America Founded as a Christian Nation

[Moi621]

EDIT​

AMERICA WAS NOT FOUNDED AS A THEOCRACY. IT WAS FOUNDED AS A REPUBLIC BASED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

Edit​

The Founding Fathers were Deist.

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A NATION ON MASONIC PRINCIPLES!



Moi

​

 

[Correll]

#899 to #890.

Secular people impose their morality and viewpoints, on others, "within governance" so it is equality for religious people to do the same.

I wonder what Correll means by “within governance” since working in or dealing with the institutions of government should be understood to be secular activity.


#899 to #890.

Part of Freedom of Religion, is the freedom for RELIGIOUS people to participate in the political process, that same as secular people.

i wonder if Correll can relay how many times he was blocked from participating in the political process because of membership in a church.

The institutions of government are understood to be secular.


That does not mean that the voters or even the officers of that government, are not input their morals and beliefs and customs, that may be religiously based, into law.



And that is part of religious freedom.



You cut the post where you advocate against that, and then pretended that me arguing for it, was me addressing some strawman.


You are truly a liberal. And I mean that with all due respect....


Liberal.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

In my mind, he did. Unfortunately, the Democrats take it the same way and they really expressed the sentiment.

Because we've strayed so far from our original values and principles, we've forgotten that if the founders had boiled America down to a single word, it would be Liberty. How can you have Liberty when you conflate citizenship with the unalienable Rights like Liberty?

There is a term in psychology called cognitive dissonance. It is where a person can hold two opposing views at the same time. How do we talk about equality and Freedom on one hand, while on the other, presuming that Liberty is connected to citizenship and we should only allow the rich and the educated the opportunity to come here?

In my mind, the equation is upside down. We hand out citizenship as if it were candy and then make much ado about people coming in from south of the border. The nearly one million new citizens we naturalize each year end up on the left, then having a disproportionate representation in Congress, and working to change America into a socialist democracy. We should cut back on naturalization, urge states to refrain from sharing the benefits and privileges of citizenship with non-citizens, and get out of the lives of individuals and business on this issue. Of course, in order to understand why, you would have to go back to post # 1 and read the contents of the first link.

The founders / framers had a vision for the future of America. As long as we stay true to those values and principles, we progress as a nation. When we stray from the blueprint, chaos and regression follow.

Having people live here and not be citizens and thus not have the rights of citizens,

sounds like YOU are conflating citizenship with rights.

EVERYBODY has unalienable Rights. The benefits and privileges of citizenship (voting, getting welfare, Socialist Security, etc.) are NOT Rights. Clearly you are confused on this. Citizenship is a privilege - not a guarantee nor a prerequisite for unalienable Rights.

For non citizens, being here is a privilege. If they are here, their children will be born here and they will be citizens and get all those benefits, in a generation anyways.

Partially true, but only because the average American will not examine the historical facts. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. Most people think that the immigration issue is what drives me to oppose the enforcement of that travesty, but it certainly is not.

Let's take this issue:

Even in a very liberal rendering of the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When those words were penned, the people were already overwhelmingly Christian, so nobody needed to establish a religion. Jews financed the War of Independence, invested in the creation of the Republic, etc. but they were never citizens. It didn't stop them from participating in the free market. The point is Congress (the federal Congress) could not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That Amendment could not be construed to impact what already existed; it had NO bearing on the states; it did not limit the people.

So, what happened that allowed the federal government to violate the First Amendment, as intended, and impose a mythical "separation of church and state" on the states (i.e. as in matters like education and marriage) ? That would be the 14th Amendment, of course. Oh yeah, there is a separation of church and state... just as fairies and Santa Claus, along with pro-wrestling are real. The government decides what constitutes a church, where they may assemble to worship, and what tenets of faith to follow lest they lose their non profit status. AND, if my critics on this thread had their way, THEY think they get to determine what constitutes a Christian and what doesn't! All of that exists, along with birthright citizenship due to the 14th Amendment.

