The United States IS a Christian Nation

[Cold Fusion38]

my thoughts exactly

Yo..........lowborn Polish gutter slut............a couple of questions..........

First, have you ever actually been in a war zone, or for that matter, in the military? Yes to both for me (4 war zones actually).

Second, do you have any fucking idea about how to interrogate someone? You DO realize that you can get more (and more accurate) information with a couple of cigarettes, some chow, and a little bit of medical treatment (if needed). Torture only makes them clam up more, until they can't take it anymore, and then they tell you what you want to hear. Oh yeah.......do you know who popularized waterboarding? Pol Pot. He used it as a way to elicit false confessions to charges that he trumped up on people who disagreed with him. Now, does that sound like something we should be using for intelligence? No fucking wonder we went into Iraq instead of Afghanistan.

Oh yeah........recently scientists have proven that the pain and fear that is caused by torture actually affects the brain and does irreparable damage.

Still think it's a good idea? If so, we start with you, and I'd be willing to bet several dollars that you wouldn't last 15 seconds.

Don't tell me some religions fanatic is going to dump their god for a pack of cigarettes. They may be nice to you but they ain't gonna tell you anything but the same lies they've been telling you. Don't be so naive to tell me that if only we give little Ahmed in Iran a few cigarettes he will stop denying the Holocaust.

What if the EXAMINED life is not worth living?

 

[Intense]

my thoughts exactly

Don't tell me some religions fanatic is going to dump their god for a pack of cigarettes. They may be nice to you but they ain't gonna tell you anything but the same lies they've been telling you. Don't be so naive to tell me that if only we give little Ahmed in Iran a few cigarettes he will stop denying the Holocaust.

What if the EXAMINED life is not worth living?

What if the Purpose of Your Being out weighs your tangents?

 

[Father Time]

I can see it hasn't.

No, it never occurred to me they might be made of bread

If they were made of bread we could just deploy bakers to Pakistan and be done with it.

 

[AllieBaba]

You can get more information from prisoners by offering them goodies AFTER they have been deprived.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's what cops call good cop/bad cop. It works just fine.

 

[Setarcos]

It's what cops call good cop/bad cop. It works just fine.

Sure, if you want false confessions.

Police do it all the time.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

better we waterboard ahmed then let him blow up a building

douche bag

Yo..........lowborn Polish gutter slut............a couple of questions..........

First, have you ever actually been in a war zone, or for that matter, in the military? Yes to both for me (4 war zones actually).

Second, do you have any fucking idea about how to interrogate someone? You DO realize that you can get more (and more accurate) information with a couple of cigarettes, some chow, and a little bit of medical treatment (if needed). Torture only makes them clam up more, until they can't take it anymore, and then they tell you what you want to hear. Oh yeah.......do you know who popularized waterboarding? Pol Pot. He used it as a way to elicit false confessions to charges that he trumped up on people who disagreed with him. Now, does that sound like something we should be using for intelligence? No fucking wonder we went into Iraq instead of Afghanistan.

Oh yeah........recently scientists have proven that the pain and fear that is caused by torture actually affects the brain and does irreparable damage.

Still think it's a good idea? If so, we start with you, and I'd be willing to bet several dollars that you wouldn't last 15 seconds.

Don't tell me some religions fanatic is going to dump their god for a pack of cigarettes. They may be nice to you but they ain't gonna tell you anything but the same lies they've been telling you. Don't be so naive to tell me that if only we give little Ahmed in Iran a few cigarettes he will stop denying the Holocaust.

So you are saying that people do DENY the Holocaust?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were not the only founding fathers. I find it hillarious how you people try to find and quote the least religious founding fathers and yet they are still FAR from athiestic.

oh you mean like James Madison, the father of the constitution? he said

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not."

You have some truth in what you say, but then You fuck it up with blind prejudice. It would be more True to say from Your Perspective that No Government is Just, which is actually the case. We must work with what We have. Church, Government, face the same Temptation as You or I. The days of Icons are pretty much over for some, While others run to the next Idol of the weak. Government has good in it that we work with. Clergy has good in it that we work with. Stop pissing in the well.

He insinuated that the references made about atheist founding fathers was minuscule. I pointed out supporting quotes from the founding father of the United States Constitution. What in the world are you talking about "blind prejudice"? None of what you just said makes sense.

