Why Religion Must Be Banished....

[Penelope]

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association - Wikisource, the free online library

First and only Catholic elected to the Presidency and he was assassinated and I don't need to tell you what happened to his brother.

If this is a Christian nation you can have the credit , for all the bad things that this nation has done. Take it and swallow it all. Its all upon the Congressional, Puritan and Evangelical churches and parishioners. The decent presidents in my opinion were not pious Christians and DID not put their church religions against civil rights for all. Just remember the first line starts with , WE The People.

 

[hadit]

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!

Nice straw man. I didn't say it was so written.

 

[Penelope]

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!

Nice straw man. I didn't say it was so written.

I think they would of added it if they wanted to. WE (all the people) are not a theocracy but the line is getting blurred a lot lately.

 

[BS Filter]

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!

Yes, I see Jesus Christ in the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence. Every Christian does. Creator, Nature's God, Lord = Jesus Christ. Round and round we go. ..........

 

[BS Filter]

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!

Nice straw man. I didn't say it was so written.

I think they would of added it if they wanted to. WE (all the people) are not a theocracy but the line is getting blurred a lot lately.

Ridiculous. The United States is the most secular it has even been.

 

[hadit]

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!

Nice straw man. I didn't say it was so written.

I think they would of added it if they wanted to. WE (all the people) are not a theocracy but the line is getting blurred a lot lately.

We're further from a theocracy than at any point in the past.

 

[Penelope]

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!

Nice straw man. I didn't say it was so written.

I think they would of added it if they wanted to. WE (all the people) are not a theocracy but the line is getting blurred a lot lately.

We're further from a theocracy than at any point in the past.

Again thank God, but no that's not true, the lines are getting blurred again.

 

[Penelope]

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!

Yes, I see Jesus Christ in the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence. Every Christian does. Creator, Nature's God, Lord = Jesus Christ. Round and round we go. ..........

Well then you are reading things that are not in either. A good imagination you have.

 

[hadit]

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!

Nice straw man. I didn't say it was so written.

I think they would of added it if they wanted to. WE (all the people) are not a theocracy but the line is getting blurred a lot lately.

We're further from a theocracy than at any point in the past.

Again thank God, but no that's not true, the lines are getting blurred again.

No, they seriously are not. You are mistaking Christians being free to talk about their faith with a theocracy. Our laws are not becoming more theocratic.

 

[Penelope]

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!

Nice straw man. I didn't say it was so written.

I think they would of added it if they wanted to. WE (all the people) are not a theocracy but the line is getting blurred a lot lately.

We're further from a theocracy than at any point in the past.

Again thank God, but no that's not true, the lines are getting blurred again.

No, they seriously are not. You are mistaking Christians being free to talk about their faith with a theocracy. Our laws are not becoming more theocratic.

Sure they are with the GOP in total control. Johnson Amendment.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Most liberals simply don't realize that the First Amendment was not intended to protect government from religion. It was meant to protect religion from the government. It worked for about two hundred years, but then modern liberals reared their ugly heads and declared otherwise.

Since we have established that the US was not founded on any particular religion , I guess the Fed and State govs should refrain from any religious talk, laws, and religious symbols on government property.

Oh? Where and when was that established? Certainly not in the 18th Century, leftist.

Why is there a Yuge chapel in Congress, hmm?

Were not days of prayer and fasting called for by the President back in the founding days of this country ?

You damn right there were. You may as well take your revisionist history ball and slink home. Homie ain't playin' that.

Don't care about source, info is good. The actual documents still exist, so you may as well give that up.

When our leaders used to call us to prayer and fasting

No you take your revisionist history and put it where the sun doesn't shine. The US was not founded on Judeo - Christianity.

It doesn't matter what they use to do the fact remains , the first amendment is freedom of religion.

Proof? If you haul out that Jefferson thing, talking about the Barbaric Muslims, that's fail, k?

Just so you know in advance.

Know why the Marines are called "Leathernecks"? They wore leather neck protectors to guard against the Barbary Muslim Pirates' behead attack.

The Leatherneck Legacy | Marine Corps Association

So the pirates used swords well they should of covered all their bodies with lots of padding. What did the Marines use? Knives.

No one is saying some of the founders were not religious but the US was built on freedom of religion which means it was not built on Christianity. St Paul, or Paul, does tell the slaves how to behave and submit to authority, so perhaps it was.

The Magna Carta was the influence in the US. England were anti Catholic and anti Jews and it came to the US soil as well. Protestants ruled, those most were deist and Unitarian, Puritans(Adams), and very anti catholics

Anti-Catholicism in the United States - Wikipedia


The only RC that became Potus was killed.