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The bigger question is, who gets to make that determination? The Constitution, as originally written and intended, leaves it up to the states. So, if California wants to load up their state with foreigners, Trump could cut off federal funds so that the state has to pay for them. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the government can regulate that which they subsidize in Wickard v. Filburn.

Seems to me that would solve that problem.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#904 to #895

This discussion is about the fact that America was FOUNDED as a Christian nation.

It is neither a fact or a possibility that America was founded as a {Porter Rockwell defined “Christian”} nation. To sum it up in a slogan as such, to be a fact, we need to know what Porter Rockwell’s definition of Christianity might be.

Christianity has endless definitions and concepts that cannot be captured in one word in a slogan.

There is the huge divide in Christianity itself. Catholic and Protestant. Only one side was involved in the founding. The other side was not. In some colonies Catholics were not tolerated.

In the full history of Christianity, Protestant Christianity rejected the Catholic Church. The very institution that founded all of Christendom throughout the entire world. To label America as founded as a Christian nation is not true because Catholics were not involved and not even considered to be Christians by America’s first generation of Protestant Christians who dominated our culture at the end of the 28Th Century,

Secondly, until the US was founded based on Enlightenment principles, Christianity as a religious institution, was for all its centuries, joined heart mind and soul to Monarchists.

What happened in 1776 was a reversal of Christendom’s past - Catholic and Protestant.

Every rational mind unbiased by religiosity would acknowledge that Christianity as an institution had much less to do with the birth of our nation than other modern at the time ideas and principles.

 

[Correll]

Having people live here and not be citizens and thus not have the rights of citizens,

sounds like YOU are conflating citizenship with rights.

EVERYBODY has unalienable Rights. The benefits and privileges of citizenship (voting, getting welfare, Socialist Security, etc.) are NOT Rights. Clearly you are confused on this. Citizenship is a privilege - not a guarantee nor a prerequisite for unalienable Rights.

For non citizens, being here is a privilege. If they are here, their children will be born here and they will be citizens and get all those benefits, in a generation anyways.

Partially true, but only because the average American will not examine the historical facts. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. Most people think that the immigration issue is what drives me to oppose the enforcement of that travesty, but it certainly is not.

Let's take this issue:

Even in a very liberal rendering of the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When those words were penned, the people were already overwhelmingly Christian, so nobody needed to establish a religion. Jews financed the War of Independence, invested in the creation of the Republic, etc. but they were never citizens. It didn't stop them from participating in the free market. The point is Congress (the federal Congress) could not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That Amendment could not be construed to impact what already existed; it had NO bearing on the states; it did not limit the people.

So, what happened that allowed the federal government to violate the First Amendment, as intended, and impose a mythical "separation of church and state" on the states (i.e. as in matters like education and marriage) ? That would be the 14th Amendment, of course. Oh yeah, there is a separation of church and state... just as fairies and Santa Claus, along with pro-wrestling are real. The government decides what constitutes a church, where they may assemble to worship, and what tenets of faith to follow lest they lose their non profit status. AND, if my critics on this thread had their way, THEY think they get to determine what constitutes a Christian and what doesn't! All of that exists, along with birthright citizenship due to the 14th Amendment.

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The bigger question is, who gets to make that determination? The Constitution, as originally written and intended, leaves it up to the states. So, if California wants to load up their state with foreigners, Trump could cut off federal funds so that the state has to pay for them. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the government can regulate that which they subsidize in Wickard v. Filburn.

Seems to me that would solve that problem.

ONce inside the country, they become part of the country. California is dragging this whole country, down with it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

EDIT​

AMERICA WAS NOT FOUNDED AS A THEOCRACY. IT WAS FOUNDED AS A REPUBLIC BASED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

Edit​

The Founding Fathers were Deist.

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A NATION ON MASONIC PRINCIPLES!



