America Founded as a Christian Nation

[Porter Rockwell]

America - a Christian Nation... what do we mean? Part 3 of 3


When America was a Christian nation, we prospered. Liberty was understood from a Christian perspective.

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions." James Madison

Contrast that with the secular nation being imposed on us via the Engle v. Vitale decision of 1962. Today the government wants to tell you how long your grass can be, what you can build on your own property, what the government feels your life is worth should you (as an individual) have to defend it, and they impose limitations on your unalienable Rights.

Today you can be arrested for what you say - even cut off from society. An enormous imbalance exists. A black man can say the racial word, but it is a career ender for a white man to say it. Pointing your finger, making a fist, or a roll of eyes becomes a crime. An unpopular opinion - just a mere Tweet in a moment of anger can destroy your entire life.

The government fails to guarantee to all religions their First Amendment Rights. They expect you to register, maintain tenets of faith that do not offend the government's protected classes, and risk the loss of their tax exempt status or even be allowed to be a church.

When America was a Christian nation, you could build your own business without the government telling you who you could and could not hire. We understood the Right to people to own private property. Business relationships were agreed upon mutually. We not only honored the Right to Life, but allowed each individual to protect his life, the lives of loved ones and others from harm by evil doers. We had the Right to protect our property.

You could criticize the government, articulate unpopular opinions - we did not believe that Freedom of the Press was only for those rich enough to own a press. Today it's more about if you can afford high tech equipment you can post what you want without an Internet Service Provider shutting you down. Censorship today seeks to marginalize some people and completely shut others out.

Under a Christian America, people came from every corner of the world for the opportunities. They could not become citizens, but they could own property, build their own business, rest assured that their Rights would remain inviolate. People were treated equally under the law. There were no special rules: like a crime being worse if it were predicated on racial hatred; worse if it is against women and children; worse if it is against government officials and cops... get rid of the smoke and mirrors, only one group of people are NOT equally protected under these secular laws.

Any objective person that looks at the America that has been under construction since 1962 compared to any previous decade in the history of this country can see what a chaotic clusterphuck the secularists have created with their illegal government. If you read the three posts and access the links, you can learn what our Christian nation is all about - and we don't need any government approval or acknowledgment to state the facts

 

[Correll]

#701 23967300

The goofy quibbling you are doing, trying to admit that the nation was founded by Christians, for Christians, ect ect ect, but still somehow not a "Christian nation" because of "blah, blah, blah".

.


I have not ‘admitted’ the nation was founded by Christians. I fully agree with the fact that Christians were involved in the founding both as Founding Fathers and as the citizens who were alive at the time of the founding.


But the actual founding as stipulated under the Constitution was that the nation was not established and tied to any religion. And following the framing of our Constitution all the states disestablished, disentangled the states from religion.


Thus the fact of disestablishment of churches from every state Constitution makes it clear that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Crystal clear.

We've gone over the distinction between Nation and Government.


If that is all you have, you have and will lose this debate against Rockwell and his ilk.


People will see and hear the public debate, and you libs will make Rockwell and his side, look like the only reasonable answer to your side.


YOu need to do better. This thread has been very disappointing.

Rockwell has two admirers here.

I am not an admirer of Rockwell. I wanted you libs to make your case, as best as you could, explaining why you disagreed with Rockwell.


THe problem is, that you libs do not even understand your own arguments, well enough to understand where it is, that you disagree with Rockwell.


You are too used to having some form of chorus of like minded sheep standing nearby to pretend to believe what ever stupid shit you say, and thus you have never really questioned your own beliefs, or really defended them.


That is why most of your lib friends ran away from this thread, especially IM2.


On some level, they could feel that. You? At least you really believe what you say, which you demonstrated by TRYING to defend it, even though the distinction(s) you focused on, were....


very fine. As in small.


My advice to you stands. You libs need to do better, or you will end up empowering people like Rockwell, a lot and fast.

 

[Correll]

civil war not so civil

#665 23955619.

