America Founded as a Christian Nation

[Gdjjr]

We did not have the secular nation that the atheists, secularists, etc. claim on this thread until 1962. THAT is when they (the NOTFOOLWEBYW's) got America their way.

Since then, we haven't won a war, our economy took a dump and we're a debtor nation; children became drug addicts, we became the nation with more people in prison than any other nation, and now children are less affluent than their parents AND have shorter life spans. The third world took over Congress and if you utter anything "Christian," your ass will get raked over the coals by people like NOTFOLLEDBYW.

Denials won't change the facts.

You're correct, to a degree- my kids are a lot more affluent than I was/am though.
You're correct denials won't change facts. Choosing which facts to hang your hat on is denying other facts- ALL facts must be considered to come to an objective conclusion- favoring one set of facts while denying another is denial that others exist.
Subscribing to one set of facts is an subjective endeavor- it helps create a dogmatic rhetoric- to be dogmatic is disrespectful- begets begets. THAT is A fact.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

23950112

Since you want to be technical, you would be wrong. There are several examples to show that the founders intended this to be a Christian nation in the Constitution. Surely you've read most of the thread and the state constitutions. AND, it was required of office holders to take an oath before assuming public office.

You appear to be deriving a point that the founders, because of their Christian religious beliefs, intended America to be referred to as a Christian Nation because of state constitutions restrictions (on a religious basis) determining who and who could not hold public office.

I hope you know it’s true that the vast majority of Christians in the entire world were Catholics at the time when the Constitution was being written. Catholics, You know, the originators of all Christendom, the deepest roots of Christianity itself.

As it turns out you cannot say on your basis of argument that America was founded as a Christian Nation because most of the Christians in the world were excluded from having full rights.

Neither the First Amendment nor Article VI, however, were originally applied to the individual states, and individual restrictions were utilized by individual states to prevent Jews, Catholics, and atheists from occupying public offices.

Religious qualifications for public office in the United States - Wikipedia

Your argument creates the basis for a phrase that says America was founded as a Protestant Nation where Jews, Catholics and atheists can’t hold public office. Do you want the US Constitution to say that?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Since you want to be technical, you would be wrong.

You want me to be wrong- I used the words, as written, for evidence. All the anecdotes in the world won't change them.

There is no mention of religion in the constitution- I used the pre amble as the example, for "establishing" (technically) the rules for a government. They didn't found, they established, per their words- coming together in order to "form a more perfect union"- the union consisted of sovereign states- thus the 10th amendment (which you successfully show to be basically nullified by the 14th amendment) - sovereign states is plural- nation is one = the 14th amendment. Then was "officially" sanctioned in the pledge of allegiance, one nation, under God - long after the original experiment had been "established".
In the Declaration of Independence the word Creator is used to avoid sanctioning a religion, prior to the constitution establishing the rules for gov't, not godvernment, which is a devolution from the original intent- which is what Britain did which many opposed.
As for opinions or legal rulings I couldn't care less- everyone has an opinion- legal is rarely moral and relies heavily on intentional misinterpretation as justification which is merely an excuse, not a reason, as reason is a sound explanation, where excuse is an attempt to justify which we see daily in every walk of life, especially in the District of Criminals, and courts of law.

THE bottom line to the opinions and legal rulings is a lack of respect for Individual rights- one simple rule- respect others.
It's not esoteric and doesn't require a degree in anything- however, the school of hard knocks, of which I am a student, while working on my PhD in that particular arena (my thesis is on going) - it comes down to, quite simply- begets begets- there is ample evidence to support that anecdotal and empirical.

But, I digress. Religion did, of course, have influence- that doesn't equate to establishing based on- the establishing of rules for gov't interdiction was explicitly called out, enumerated, and there is no mention of a religious bent. It was thought the rules could help prevent an "official" oppression or tyranny from a central power, the gov't.= key being "help prevent" IF those rules had been adhered to by other rule makers there could, conceivably, be a different outcome. But that is merely optimistic speculation. Speculation is opinion. Optimistic is a natural positive trait. So, my natural tendency is to be positive in my opinions- and objective through a natural trait and formal training- where as religion is subjective to sustain an objective- control. The same as what we now fight politically- collectivist/group think to attain a preconceived notion of how things should (highly subjective) be.

Now you are using semantics to be dishonest. And we used to be on the same team! Okay, ladies and gentlemen. Let us take the argument from the top.

America was founded as a Christian nation. America was NOT founded as a theocracy, but rather as a constitutional Republic that ended up guaranteeing Liberty as the concept was understood from a Christian perspective. The Declaration of Independence states:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,.."

And so we don't get a textonomy objection, here is a link to the entire document:

The Declaration of Independence: The Full Text in English…. and Spanish

The 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence severed the political relationship with King George not only the basis of the Laws of Nature, but of Nature's God as well. So, now Nature's God is identified in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It is a Creator. It is a God. Whose God? It is the Supreme Judge of the World. Each signer of the Declaration of Independence signed that document with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.

Divine Providence - In theology, divine providence, or just providence, is God's intervention in the Universe. The term Divine Providence (usually capitalized) is also used as a title of God.

Divine providence - Wikipedia

The Declaration of Independence is a statement to King George laying out the reasons for our separation from his rule AND to establish the concept of unalienable Rights (Liberty.)

In the same year that the Declaration of Independence was ratified by the signers, the author went to Virginia and was working on the state constitution for Virginia. When secularists are up against the wall about unalienable Rights, suddenly the Declaration of Independence, is not law. Well, it that is the case, it need not spell out which God we're talking about. But, a state constitution IS, unequivocally, a legal document, a document of law. So, in the legal sense, what did Jefferson agree to... maybe even be the author of?

"SEC. 16. 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; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Constitution of Virginia, 1776

There is the same word, CREATOR, capitalized in the Declaration of Independence and capitalized in the Virginia state constitution OF THE SAME YEAR!!! Now, legally referring to a Christian God. Maybe Jefferson was playing the Christian citizenry. But he signs his name to a legal document acknowledging a Christian God. Period.

"In 1776, every European American, with the exception of about 2,500 Jews, identified himself or herself as a Christian. Moreover, approximately 98 percent of the colonists were Protestants, with the remaining 1.9 percent being Roman Catholics"

Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman, One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society (New York: Harmony Books, 1993), pp. 28–29.

