. The FOCA measure would overturn state laws such as bans on taxpayer-funding of abortion, parental notification and consent, informed consent for women, and conscience protections for medical facilities and personnel.</p>
<p>From The Los Angeles Times:</p>
<p>"After Barack Obama was elected president, Pope Benedict XVI sent him a congratulatory letter. So did Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. At the time, neither the Vatican nor the Catholic bishops were under any illusion about Obama’s opposition to outlawing abortion, a position that obviously put him at odds with the church’s agenda. That didn’t prevent them from welcoming a dialogue with the new president or offering to work with him in common pursuits. "</p>
<p>Just another point of view (God help me!)</p>
<p>But neither the Vatican nor Cardinal George presented Obama with any award or honors.
That is the difference.
And you’ll note that Cardinal George is among the dozens of U.S. bishops who has spoken out in opposition to the Obama invitation.</p>
<p>ww07: My last few postings on this thread were meant only to address another poster’s claim that Obama is not actively pro-abortion. There is no doubt in my mind that he will address the graduating class, and that his reception will be for the most part civil, but it’s absurd to deny his agenda.</p>
<p>It’s people like claremarie and Aldomerdad that make me profoundly grateful my son has opted to attend a non-Catholic university. Both he and we desire a truly intellectual, well-rounded education – not one that is based on Catholic mumbo-jumbo. </p>
<p>On that note, I wish all of you who currently attend, or decide to attend Notre Dame, the best intellectually-stifling education possible.</p>
<p>P.S. This entire thread is a prime example of why Notre Dame will never have the intellectual cache of the Ivy Leagues. Pathetic.</p>