America’s Founders Were Deeply Religious

[ding]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

^dummy has nothing. He gonna cry soon.

Sez the guy who can't back anything up.

It's OK if you are going to cry.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Just like I thought, it doesn't back up what you said about the FFs, nor does it have anything to do with abolishing slavery. But nice try.

You mean other than proving what I said?

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Are you really this dumb? Or are you just pretending to be stupid?

You said the FFs in the Constitution intended to abolish slavery at the earliest time. Your link is from !809, so not in the Constitution.

You are such an idiot. It was written into the Constitution, dummy. Even the link said so.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution

Everyone born in the US after 1808 was a US citizen by birth.

Or born outside of the US if one of the parents was American.

 

[Taz]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

^dummy has nothing. He gonna cry soon.

Sez the guy who can't back anything up.

It's OK if you are going to cry.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Just like I thought, it doesn't back up what you said about the FFs, nor does it have anything to do with abolishing slavery. But nice try.

You mean other than proving what I said?

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Are you really this dumb? Or are you just pretending to be stupid?

You said the FFs in the Constitution intended to abolish slavery at the earliest time. Your link is from !809, so not in the Constitution.

You are such an idiot. It was written into the Constitution, dummy. Even the link said so.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution

It's "permitted" by not "in". Gawd, yer stoopid.

See Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution for dummies who don't know better

That’s not a link, shit, you’re a fucking retard.

It's in the Constitution, dummy.

Article 1, Section 9

If it's in the Constitution, the date of 1807 means that the FFs were probably all dead by then. So not them who put it in

It was written into the constitution, dummy.

Not by the FFs. You stand corrected.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.


Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

#winning

"In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. " Still not in the Constitution. Keep trying.

Btw, your other thread got closed because you had no link to the OP.

 

[ding]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

^dummy has nothing. He gonna cry soon.

Sez the guy who can't back anything up.

It's OK if you are going to cry.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Just like I thought, it doesn't back up what you said about the FFs, nor does it have anything to do with abolishing slavery. But nice try.

You mean other than proving what I said?

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Are you really this dumb? Or are you just pretending to be stupid?

You said the FFs in the Constitution intended to abolish slavery at the earliest time. Your link is from !809, so not in the Constitution.

You are such an idiot. It was written into the Constitution, dummy. Even the link said so.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution

It's "permitted" by not "in". Gawd, yer stoopid.

See Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution for dummies who don't know better

That’s not a link, shit, you’re a fucking retard.

It's in the Constitution, dummy.

Article 1, Section 9

If it's in the Constitution, the date of 1807 means that the FFs were probably all dead by then. So not them who put it in

It was written into the constitution, dummy.

Not by the FFs. You stand corrected.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.


Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

#winning

"In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. " Still not in the Constitution. Keep trying.

Btw, your other thread got closed because you had no link to the OP.

Proof that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, dummy.

 

[Taz]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

^dummy has nothing. He gonna cry soon.

Sez the guy who can't back anything up.

It's OK if you are going to cry.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Just like I thought, it doesn't back up what you said about the FFs, nor does it have anything to do with abolishing slavery. But nice try.

You mean other than proving what I said?

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Are you really this dumb? Or are you just pretending to be stupid?

You said the FFs in the Constitution intended to abolish slavery at the earliest time. Your link is from !809, so not in the Constitution.

You are such an idiot. It was written into the Constitution, dummy. Even the link said so.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution

It's "permitted" by not "in". Gawd, yer stoopid.

See Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution for dummies who don't know better

That’s not a link, shit, you’re a fucking retard.

It's in the Constitution, dummy.

Article 1, Section 9

If it's in the Constitution, the date of 1807 means that the FFs were probably all dead by then. So not them who put it in

It was written into the constitution, dummy.

Not by the FFs. You stand corrected.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.


Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

#winning

"In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. " Still not in the Constitution. Keep trying.

Btw, your other thread got closed because you had no link to the OP.

Proof that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, dummy.

"Congress expanded..." not the FFs. You lose asswipe.

 

[ding]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

^dummy has nothing. He gonna cry soon.

Sez the guy who can't back anything up.

It's OK if you are going to cry.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Just like I thought, it doesn't back up what you said about the FFs, nor does it have anything to do with abolishing slavery. But nice try.

You mean other than proving what I said?

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Are you really this dumb? Or are you just pretending to be stupid?

You said the FFs in the Constitution intended to abolish slavery at the earliest time. Your link is from !809, so not in the Constitution.

You are such an idiot. It was written into the Constitution, dummy. Even the link said so.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution

It's "permitted" by not "in". Gawd, yer stoopid.

See Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution for dummies who don't know better

That’s not a link, shit, you’re a fucking retard.

It's in the Constitution, dummy.

Article 1, Section 9

If it's in the Constitution, the date of 1807 means that the FFs were probably all dead by then. So not them who put it in

It was written into the constitution, dummy.

Not by the FFs. You stand corrected.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.


Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

#winning

"In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. " Still not in the Constitution. Keep trying.

Btw, your other thread got closed because you had no link to the OP.