Moi

View attachment 304798​

LMAO. Asked and answered. False, of course, but you didn't come here to look over the thread and really participate, did you? Let me reproduce post # 669 for you since that's all that is left to do here is repeat the same posts over and over:


Well, I've come to the end of my long winded rant and will answer some of those questions I ignored while posting walls of text to prove a point. Thanks to those who filled in the blank spaces I was leaving.

The secularists, humanists, atheists, etc. all make this point that the word Christian is not in the Constitution; ergo, we cannot be a Christian nation. They are equally adamant that we are a secular nation, but they cannot find that word in any document associated with our founding. Several times I've mentioned the Sunday exception rule, the fact that in signing the Constitution, the signers did so "in the year of our Lord," etc. IIRC, we found four specific times a rational person could deduce that a Christian people signed that document and no non-Christians signing it. At the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, ALL the signers were Christian:

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

Masons played a minor role in the founding of America:

"Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, the number eight is usually accepted as the absolute minimum of Masons who signed the document. Though some evidence exists to show another 24 were Masons, it is not regularly accepted that they were Masons. Clearly, 13 of the 39 who signed the Constitution were members of Masonic lodges. Of the others, absolute proof has not been found."

Masonic Topics: USA

It wasn't until 1776 that the Illuminati successfully infiltrated the Masons (and I am not fully informed as to the agenda of Masons outside of that.) But, again, what matters is what was the final product.

The Constitution created a form of government, not a religion. We had a constitutional Republic AND we have the Tenth Amendment. The federal government was limited to what was in that document and the rest of governing was left up to the people and to the states, respectively. Up to at least 1897 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Holy Trinity case, all the states had some connection to Christianity. In virtually every era of time, there has been someone on the United States Supreme Court that has made a connection between our nation and its Christian heritage.

What my critics have been trying to sell is the notion that over two thirds of the people who helped found this nation(played an influential role in setting up the systems of governance), were idiots and dolts that signed documents that were antithetical to everything they believed in and would lead to the destruction of this nation and the outright criminalization of Christianity. The Masons were smarter than everyone else and secretly created a nation right under our nose that the rest of the founders couldn't see. That is the way it's been presented to me. I simply don't believe it.

Finally, it was on the news just yesterday that people who got mail order degrees from churches could NOT perform wedding ceremonies in Georgia. ANYBODY that thinks there is a separation of church and state is an absolute idiot. The almighty state registers churches, determines what constitutes a church, taxes those churches that do not espouse secular / humanist doctrines, and penalizes anyone that challenges the status. Benjamin Franklin once said that man will "ultimately be ruled by God or ruled by tyrants" and I repeat, that every nation has its own conception of right and wrong; good and bad. No nation can be all things to all people. Somebody's value system is going to prevail.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

EVERYBODY has unalienable Rights. The benefits and privileges of citizenship (voting, getting welfare, Socialist Security, etc.) are NOT Rights. Clearly you are confused on this. Citizenship is a privilege - not a guarantee nor a prerequisite for unalienable Rights.

For non citizens, being here is a privilege. If they are here, their children will be born here and they will be citizens and get all those benefits, in a generation anyways.

Partially true, but only because the average American will not examine the historical facts. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. Most people think that the immigration issue is what drives me to oppose the enforcement of that travesty, but it certainly is not.

Let's take this issue:

Even in a very liberal rendering of the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When those words were penned, the people were already overwhelmingly Christian, so nobody needed to establish a religion. Jews financed the War of Independence, invested in the creation of the Republic, etc. but they were never citizens. It didn't stop them from participating in the free market. The point is Congress (the federal Congress) could not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That Amendment could not be construed to impact what already existed; it had NO bearing on the states; it did not limit the people.

So, what happened that allowed the federal government to violate the First Amendment, as intended, and impose a mythical "separation of church and state" on the states (i.e. as in matters like education and marriage) ? That would be the 14th Amendment, of course. Oh yeah, there is a separation of church and state... just as fairies and Santa Claus, along with pro-wrestling are real. The government decides what constitutes a church, where they may assemble to worship, and what tenets of faith to follow lest they lose their non profit status. AND, if my critics on this thread had their way, THEY think they get to determine what constitutes a Christian and what doesn't! All of that exists, along with birthright citizenship due to the 14th Amendment.