According to the United States Supreme Court:

"If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc..."

Holy Trinity Church v U.S. 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)

Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892)

Now, don't start jumping on me with crap about the Constitution. Let's clear this up once and for all. If you try to derail this thread by posting crap not related to the above, I'll just post it again before going forward. If there is a fact that you have a problem with, spit it out. The undisputed language of the 44 state constitutions clearly and unequivocally make a connection between Christianity and the government.

Still, we did not end up with forced religion or a theocracy. Let's do this one point at a time. Do you have a problem with what I've said so far? I WILL get to the Constitution, etc. Let's be honest and go one subject at a time this round.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

23949065

Irrelevant quibbling designed to muddle the waters to hide the fact that none of you liberals can refute the point that the Nation was founded as a Christian Nation

There is nothing to refute when Porter Rockwell’s (the state constitutions and their restrictions define Founders’ intent when the Constitution is silent)

Porters’ Proof forces him and you to revise his desired phrase fro

“America was a founded as Christian Nation”

to

“America was a founded as Protestant Christian Nation”

Because Catholics were not permitted to hold public office under state Constitutions and there were only a handful of Catholics here at the founding of America.

Why are you adverse to pushing for “America was founded as a Protestant Nation”. According to Rockwell that is what it was,

 

[Correll]

23949065

Irrelevant quibbling designed to muddle the waters to hide the fact that none of you liberals can refute the point that the Nation was founded as a Christian Nation

There is nothing to refute when Porter Rockwell’s (the state constitutions and their restrictions define Founders’ intent when the Constitution is silent)

Porters’ Proof forces him and you to revise his desired phrase fro

“America was a founded as Christian Nation”

to

“America was a founded as Protestant Christian Nation”

Because Catholics were not permitted to hold public office under state Constitutions and there were only a handful of Catholics here at the founding of America.

Why are you adverse to pushing for “America was founded as a Protestant Nation”. According to Rockwell that is what it was,

Because it is off topic. I don't care about that distinction. You dont' care about that distinction. Rockwell doesnt' care about that issue. All the other libs ran away, they gave up. They can see that this issue is settled.


NO one cares. The best you can do now, is try to muddy the waters to distract from the thread topic,


which has been proven by your side's complete failure to challenge it.



THis nation was founded as a Christian Nation.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Since you want to be technical, you would be wrong.

You want me to be wrong- I used the words, as written, for evidence. All the anecdotes in the world won't change them.

There is no mention of religion in the constitution- I used the pre amble as the example, for "establishing" (technically) the rules for a government. They didn't found, they established, per their words- coming together in order to "form a more perfect union"- the union consisted of sovereign states- thus the 10th amendment (which you successfully show to be basically nullified by the 14th amendment) - sovereign states is plural- nation is one = the 14th amendment. Then was "officially" sanctioned in the pledge of allegiance, one nation, under God - long after the original experiment had been "established".
In the Declaration of Independence the word Creator is used to avoid sanctioning a religion, prior to the constitution establishing the rules for gov't, not godvernment, which is a devolution from the original intent- which is what Britain did which many opposed.
As for opinions or legal rulings I couldn't care less- everyone has an opinion- legal is rarely moral and relies heavily on intentional misinterpretation as justification which is merely an excuse, not a reason, as reason is a sound explanation, where excuse is an attempt to justify which we see daily in every walk of life, especially in the District of Criminals, and courts of law.

THE bottom line to the opinions and legal rulings is a lack of respect for Individual rights- one simple rule- respect others.
It's not esoteric and doesn't require a degree in anything- however, the school of hard knocks, of which I am a student, while working on my PhD in that particular arena (my thesis is on going) - it comes down to, quite simply- begets begets- there is ample evidence to support that anecdotal and empirical.

But, I digress. Religion did, of course, have influence- that doesn't equate to establishing based on- the establishing of rules for gov't interdiction was explicitly called out, enumerated, and there is no mention of a religious bent. It was thought the rules could help prevent an "official" oppression or tyranny from a central power, the gov't.= key being "help prevent" IF those rules had been adhered to by other rule makers there could, conceivably, be a different outcome. But that is merely optimistic speculation. Speculation is opinion. Optimistic is a natural positive trait. So, my natural tendency is to be positive in my opinions- and objective through a natural trait and formal training- where as religion is subjective to sustain an objective- control. The same as what we now fight politically- collectivist/group think to attain a preconceived notion of how things should (highly subjective) be.

Now you are using semantics to be dishonest. And we used to be on the same team! Okay, ladies and gentlemen. Let us take the argument from the top.

America was founded as a Christian nation. America was NOT founded as a theocracy, but rather as a constitutional Republic that ended up guaranteeing Liberty as the concept was understood from a Christian perspective. The Declaration of Independence states:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,.."

And so we don't get a textonomy objection, here is a link to the entire document:

The Declaration of Independence: The Full Text in English…. and Spanish

The 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence severed the political relationship with King George not only the basis of the Laws of Nature, but of Nature's God as well. So, now Nature's God is identified in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It is a Creator. It is a God. Whose God? It is the Supreme Judge of the World. Each signer of the Declaration of Independence signed that document with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.

Divine Providence - In theology, divine providence, or just providence, is God's intervention in the Universe. The term Divine Providence (usually capitalized) is also used as a title of God.

Divine providence - Wikipedia

The Declaration of Independence is a statement to King George laying out the reasons for our separation from his rule AND to establish the concept of unalienable Rights (Liberty.)

In the same year that the Declaration of Independence was ratified by the signers, the author went to Virginia and was working on the state constitution for Virginia. When secularists are up against the wall about unalienable Rights, suddenly the Declaration of Independence, is not law. Well, it that is the case, it need not spell out which God we're talking about. But, a state constitution IS, unequivocally, a legal document, a document of law. So, in the legal sense, what did Jefferson agree to... maybe even be the author of?

"SEC. 16. 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; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Constitution of Virginia, 1776

There is the same word, CREATOR, capitalized in the Declaration of Independence and capitalized in the Virginia state constitution OF THE SAME YEAR!!! Now, legally referring to a Christian God. Maybe Jefferson was playing the Christian citizenry. But he signs his name to a legal document acknowledging a Christian God. Period.