. To be extra clear, the way you keep bringing up that the nation had a civil war, is highly indicative of thinking that is not based on the historical events of the time, but moral judgment of the people involved.

Porter Rockwell has passed a major moral judgement that America is not a Christian Nation anymore. Perhaps he has you convinced that IF Christians were a majority today, there would be a much more civil tone among the people. Get it, he says we will get more civil tone if we went back to Bible Believin’ like we had in the 1780’s. That white, male dominated, Protestant Christian culture according to Rockwell.

I say, if a man has such poor judgement regarding the period amongst the living, why must anyone trust his judgement on what it was like 250 years ago.

Let me give you some background to think about. Religiosity was in steady decline prior to the Revolution and for a couple of decades after. Specifically among the settlers westward. But also in the cities.

• “On a trip to Tennessee in 1794, Methodist bishop Francis Asbury wrote anxiously about frontier settlers, “When I reflect that not one in a hundred came here to get religion, but rather to get plenty of good land, I think it will be well if some or many do not eventually lose their souls.” Cane Ridge Kentucky Revival Revival at Cane Ridge | Christian History Magazine

That is from the Christian History Institute. Why would they lie.

It was more about land - setting up an agrarian culture than religion it seems

So the period between the writing of the Constitution and the Civil War has been identified as experiencing the Second Great Awakening.

It was called an awakening because Christianity had fallen asleep or at least dozed off when America went through an enlightenment phase like the rest of Europe.

I find it difficult to believe that more than half of Colonial males were Christian when I see a record such as this:

Civil war following the Second Great Awakening:

• At the height of the war, delegations of concerned clergymen received high-profile audiences with the President; the National Reform Association moved an amendment to the Constitution to add formal recognition of Christianity to its preamble; the military chaplaincy was dramatically expanded as a major component of the U.S. armed forces; and “fully one-third of all soldiers in the field were praying men and members of some branch of the Christian Church,” and religious revivals in the armies converted between 5 and 10 percent of men in uniform.
• ALLEN GUELZO is a professor at Gettysburg College.

If only one third of Yankee soldiers during the Civil War were praying members of a Christian Church, after half a century of the most amazing growth of Christianity in North American history, I find it very difficult to believe that more than half the soldiers that fought in the Continental Army in 1775 were indeed Christian.

That plus Porter Rockwell skipping over the most uncivil war, presumably between the best kind of Christians killing the best kind of Christians, as if it never happened, and saying he thinks we are most uncivil today, snd its all the fault of secular humanists and atheists, is one of the most absurd ideas on the subject of Religion in America ever made.

1. Then you should have pointed out to Rockwell, that any long term justifications of why he believes that being Christian Nation is good, is irrelevant to whether or not the nation was founded as a Christian Nation and the good/bad of it, is actually the basis for another thread.


2. "Why would they lie"? Wow. What a dishonest statement. a. How the fuck could we answer that question generations after the fact? b. What if they were not lying, but simply wrong? Are you that confident of their data gathering methods and statistical analysis?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#701 23967300

The goofy quibbling you are doing, trying to admit that the nation was founded by Christians, for Christians, ect ect ect, but still somehow not a "Christian nation" because of "blah, blah, blah".

.


I have not ‘admitted’ the nation was founded by Christians. I fully agree with the fact that Christians were involved in the founding both as Founding Fathers and as the citizens who were alive at the time of the founding.


But the actual founding as stipulated under the Constitution was that the nation was not established and tied to any religion. And following the framing of our Constitution all the states disestablished, disentangled the states from religion.


Thus the fact of disestablishment of churches from every state Constitution makes it clear that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Crystal clear.

We've gone over the distinction between Nation and Government.


If that is all you have, you have and will lose this debate against Rockwell and his ilk.


People will see and hear the public debate, and you libs will make Rockwell and his side, look like the only reasonable answer to your side.


YOu need to do better. This thread has been very disappointing.

Rockwell has two admirers here.

I am not an admirer of Rockwell. I wanted you libs to make your case, as best as you could, explaining why you disagreed with Rockwell.