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The bigger question is, who gets to make that determination? The Constitution, as originally written and intended, leaves it up to the states. So, if California wants to load up their state with foreigners, Trump could cut off federal funds so that the state has to pay for them. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the government can regulate that which they subsidize in Wickard v. Filburn.

Seems to me that would solve that problem.

ONce inside the country, they become part of the country. California is dragging this whole country, down with it.

They are just guest workers. If California was not receiving federal funds for keeping up undocumented foreigners, then if your premise is true, they would alter their views overnight. You seem to forget, it was the left that flipped the right on this issue and conned them into making their arguments (just as you're doing right now.)

It's a nightmare, being old, having lived this stuff and not having Alzheimer's so I remember what was going on in the 1980s and 1990s. When you were in the thick of it, it's hard to forget it.

 

[Correll]

For non citizens, being here is a privilege. If they are here, their children will be born here and they will be citizens and get all those benefits, in a generation anyways.

Partially true, but only because the average American will not examine the historical facts. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. Most people think that the immigration issue is what drives me to oppose the enforcement of that travesty, but it certainly is not.

Let's take this issue:

Even in a very liberal rendering of the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When those words were penned, the people were already overwhelmingly Christian, so nobody needed to establish a religion. Jews financed the War of Independence, invested in the creation of the Republic, etc. but they were never citizens. It didn't stop them from participating in the free market. The point is Congress (the federal Congress) could not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That Amendment could not be construed to impact what already existed; it had NO bearing on the states; it did not limit the people.

So, what happened that allowed the federal government to violate the First Amendment, as intended, and impose a mythical "separation of church and state" on the states (i.e. as in matters like education and marriage) ? That would be the 14th Amendment, of course. Oh yeah, there is a separation of church and state... just as fairies and Santa Claus, along with pro-wrestling are real. The government decides what constitutes a church, where they may assemble to worship, and what tenets of faith to follow lest they lose their non profit status. AND, if my critics on this thread had their way, THEY think they get to determine what constitutes a Christian and what doesn't! All of that exists, along with birthright citizenship due to the 14th Amendment.

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The bigger question is, who gets to make that determination? The Constitution, as originally written and intended, leaves it up to the states. So, if California wants to load up their state with foreigners, Trump could cut off federal funds so that the state has to pay for them. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the government can regulate that which they subsidize in Wickard v. Filburn.

Seems to me that would solve that problem.

ONce inside the country, they become part of the country. California is dragging this whole country, down with it.

They are just guest workers. If California was not receiving federal funds for keeping up undocumented foreigners, then if your premise is true, they would alter their views overnight. You seem to forget, it was the left that flipped the right on this issue and conned them into making their arguments (just as you're doing right now.)

It's a nightmare, being old, having lived this stuff and not having Alzheimer's so I remember what was going on in the 1980s and 1990s. When you were in the thick of it, it's hard to forget it.

They are not guest workers. They are immigrants. They are here to stay. IN the tens of millions.


Against our wishes and democratically enacted laws.

 

[sparky]

I don't do multi-quotes, but a man says he believes in God. He has religion. A man who walks into a stranger's house, pulls a kitchen chair from under the table and sits in it without checking its sturdiness has faith.

and a man who demands his government provide sturdy chairs is a theocrat Porter

~S~

 

[sparky]

You can not have a freedom of religion and be a Christian nation at the same time?

True

so many take freedom of religion as being free to impose it within governance

~S~

Part of Freedom of Religion, is the freedom for RELIGIOUS people to participate in the political process, that same as secular people.


Secular people impose their morality and viewpoints, on others, "within governance" so it is equality for religious people to do the same.