"In 1776, every European American, with the exception of about 2,500 Jews, identified himself or herself as a Christian. Moreover, approximately 98 percent of the colonists were Protestants, with the remaining 1.9 percent being Roman Catholics"

Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman, One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society (New York: Harmony Books, 1993), pp. 28–29.

According to the United States Supreme Court:

"If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc..."

Holy Trinity Church v U.S. 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)

Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892)

Now, don't start jumping on me with crap about the Constitution. Let's clear this up once and for all. If you try to derail this thread by posting crap not related to the above, I'll just post it again before going forward. If there is a fact that you have a problem with, spit it out. The undisputed language of the 44 state constitutions clearly and unequivocally make a connection between Christianity and the government.

Still, we did not end up with forced religion or a theocracy. Let's do this one point at a time. Do you have a problem with what I've said so far? I WILL get to the Constitution, etc. Let's be honest and go one subject at a time this round.

You keep doing a lot of work posting a lot of
Words to prove something that hopefully does not matter to most Christians (including those who are Hispanic, Black, and liberal
that do not share your nostalgia for the way things were prior to 1962.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Declaration of Independence is criticized by the secularists, atheists, etc., etc. for failing to say Jesus Christ. Let us shoot for honesty here. In the Treaty of Paris, the United States wins its War of Independence and King George succumbs to the inevitable. Let us follow the language of the day:

"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse, between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony."

Treaty of Paris: Legitimacy Quotes Page 1

For the atheists, secularists, etc. to continue down this path to saying that the God of the Bible is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is either ignorance or dishonesty. Personally, I have moved past that. If they can make a case to refute that Divine Providence means anything other than what it meant is pure dishonesty.

Whatever Thomas Jefferson believed or did not believe, he played to a Christian audience. He wrote things they wanted to hear at that time. None of us on this board knows what was on the mind of that one man as he got Christians on board with his efforts.

Today, we have a reprobate in the White House that invokes the Bible when it's to his advantage. The politicians he attracts want Christian values restored publicly so that we are no longer second class citizens. So Trump plays to that crowd. If I buy the secularists argument, then it would appear that every Christian is not really a Christian. They don't really want prayer back in the schools or the Right to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Christians respond to the politician that says pleasing things to their itching ears.

At the end of the day, regardless of who has any input is that the final product is. Let me repeat: All that matters is what the final product is.

 

[Correll]

Since you want to be technical, you would be wrong.

You want me to be wrong- I used the words, as written, for evidence. All the anecdotes in the world won't change them.

There is no mention of religion in the constitution- I used the pre amble as the example, for "establishing" (technically) the rules for a government. They didn't found, they established, per their words- coming together in order to "form a more perfect union"- the union consisted of sovereign states- thus the 10th amendment (which you successfully show to be basically nullified by the 14th amendment) - sovereign states is plural- nation is one = the 14th amendment. Then was "officially" sanctioned in the pledge of allegiance, one nation, under God - long after the original experiment had been "established".
In the Declaration of Independence the word Creator is used to avoid sanctioning a religion, prior to the constitution establishing the rules for gov't, not godvernment, which is a devolution from the original intent- which is what Britain did which many opposed.
As for opinions or legal rulings I couldn't care less- everyone has an opinion- legal is rarely moral and relies heavily on intentional misinterpretation as justification which is merely an excuse, not a reason, as reason is a sound explanation, where excuse is an attempt to justify which we see daily in every walk of life, especially in the District of Criminals, and courts of law.

THE bottom line to the opinions and legal rulings is a lack of respect for Individual rights- one simple rule- respect others.
It's not esoteric and doesn't require a degree in anything- however, the school of hard knocks, of which I am a student, while working on my PhD in that particular arena (my thesis is on going) - it comes down to, quite simply- begets begets- there is ample evidence to support that anecdotal and empirical.

But, I digress. Religion did, of course, have influence- that doesn't equate to establishing based on- the establishing of rules for gov't interdiction was explicitly called out, enumerated, and there is no mention of a religious bent. It was thought the rules could help prevent an "official" oppression or tyranny from a central power, the gov't.= key being "help prevent" IF those rules had been adhered to by other rule makers there could, conceivably, be a different outcome. But that is merely optimistic speculation. Speculation is opinion. Optimistic is a natural positive trait. So, my natural tendency is to be positive in my opinions- and objective through a natural trait and formal training- where as religion is subjective to sustain an objective- control. The same as what we now fight politically- collectivist/group think to attain a preconceived notion of how things should (highly subjective) be.

Now you are using semantics to be dishonest. And we used to be on the same team! Okay, ladies and gentlemen. Let us take the argument from the top.

America was founded as a Christian nation. America was NOT founded as a theocracy, but rather as a constitutional Republic that ended up guaranteeing Liberty as the concept was understood from a Christian perspective. The Declaration of Independence states:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,.."

And so we don't get a textonomy objection, here is a link to the entire document:

The Declaration of Independence: The Full Text in English…. and Spanish

The 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence severed the political relationship with King George not only the basis of the Laws of Nature, but of Nature's God as well. So, now Nature's God is identified in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It is a Creator. It is a God. Whose God? It is the Supreme Judge of the World. Each signer of the Declaration of Independence signed that document with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.

Divine Providence - In theology, divine providence, or just providence, is God's intervention in the Universe. The term Divine Providence (usually capitalized) is also used as a title of God.

Divine providence - Wikipedia

The Declaration of Independence is a statement to King George laying out the reasons for our separation from his rule AND to establish the concept of unalienable Rights (Liberty.)

In the same year that the Declaration of Independence was ratified by the signers, the author went to Virginia and was working on the state constitution for Virginia. When secularists are up against the wall about unalienable Rights, suddenly the Declaration of Independence, is not law. Well, it that is the case, it need not spell out which God we're talking about. But, a state constitution IS, unequivocally, a legal document, a document of law. So, in the legal sense, what did Jefferson agree to... maybe even be the author of?

"SEC. 16. 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; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Constitution of Virginia, 1776

There is the same word, CREATOR, capitalized in the Declaration of Independence and capitalized in the Virginia state constitution OF THE SAME YEAR!!! Now, legally referring to a Christian God. Maybe Jefferson was playing the Christian citizenry. But he signs his name to a legal document acknowledging a Christian God. Period.