THe problem is, that you libs do not even understand your own arguments, well enough to understand where it is, that you disagree with Rockwell.


You are too used to having some form of chorus of like minded sheep standing nearby to pretend to believe what ever stupid shit you say, and thus you have never really questioned your own beliefs, or really defended them.


That is why most of your lib friends ran away from this thread, especially IM2.


On some level, they could feel that. You? At least you really believe what you say, which you demonstrated by TRYING to defend it, even though the distinction(s) you focused on, were....


very fine. As in small.


My advice to you stands. You libs need to do better, or you will end up empowering people like Rockwell, a lot and fast.

Says the one who cannot line by line point by point defend Porter Rockwell’s conclusion’s or explain why you can’t accept mine.

The only thing that can empower Rockwell is tribal ignorance of which appears to be all you have. “you libs” is the most ignorant argument of all.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1. Then you should have pointed out to Rockwell, that any long term justifications of why he believes that being Christian Nation is good, is irrelevant to whether or not the nation was founded as a Christian Nation and the good/bad of it, is actually the basis for another thread.

I have. And no it is not a basis for another thread. That is absurd.


I’m driving to NYC for a 3 day weekend with my wife.


So you have time to think about your next reply.

 

[Correll]

#701 23967300

The goofy quibbling you are doing, trying to admit that the nation was founded by Christians, for Christians, ect ect ect, but still somehow not a "Christian nation" because of "blah, blah, blah".

.


I have not ‘admitted’ the nation was founded by Christians. I fully agree with the fact that Christians were involved in the founding both as Founding Fathers and as the citizens who were alive at the time of the founding.


But the actual founding as stipulated under the Constitution was that the nation was not established and tied to any religion. And following the framing of our Constitution all the states disestablished, disentangled the states from religion.


Thus the fact of disestablishment of churches from every state Constitution makes it clear that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Crystal clear.

We've gone over the distinction between Nation and Government.


If that is all you have, you have and will lose this debate against Rockwell and his ilk.


People will see and hear the public debate, and you libs will make Rockwell and his side, look like the only reasonable answer to your side.


YOu need to do better. This thread has been very disappointing.

Rockwell has two admirers here.

I am not an admirer of Rockwell. I wanted you libs to make your case, as best as you could, explaining why you disagreed with Rockwell.


THe problem is, that you libs do not even understand your own arguments, well enough to understand where it is, that you disagree with Rockwell.


You are too used to having some form of chorus of like minded sheep standing nearby to pretend to believe what ever stupid shit you say, and thus you have never really questioned your own beliefs, or really defended them.


That is why most of your lib friends ran away from this thread, especially IM2.


On some level, they could feel that. You? At least you really believe what you say, which you demonstrated by TRYING to defend it, even though the distinction(s) you focused on, were....


very fine. As in small.


My advice to you stands. You libs need to do better, or you will end up empowering people like Rockwell, a lot and fast.

Says the one who cannot line by line point by point defend Porter Rockwell’s conclusion’s or explain why you can’t accept mine.

The only thing that can empower Rockwell is tribal ignorance of which appears to be all you have. “you libs” is the most ignorant argument of all.

"line by line" is not needed. The historical reality is clear. "line by line" is just a receipt for muddying the waters, and avoiding the actual issues.


You libs and Rockwell agree on the basic premises of the argument. Your disagreements are more on spin and what to DO with these facts.


I was hoping that you libs in trying to refute his positions, would come to that realization.


I hoped that. But I was confident that you could not. And you did not disappoint. Other than you, all other libs ran away from this, like little girls.


Take heart. You are one of the few True Believers. Your lib friends who pretend to agree with you?


On some level, they know they are lying. Their stated beliefs are lies, crafted to hide real reasons that they are ashamed to tell you.


I hope, that you will think on this, and let it sink in. Maybe some day, you will learn something.

 

[rightwinger]

“We are not a Democracy. So, when the law is applied, generally speaking, it is done with an understanding of biblical precedents / principles.“

 

[Porter Rockwell]

#701 23967300

The goofy quibbling you are doing, trying to admit that the nation was founded by Christians, for Christians, ect ect ect, but still somehow not a "Christian nation" because of "blah, blah, blah".

