So we were supposed to be a christian nation huh....?

[cbirch2]

Anyone that claims the founding fathers were Christians before logical empiricists, rather than the other way around, is just lying.

Anyone who claims the Founders took their religion so lightly as to just attend church to look good, simply because THEY THEMSELVES are hypocrites, is just garbage who needs everyone else to be garbage as well so they don't have to feel guilty about it.

Try again, shithead. Oh, and any time you want to grow a pair and talk about some of the other dozens of people who signed the Declaration and the Constitution, instead of pretendingv they were meaningless rubber stamps for the two or three you want to cherrypick, let me know. I won't hold my breath for your manning up, though. After all, it's been four pages, and you're still a Ken doll so far.

1. i talk about Jefferson, Adams, and Washington, because im not going to have a discussion about 58 different people. if you wanna try we can but it might be hard to keep track of.

2. There is a distinct difference between agreeing with the teachings of jesus, and thinking that jesus christ was the son of god born of an immaculate birth and able to turn water into wine. Certainly every founding father had varying opinions on the subject. What ive said the whole time is that the three founding fathers ive discussed, and franklin, did not believe in the miraculous nature of jesus christ. Thomas Jefferson certainly did not believe that jesus christ walked on water and cured the blind. Why else would he rewrite the bible and remove jesus's miracles?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and though some of the dogmas of that persuasion, such as the Eternal Decrees of God, election, reprobation, etc., appeared to me unintelligible, others doubtful, and early absented myself from public assemblies of the sect, Sunday being my Study day, I was never without some religious principles. For example, I never doubted the existance of Diety; that He made the world and governed it by His Providence; that the most acceptable service to God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter. These I esteemed the essentials of every religion; and being to be found in all the religions we had in our country, I respected them all, though with different degrees of respect, as I found them more or less mixed with other articles, which, without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, served principally to divide us, and make us unfriendly one to another. This respect to all, with an opinion that the worst had some good effects, induced me to avoid all discussion that might tend to lessen the good opinion another might have of his own religion; and as our province increased in people, and new places of worship were continually wanted, and generaly erected by voluntary contribution, my might for such purpose, whatever might be the sect, was never refused. (Autobiography - WBF 1:185)

Considering this comes from Franklin's autobiography, I think you can see that he clearly supported religion. He believed in God. And He practiced what He believed. And as he stated, He would encourage religious belief and donate money to build churches from whomever asked.

If you want to see Washington promoting faith, read his Innagural address. Read His farewell addrerss. He was a man of incredible faith. I'd recommend reading "Sacred Fire" sometime. It's a biography on Washington and speaks directly to his faith.

Jefferson wrote his own translation to the Bible. No. He wasn't a Christian in the traditional sense of the word, but He tried to follow what He believed from the Bible.

I don't know why you have to take away the faith these men had. It was part of who they were. You try to look at someone while denying a part of who they are and you will never see an accurate picture.

Franklin: Did not believe in the Christian god. that is a reference to the deist god he believed in

Washington: He never received communion. Fact.

Jefferson: Yup, he wrote his own translation of the bible. It was called the moral teachings of jesus of nazareth. He removed all mention of jesus having been divine, and instead used it as moral teaching.

Where in the definition of the word "Christian" do you see communion mentioned? It's not. Fact.

And what about the other 115 or so men who qualify as Founding Fathers? YOU are the one who started this thread with, and I quote: "The founding fathers were far from the christians Palin, Bachmann, and Beck would have you believe they were." So far, I have yet to hear you address more than four of those men, aside from the fact that your idea of "addressing" them wouldn't get you a D on an English composition in 8th grade. So let's hear you support YOUR premise, chickenshit. I'm still waiting.

 

[cbirch2]

Considering this comes from Franklin's autobiography, I think you can see that he clearly supported religion. He believed in God. And He practiced what He believed. And as he stated, He would encourage religious belief and donate money to build churches from whomever asked.

If you want to see Washington promoting faith, read his Innagural address. Read His farewell addrerss. He was a man of incredible faith. I'd recommend reading "Sacred Fire" sometime. It's a biography on Washington and speaks directly to his faith.

Jefferson wrote his own translation to the Bible. No. He wasn't a Christian in the traditional sense of the word, but He tried to follow what He believed from the Bible.

I don't know why you have to take away the faith these men had. It was part of who they were. You try to look at someone while denying a part of who they are and you will never see an accurate picture.