"The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history . . . It was written in Magna Carta."

--Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1941 Inaugural address

ORLY? Every Marine is first and foremost a rifleman, and always has been. You FAIL!

That's right, you dumbass shiil, Marines have always been riflemen. Right from their inception.



All you know is what the leftists tell you, you really should expand your horizons to things that actually were and are.

 

[irosie91]

what about the "JOHNSON" amendment? It is and always was a kind of joke

 

[Penelope]

Since we have established that the US was not founded on any particular religion , I guess the Fed and State govs should refrain from any religious talk, laws, and religious symbols on government property.

Oh? Where and when was that established? Certainly not in the 18th Century, leftist.

Why is there a Yuge chapel in Congress, hmm?

Were not days of prayer and fasting called for by the President back in the founding days of this country ?

You damn right there were. You may as well take your revisionist history ball and slink home. Homie ain't playin' that.

Don't care about source, info is good. The actual documents still exist, so you may as well give that up.

When our leaders used to call us to prayer and fasting

No you take your revisionist history and put it where the sun doesn't shine. The US was not founded on Judeo - Christianity.

It doesn't matter what they use to do the fact remains , the first amendment is freedom of religion.

Proof? If you haul out that Jefferson thing, talking about the Barbaric Muslims, that's fail, k?

Just so you know in advance.

Know why the Marines are called "Leathernecks"? They wore leather neck protectors to guard against the Barbary Muslim Pirates' behead attack.

The Leatherneck Legacy | Marine Corps Association

So the pirates used swords well they should of covered all their bodies with lots of padding. What did the Marines use? Knives.

No one is saying some of the founders were not religious but the US was built on freedom of religion which means it was not built on Christianity. St Paul, or Paul, does tell the slaves how to behave and submit to authority, so perhaps it was.

The Magna Carta was the influence in the US. England were anti Catholic and anti Jews and it came to the US soil as well. Protestants ruled, those most were deist and Unitarian, Puritans(Adams), and very anti catholics

Anti-Catholicism in the United States - Wikipedia


The only RC that became Potus was killed.

"The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history . . . It was written in Magna Carta."

--Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1941 Inaugural address

ORLY? Every Marine is first and foremost a rifleman, and always has been. You FAIL!

That's right, you dumbass shiil, Marines have always been riflemen. Right from their inception.



All you know is what the leftists tell you, you really should expand your horizons to things that actually were and are.

So the Marines were bad shots if the Pirates got close enough to cut off their heads. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Penelope]

what about the "JOHNSON" amendment? It is and always was a kind of joke

You are right , never enforced with Evans and most Protestant churches.

 

[BS Filter]

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!

Yes, I see Jesus Christ in the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence. Every Christian does. Creator, Nature's God, Lord = Jesus Christ. Round and round we go. ..........

Well then you are reading things that are not in either. A good imagination you have.

Nope, I just happen to believe the bible and know who Jesus is, and what the founders believed. That makes me a realist. You're the one that is using politically correct fantasy.

 

[Penelope]

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!

Yes, I see Jesus Christ in the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence. Every Christian does. Creator, Nature's God, Lord = Jesus Christ. Round and round we go. ..........

Well then you are reading things that are not in either. A good imagination you have.

Nope, I just happen to believe the bible and know who Jesus is, and what the founders believed. That makes me a realist. You're the one that is using politically correct fantasy.

The Bible, and you think you know who Jesus is, and what the founders believed. That makes you have a vivid imagination in my opinion.

 

[BS Filter]

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!

Yes, I see Jesus Christ in the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence. Every Christian does. Creator, Nature's God, Lord = Jesus Christ. Round and round we go. ..........

Well then you are reading things that are not in either. A good imagination you have.

Nope, I just happen to believe the bible and know who Jesus is, and what the founders believed. That makes me a realist. You're the one that is using politically correct fantasy.

The Bible, and you think you know who Jesus is, and what the founders believed. That makes you have a vivid imagination in my opinion.

I totally understand your opinion and where you're coming from. Tell me, why did George Washington grab a bible to take the oath of office? He didn't have to, there was nothing forcing him too. Why?

 

[hadit]

Nice straw man. I didn't say it was so written.

I think they would of added it if they wanted to. WE (all the people) are not a theocracy but the line is getting blurred a lot lately.

We're further from a theocracy than at any point in the past.

Again thank God, but no that's not true, the lines are getting blurred again.

No, they seriously are not. You are mistaking Christians being free to talk about their faith with a theocracy. Our laws are not becoming more theocratic.

Sure they are with the GOP in total control. Johnson Amendment.

You mean the tax law change that prohibits non-profits from endorsing political candidates? How is that theocratic?