Proof that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, dummy.

"Congress expanded..." not the FFs. You lose asswipe.

Did you even look at the year the Northwest Ordinance was passed, dummy?

Who do you think passed it? Obama?

 

[Taz]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

^dummy has nothing. He gonna cry soon.

Sez the guy who can't back anything up.

It's OK if you are going to cry.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Just like I thought, it doesn't back up what you said about the FFs, nor does it have anything to do with abolishing slavery. But nice try.

You mean other than proving what I said?

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Are you really this dumb? Or are you just pretending to be stupid?

You said the FFs in the Constitution intended to abolish slavery at the earliest time. Your link is from !809, so not in the Constitution.

You are such an idiot. It was written into the Constitution, dummy. Even the link said so.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution

It's "permitted" by not "in". Gawd, yer stoopid.

See Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution for dummies who don't know better

That’s not a link, shit, you’re a fucking retard.

It's in the Constitution, dummy.

Article 1, Section 9

If it's in the Constitution, the date of 1807 means that the FFs were probably all dead by then. So not them who put it in

It was written into the constitution, dummy.

Not by the FFs. You stand corrected.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.


Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

#winning

"In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. " Still not in the Constitution. Keep trying.

Btw, your other thread got closed because you had no link to the OP.

Proof that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, dummy.

"Congress expanded..." not the FFs. You lose asswipe.

Did you even look at the year the Northwest Ordinance was passed, dummy?

Who do you think passed it? Obama?

It says Congress. Go have another drink.

 

[ding]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

^dummy has nothing. He gonna cry soon.

Sez the guy who can't back anything up.

It's OK if you are going to cry.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Just like I thought, it doesn't back up what you said about the FFs, nor does it have anything to do with abolishing slavery. But nice try.

You mean other than proving what I said?

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Are you really this dumb? Or are you just pretending to be stupid?

You said the FFs in the Constitution intended to abolish slavery at the earliest time. Your link is from !809, so not in the Constitution.

You are such an idiot. It was written into the Constitution, dummy. Even the link said so.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution

It's "permitted" by not "in". Gawd, yer stoopid.

See Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution for dummies who don't know better

That’s not a link, shit, you’re a fucking retard.

It's in the Constitution, dummy.

Article 1, Section 9

If it's in the Constitution, the date of 1807 means that the FFs were probably all dead by then. So not them who put it in

It was written into the constitution, dummy.

Not by the FFs. You stand corrected.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.


Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

#winning

"In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. " Still not in the Constitution. Keep trying.

Btw, your other thread got closed because you had no link to the OP.

Proof that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, dummy.

"Congress expanded..." not the FFs. You lose asswipe.

Did you even look at the year the Northwest Ordinance was passed, dummy?

Who do you think passed it? Obama?

It says Congress. Go have another drink.

Maybe you being reincarnated as herpes is a bit optimistic.

 

[Baron]

That refers to the Judeo-Christian faith. Compare this fact with the elites of the major political party today, and the schools they oversee, teaching quite the reverse.

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundamentalist hate group.”



Last week Att’y Gen William Barr gave a speech about the importance of having a religious America. And, of course, he was attacked for it.


1.“United States Attorney General William Barr spoke at Notre Dame Law School [enemies of religion] raced to warn us of our impending doom. Also as per usual, in their screeds were seeds of the very things Barr described.

…RefuseFascism.org, which proclaimed in a headline, “At Notre Dame, William Barr Lays Out a Christian Fascist Nightmare.”

…writer Joan Walsh described Barr as "a paranoid right-wing Catholic ideologue who won't respect the separation of church and state." She mocked the Catholic men's service group Knights of Columbus (of which Barr has been a member) as "a patriarchal cosplay group." Walsh's distaste for Catholicism is matched only by her evident loathing of evangelicals. She writes: "(I)t's worth noting that Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney were all also raised Catholic -- but Pence and Pompeo went one better than Barr and joined the official GOP denomination, White Evangelical Protestantism ... I couldn't wish these guys better company to spend time with in hell.

“From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States.

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.

In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty….precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.



How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.”
America’s great experiment with freedom needs religion
A Moral Citizenry Is Not a Theocracy



Faith is inseparable from liberty and freedom.

Rabid anti-religion bigots attacked Barr....hoping that all of America renounce the views of our Founders, that which made our nation the shining city on the hill.

If you agree with Barr about the relationship between religion and liberty, you cannot, of course, vote Democrat.

You're wrong, there isn't 'Judeo-Christian faith', I know only two different religions.
BTW no one Founder ever claimed he was a Jewish Christian, otherwise proof it.
Our civilization is the Christian one, and it is the greatest one, with no connection to Judaism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That refers to the Judeo-Christian faith. Compare this fact with the elites of the major political party today, and the schools they oversee, teaching quite the reverse.

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundamentalist hate group.”



Last week Att’y Gen William Barr gave a speech about the importance of having a religious America. And, of course, he was attacked for it.


1.“United States Attorney General William Barr spoke at Notre Dame Law School [enemies of religion] raced to warn us of our impending doom. Also as per usual, in their screeds were seeds of the very things Barr described.