"In 1776, every European American, with the exception of about 2,500 Jews, identified himself or herself as a Christian. Moreover, approximately 98 percent of the colonists were Protestants, with the remaining 1.9 percent being Roman Catholics"

Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman, One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society (New York: Harmony Books, 1993), pp. 28–29.

According to the United States Supreme Court:

"If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc..."

Holy Trinity Church v U.S. 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)

Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892)

Now, don't start jumping on me with crap about the Constitution. Let's clear this up once and for all. If you try to derail this thread by posting crap not related to the above, I'll just post it again before going forward. If there is a fact that you have a problem with, spit it out. The undisputed language of the 44 state constitutions clearly and unequivocally make a connection between Christianity and the government.

Still, we did not end up with forced religion or a theocracy. Let's do this one point at a time. Do you have a problem with what I've said so far? I WILL get to the Constitution, etc. Let's be honest and go one subject at a time this round.

You keep doing a lot of work postingA lot of
Words to prove something that hopefully does not matter to most Christians (including those who are Hispanic, Black, and liberal
that do not share your nostalgia for the way things were prior to 1962.

Why do you hope that it "does not matter to most Christians"?


And why do you specify those that are "hispanic, black and liberal"?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Since you want to be technical, you would be wrong.

You want me to be wrong- I used the words, as written, for evidence. All the anecdotes in the world won't change them.

There is no mention of religion in the constitution- I used the pre amble as the example, for "establishing" (technically) the rules for a government. They didn't found, they established, per their words- coming together in order to "form a more perfect union"- the union consisted of sovereign states- thus the 10th amendment (which you successfully show to be basically nullified by the 14th amendment) - sovereign states is plural- nation is one = the 14th amendment. Then was "officially" sanctioned in the pledge of allegiance, one nation, under God - long after the original experiment had been "established".
In the Declaration of Independence the word Creator is used to avoid sanctioning a religion, prior to the constitution establishing the rules for gov't, not godvernment, which is a devolution from the original intent- which is what Britain did which many opposed.
As for opinions or legal rulings I couldn't care less- everyone has an opinion- legal is rarely moral and relies heavily on intentional misinterpretation as justification which is merely an excuse, not a reason, as reason is a sound explanation, where excuse is an attempt to justify which we see daily in every walk of life, especially in the District of Criminals, and courts of law.

THE bottom line to the opinions and legal rulings is a lack of respect for Individual rights- one simple rule- respect others.
It's not esoteric and doesn't require a degree in anything- however, the school of hard knocks, of which I am a student, while working on my PhD in that particular arena (my thesis is on going) - it comes down to, quite simply- begets begets- there is ample evidence to support that anecdotal and empirical.

But, I digress. Religion did, of course, have influence- that doesn't equate to establishing based on- the establishing of rules for gov't interdiction was explicitly called out, enumerated, and there is no mention of a religious bent. It was thought the rules could help prevent an "official" oppression or tyranny from a central power, the gov't.= key being "help prevent" IF those rules had been adhered to by other rule makers there could, conceivably, be a different outcome. But that is merely optimistic speculation. Speculation is opinion. Optimistic is a natural positive trait. So, my natural tendency is to be positive in my opinions- and objective through a natural trait and formal training- where as religion is subjective to sustain an objective- control. The same as what we now fight politically- collectivist/group think to attain a preconceived notion of how things should (highly subjective) be.

Now you are using semantics to be dishonest. And we used to be on the same team! Okay, ladies and gentlemen. Let us take the argument from the top.

America was founded as a Christian nation. America was NOT founded as a theocracy, but rather as a constitutional Republic that ended up guaranteeing Liberty as the concept was understood from a Christian perspective. The Declaration of Independence states:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,.."

And so we don't get a textonomy objection, here is a link to the entire document:

The Declaration of Independence: The Full Text in English…. and Spanish

The 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence severed the political relationship with King George not only the basis of the Laws of Nature, but of Nature's God as well. So, now Nature's God is identified in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It is a Creator. It is a God. Whose God? It is the Supreme Judge of the World. Each signer of the Declaration of Independence signed that document with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.

Divine Providence - In theology, divine providence, or just providence, is God's intervention in the Universe. The term Divine Providence (usually capitalized) is also used as a title of God.

Divine providence - Wikipedia

The Declaration of Independence is a statement to King George laying out the reasons for our separation from his rule AND to establish the concept of unalienable Rights (Liberty.)

In the same year that the Declaration of Independence was ratified by the signers, the author went to Virginia and was working on the state constitution for Virginia. When secularists are up against the wall about unalienable Rights, suddenly the Declaration of Independence, is not law. Well, it that is the case, it need not spell out which God we're talking about. But, a state constitution IS, unequivocally, a legal document, a document of law. So, in the legal sense, what did Jefferson agree to... maybe even be the author of?

"SEC. 16. 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; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Constitution of Virginia, 1776

There is the same word, CREATOR, capitalized in the Declaration of Independence and capitalized in the Virginia state constitution OF THE SAME YEAR!!! Now, legally referring to a Christian God. Maybe Jefferson was playing the Christian citizenry. But he signs his name to a legal document acknowledging a Christian God. Period.

"In 1776, every European American, with the exception of about 2,500 Jews, identified himself or herself as a Christian. Moreover, approximately 98 percent of the colonists were Protestants, with the remaining 1.9 percent being Roman Catholics"

Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman, One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society (New York: Harmony Books, 1993), pp. 28–29.

According to the United States Supreme Court:

"If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc..."

Holy Trinity Church v U.S. 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)

Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892)

Now, don't start jumping on me with crap about the Constitution. Let's clear this up once and for all. If you try to derail this thread by posting crap not related to the above, I'll just post it again before going forward. If there is a fact that you have a problem with, spit it out. The undisputed language of the 44 state constitutions clearly and unequivocally make a connection between Christianity and the government.

Still, we did not end up with forced religion or a theocracy. Let's do this one point at a time. Do you have a problem with what I've said so far? I WILL get to the Constitution, etc. Let's be honest and go one subject at a time this round.

You keep doing a lot of work postingA lot of
Words to prove something that hopefully does not matter to most Christians (including those who are Hispanic, Black, and liberal
that do not share your nostalgia for the way things were prior to 1962.