.


I have not ‘admitted’ the nation was founded by Christians. I fully agree with the fact that Christians were involved in the founding both as Founding Fathers and as the citizens who were alive at the time of the founding.


But the actual founding as stipulated under the Constitution was that the nation was not established and tied to any religion. And following the framing of our Constitution all the states disestablished, disentangled the states from religion.


Thus the fact of disestablishment of churches from every state Constitution makes it clear that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Crystal clear.

We've gone over the distinction between Nation and Government.


If that is all you have, you have and will lose this debate against Rockwell and his ilk.


People will see and hear the public debate, and you libs will make Rockwell and his side, look like the only reasonable answer to your side.


YOu need to do better. This thread has been very disappointing.

Rockwell has two admirers here.

I am not an admirer of Rockwell. I wanted you libs to make your case, as best as you could, explaining why you disagreed with Rockwell.


THe problem is, that you libs do not even understand your own arguments, well enough to understand where it is, that you disagree with Rockwell.


You are too used to having some form of chorus of like minded sheep standing nearby to pretend to believe what ever stupid shit you say, and thus you have never really questioned your own beliefs, or really defended them.


That is why most of your lib friends ran away from this thread, especially IM2.


On some level, they could feel that. You? At least you really believe what you say, which you demonstrated by TRYING to defend it, even though the distinction(s) you focused on, were....


very fine. As in small.


My advice to you stands. You libs need to do better, or you will end up empowering people like Rockwell, a lot and fast.

Says the one who cannot line by line point by point defend Porter Rockwell’s conclusion’s or explain why you can’t accept mine.

The only thing that can empower Rockwell is tribal ignorance of which appears to be all you have. “you libs” is the most ignorant argument of all.

You have attacked me throughout the course of this thread. I've kept the kid gloves on and tried to be civil toward you, but your avatar IS communistic as are most of your arguments.

I don't bother mentioning the War of Northern Aggression (aka the Civil War) as it no more relevant to the FOUNDING of America than the Vietnam War. Only a liberal would not be able to discern the difference.

Some people "disagree" with me on where we stand today, but God is in control and sometimes he needs to correct his people by putting them through trials and tribulations. Well, we have indulged our fantasy as a nation and the multicultural deal isn't working. Just the relationship between you and I is evidence of that.

There are at least two governments in charge today: the de facto / illegal / unconstitutional government that is in charge and the de jure / legal/ lawful / constitutional Republic guaranteed in the Constitution. The real question is, do you have any relevant criticisms as opposed to personal attacks, straw man arguments, and reading stuff into my posts without having the common courtesy to ask questions before making the personal attacks?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

“We are not a Democracy. So, when the law is applied, generally speaking, it is done with an understanding of biblical precedents / principles.“

"Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. Stare decisis ensures that cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. Simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.

...The U.S. common law structure has a unified system of deciding legal matters with the principle of stare decisis at its core, making the concept of legal precedent extremely important. A prior ruling or judgment on any case is known as a precedent. Stare decisis dictates that courts look to precedents when overseeing an on-going case with similar circumstances."

Stare Decisis and Legal Court Precedents

"The principle of the precedent is eminently philosophical. The English constitution would not have developed itself without it. What is called the English constitution consists of the fundamentals of the British polity, laid down in custom, precedent, decisions and statutes; and the common law in it is a far greater portion than the statute law. The English Constitution is chiefly a common-law constitution; and this reflex of a continuous society in a continuous law is more truly philosophical than the theoretic and sytematic, but lifeless constitutions of recent France:" Lieber's Civil Liberty. And in our own country the maintenance of this doctrine is of peculiar importance on account of the deference which we are accustomed to pay to the decisions of the law courts, even in cases where their logical correctness is open to doubt. This recognition of the power and province of the judicial tribunals in the guidance and settlement of our civil institutions, leads the American citizen to yield his implicit obedience to their doctrines even when the decision of a court lays a controlling and shaping hand, not formally, perhaps, but in the necessary deductions from its conclusions, upon the most zealously debated political questions, or the most important affairs of government. Then if progress be desirable, if the growth of the nation, in the perfect development of constitutional government, as well as in the stability of its institutions, be a desideratum, these objects can certainly not be attained by a disregard of the principle of stare decisis.