Franklin: Did not believe in the Christian god. that is a reference to the deist god he believed in

Washington: He never received communion. Fact.

Jefferson: Yup, he wrote his own translation of the bible. It was called the moral teachings of jesus of nazareth. He removed all mention of jesus having been divine, and instead used it as moral teaching.

Where in the definition of the word "Christian" do you see communion mentioned? It's not. Fact.

And what about the other 115 or so men who qualify as Founding Fathers? YOU are the one who started this thread with, and I quote: "The founding fathers were far from the christians Palin, Bachmann, and Beck would have you believe they were." So far, I have yet to hear you address more than four of those men, aside from the fact that your idea of "addressing" them wouldn't get you a D on an English composition in 8th grade. So let's hear you support YOUR premise, chickenshit. I'm still waiting.

I rather like the list form. I think ill stick with that.

1. Attacking someones grammar is the last refuge of someone with no argument. Im on an internet forum, not trying to get published.

2. The founding fathers are generally regarded as those that debated the constitution, so the real number is about 50.

3. You honestly expect me to prove the religious affiliation of 50 people in depth? And without that proof my entire argument is invalid? You have lofty standards.

4. The one thing that is certain is that these men put reason and logic above simple faith. Im not sure how you can argue that, those quotes are extremely easy to find. So i have a hard time thinking that someone with those priorities would reject global warming and evolution, like those on right do.

The quotes ive already posted provide enough proof about the most influential persons, im not going to spend the rest of my day finding quotes from 50 different people.

You know, its interesting that your attacking me for only mentioning the most important founders, and that you act like you know all the founders by name when you really could probably name under 10 from memory.

 

[Contumacious]

You have yet to link that to anything that happened in 1935. The fact is that the government still reimbursed those to which it owed debt, it just did not reimburse them with gold. No where in your definition does it say payment must be made in gold.

Excuse me fucktard,

did the note state that they were REDEEMABLE IN GOLD?

IS GOLD AND PAPER THE SAME THING.

SON OF A BITCH, how can someone be so fucking dumb?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Dude just because you can swear doesnt mean your right. It just means your getting more and more frustrated.

Dude, just because you can be dumb doesn't mean that you have to be.

What you cant seem to realize is that the market didnt care if payment was made in gold

HUH?

What does the market have to do with that?

The bearers of the notes SUED , they fucking sued - so obviously to those who owned the notes it made a difference . Only one who is really fucked up would say that paper equals gold.

2. The dollar was backed by gold until like 1971.

INTERNATIONALLY, yes it was.

Due to the excess printed dollars, and the negative U.S. trade balance, other nations began demanding fulfillment of America’s “promise to pay” – that is, the redemption of their dollars for gold. Switzerland redeemed $50 million of paper for gold in July.[1] France, in particular, repeatedly made aggressive demands, and acquired $191 million in gold, further depleting the gold reserves of the U.S.

on August 15, 1971, President Nixon “closed the gold window”, ending convertibility between US dollars and gold

.

 

[cbirch2]

Excuse me fucktard,

did the note state that they were REDEEMABLE IN GOLD?

IS GOLD AND PAPER THE SAME THING.

SON OF A BITCH, how can someone be so fucking dumb?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Dude just because you can swear doesnt mean your right. It just means your getting more and more frustrated.

Dude, just because you can be dumb doesn't mean that you have to be.

What you cant seem to realize is that the market didnt care if payment was made in gold

HUH?

What does the market have to do with that?

The bearers of the notes SUED , they fucking sued - so obviously to those who owned the notes it made a difference . Only one who is really fucked up would say that paper equals gold.

2. The dollar was backed by gold until like 1971.

INTERNATIONALLY, yes it was.

Due to the excess printed dollars, and the negative U.S. trade balance, other nations began demanding fulfillment of America’s “promise to pay” – that is, the redemption of their dollars for gold. Switzerland redeemed $50 million of paper for gold in July.[1] France, in particular, repeatedly made aggressive demands, and acquired $191 million in gold, further depleting the gold reserves of the U.S.

on August 15, 1971, President Nixon “closed the gold window”, ending convertibility between US dollars and gold

.

Suing is not a financial default. Whether it made a personal difference to them is totally irrelevant. If they could still redeem the payment they received from their gold then there was no default. That is the market definition of a default. It doesnt matter if the gold owners are butt hurt, that doesnt mean the US government defaulted.

 

[cbirch2]

Cool copy pasta from the wiki "nixon shock" page. It really shows your intelligence when you have to copy pasta from someone elses work.