It matters to you. You're here every day trying to disprove the facts. If it were of no importance, why didn't you give up? OR, in the alternative, are you here merely because you got butt hurt?

You cannot refute what is being said. You simply keep putting YOUR own personal definitions on words and phrases. You ignore all but one man that signed the Declaration of Independence. You lie; you create straw men; you want to create chaos and divisiveness (and give the devil his due, you are succeeding). You're getting your ass whipped like a red headed step child, but you are getting your licks in with creating chaos, divisiveness and beating a dead horse into oblivion. Since meeting you, this thread is rapidly becoming my life... but, it's so important that it is YOUR life as well.

But, when I'm through, any honest and objective reader can only come to one conclusion: America was founded as a Christian nation. And I started this thread, so I am going to define my terms - not you. You are not going to force me to define my terms to your personal liking. I will present the facts and let the readers decide.

 

[Gdjjr]

You're correct denials won't change facts. Choosing which facts to hang your hat on is denying other facts- ALL facts must be considered to come to an objective conclusion- favoring one set of facts while denying another is denial that others exist.
Subscribing to one set of facts is an subjective endeavor- it helps create a dogmatic rhetoric- to be dogmatic is disrespectful- begets begets. THAT is A fact.

But, when I'm through, any honest and objective reader can only come to one conclusion:

 

[Porter Rockwell]

23949065

Irrelevant quibbling designed to muddle the waters to hide the fact that none of you liberals can refute the point that the Nation was founded as a Christian Nation

There is nothing to refute when Porter Rockwell’s (the state constitutions and their restrictions define Founders’ intent when the Constitution is silent)

Porters’ Proof forces him and you to revise his desired phrase fro

“America was a founded as Christian Nation”

to

“America was a founded as Protestant Christian Nation”

Because Catholics were not permitted to hold public office under state Constitutions and there were only a handful of Catholics here at the founding of America.

Why are you adverse to pushing for “America was founded as a Protestant Nation”. According to Rockwell that is what it was,

The Constitution IS NOT SILENT ON THIS SUBJECT. What seems to be your major malfunction? Why do you continue to lie? Is it stupidity?

The framers of the Constitution had every opportunity to create this mythical "separation of church and state", but they did not. The framers could have said to the states that the required oaths could not contain any requirement that a candidate believe and they did not do it.

Have you ever heard the Latin legal maxim "Qui tacet consentiret?" It was incorporated into our common law. It means that silence means consent. The same Constitution was in place in 1789 (less Amendments) that was in place in 1962. The framers did not make the schools go to secular textbooks; they did not remove prayer from public schools; they did not prevent oaths that required political office holders to state they were believers.

The same First Amendment allowed for religious Liberty until the secularists and atheists, etc. got the United States Supreme Court to legislate from the bench and create a law predicated upon a PRIVATE LETTER. I studied law and tied for the top of the class. I cannot cite you a single instance where a private letter ever had any legal authority save of that one instance.

Not only did the high Court lack the AUTHORITY to make that law - they could cite no precedent for the ruling, and the letter meant 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the secularists, humanists, atheists, etc. are claiming!!!!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You're correct denials won't change facts. Choosing which facts to hang your hat on is denying other facts- ALL facts must be considered to come to an objective conclusion- favoring one set of facts while denying another is denial that others exist.
Subscribing to one set of facts is an subjective endeavor- it helps create a dogmatic rhetoric- to be dogmatic is disrespectful- begets begets. THAT is A fact.

But, when I'm through, any honest and objective reader can only come to one conclusion:

Great, but you haven't provided a counter to what I've posted. So, where is the problem?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Since you want to be technical, you would be wrong.

You want me to be wrong- I used the words, as written, for evidence. All the anecdotes in the world won't change them.

There is no mention of religion in the constitution- I used the pre amble as the example, for "establishing" (technically) the rules for a government. They didn't found, they established, per their words- coming together in order to "form a more perfect union"- the union consisted of sovereign states- thus the 10th amendment (which you successfully show to be basically nullified by the 14th amendment) - sovereign states is plural- nation is one = the 14th amendment. Then was "officially" sanctioned in the pledge of allegiance, one nation, under God - long after the original experiment had been "established".
In the Declaration of Independence the word Creator is used to avoid sanctioning a religion, prior to the constitution establishing the rules for gov't, not godvernment, which is a devolution from the original intent- which is what Britain did which many opposed.
As for opinions or legal rulings I couldn't care less- everyone has an opinion- legal is rarely moral and relies heavily on intentional misinterpretation as justification which is merely an excuse, not a reason, as reason is a sound explanation, where excuse is an attempt to justify which we see daily in every walk of life, especially in the District of Criminals, and courts of law.

THE bottom line to the opinions and legal rulings is a lack of respect for Individual rights- one simple rule- respect others.
It's not esoteric and doesn't require a degree in anything- however, the school of hard knocks, of which I am a student, while working on my PhD in that particular arena (my thesis is on going) - it comes down to, quite simply- begets begets- there is ample evidence to support that anecdotal and empirical.

But, I digress. Religion did, of course, have influence- that doesn't equate to establishing based on- the establishing of rules for gov't interdiction was explicitly called out, enumerated, and there is no mention of a religious bent. It was thought the rules could help prevent an "official" oppression or tyranny from a central power, the gov't.= key being "help prevent" IF those rules had been adhered to by other rule makers there could, conceivably, be a different outcome. But that is merely optimistic speculation. Speculation is opinion. Optimistic is a natural positive trait. So, my natural tendency is to be positive in my opinions- and objective through a natural trait and formal training- where as religion is subjective to sustain an objective- control. The same as what we now fight politically- collectivist/group think to attain a preconceived notion of how things should (highly subjective) be.

Now you are using semantics to be dishonest. And we used to be on the same team! Okay, ladies and gentlemen. Let us take the argument from the top.

America was founded as a Christian nation. America was NOT founded as a theocracy, but rather as a constitutional Republic that ended up guaranteeing Liberty as the concept was understood from a Christian perspective. The Declaration of Independence states:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,.."