Cigarettes are adictive and can cause cancer which could be defined as torture. Are you therefore recommending torture?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU]YouTube - monty python-witch scene[/ame]

excellent logix

 

[ABikerSailor]

You can get more information from prisoners by offering them goodies AFTER they have been deprived.

Deprivation is a way of life in a war zone Always Babbling.......

 

[AllieBaba]

Let me elaborate...you can offer them goodies AFTER interrogating them using approved techniques.

Sorry I forgot you're retarded.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Are you suggesting waterboarding? If you are, you're even dumber than you look via your posts.

 

[Intense]

Ennumerating the Founding Fathers
The three major foundational documents of the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (July 1776), the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, ratified 1781) and the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). There are a total of 143 signatures on these documents, representing 118 different signers. (Some individuals signed more than one document.)

There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates - individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.

There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 "slots" or "positions" in these groups which one can classify as "Founding Fathers" of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following:

- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s.

These signers have long inspired deep admiration among both secularists (who appreciate the non-denominational nature of the Declaration) and by traditional religionists (who appreciate the Declaration's recognition of God as the source of the rights enumerated by the document). Lossing's seminal 1848 collection of biographies of the signers of the Declaration of Independence echoed widely held sentiments held then and now that there was divine intent or inspiration behind the Declaration of Independence. Lossing matter-of-factly identified the signers as "instruments of Providence" who have "gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land."

From: B. J. Lossing, Signers of the Declaration of Independence, George F. Cooledge & Brother: New York (1848) [reprinted in Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, WallBuilder Press: Aledo, Texas (1995)], pages 7-12:

From no point of view can the Declaration of American Independence, the causes which led to its adoption, and the events which marked its maintenance, be observed without exciting sentiments of profound veneration for the men who were the prominent actors in that remarkable scene in the drama of the world's history...
The signing of that instrument was a solemn act, and required great firmness and patriotism in those who committed it... neither firmness nor patriotism was wanting in that august body...

Such were the men unto whose keeping, as instruments of Providence, the destinies of America were for the time intrusted; and it has been well remarked, that men, other than such as these,--an ignorant, untaught mass, like those who have formed the physical elements of other revolutionary movements, without sufficient intellect to guide and control them--could not have conceived, planned, and carried into execution, such a mighty movement, one so fraught with tangible marks of political wisdom, as the American Revolution...

Their bodies now have all returned to their kindred dust in the grave, and their souls have gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land.

From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Declaration: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1975), pages 27-28:
Liberally endowed as a whole with courage and sense of purpose, the signers [of the Declaration of Independence] consisted of a distinguished group of individuals. Although heterogeneous in background, education, experience, and accommplishments, at the time of the signing they were practically all men of means and represented an elite cross section of 18th-century American leadership. Everyone one of them of them had achieved prominence in his colony, but only a few enjoyed a national reputation.
The signers were those individuals who happened to be Delegates to Congress at the time... The signers possessed many basic similarities. Most were American-born and of Anglo-Saxon origin. The eight foreign-born... were all natives of the British Isles. Except for Charles Carroll, a Roman Catholic, and a few Deists, every one subscribed to Protestantism. For the most part basically political nonextremists, many at first had hesitated at separation let alone rebellion.

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

 

[Intense]

oh you mean like James Madison, the father of the constitution? he said

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not."

You have some truth in what you say, but then You fuck it up with blind prejudice. It would be more True to say from Your Perspective that No Government is Just, which is actually the case. We must work with what We have. Church, Government, face the same Temptation as You or I. The days of Icons are pretty much over for some, While others run to the next Idol of the weak. Government has good in it that we work with. Clergy has good in it that we work with. Stop pissing in the well.

He insinuated that the references made about atheist founding fathers was minuscule. I pointed out supporting quotes from the founding father of the United States Constitution. What in the world are you talking about "blind prejudice"? None of what you just said makes sense.

Cigarettes are adictive and can cause cancer which could be defined as torture. Are you therefore recommending torture?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU]YouTube - monty python-witch scene[/ame]

excellent logix

Madison was not an Atheist! Read Memorial and Remonstrance. There is no clearer reference of His Faith. What I wrote makes total sense. Try harder.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

If you are in a constant state of pain and desperation you WILL say what your interogater WANTS to hear. The Mousqe on 34th and main has a sleeper cell.