 

[cbirch2]

And saying that paper equals gold is totally misleading. Its the promise that the paper represents that can be judged as equivalent to gold.

 

[Contumacious]

Dude just because you can swear doesnt mean your right. It just means your getting more and more frustrated.

Dude, just because you can be dumb doesn't mean that you have to be.




HUH?

What does the market have to do with that?

The bearers of the notes SUED , they fucking sued - so obviously to those who owned the notes it made a difference . Only one who is really fucked up would say that paper equals gold.

2. The dollar was backed by gold until like 1971.

INTERNATIONALLY, yes it was.

Due to the excess printed dollars, and the negative U.S. trade balance, other nations began demanding fulfillment of America’s “promise to pay” – that is, the redemption of their dollars for gold. Switzerland redeemed $50 million of paper for gold in July.[1] France, in particular, repeatedly made aggressive demands, and acquired $191 million in gold, further depleting the gold reserves of the U.S.

on August 15, 1971, President Nixon “closed the gold window”, ending convertibility between US dollars and gold

.

Suing is not a financial default. Whether it made a personal difference to them is totally irrelevant. If they could still redeem the payment they received from their gold then there was no default. That is the market definition of a default. It doesnt matter if the gold owners are butt hurt, that doesnt mean the US government defaulted.

Alrighty then, I believe that your are being intentionally obtuse because you are a Marxist fuck.

esther la vista dude.

.

 

[HUGGY]

You wouldn't be interested in the least bit....now continue preaching to your choir.

No im actually really waiting for you to "turn the tables"...

It should be fun. Go to google, better get going.

I have no desire to get in a pissing match with a dumbass....I just know this board well enough to warn you to be prepared to have others step up to debate you. Now go stroke off.

Sherry said "Stroke Off"

 

[bodecea]

You wouldn't be interested in the least bit....now continue preaching to your choir.

No im actually really waiting for you to "turn the tables"...

It should be fun. Go to google, better get going.

I have no desire to get in a pissing match with a dumbass....I just know this board well enough to warn you to be prepared to have others step up to debate you. Now go stroke off.

Those who can't do....go nasty.

 

[cbirch2]

Dude, just because you can be dumb doesn't mean that you have to be.




HUH?

What does the market have to do with that?

The bearers of the notes SUED , they fucking sued - so obviously to those who owned the notes it made a difference . Only one who is really fucked up would say that paper equals gold.



INTERNATIONALLY, yes it was.

Due to the excess printed dollars, and the negative U.S. trade balance, other nations began demanding fulfillment of America’s “promise to pay” – that is, the redemption of their dollars for gold. Switzerland redeemed $50 million of paper for gold in July.[1] France, in particular, repeatedly made aggressive demands, and acquired $191 million in gold, further depleting the gold reserves of the U.S.

on August 15, 1971, President Nixon “closed the gold window”, ending convertibility between US dollars and gold

.

Suing is not a financial default. Whether it made a personal difference to them is totally irrelevant. If they could still redeem the payment they received from their gold then there was no default. That is the market definition of a default. It doesnt matter if the gold owners are butt hurt, that doesnt mean the US government defaulted.

Alrighty then, I believe that your are being intentionally obtuse because you are a Marxist fuck.

esther la vista dude.

.

What does anything ive said have to do with marxism? Apparently all money not backed by gold is a marxist conspiracy or something. All ive said is that the definition of a default does not include the clause that the payment be made in the manner it was promised. Those people lost gold and received an amount of money that had an equivalent buying power. That is not a default. No investor, or even entire financial market, would see that as a default. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Contumacious]

Suing is not a financial default. Whether it made a personal difference to them is totally irrelevant. If they could still redeem the payment they received from their gold then there was no default. That is the market definition of a default. It doesnt matter if the gold owners are butt hurt, that doesnt mean the US government defaulted.

Alrighty then, I believe that your are being intentionally obtuse because you are a Marxist fuck.

esther la vista dude.

.

What does anything ive said have to do with marxism? Apparently all money not backed by gold is a marxist conspiracy or something. All ive said is that the definition of a default does not include the clause that the payment be made in the manner it was promised. Those people lost gold and received an amount of money that had an equivalent buying power. That is not a default. No investor, or even entire financial market, would see that as a default. Do you disagree with that?

Look pal , I understand that from an economic sense, anything of value can be money.