https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4147&context=penn_law_review

Also see this:

Precedent and Analogy in Legal Reasoning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"Case Law, often used interchangeably with the term Common Law, refers to the precedents and authority set by previous court rulings, judicial decisions and administrative legal findings or rulings. This is one of the main categories of law, with constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law."


https://www.hg.org/case-law.html

"-In Andrew v. New York Bible and Prayer Book Society (1850), 4 Sandf. i56, the New York Superior Court decided that a legacy to the Bible Society was not a pious use, authorized by law. In the course of his opinion, Judge DUER, said: "The maxim that Christianity is part and parcel of the common law, has been frequently repeated by judges and text writers, but few have chosen to examine its truth, or to attempt to explain its meaning. We have, however, the high authority of Lord MANSFIELD and of his successor, the present Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench [Lord CAMPBELL] for stating as its true and only sense, that the law will not permit the essential truths of revealed religion to be ridiculed and reviled. In other words, blasphemy is an indictable offence at common law. (p. 182.)

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4290&context=penn_law_review

This is especially relevant:

"England is the origin of the common law that exists in the U.S.. The English common law originated in the early middle ages in the King’s Court (Curia Regis) and eventually led to the formulation of various viable principles through which it continues to operate. The common law has its roots in the U.S continent with the first English colonists who claimed the common law system as their birthright.

After the American Revolution, this Common Law was adopted by each of the states as well as the national government of the new nation.

...Christianity is part of the origin of the common law."

Origins of Common Law – Common Law

The common law does NOT establish a religion. Its precedents are consistent with Christian values. Since the United States is a Republic, changing those values LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY requires us to amendment Constitution if we don't like the constitutional basis on which the law rests.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#728 23978650

I don't bother mentioning the War of Northern Aggression (aka the Civil War) as it no more relevant to the FOUNDING of America than the Vietnam War. Only a liberal would not be able to discern the difference.

Some people "disagree" with me on where we stand today, but God is in control and sometimes he needs to correct his people by putting them through trials and tribulations.

I thought this was a rational discussion. If I am arguing with someone who knows what God does and why and who for, and a God who founded my country in order to create a Civil War to teach his chosen people a lesson so that another millennium goes by and the Armageddon fools all say Jesus is coming to put his Kingdom on earth as the Word of God
says and all the unbelievers in what Rockwell Porter has to say will burn in hell - what is there to discuss. The world has moved on from that hocus pocus when Thomas Jefferson lived.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

#728 23978650

I don't bother mentioning the War of Northern Aggression (aka the Civil War) as it no more relevant to the FOUNDING of America than the Vietnam War. Only a liberal would not be able to discern the difference.

Some people "disagree" with me on where we stand today, but God is in control and sometimes he needs to correct his people by putting them through trials and tribulations.

I thought this was a rational discussion. If I am arguing with someone who knows what God does and why and who for, and a God who founded my country in order to create a Civil War to teach his chosen people a lesson so that another millennium goes by and the Armageddon fools all say Jesus is coming to put his Kingdom on earth as the Word of God
says and all the unbelievers in what Rockwell Porter has to say will burn in hell - what is there to discuss. The world has moved on from that hocus pocus when Thomas Jefferson lived.

When you are irrational, you cannot have a rational discussion. You have to say something that makes some sense. You and I both realize that I didn't say any of what you claim. You and I know that no man knows why God does what he does. You and I BOTH know, for a fact, that I have not predicted any Armageddon on earth - quite the contrary. I repeated the cycles of history repeatedly and don't see anything that corresponds to any immediate return of our Lord on this earth any time soon.

