America founded by whites... for whites

Discussion in 'Race Relations/Racism' started by Porter Rockwell, Jan 12, 2020.

  1. Penelope
    Offline

    Penelope Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    42,635
    Thanks Received:
    3,771
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Ratings:
    +24,086
    The Judeo was not put in front of the Christian, till 1950.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell Silver Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    4,049
    Thanks Received:
    216
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +1,421
    In my own words, quote where I have ever mentioned Judeo other than right here. I haven't even used that word in any thread I've started to date.
     
  3. Penelope
    Offline

    Penelope Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    42,635
    Thanks Received:
    3,771
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Ratings:
    +24,086
    The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves:
    You might be aware that Israelites were once upon a time arabs and even Jesus had arab decendents.

    answer me this, why did the white man bring african blacks to this white nation?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell Silver Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    4,049
    Thanks Received:
    216
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +1,421
    THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BIBLE PART 2 (CONTINUED FROM POST # 17)

    "The Christian religion was always recognized in the administration of the common law; and so far this as that law continues to be the law of the land, the fundamental principles of that religion must continue to be recognized in the same cases and to the same extent as formerly." Chief Justice (United States Supreme Court) Thomas Cooley - The General Principles of Constitutional Law in America

    Due to the fact that the atheists and non-believers have no patience (and they REALLY don't want context) I am being forced to give half assed answers to keep up. If everyone here would look at the links and access them and READ them, they would have fewer questions and comments since both my links AND MY CRITICS are making the points some of you want.

    Skipping all the court citations, laws, statutes, etc. because the anti-christs among us fear the truth, let's give them simplistic answers they can chew on.

    "Some skeptics today like to argue that the founding fathers purposefully left God out of the Constitution. They say that a "Godless Constitution" was the intended design of the document---and they're wrong.

    First of all, the authors of the Constitution not only mention God, they even mention that Jesus is God. They do this in the ratification clause. This was done "in the Year of Our Lord" 1787.

    But some skeptics object. Yet law professor John Eidsmoe, author of the book, Christianity and the Constitution, notes in response to their objection: "Saying this [ratification] clause is not really part of the Constitution is like saying the attestation clause is not part of a will
    ."

    God and the Constitution

    Christianity is in the Constitution

    And that is not the only place where Christianity can be deduced from the Constitution.

    "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a law, in like Manner as if he had signed it . . . "

    Article I, Section 7
    Constitution of the United States of America

    Why Sundays excepted? Why not Saturday or any other day? The real question is, how much proof do the critics require to admit that we are a Christian nation and its values and precepts are a part of our national culture as well as the basis for many of our laws?

    An addition to posts # 1 and # 2:

    https://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html
     
  5. Ethos Logos Pathos
    Offline

    Ethos Logos Pathos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2019
    Messages:
    258
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Ratings:
    +80

    ...hmmm...


    Interesting.
     
  6. Ethos Logos Pathos
    Offline

    Ethos Logos Pathos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2019
    Messages:
    258
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Ratings:
    +80
    Is it then fair to ask ---since the first negro slaves went to work for their USA Plantation owning White masters, in 1619; who really 'founded' America in the physical form that's created?
     
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,911
    Thanks Received:
    3,035
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,457
    Dear WinterBorn
    Even with the First Amendment in place,

    A. Democrats were able to push the beliefs in health care as a right and a "duty of federal govt" through Congress and Courts,
    where the legal challenges opponents could afford to pursue only addressed specific arguments they could win. This still set
    a contested precedent for passing laws first in contempt of the beliefs of others, then challenging them afterwards legally
    "and if no such lawsuit wins in court then the law or precedent is taught as Constitutionally valid"
    Similar faith-based biased policies have been pushed for the marriage laws and transgender, which also involve
    "establishing or prohibiting/punishing/regulating" choices of beliefs and faith based expression through govt.

    B. Both liberal prochoice and conservative prolife subsequently passed laws on abortion that were extremely biased
    toward one sides' beliefs while violating and discriminating against the beliefs of the other opponents.

    Both are violations of the First Amendment IF this is interpreted to include political beliefs as a form of political religion
    and political party platforms are treated equally as those of other types of religious organization and belief/value systems.

    Since this ISN'T regarded by all as violating the First Amendment,
    that's what we would need to clarify in order to fully protect individuals
    from abuse of govt to establish "political beliefs or religions."