 

[Care4all]

You have some truth in what you say, but then You fuck it up with blind prejudice. It would be more True to say from Your Perspective that No Government is Just, which is actually the case. We must work with what We have. Church, Government, face the same Temptation as You or I. The days of Icons are pretty much over for some, While others run to the next Idol of the weak. Government has good in it that we work with. Clergy has good in it that we work with. Stop pissing in the well.

He insinuated that the references made about atheist founding fathers was minuscule. I pointed out supporting quotes from the founding father of the United States Constitution. What in the world are you talking about "blind prejudice"? None of what you just said makes sense.

Cigarettes are adictive and can cause cancer which could be defined as torture. Are you therefore recommending torture?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU]YouTube - monty python-witch scene[/ame]

excellent logix

Madison was not an Atheist! Read Memorial and Remonstrance. There is no clearer reference of His Faith. What I wrote makes total sense. Try harder.

he did go to church every Sunday, during his presidency i had just read...and was a member of a specific church....

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Madison was not an Atheist! Read Memorial and Remonstrance. There is no clearer reference of His Faith. What I wrote makes total sense. Try harder.

Hi there. Please reread what I typed. Madison very strongly denounced organized religion playing a role in matters of government, claiming it lead to "indolence", "ignorance and servility","superstition, bigotry and persecution", and "tyranny".

That was the only point I made, a point which you have not yet refuted.

Also, I find your analysis (and by analysis i mean 'copy and paste ability') incorrect. The Declaration of Independence was not a document that founded the nation, but rather one that separated it from another country of strong religious roots (and used religious language to communicate accordingly). It would be like someone quitting their job to go start their own competing business in the same field. The quitting doesn't mean they are their own business yet, it just means they are unemployed.

 

[Father Time]

Madison was not an Atheist! Read Memorial and Remonstrance. There is no clearer reference of His Faith. What I wrote makes total sense. Try harder.

Hi there. Please reread what I typed. Madison very strongly denounced organized religion playing a role in matters of government, claiming it lead to "indolence", "ignorance and servility","superstition, bigotry and persecution", and "tyranny".

That was the only point I made, a point which you have not yet refuted.

Also, I find your analysis (and by analysis i mean 'copy and paste ability') incorrect. The Declaration of Independence was not a document that founded the nation, but rather one that separated it from another country of strong religious roots (and used religious language to communicate accordingly). It would be like someone quitting their job to go start their own competing business in the same field. The quitting doesn't mean they are their own business yet, it just means they are unemployed.

Also the guy who wrote the declaration (Thomas Jefferson) didn't like religion mixing with government.

Thomas Jefferson on Relgious Freedom

 

[ABikerSailor]

Like I said, waterboarding was used to elicit FALSE CONFESSIONS.

Now.......if it is good at eliciting FALSE confessions, how the fuck can anyone depend on the intel?

They can't.

 

[Intense]

Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments

James Madison

[1785]




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html







To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments


We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The maganimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain respose from his Troubles.

Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms

Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assauge the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and chairty," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.

Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to go great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?

Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.

Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Vriginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either the, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration.
We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]dound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Intense]

Madison was not an Atheist! Read Memorial and Remonstrance. There is no clearer reference of His Faith. What I wrote makes total sense. Try harder.

Hi there. Please reread what I typed. Madison very strongly denounced organized religion playing a role in matters of government, claiming it lead to "indolence", "ignorance and servility","superstition, bigotry and persecution", and "tyranny".

That was the only point I made, a point which you have not yet refuted.

Also, I find your analysis (and by analysis i mean 'copy and paste ability') incorrect. The Declaration of Independence was not a document that founded the nation, but rather one that separated it from another country of strong religious roots (and used religious language to communicate accordingly). It would be like someone quitting their job to go start their own competing business in the same field. The quitting doesn't mean they are their own business yet, it just means they are unemployed.

Madison feared bot the Tyranny of The State and The Tyranny of the Church, because of Human Nature, being what it is. Let's distinguish between, God, Individual, Church, Society, and Government in the context it was meant to be taken in.

The Declaration of Independence is considered a Founding Document. Accept it.

Quiting, being laid off, being Fired, are all legal terms with different consequences.