…RefuseFascism.org, which proclaimed in a headline, “At Notre Dame, William Barr Lays Out a Christian Fascist Nightmare.”

…writer Joan Walsh described Barr as "a paranoid right-wing Catholic ideologue who won't respect the separation of church and state." She mocked the Catholic men's service group Knights of Columbus (of which Barr has been a member) as "a patriarchal cosplay group." Walsh's distaste for Catholicism is matched only by her evident loathing of evangelicals. She writes: "(I)t's worth noting that Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney were all also raised Catholic -- but Pence and Pompeo went one better than Barr and joined the official GOP denomination, White Evangelical Protestantism ... I couldn't wish these guys better company to spend time with in hell.

“From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States.

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.

In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty….precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.



How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.”
America’s great experiment with freedom needs religion
A Moral Citizenry Is Not a Theocracy



Faith is inseparable from liberty and freedom.

Rabid anti-religion bigots attacked Barr....hoping that all of America renounce the views of our Founders, that which made our nation the shining city on the hill.

If you agree with Barr about the relationship between religion and liberty, you cannot, of course, vote Democrat.

You're wrong, there isn't 'Judeo-Christian faith', I know only two different religions.
BTW no one Founder ever claimed he was a Jewish Christian, otherwise proof it.
Our civilization is the Christian one, and it is the greatest one, with no connection to Judaism.

1. " You're wrong, there isn't 'Judeo-Christian faith', I know only two different religions. "

I'm never wrong....you clearly don't know enough.

2. Both of the forms are based on the Ten Commandments....and...

3. The faith is Judeo-Christian….not two separate faiths.

The Old Testament laws remain in effect…as per Matthew 5:18 is the eighteenth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has just reported that he came not to destroy the law, but fulfil it. In this verse this claim is reinforced.

Matthew 5:17–18 is a key text for interpreting the Sermon on the Mount and the entire gospel of Matthew:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Here Jesus says that not one iota (jot) or dot (tittle) will pass away from the law. These most likely refer to the smallest strokes of the Hebrew alphabet, indicating that the Old Testament is completely trustworthy, even to the smallest detail. This is consistent with Jesus’ attitude elsewhere. Never do we find Jesus disagreeing with Scripture.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That refers to the Judeo-Christian faith. Compare this fact with the elites of the major political party today, and the schools they oversee, teaching quite the reverse.

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundamentalist hate group.”



Last week Att’y Gen William Barr gave a speech about the importance of having a religious America. And, of course, he was attacked for it.


1.“United States Attorney General William Barr spoke at Notre Dame Law School [enemies of religion] raced to warn us of our impending doom. Also as per usual, in their screeds were seeds of the very things Barr described.

…RefuseFascism.org, which proclaimed in a headline, “At Notre Dame, William Barr Lays Out a Christian Fascist Nightmare.”

…writer Joan Walsh described Barr as "a paranoid right-wing Catholic ideologue who won't respect the separation of church and state." She mocked the Catholic men's service group Knights of Columbus (of which Barr has been a member) as "a patriarchal cosplay group." Walsh's distaste for Catholicism is matched only by her evident loathing of evangelicals. She writes: "(I)t's worth noting that Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney were all also raised Catholic -- but Pence and Pompeo went one better than Barr and joined the official GOP denomination, White Evangelical Protestantism ... I couldn't wish these guys better company to spend time with in hell.

“From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States.

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.

In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty….precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.



How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.”
America’s great experiment with freedom needs religion
A Moral Citizenry Is Not a Theocracy



Faith is inseparable from liberty and freedom.

Rabid anti-religion bigots attacked Barr....hoping that all of America renounce the views of our Founders, that which made our nation the shining city on the hill.

If you agree with Barr about the relationship between religion and liberty, you cannot, of course, vote Democrat.

You're wrong, there isn't 'Judeo-Christian faith', I know only two different religions.
BTW no one Founder ever claimed he was a Jewish Christian, otherwise proof it.
Our civilization is the Christian one, and it is the greatest one, with no connection to Judaism.

Another lesson for which you are in dire need: the Founders saw themselves as an extension of the biblical Hebrews, having left England as the Hebrews left Egypt.



The Founders of this country had a reason for favoring the Jewish people, due to their attachment to the Bible, and because the Founders saw themselves as descendants of the People of the Book.

“Rather than just tolerate the Jews as another religious minority, America’s Founding Fathers were profoundly inspired by Jewish ideas, …. understanding liberty not as an individual license for each of us to pursue his or her bliss but as a collective commitment to a greater good under the watchful eyes of God.” In American Jewish History, a Key to Future Greatness


None of the Founders was a deist. All believed in a God who took an interest in us, and our country.

“Benjamin Franklin’s proposals for a Great Seal featuring not an eagle but Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea.”

First Committee's Design for America's Great Seal - 1776





Clearly, the current Democrat Party, rife with anti-Semitism is an aberration, and not in accordance with the America as it was founded.

 

[basquebromance]

because i trusted Christ to be my savior, my life is his!