Ok Correll...

if you want it that way, then all churches ,denominations can start paying taxes to the government

That's what gains anyone a 'dog in the fight' here

~S~

 

[Correll]

You can not have a freedom of religion and be a Christian nation at the same time?

True

so many take freedom of religion as being free to impose it within governance

~S~

Part of Freedom of Religion, is the freedom for RELIGIOUS people to participate in the political process, that same as secular people.


Secular people impose their morality and viewpoints, on others, "within governance" so it is equality for religious people to do the same.

Ok Correll...

if you want it that way, then all churches ,denominations can start paying taxes to the government

That's what gains anyone a 'dog in the fight' here

~S~

Why should religious people not be allowed to participate in the political process the same way non-religious people can?

And how can you claim to have religious freedom, when you punish religious people by telling them it is wrong for them to engage in the same political process as secular people?

 

[BreezeWood]

Let me remind everyone that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances -

only in your dreams ... not to mention christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion.

It would be nice if some of you illiterate political propaganda prostitutes would do me the courtesy of READING at least the first two posts and the links. Otherwise, this is democrat nonsense disguised as a reply. Let's help the newest troll out.

Post # 17

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BIBLE

In post # 2, I cited the state constitutions requiring one to be a Christian in order to hold elective office and in the ending paragraph, we discussed Article VI Paragraph III of the U.S. Constitution which requires all U.S. Senators and Representatives to be bound by an Oath or Affirmation. This is an oath, NOT a test (which would be prohibited.)

It seems pretty clear that the framers had no objection to the states requiring their politicians to be Christians. The other question is, can we find implications that the Constitution has biblical connections therein?

If you look at the early state constitutions Maryland had a tax "for the support of the Christian religion." Funny thing, THAT was not attacked by the framers in the Constitution, so there is lot to be said about what is NOT in the Constitution. NOTHING in the Constitution hampers the states from requiring their politicians to be Christians NOR taxing the people to educate the people regarding the Christian religion.

In a letter to Rev. Jasper Adams in 1833 regarding the "relations" Christianity has with the social, civil, and political "institutions" of America, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:

"No person, I believe questions in importance of religion to the happiness of man even during the existence of this world... The American population is entirely Christian & with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed if, with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity & did not refer to it exhibit relations with it"

I mention that because it is one man's opinion (just as Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was a private letter, neither of which are mandatory or even persuasive authority in a court of law.) BTW, Jefferson's separation of church and state means 180 degrees opposite of what the left claims.

Somewhere in the middle is the answer and I will continue to point these things out. There will be more posts on the biblical references in the Constitution.

.

It would be nice if some of you illiterate political propaganda prostitutes would do me the courtesy of READING at least the first two posts and the links. Otherwise, this is democrat nonsense disguised as a reply. Let's help the newest troll out.

your 1st two posts were read, no different than your other winded posts used to disguise the fact the written document, u s constitution, the document itself is the final arbitrator of the fact the nation was founded as a secular nation with the preservation of religious freedom as a caveat to your supposed christian founding fathers.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

the facts are they did all they could during that time period to remove any aspect of religious doctrine from the "establishment" of their new government.

If we start with some of America's founding documents, we begin to get a picture of what we mean when we say America was founded as Christian nation. In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

are you aware there is no where to be found in the u s constitution a reference to equality, maybe it is your domination over women and foreigners to make into slaves as your true guiding light. christian.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#913. FOR THE RECORD: My points have had nothing to do with whether the word Christian is in the Constitution.

#906

The secularists, humanists, atheists, etc. all make this point that the word Christian is not in the Constitution; ergo, we cannot be a Christian nation.

I have pointed to other reasons, facts, &
valid opinions as to why; and I have more;
and speaking as a Jeffersonian ‘Real’ Christian (See Post #800) I find it quite disingenuous of Porter Rockwell’s to assume that opposition to his ideas about America being a Christian nation must be coming from secularists, humanists, atheists, etc.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Partially true, but only because the average American will not examine the historical facts. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. Most people think that the immigration issue is what drives me to oppose the enforcement of that travesty, but it certainly is not.