And so we don't get a textonomy objection, here is a link to the entire document:

The Declaration of Independence: The Full Text in English…. and Spanish

The 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence severed the political relationship with King George not only the basis of the Laws of Nature, but of Nature's God as well. So, now Nature's God is identified in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It is a Creator. It is a God. Whose God? It is the Supreme Judge of the World. Each signer of the Declaration of Independence signed that document with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.

Divine Providence - In theology, divine providence, or just providence, is God's intervention in the Universe. The term Divine Providence (usually capitalized) is also used as a title of God.

Divine providence - Wikipedia

The Declaration of Independence is a statement to King George laying out the reasons for our separation from his rule AND to establish the concept of unalienable Rights (Liberty.)

In the same year that the Declaration of Independence was ratified by the signers, the author went to Virginia and was working on the state constitution for Virginia. When secularists are up against the wall about unalienable Rights, suddenly the Declaration of Independence, is not law. Well, it that is the case, it need not spell out which God we're talking about. But, a state constitution IS, unequivocally, a legal document, a document of law. So, in the legal sense, what did Jefferson agree to... maybe even be the author of?

"SEC. 16. 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; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Constitution of Virginia, 1776

There is the same word, CREATOR, capitalized in the Declaration of Independence and capitalized in the Virginia state constitution OF THE SAME YEAR!!! Now, legally referring to a Christian God. Maybe Jefferson was playing the Christian citizenry. But he signs his name to a legal document acknowledging a Christian God. Period.

"In 1776, every European American, with the exception of about 2,500 Jews, identified himself or herself as a Christian. Moreover, approximately 98 percent of the colonists were Protestants, with the remaining 1.9 percent being Roman Catholics"

Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman, One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society (New York: Harmony Books, 1993), pp. 28–29.

According to the United States Supreme Court:

"If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc..."

Holy Trinity Church v U.S. 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)

Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892)

Now, don't start jumping on me with crap about the Constitution. Let's clear this up once and for all. If you try to derail this thread by posting crap not related to the above, I'll just post it again before going forward. If there is a fact that you have a problem with, spit it out. The undisputed language of the 44 state constitutions clearly and unequivocally make a connection between Christianity and the government.

Still, we did not end up with forced religion or a theocracy. Let's do this one point at a time. Do you have a problem with what I've said so far? I WILL get to the Constitution, etc. Let's be honest and go one subject at a time this round.

You keep doing a lot of work postingA lot of
Words to prove something that hopefully does not matter to most Christians (including those who are Hispanic, Black, and liberal
that do not share your nostalgia for the way things were prior to 1962.

Why do you hope that it "does not matter to most Christians"?


And why do you specify those that are "hispanic, black and liberal"?

i think Christianity has moved forward to influencing and serving in a more pluralistic multi cultural society in our 21st Century than the simpler agrarian mono cultural society in the 18th Century that four score later found itself in civil war.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

97TH UNITED STATES CONGRESS 1ST SESSION
Joint Resolution

A joint resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the “Year of the Bible”.
Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;
Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;
Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas many of our great national leaders-among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson-paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country’s development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is “the rock on which our Republic rests”;
Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;
Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and
Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national “Year of the Bible” in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

From my perspective, the part that says, "Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;..."
is THE defining statement that America was founded as a Christian nation.

After we canned that principle and made America a multicultural cesspool and gave away our birthright, the whole country went south. The more we have separated this country from its original values, the more we have regressed as a nation. It is beyond dispute.Next time, I will talk about the Constitution.

 

[Correll]

Since you want to be technical, you would be wrong.

You want me to be wrong- I used the words, as written, for evidence. All the anecdotes in the world won't change them.

There is no mention of religion in the constitution- I used the pre amble as the example, for "establishing" (technically) the rules for a government. They didn't found, they established, per their words- coming together in order to "form a more perfect union"- the union consisted of sovereign states- thus the 10th amendment (which you successfully show to be basically nullified by the 14th amendment) - sovereign states is plural- nation is one = the 14th amendment. Then was "officially" sanctioned in the pledge of allegiance, one nation, under God - long after the original experiment had been "established".
In the Declaration of Independence the word Creator is used to avoid sanctioning a religion, prior to the constitution establishing the rules for gov't, not godvernment, which is a devolution from the original intent- which is what Britain did which many opposed.
As for opinions or legal rulings I couldn't care less- everyone has an opinion- legal is rarely moral and relies heavily on intentional misinterpretation as justification which is merely an excuse, not a reason, as reason is a sound explanation, where excuse is an attempt to justify which we see daily in every walk of life, especially in the District of Criminals, and courts of law.

THE bottom line to the opinions and legal rulings is a lack of respect for Individual rights- one simple rule- respect others.
It's not esoteric and doesn't require a degree in anything- however, the school of hard knocks, of which I am a student, while working on my PhD in that particular arena (my thesis is on going) - it comes down to, quite simply- begets begets- there is ample evidence to support that anecdotal and empirical.

But, I digress. Religion did, of course, have influence- that doesn't equate to establishing based on- the establishing of rules for gov't interdiction was explicitly called out, enumerated, and there is no mention of a religious bent. It was thought the rules could help prevent an "official" oppression or tyranny from a central power, the gov't.= key being "help prevent" IF those rules had been adhered to by other rule makers there could, conceivably, be a different outcome. But that is merely optimistic speculation. Speculation is opinion. Optimistic is a natural positive trait. So, my natural tendency is to be positive in my opinions- and objective through a natural trait and formal training- where as religion is subjective to sustain an objective- control. The same as what we now fight politically- collectivist/group think to attain a preconceived notion of how things should (highly subjective) be.

Now you are using semantics to be dishonest. And we used to be on the same team! Okay, ladies and gentlemen. Let us take the argument from the top.

America was founded as a Christian nation. America was NOT founded as a theocracy, but rather as a constitutional Republic that ended up guaranteeing Liberty as the concept was understood from a Christian perspective. The Declaration of Independence states:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,.."

And so we don't get a textonomy objection, here is a link to the entire document:

The Declaration of Independence: The Full Text in English…. and Spanish

The 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence severed the political relationship with King George not only the basis of the Laws of Nature, but of Nature's God as well. So, now Nature's God is identified in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It is a Creator. It is a God. Whose God? It is the Supreme Judge of the World. Each signer of the Declaration of Independence signed that document with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.