But the Founding Fathers knew the evils of paper money and for that reason Article 1, Section 10, mandates that ONLY gold and silver be used as legal tender.

Even if you are semi-concious at this point and time you should appreciate what the Founders were referring to.

The nation is again running a massive deficit which is supporting a gargantaun welfare/warfare state. Paper money induces irresponsibility, major deficits and the imminent ecconomic collapse of the nation and lead to socialism.


.

 

[Sherry]

No im actually really waiting for you to "turn the tables"...

It should be fun. Go to google, better get going.

I have no desire to get in a pissing match with a dumbass....I just know this board well enough to warn you to be prepared to have others step up to debate you. Now go stroke off.

Sherry said "Stroke Off"

I'm such a potty mouth.

No im actually really waiting for you to "turn the tables"...

It should be fun. Go to google, better get going.

I have no desire to get in a pissing match with a dumbass....I just know this board well enough to warn you to be prepared to have others step up to debate you. Now go stroke off.

Those who can't do....go nasty.

Awww gee, I'm just all broken up that you don't appreciate how I express myself.

 

[Gadawg73]

Many of the Founding Fathers were devout practicing Christians. They lobbied heavily for the national religion to be named as Christian and for government funds through taxation go to support, maintain and fund Christian schools.
They argued their case very well and LOST. The majority of the Founders opposed that, ran from that and wrote The United States Constituion, a document that does not recognize the divine right of power being given to men by God as it had been done for centuries in Europe.
The central religous entity in the Colonies before and during the Revolutionary War was ANGLICAN, THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Those folks provided the majority funding of The Torries, you know, the folks that WE FOUGHT AGAINST. After we won the war 100,000 of them ran back to England and to Canada where they still had the Christian religion run the government.

We are a nation OF LAWS, not of men and their various and changing religous beliefs.
Thank The Founders for that.

 

[cbirch2]

Alrighty then, I believe that your are being intentionally obtuse because you are a Marxist fuck.

esther la vista dude.

.

What does anything ive said have to do with marxism? Apparently all money not backed by gold is a marxist conspiracy or something. All ive said is that the definition of a default does not include the clause that the payment be made in the manner it was promised. Those people lost gold and received an amount of money that had an equivalent buying power. That is not a default. No investor, or even entire financial market, would see that as a default. Do you disagree with that?

Look pal , I understand that from an economic sense, anything of value can be money.

But the Founding Fathers knew the evils of paper money and for that reason Article 1, Section 10, mandates that ONLY gold and silver be used as legal tender.

Even if you are semi-concious at this point and time you should appreciate what the Founders were referring to.

The nation is again running a massive deficit which is supporting a gargantaun welfare/warfare state. Paper money induces irresponsibility, major deficits and the imminent ecconomic collapse of the nation and lead to socialism.


.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Article 1, Section 10, is a restriction on states from printing money.

Paper currency in itself is not bad. It can be handled stupidly, no doubt. But its not inherently evil.

As for socialism, why do you equate socialism with economic collapse? Thats just historically not accurate. Europe is socialist, they managed to not start a global recession like a certain capitalist country did.

Franklin was a socialist. Socialism, like a paper currency, is not inherently evil or bad. Every modern society has some aspect of socialism to it.

 

[Contumacious]

What does anything ive said have to do with marxism? Apparently all money not backed by gold is a marxist conspiracy or something. All ive said is that the definition of a default does not include the clause that the payment be made in the manner it was promised. Those people lost gold and received an amount of money that had an equivalent buying power. That is not a default. No investor, or even entire financial market, would see that as a default. Do you disagree with that?

Look pal , I understand that from an economic sense, anything of value can be money.

But the Founding Fathers knew the evils of paper money and for that reason Article 1, Section 10, mandates that ONLY gold and silver be used as legal tender.

Even if you are semi-concious at this point and time you should appreciate what the Founders were referring to.

The nation is again running a massive deficit which is supporting a gargantaun welfare/warfare state. Paper money induces irresponsibility, major deficits and the imminent ecconomic collapse of the nation and lead to socialism.


.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Article 1, Section 10, is a restriction on states from printing money.

Paper currency in itself is not bad. It can be handled stupidly, no doubt. But its not inherently evil.

As for socialism, why do you equate socialism with economic collapse? Thats just historically not accurate. Europe is socialist, they managed to not start a global recession like a certain capitalist country did.

Franklin was a socialist. Socialism, like a paper currency, is not inherently evil or bad. Every modern society has some aspect of socialism to it.