Let's take this issue:

Even in a very liberal rendering of the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When those words were penned, the people were already overwhelmingly Christian, so nobody needed to establish a religion. Jews financed the War of Independence, invested in the creation of the Republic, etc. but they were never citizens. It didn't stop them from participating in the free market. The point is Congress (the federal Congress) could not pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. That Amendment could not be construed to impact what already existed; it had NO bearing on the states; it did not limit the people.

So, what happened that allowed the federal government to violate the First Amendment, as intended, and impose a mythical "separation of church and state" on the states (i.e. as in matters like education and marriage) ? That would be the 14th Amendment, of course. Oh yeah, there is a separation of church and state... just as fairies and Santa Claus, along with pro-wrestling are real. The government decides what constitutes a church, where they may assemble to worship, and what tenets of faith to follow lest they lose their non profit status. AND, if my critics on this thread had their way, THEY think they get to determine what constitutes a Christian and what doesn't! All of that exists, along with birthright citizenship due to the 14th Amendment.

We do have the authority to nullify that travesty.

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The bigger question is, who gets to make that determination? The Constitution, as originally written and intended, leaves it up to the states. So, if California wants to load up their state with foreigners, Trump could cut off federal funds so that the state has to pay for them. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the government can regulate that which they subsidize in Wickard v. Filburn.

Seems to me that would solve that problem.

ONce inside the country, they become part of the country. California is dragging this whole country, down with it.

They are just guest workers. If California was not receiving federal funds for keeping up undocumented foreigners, then if your premise is true, they would alter their views overnight. You seem to forget, it was the left that flipped the right on this issue and conned them into making their arguments (just as you're doing right now.)

It's a nightmare, being old, having lived this stuff and not having Alzheimer's so I remember what was going on in the 1980s and 1990s. When you were in the thick of it, it's hard to forget it.

They are not guest workers. They are immigrants. They are here to stay. IN the tens of millions.


Against our wishes and democratically enacted laws.

If you read this thread carefully, there are a couple of people trying to prove I'm a racist. So they read one thing and you are about read another.

The Declaration of Independence has this to say:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So, you either believe that Liberty is an unalienable Right or you don't. Nobody needs any other person's permission to exercise Liberty. On the second count, you do not see anyone out there coming to my defense when I say the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. So, here is the relevant part of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If you accept the 14th Amendment, you have to look closely: citizens are due certain unnamed "privileges and immunities". ALL PERSONS are guaranteed Liberty. So, the problem is, under the 14th Amendment, undocumented people have a government granted "right" to Liberty.

The current immigration laws on the books were designed to dilute the vote of the posterity of the founders / framers. It is a subtle form of political genocide and passed by the Democrats... and I guess this where honest men have to agree to disagree. I do not support mob rule aka democracy.

I think the better approach is to offer substantial tax savings to employers that hire an all American workforce, pay them higher wages; give tax incentives to get people off the unemployment lines, off of disability; off of food stamps, and give those with a criminal record a second chance. Additionally, tax incentives could be used to bring jobs back to America. Each thing the employer does, the more they save in taxes. Note: the words in bolding and italics are telling you something.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I don't do multi-quotes, but a man says he believes in God. He has religion. A man who walks into a stranger's house, pulls a kitchen chair from under the table and sits in it without checking its sturdiness has faith.

and a man who demands his government provide sturdy chairs is a theocrat Porter

~S~

Who says you have to "demand" them. Just use your own God given talents to observe them and checking them before trusting them. OR sit in them based upon your faith.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Let me remind everyone that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances -

only in your dreams ... not to mention christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion.

It would be nice if some of you illiterate political propaganda prostitutes would do me the courtesy of READING at least the first two posts and the links. Otherwise, this is democrat nonsense disguised as a reply. Let's help the newest troll out.