    We don't have to target "Shariah Law" when there are already plenty of
    precedents for PARTIES abusing govt to push their political beliefs
    and religions, and either violate the rights of others, threaten to, or
    discriminate by creed by penalizing, harassing and attacking each other
    for having different political beliefs. THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,911
    Thanks Received:
    3,035
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,457
    Dear WinterBorn
    If you need an example:
    Under ACA, federal rules penalized taxpayers for not believing in, complying and paying into federally mandated health care and insurance requirements. So Citizens whose Constitutional beliefs in limited govt (that requires a Constitutional Amendment so that people and states can be
    represented before taxation was imposed with new conditions, especially introducing political beliefs in health care as a right that all people should pay for through federal govt) were violated by passing and approving this law that established beliefs, and which compelled law abiding citizens under threat of tax fines and penalties to comply anyway, against their beliefs, without due process of law to prove any abuses that might warrant deprivation of liberty and free choice. Individuals who had not cost tax money, but were willing to pay for health care using free market means, were punished with deprivation of liberty in advance, on the "BELIEF" that going through federal govt was more cost effective when this was not proven to be a "compelling interest" (and the measures passed were not proven but still contested to this day as NOT the "least restrictive").

    If you look at the exemptions rules, basically to get an exemption, citizens had to register and PAY a religious organization
    that the federal govt regulated and approved as a health sharing ministry.

    In other words, in order to retain the freedom that Constitutionalist believe in, we were required to JOIN and PAY specific
    religious organizations (had to be founded before 1999) that met federally regulated definitions and conditions.

    That's FEDERAL GOVT regulating religious membership and discriminating on the basis of religion and creed.

    Democrats and liberals didn't care or catch this.
    They were too busy using the ACA to try to push for health care through govt.
    But it already set very bad precedents for pushing beliefs and RELIGIOUS regulations through govt.

    We can use THAT example without arguing over "Shariah Law"
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020 at 10:34 AM
  9. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,911
    Thanks Received:
    3,035
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,457
    Dear WinterBorn:
    To fully explore and appreciate the authority of law that is behind the "white Christian" approach to government,
    Yes, this involves understanding the principles of NATURAL LAWS behind both Christian and Constitutional laws.

    For people who speak this language, this will find expression through the principles in
    the First, Second and other Amendments in the Bill of Rights which is like the Ten Commandments of Constitutional laws.

    If you don't relate to Christians or Constitutionalists like a religion of their own,
    may I suggest we stick to the Natural Law principles that are universal values and process democratically for all people in society.
    We will end up discussing these principles anyway:
    1. Freedom of speech, and of the press, freedom of information as needed for fully informed consent
    and to express/represent uncensored consent or dissent to further and facilitate the democratic process
    2. right to assemble peaceably and securely in order to petition to redress grievances, resolving conflicts,
    and defend one's interests, beliefs both religious secular or political, from infringement by collective opposition
    3. rights to equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed, class or any other external group affiliation
    including right to due process, defense, and not to be deprived of liberty without such due process

    The First and Second Amendments seek to protect core principles of this democratic process to
    keep it free from government coercion and infringement, ie collective authority too easily abused to
    oppress individuals without the same resources to defend own our interests and beliefs against a larger collective power.

    That's why those keep coming up, as well as other related principles in the Bill of Rights
    www.ethics-commission.net

    WinterBorn if we reach an understanding about the tools we need for democratic self-government,
    we can resolve all other issues and reform whatever we need to represent and protect our interests and beliefs inclusively.

    However, if we allow political forces to undercut our own democratic process and principles,
    we lose this ability that otherwise empowers people to be our own government. We are the authority
    behind govt, and these principles and process allow us to represent and defend our beliefs using the given system.
     
  10. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,911
    Thanks Received:
    3,035
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,457
    Good point Jitss617
    Now, what if the Muslim schools and Black church ministries take on educating the prison minority populations on both
    Constitutional laws of self-government and Christian practice of healing and restitution for abusive and addictive disorders
    that otherwise manifest as crime.

    The line would already be out the door to access such education
    because our prisons are already overflowing and not sustainable.

    Imagine all these Black and Christian activists taking back the prison warehousing contracts
    and turning these into teaching hospitals and work programs to mentor people recovering from the
    patterns of crime, addiction and poverty so they can receive rehab and return to productive work.

    What if we make that the goal in order to pay for health care, and training doctors and nurses
    and admin to build clinics and hospitals to distribute the demand in more cost effective ways.

    By taking the taxes, resources and facilities already expended on a failed prison system
    and converting these into supporting jobs, education and training in medical care,
    wouldn't the line be out the door to sign up?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page