The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[ConHog]

I found the case. Holy Trinity Church is not a valid precedent; and it is certainly not any authority for the assertion that our nation is founded on Christian principles. The decision of Holy Trinity Church v. United States has been used by Christian fundamentalists to support their claim that our nation was founded on religion. The decision is an aberration of the rules of construction and judicial interpretation. The unsupported statement of Justice Brewer to the effect that America is a Christian nation was not in any way pertinent to the court’s ruling or even be considered the ratio decidendi of the court’s opinion in the case; and it has been criticized and repudiated in subsequent decisions by the court. See e.g., Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989). Even Justice Antonin Scalia, who is not shy about reconciling his legal opinions with his religious convictions, has criticized the Holy Trinity Church case as an example of legislating from the bench. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (1998). It is a good example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Got it, you're an idiot who discredits evidence that doesn't fit his preconceived beliefs instead of allowing the evidence to create his beliefs. I would say that the early Court had a FAR better idea of what principles our nation were founded on than do today's lawyers.

I'll just put you on ignore with the rest of the idiots who aren't here for honest debate and go on with my day.

 

[AllieBaba]

Now discredit this one as well:

"Justice William Rehnquist
Wallace v. Jafree 1985
"It is impossible to build sound consitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history... The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years... There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]... The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers."

 

[AllieBaba]

Now please discredit this:

"Justice William Rehnquist
"But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights... The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

 

[AllieBaba]

"
The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only... impious, but... is a gross violation of decency and good order.
Nothing could be more injurious to the tender morals of the young, then to declare such profanity lawful...
The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and descent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile... the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right...
We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines of worship of those impostors [other religions]..."
—U.S. Supreme Court, 1811—
The People v. Ruggles
Justice James Kent delivered the Court's opinion

U.S. Supreme Court

 

[Nemo]

That is also not valid precedent for the same reasons stated, supra. The controlling precedent is Everson v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court, citing Watson v. Jones and Reynolds v. United States, ruled:

"The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the 'establishment of religion' clause. The interrelation of these complementary clauses was well summarized in a statement of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, quoted with approval by this Court, in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 730: 'The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasions of the civil authority.' (highlighted emphaisis added)

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164." [footnotes omitted] Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. et al., 330 U.S. 1, pp. 15,16 (1947).

 

[AllieBaba]

Pardon me if I take the ramblings of someone who doesn't understand the difference between whether or not a country is founded upon Christian PRINCIPLE, and whether or not a country is a theocracy, with more than a grain of salt.

 

[Political Junky]

Nobody, NOBODY, said their intent was to found a theocracy, nimrodo....we've already proven, with the words of the founding fathers, the supreme court, and presidents down through the ages, that the US was, indisputably, founded UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.

It has been proven beyond a doubt, or that idiot, gadawg, would still be proclaiming that it wasn't, instead of saying "ok, ok, we all know that we were founded upon some Christian principles...BUT". The evidence is so overwhelming even that brain dead dolt can no longer continue to claim the opposite without recognizing himself as a fool.

Do show us that proof.

 

[AllieBaba]

Nobody, NOBODY, said their intent was to found a theocracy, nimrodo....we've already proven, with the words of the founding fathers, the supreme court, and presidents down through the ages, that the US was, indisputably, founded UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.

It has been proven beyond a doubt, or that idiot, gadawg, would still be proclaiming that it wasn't, instead of saying "ok, ok, we all know that we were founded upon some Christian principles...BUT". The evidence is so overwhelming even that brain dead dolt can no longer continue to claim the opposite without recognizing himself as a fool.

Do show us that proof.

Read the thread, do.

 

[Nemo]

You can't quote statements out of context to prove your point. Such statements are inapposite - they are not relevant - they are not admissible.

One thing that I can determine from our brief discussion is that you are not a lawyer.

One thing that I would like to know is whether you are a Christian. I don't think you are.

 

[AllieBaba]

And back to ad hominem.

Let's hear it for logical fallacy!

 

[AllieBaba]

I've already provided counterpoints to every argument you could ever possibly make, including the imbecilic "the us is not a theocracy".

I suggest you study the material you are debating before you apply condescension. You'll find we're aren't ignorant yahoos, and in fact, for you or anyone to make this point against us (i.e., that the US is not founded upon Christian principle) you will have to fly in the face of facts, supported by considerable documentation down through the centuries.

As a matter of fact, in arguing that the US is not founded upon Christian principle, you are arguing that all the founding fathers, the supreme court, presidents Obama and Lincoln (just to name 2), and all sane historians (and possibly all historians, period) were liars or just didn't know what they were saying. If you want to assume an arrogant demeanor and randomly spout vapisms like "Jefferson wasn't really a Christian" or "Christianity is BAD" or "Free will is a universal concept that isn't confined to Christianity" please feel free. Understand that those opinions mean nothing to this argument, and have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the US was founded upon Christianity. Which, of course, it was. Comfort yourself in the knowledge you aren't any different from the crowd that came before.
__________________

 

[Nemo]

So you are not really a Christian? Why are you posting on this site?

 

[Nemo]

I think I know why you post on this forum. You are being paid to post propaganda. You are no Christian - you are a propagandist. Query: How much are you being paid to post here?

 

[AllieBaba]

What the hell are you going on about?

More ad hominem, btw. More logical fallacy. Like I said, it's nothing new.

 

[Obamerican]

I think I know why you post on this forum. You are being paid to post propaganda. You are no Christian - you are a propagandist. Query: How much are you being paid to post here?

If someone disagrees with you you think they are being paid to do it?????

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm baffled by his apparent belief that one has to be a Christian to post here.

 

[Nemo]

You are a propagandist. I won't waste any more time with you.

 

[AllieBaba]

I have to say, that's kind of original. I've had leftards bail for a variety of reasons in this thread when they realize how stupid they look..., but never on the pretext that I'm a propagandist.

 

[AllieBaba]

Who is paying me? Cuz they're late with the check..

 

[peach174]

Nemo heard from somewhere that the left are doing this in political forums and blogs, so he automatically assumes that religious people are doing the same thing.
Just because the left are maybe doing it, the right must be too.
And he falsely assumes that all Conservatives are religious and are righties.
It's pretty sad how the left think. All little programed socialists.