Divine Providence - In theology, divine providence, or just providence, is God's intervention in the Universe. The term Divine Providence (usually capitalized) is also used as a title of God.

Divine providence - Wikipedia

The Declaration of Independence is a statement to King George laying out the reasons for our separation from his rule AND to establish the concept of unalienable Rights (Liberty.)

In the same year that the Declaration of Independence was ratified by the signers, the author went to Virginia and was working on the state constitution for Virginia. When secularists are up against the wall about unalienable Rights, suddenly the Declaration of Independence, is not law. Well, it that is the case, it need not spell out which God we're talking about. But, a state constitution IS, unequivocally, a legal document, a document of law. So, in the legal sense, what did Jefferson agree to... maybe even be the author of?

"SEC. 16. 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; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Constitution of Virginia, 1776

There is the same word, CREATOR, capitalized in the Declaration of Independence and capitalized in the Virginia state constitution OF THE SAME YEAR!!! Now, legally referring to a Christian God. Maybe Jefferson was playing the Christian citizenry. But he signs his name to a legal document acknowledging a Christian God. Period.

"In 1776, every European American, with the exception of about 2,500 Jews, identified himself or herself as a Christian. Moreover, approximately 98 percent of the colonists were Protestants, with the remaining 1.9 percent being Roman Catholics"

Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman, One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society (New York: Harmony Books, 1993), pp. 28–29.

According to the United States Supreme Court:

"If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc..."

Holy Trinity Church v U.S. 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)

Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892)

Now, don't start jumping on me with crap about the Constitution. Let's clear this up once and for all. If you try to derail this thread by posting crap not related to the above, I'll just post it again before going forward. If there is a fact that you have a problem with, spit it out. The undisputed language of the 44 state constitutions clearly and unequivocally make a connection between Christianity and the government.

Still, we did not end up with forced religion or a theocracy. Let's do this one point at a time. Do you have a problem with what I've said so far? I WILL get to the Constitution, etc. Let's be honest and go one subject at a time this round.

You keep doing a lot of work postingA lot of
Words to prove something that hopefully does not matter to most Christians (including those who are Hispanic, Black, and liberal
that do not share your nostalgia for the way things were prior to 1962.

Why do you hope that it "does not matter to most Christians"?


And why do you specify those that are "hispanic, black and liberal"?

i think Christianity has moved forward to influencing and serving in a more pluralistic multi cultural society in our 21st Century than the simpler agrarian mono cultural society in the 18th Century that four score later found itself in civil war.

I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I am not reading into this, meaning you do not intend.


Your point is that modern Christians, in your view, don't or should NOT, care about the country being founded as a "mono culture" because modern Christians, especially "hispanic, black and liberal" ones, are comfortable with a "multi-cultural society"?

 

[Gdjjr]

The Constitution IS NOT SILENT ON THIS SUBJECT. What seems to be your major malfunction? Why do you continue to lie? Is it stupidity?

The framers of the Constitution had every opportunity to create this mythical "separation of church and state", but they did not. The framers could have said to the states that the required oaths could not contain any requirement that a candidate believe and they did not do it.

Have you ever heard the Latin legal maxim "Qui tacet consentiret?" It was incorporated into our common law. It means that silence means consent. The same Constitution was in place in 1789 (less Amendments) that was in place in 1962. The framers did not make the schools go to secular textbooks; they did not remove prayer from public schools; they did not prevent oaths that required political office holders to state they were believers.

The same First Amendment allowed for religious Liberty until the secularists and atheists, etc. got the United States Supreme Court to legislate from the bench and create a law predicated upon a PRIVATE LETTER. I studied law and tied for the top of the class. I cannot cite you a single instance where a private letter ever had any legal authority save of that one instance.

Not only did the high Court lack the AUTHORITY to make that law - they could cite no precedent for the ruling, and the letter meant 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the secularists, humanists, atheists, etc. are claiming!!!!

Courts are supposed to determine the application of a law. Period. They are NOT to determine a religious predication.
Law (opinion) doesn't mean shit. Words mean things and the words a christian nation are not in the law, nor the constitution.
Implied or inferred is irrelevant, Precedent is irrelevant. The term a christian nation doesn't exist in our establishment documents. I'll *grant* lawyers and judges are predisposed and/or subject to folly. What I (nor anyone else should ever do) is take words for granted- as written.
To be objective is not submitting to or even deferring to subjective. That is being blinded by, not blind. You are highly subjective because you want to believe and you want others to believe as you do.. It creates a path to achieve an objective- establishing "an objective" is being subjective.
I haven't seen trying to change your belief- I have seen other facts presented. IF they change the topic of your thread that is on you, not the presenter.

I have a great deal of respect for how you ply your trade- however, to bring it into a highly subjective argument doesn't offer any credibility in that regard. It shows you're subjective which belies your statement of "any objective reader". I am more objective than most, and I assure you I don't see what you're claiming- I do see a lack of respect for others facts though.
Which creates a circular argument leading right back to- respect. begets begets. It doesn't matter what arena, except legal, which should tell ANY "objective reader" that the law is blinded by not really blind as we're led to believe. Which should beg yet another question, "the rule of law" vs the edict of man- yet it doesn't because of the subjectivity of "judging" and selling based on preconceived ideology and some theology thrown in for good measure.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Constitution IS NOT SILENT ON THIS SUBJECT. What seems to be your major malfunction? Why do you continue to lie? Is it stupidity?

The framers of the Constitution had every opportunity to create this mythical "separation of church and state", but they did not. The framers could have said to the states that the required oaths could not contain any requirement that a candidate believe and they did not do it.

Have you ever heard the Latin legal maxim "Qui tacet consentiret?" It was incorporated into our common law. It means that silence means consent. The same Constitution was in place in 1789 (less Amendments) that was in place in 1962. The framers did not make the schools go to secular textbooks; they did not remove prayer from public schools; they did not prevent oaths that required political office holders to state they were believers.

The same First Amendment allowed for religious Liberty until the secularists and atheists, etc. got the United States Supreme Court to legislate from the bench and create a law predicated upon a PRIVATE LETTER. I studied law and tied for the top of the class. I cannot cite you a single instance where a private letter ever had any legal authority save of that one instance.

Not only did the high Court lack the AUTHORITY to make that law - they could cite no precedent for the ruling, and the letter meant 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the secularists, humanists, atheists, etc. are claiming!!!!