So, going beyond your lies and attempts to derail the thread, all we can do is repeat the ground we've already covered.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The op is about the nation. Not having an established religion, or more to the point, an established CHURCH, does not mean the nation is not, or was not, Christian.

The OP told me that if one believes only that Jesus was a great moral teacher but rejects the hocus-pocus of Christianity then that person is a Christian. Does that match your definition of being a Christian?

You are a liar. You are a rotten, filthy liar. I do not get to decide who meets the criteria for being a Christian and you are a low down, filthy liar. I've said no such thing to you at any time. If you post here again, that will be the only response you get from me.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Does anyone remember this from post # 153?

AMERICA IS WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION

This is a continuation of posts 1 , 2, 7, 17, 35, 39, 56, 91 and 109

What is so stupid is that trolls jump on threads, sling skeet and don't have the common courtesy to see if their point has been answered. So, I have to keep repeating the same points and that is a waste of my time; it makes for a long and cumbersome thread and the points are never made and we never move forward. You're stupid to think I'll play along.

"A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

Nation - Wikipedia

Our nation was built on those things that constitute that definition. Putting people from every corner of the earth, representing every race, color, creed, political persuasion, sexual persuasion, and religion into one big melting pot is not a nation. It is a recipe for disaster.

America was founded by white people who used the Bible as the basis for their system of jurisprudence - our history of articulating good from bad, right from wrong, just from unjust.

Seventy five years ago you could look at an American and you would know what he was, much the same way we can look at the Chinese, Japanese, North Korean, etc. today and know what they are. We were a homogeneous people.

As a homogeneous people, we shared common values. We valued the sanctity of life; we developed a belief in unalienable Rights - Rights that were so fundamental they were ruled above the law by our courts; we cherished Liberty. We had certain limitations. Unlike the Muslims, women were put on a pedestal, not in the closet. We had a very distinct outlook on things like fair play.

Today, the liberals control America. Our courtrooms are controlled by judges who were trained in law schools accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA.) The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States - slightly left of Marxism. The over-all numerical advantage in Congress goes to the Democrats. Many Republicans are RINOs and neither side really supports the Constitution as it was originally written and intended.

Presidents have become figureheads and none of them in my lifetime were knowledgeable about the Bible. With Congress being predominantly Democrats, then it is Democrats that have to step up to the plate and answer for the status quo.

Everything from immigration laws to restrictions on our unalienable Rights lie at the feet of the people who are rejecting our culture and history in favor of a multicultural society. These non-believers who have dominated the political arena for the last two generations have been in charge as America has gone down the toilet. The youth are on drugs (and it is the non-believers who advocate for liberal drug laws.) Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we have the highest number of people in prisons both in raw numbers and per capita than the rest of the world; America's children are diagnosed with mental disorders in numbers higher than any nation on the planet.

If you follow the downfall of America, it's downfall can be measured by the number of laws and court decisions that have tried to exclude any mention of our cultural values and that is because those values are tied to the Bible. Though not a big fan of this guy, I feel his input is invaluable on this issue, so I'm leaving links for those who want to get serious:

America's Godly Heritage (B01)

Keys to Good Government (DVD03)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000S2OFHE/?tag=ff0d01-20

 

[Bezukhov]

Porter, is it true that Jesus only loves white people?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Porter, is it true that Jesus only loves white people?

Quit trolling and cite me any source or leave this thread. That kind of shit will not be tolerated here. Cite the source OR be clearly identified as a liar.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

To repeat a link that was never responded to in this thread:

The Supreme Court's Decisions on the Separation of Church and State Are Flawed | Encyclopedia.com

I do not agree with every statement made by the author, but it does provide a starting point for that part of this discussion.

 

[Bezukhov]

Porter, is it true that Jesus only loves white people?

Quit trolling and cite me any source or leave this thread. That kind of shit will not be tolerated here. Cite the source OR be clearly identified as a liar.

Source? No, I just wanted your opinion on that.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Remember this from post # 278

CHRISTIAN AMERICA VERSUS SECULAR AMERICA

I was asked what the differences were between A Christian nation and the current system we have (which, through mostly United States Supreme Court decisions is a secular Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by multinational corporations.