Post # 17

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BIBLE

In post # 2, I cited the state constitutions requiring one to be a Christian in order to hold elective office and in the ending paragraph, we discussed Article VI Paragraph III of the U.S. Constitution which requires all U.S. Senators and Representatives to be bound by an Oath or Affirmation. This is an oath, NOT a test (which would be prohibited.)

It seems pretty clear that the framers had no objection to the states requiring their politicians to be Christians. The other question is, can we find implications that the Constitution has biblical connections therein?

If you look at the early state constitutions Maryland had a tax "for the support of the Christian religion." Funny thing, THAT was not attacked by the framers in the Constitution, so there is lot to be said about what is NOT in the Constitution. NOTHING in the Constitution hampers the states from requiring their politicians to be Christians NOR taxing the people to educate the people regarding the Christian religion.

In a letter to Rev. Jasper Adams in 1833 regarding the "relations" Christianity has with the social, civil, and political "institutions" of America, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:

"No person, I believe questions in importance of religion to the happiness of man even during the existence of this world... The American population is entirely Christian & with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed if, with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity & did not refer to it exhibit relations with it"

I mention that because it is one man's opinion (just as Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was a private letter, neither of which are mandatory or even persuasive authority in a court of law.) BTW, Jefferson's separation of church and state means 180 degrees opposite of what the left claims.

Somewhere in the middle is the answer and I will continue to point these things out. There will be more posts on the biblical references in the Constitution.

.

It would be nice if some of you illiterate political propaganda prostitutes would do me the courtesy of READING at least the first two posts and the links. Otherwise, this is democrat nonsense disguised as a reply. Let's help the newest troll out.

your 1st two posts were read, no different than your other winded posts used to disguise the fact the written document, u s constitution, the document itself is the final arbitrator of the fact the nation was founded as a secular nation with the preservation of religious freedom as a caveat to your supposed christian founding fathers.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

the facts are they did all they could during that time period to remove any aspect of religious doctrine from the "establishment" of their new government.

If we start with some of America's founding documents, we begin to get a picture of what we mean when we say America was founded as Christian nation. In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

are you aware there is no where to be found in the u s constitution a reference to equality, maybe it is your domination over women and foreigners to make into slaves as your true guiding light. christian.

You're a real hoot that would feel like the idiot that you just proved yourself to be. You are not fit to judge me and we don't have a Hell of lot to talk about. I'm looking for people to get involved in this conversation, not start a pissing match with me. I did that with one poster, indulging him in 366 posts before getting the message.

When you complain about the size of posts, it only says you're too lazy to read. Bottom line here: EVERY ONE OF YOUR POSITIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED AND SUCCESSFULLY REFUTED IN THE PREVIOUS 850 + POSTS.

That remark about my "domination over women" gets you one response from me: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you desperate, ignorant, waste of life. You are wrong and anyone that wants to know which posts to look in can PM me. You and I are done here.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

UPDATED

NOTFOOLEDBYW'S FINAL RESPONSE

This thread is now 917 posts long as I begin this response. Of those, NOTFOOLEDBYW has made a total of 168 posts. They are posts # 78, 80, 111, 113, 118, 126, 140, 154, 157, 158, 159, 162, 172, 174, 179, 189, 192, 195, 196, 197, 203, 204, 205, 212, 220, 224, 225, 232, 233, 234, 235, 240, 240, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 254, 255, 256, 267, 279, 280, 285, 290, 296, 297, 302, 307, 309, 318, 321, 328, 330, 335, 339, 340, 341, 345, 347, 350, 350, 351, 352, 367, 370, 373, 381, 393, 394, 399, 401, 404, 411, 412, 413, 420, 421, 425, 426, 429, 430, 431, 432, 468, 485, 500, 504, 508, 512, 516, 519, 525, 527, 537, 539, 541, 546, 549, 551, 554, 557, 559, 561, 563, 565, 566, 569, 570, 574, 577, 581, 582, 587, 589, 606, 607, 610, 626, 630, 636, 642, 644, 646, 684, 688, 699, 700, 703, 704, 707, 708, 709, 715, 716, 718, 724, 725, 730, 740, 744, 746, 747, 750, 753, 754, 755, 761, 762, 769, 774, 782, 7998, 800, ... that is 155 posts out of 805, 807, 812, 824, 827, 830, 831, 832, 844, 847, 860, 872, 899, 904