Courts are supposed to determine the application of a law. Period. They are NOT to determine a religious predication.
Law (opinion) doesn't mean shit. Words mean things and the words a christian nation are not in the law, nor the constitution.
Implied or inferred is irrelevant, Precedent is irrelevant. The term a christian nation doesn't exist in our establishment documents. I'll *grant* lawyers and judges are predisposed and/or subject to folly. What I (nor anyone else should ever do) is take words for granted- as written.
To be objective is not submitting to or even deferring to subjective. That is being blinded by, not blind. You are highly subjective because you want to believe and you want others to believe as you do.. It creates a path to achieve an objective- establishing "an objective" is being subjective.
I haven't seen trying to change your belief- I have seen other facts presented. IF they change the topic of your thread that is on you, not the presenter.

I have a great deal of respect for how you ply your trade- however, to bring it into a highly subjective argument doesn't offer any credibility in that regard. It shows you're subjective which belies your statement of "any objective reader". I am more objective than most, and I assure you I don't see what you're claiming- I do see a lack of respect for others facts though.
Which creates a circular argument leading right back to- respect. begets begets. It doesn't matter what arena, except legal, which should tell ANY "objective reader" that the law is blinded by not really blind as we're led to believe. Which should beg yet another question, "the rule of law" vs the edict of man- yet it doesn't because of the subjectivity of "judging" and selling based on preconceived ideology and some theology thrown in for good measure.

Are you taking lessons by NOTFOOLEDBYW ? Where do you see anything I've posted that led the United States Supreme Court to a "religious predication" save of legitimizing secular humanism, which they said had the effect of a religion?

The United States Supreme Court defines words and interprets their meanings. Is it constitutional? They do it. That is reality. But, their earliest decisions were consistent with the founders / framers. I tend to believe that when the courts overturned the first precedents, it was an illegal move. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington agreed with me, BTW.

Our law is built on the common law. It IS relevant. It is the manner in which disputes are settled. The law is irrelevant until the United States Supreme Court interprets it and even today, not even Jesus has over-ruled their opinions that they arrived at via common law. You're preaching ignorance right now. Based upon your argument Democracy, Democratic Republic, secularism, humanism and atheism are not mentioned. Ridiculous arguments on your part since that is what we're left with.

I'm not being subjective. I'm presenting facts and you're countering with nonsense. The common law / precedents were most of the law until we created quasi government entities like the IRS, OSHA, etc. and tried to rule by regulations, Executive Orders and the courts legislating from the bench instead of upholding precedent.

I don't expect people to believe as I do. Three times in this thread I've shown where the original intent clashed with my personal beliefs and I defended the original intent instead of making lame ass excuses to deny not only what the term means and its application, but my own commitment to supporting the final product. Common law attempts to apply the law the same way in all instances. For example:

Under the anti - commandeering doctrine, the principle, the precedent was set that the federal government could not force state and local governments to enforce federal laws. Its first usage kept sheriffs from implementing the anti - gun Brady Bill. That same precedent saved foreigners in sanctuary cities... but, now it's protecting gun owners from anti - gun laws with Second Amendment sanctuary cities. Don't try and claim the common law is irrelevant. It IS the law. The dumb asses on the right want to outlaw sanctuary cities and that will cost them their gun Rights. So, yes, unless you're really stupid, the common law is relevant.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I am not reading into this, meaning you do not intend.

Your point is that modern Christians, in your view, don't or should NOT, care about the country being founded as a "mono culture" because modern Christians, especially "hispanic, black and liberal" ones, are comfortable with a "multi-cultural society"?

Modern Christians of all races, Denominations and background, in my view would have no curiosity or interest about Porter Rockwell’s argument on whether their original monocultural (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) nation was ”founded as a Christian Nation” or if it was founded as a result of the “convergence“ of the Biblical Christian Faith in the hearts of the citizenry “with” the higher educated, intellectual genius of the men who founded this great nation. The founding fathers were great men (some flaws) Many of whom were not walking the same religious/ spiritual/ philosophical walk as the citizenry back then, and the Christians of today.

It’s my personal opinion that most Christians are OK Separation of church and State exactly as it sounds. Why should we go back looking at people for principles and values in a place where Protestant Christians went so far as to kicking Catholic Christians out of their colony,

The society back then was agrarian and it was pioneering on land, 95 percent farmed their little piece of land.

Society today has bigger fish to fry than the minnow that Porter Rockwell has brought to attention here.

I think Christianity has moved forward to influencing and serving in a more pluralistic multi cultural society in our 21st Century than the simpler agrarian mono cultural society in the 18th Century that four score later found itself in civil war.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

23952307

From my perspective, the part that says, "Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;..."
is THE defining statement that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Yes, from my perspective the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people. The Bible has subsisted in America due to the genius of our founding fathers to disestablish and separate the Word of God and religion from the State.


What’s wrong with that? You get your statement regarding contribution and it’s much much closer to the truth.

Disestablishment Helped the Bible

The Oxford Handbook of Church and State in the United States

 

[Porter Rockwell]

After I respond to the fact that Christianity IS in the Constitution, I'll get back to NOTFOOLEDBYW's concerns:

There are those who think that the "Enlightenment" period as they call it, somehow marginalized Christianity. The adherents to that seem to find a kindred spirit with atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc. And everybody lays claim to what America was founded on, despite the end product. So, let me see. BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER the ratification of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, all of the following are true:

1) Children were taught from Christian textbooks, the most prevalent one was "The New England Primer"

The New-England Primer | textbook

2) In the case of the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) Justice Brewer stated:

"If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community."

RECTOR, ETC., OF HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. UNITED STATES. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute


3) In the case of the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) Justice Brewer, writing for the Court, stated that:

"Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the States, as follows: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' etc. And also provides in Article 1, section 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the Executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.
The Court concluded:
"There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people.
... These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

RECTOR, ETC., OF HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. UNITED STATES. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

At the very very very least, this conflicts with what Jefferson said about a "separation of church and state" and a scrapped treaty that was canned and the offending language removed. The Holy Trinity ruling has never been over-turned and no Amendments have been offered to negate it.

What that term "Christian nation" means then becomes the focus of my next post.