Well the fact that you don't equate socialism with economic collapse explains that you are a government supremacist who will grant bureaucrats absolute powers over your life.

Typically you people are parasitic , lack self motivation and suffer of severe low self-esteem.

.

 

[cbirch2]

Look pal , I understand that from an economic sense, anything of value can be money.

But the Founding Fathers knew the evils of paper money and for that reason Article 1, Section 10, mandates that ONLY gold and silver be used as legal tender.

Even if you are semi-concious at this point and time you should appreciate what the Founders were referring to.

The nation is again running a massive deficit which is supporting a gargantaun welfare/warfare state. Paper money induces irresponsibility, major deficits and the imminent ecconomic collapse of the nation and lead to socialism.


.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Article 1, Section 10, is a restriction on states from printing money.

Paper currency in itself is not bad. It can be handled stupidly, no doubt. But its not inherently evil.

As for socialism, why do you equate socialism with economic collapse? Thats just historically not accurate. Europe is socialist, they managed to not start a global recession like a certain capitalist country did.

Franklin was a socialist. Socialism, like a paper currency, is not inherently evil or bad. Every modern society has some aspect of socialism to it.

Well the fact that you don't equate socialism with economic collapse explains that you are a government supremacist who will grant bureaucrats absolute powers over your life.

Typically you people are parasitic , lack self motivation and suffer of severe low self-esteem.

.

The simple fact that you would equate the two is ridiculous. Some things simply should not be run for profit. Before email USPS was a very efficient way of communicating. Its a federally mandated agency that breaks even. Thats socialism.

Explain to me again how having the government run something like your electricity is so horrible. It would seem to me the fact that a government agency only has to break even would offer cheaper energy.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Article 1, Section 10, is a restriction on states from printing money.

Paper currency in itself is not bad. It can be handled stupidly, no doubt. But its not inherently evil.

As for socialism, why do you equate socialism with economic collapse? Thats just historically not accurate. Europe is socialist, they managed to not start a global recession like a certain capitalist country did.

Franklin was a socialist. Socialism, like a paper currency, is not inherently evil or bad. Every modern society has some aspect of socialism to it.

Well the fact that you don't equate socialism with economic collapse explains that you are a government supremacist who will grant bureaucrats absolute powers over your life.

Typically you people are parasitic , lack self motivation and suffer of severe low self-esteem.

.

The simple fact that you would equate the two is ridiculous. Some things simply should not be run for profit. Before email USPS was a very efficient way of communicating. Its a federally mandated agency that breaks even. Thats socialism.

Explain to me again how having the government run something like your electricity is so horrible. It would seem to me the fact that a government agency only has to break even would offer cheaper energy.

There is no greater motivation to do something efficiently than profits.

 

[Contumacious]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Article 1, Section 10, is a restriction on states from printing money.

Paper currency in itself is not bad. It can be handled stupidly, no doubt. But its not inherently evil.

As for socialism, why do you equate socialism with economic collapse? Thats just historically not accurate. Europe is socialist, they managed to not start a global recession like a certain capitalist country did.

Franklin was a socialist. Socialism, like a paper currency, is not inherently evil or bad. Every modern society has some aspect of socialism to it.

Well the fact that you don't equate socialism with economic collapse explains that you are a government supremacist who will grant bureaucrats absolute powers over your life.

Typically you people are parasitic , lack self motivation and suffer of severe low self-esteem.

.

The simple fact that you would equate the two is ridiculous. Some things simply should not be run for profit. Before email USPS was a very efficient way of communicating. Its a federally mandated agency that breaks even. Thats socialism.

Explain to me again how having the government run something like your electricity is so horrible. It would seem to me the fact that a government agency only has to break even would offer cheaper energy.

Firstly, the Constitution authorizes , but does not mandate, that fedgov operate a post office.

The ONLY system which encourages efficiency and decreases cost is Capitalism [free enterprise]

In a Capitalistic system you are free to operate a non-profit enterprise if you so choose; however you can not compel me to subsidize it nor to buy from you;

Competititon allows me to buy the best for the least;

In a capitalistic system my rights are UNALIENABLE not subject to bureaucratic discretion or majority rule.

.

 

[AllieBaba]

This is how I can tell I'm at USMB...

There is always a new thread full of lies about our nation's history and Christianity percolating nicely...when one dies down, another loon pops up ready to post the exact same BS that has been posted (and disproved) over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/123628-the-u-s-not-founded-upon-christianity.html