In virtually every post NOTFOOLEDBYW has insulted posters, called them liars, misrepresented people, and NOBODY has defended his positions.


By contrast, NOTFOOLEDBYW has been challenged by numerous posters to whom NOTFOOLEDBYW has called liars, fools, morons, and accused them of all manner of wrongdoing. Those posters responded a total of 126 times in posts: #120, 130, 134, 167, 169,174, 176, 175, 176, 180, 185, 206, 207, 250, 282, 299, 346, 346, 354, 396, 397, 403, 405, 406, 407, 414, 415, 416, 424, 427, 428, 433, 434, 438, 439, 440, 445, 446, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 460, 461, 464, 465, 466, 467, 469, 470, 472, 474, 476, 483, 484, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 496, 497, 498, 499, 501, 502, 517, 518, 521, 526, 528, 531, 558, 562, 564, 567, 568, 571, 573, 576, 578, 579, 588, 591, 593, 594, 595, 596, 598, 599, 600, 603, 608, 612, 613, 615, 618, 627, 628, 629, 633, 645, 648, 653, 658, 665, 668, 698, 701, 705, 706, 711, 722, 723, 726, 751, 764, 765, 779

I have been obliged to respond to NOTFOOLEDBYW a total of 85 times personally. That is a total of 379+ posts that have revolved around this one poster. I'm not updating any posters that responded beyond post # 805

One poster or another has successfully defeated each and every argument he brings to the table. He is now remaining, claiming I lied about Thomas Jefferson - as if that would change the balance of this discussion. Here is my position:

1) When other posters began discussing this as a conversation rather than a point by point, let's prove everything, I got conversational. I quoted Thomas Jefferson from an unnamed source in an online general conversation.

2) NOTFOOLEDBYW seized upon that accusing me of posting a lie; even claiming that I edited my source. I did not. I did, however, look at where my source got their material and I quoted where it could be found. I did not lie

3) Regardless of how that material reads, the bottom line is Thomas Jefferson said he was a Christian and I took him at his word as his early life indicates such. Jefferson states, and it was quoted on this thread, that his life experiences changed his outlook. Nothing has changed what Jefferson said at that point in his life

4) Regardless of how many times founders did or said one thing or another, I look at the bottom line and if over half the posts here are either one man arguing against those points compared to the scores of posts disagreeing with him, there is no point to prove. If this matters to you and you want to wade through who said what, you have each post - minus my own (which is unnecessary since all those people who agreed with me either quoted the relevant parts and / or the post itself. My point here is I did not lie and every time that troll posts, I will simply cut and paste this response (that took some hours to research just for him.)

If he still wants to call me a liar, he can do it to my face. Otherwise, he has been successfully defeated by other posters to the point that nothing I have to say would be relevant anyway. IF there are any other points to be addressed, I will be happy to entertain them, just not by the resident troll. The dumb ass needs to read. This post refutes his account of what happened.. I know because I'm the one who did it. I copied and pasted the fucking quote as it appeared and no amount of political jockeying will change that. It's over dumbass.

 

[sparky]

Who says you have to "demand" them.

theocrats do if you follow my analogy....~S~

 

[Bezukhov]

I wonder what "Christian Principle" anti miscegenation laws were supposed to uphold?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Who says you have to "demand" them.

theocrats do if you follow my analogy....~S~

The thing is, this thread is not about a theocracy. At least show enough common courtesy to read the first two posts before going in off topic universes.