From the outset of our Republic, it was under attack. The Illuminati had begun developing their globalist agenda. From 1715 to about the time the Constitution was ratified, we had the period known as The Enlightenment. Things had not gone so well for the framers as they were divided between the Federalists and anti - Federalists when they debated the Constitution's ratification.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States was marginally united; near financial ruin by 1787. The major voice of the Federalists was James Madison along with Alexander Hamilton and the man who was the heart and soul of the Anti-Federalists was Patrick Henry.

Though the Federalists prevailed, the Anti-Federalists (of which Thomas Jefferson sided with) got a consolation prize: the addition of the Bill of Rights. During the Constitutional Convention Patrick Henry addressed the delegates:

"Twenty-three years ago was I supposed a traitor to my country," he said. "I may be thought suspicious when I say our privileges and rights are in danger...But, sir, suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good."

Henry suspected that at least some of those behind the Constitution had an ulterior motive. "When the American spirit was in its youth...liberty...was then the primary object," he said. "But now...the American spirit...is about to convert this country Unit() a powerful and mighty empire....There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government."

Patrick Henry Smells a Rat | AMERICAN HERITAGE

Patrick Henry complained that he smelled a rat, but ended up embracing the Constitution as it was the best they could get (or so George Washington told Henry.)

So, here we are, 231 years later, our Constitution in ruins, the people divided, Liberty mocked and ridiculed and we have a debate upon what principles the Republic rests. The liberals like to claim that the leaders of The Enlightenment were the only people the framers relied on in creating the Constitution. They invoke names like C. L. J. de S. Montesquieu, D. Hume, and Adam Smith and J.-J. Rousseau. And, actually, truth be told, none of those guys were against Christianity; they simply thought one religion was as good as another (which is irrelevant to the Constitution.) The reality is:

"In a now-famous study published in the American Political Science Review on the influence of European writers on the political literature of the founding, Donald S. Lutz reported that the Bible was cited more frequently than any European writer or even any European school of thought. The Bible, he found, accounted for approximately one-third of the citations in the literature he surveyed. The book of Deuteronomy alone was the most frequently cited work, followed by Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, the most cited secular source. In fact, Deuteronomy was referenced nearly twice as often as Locke’s writings, and the Apostle Paul was mentioned about as frequently as Montesquieu."

The Bible in the Political Culture of the American Founding – SHEAR

I could do hundreds of examples of exactly how many of the framers felt, but one of the people who said it so unequivocally was when John Adams wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813 and said

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

I will have to finish this in parts as it looks like this will be lengthy if the subject is to covered so thorough that the atheists cannot refute it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Porter, is it true that Jesus only loves white people?

Quit trolling and cite me any source or leave this thread. That kind of shit will not be tolerated here. Cite the source OR be clearly identified as a liar.

Source? No, I just wanted your opinion on that.

You don't want my opinion. You want a separate off topic argument. Just so you shut your mouth:

Genesis 1: 21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good..."

Genesis 1: 31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

But, your real question is, does God hate? Jesus can only bear witness of the father. So, here is what David said that God found acceptable:

Psalm 139: 21 Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies."

The Bible teaches us to turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, and to try and avoid conflict. But, when the Christian has to pick between obedience toward his principles or submission to tyranny, there are rules of spiritual and physical warfare. If Jesus only loved white people, so many millions would not have been called upon to fight wars in every corner of this world on behalf of non-whites. Missionaries would not have been sent into the most dangerous places on earth. We would not be involved today in the greatest struggles in history.

Whites are a servant race, doing the work that God commissioned them to do. Had you read post # 1 and actually READ the link, you already had your answer.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#732. 23980008

You are a liar. You are a rotten, filthy liar. I do not get to decide who meets the criteria for being a Christian and you are a low down, filthy liar. I've said no such thing to you at any time. If you post here again, that will be the only response you get from me.

Why did you decide that Jefferson was a Christian after being shown that Jefferson wrote in his own words that he did not believe in the divinity of Christ or that the Holy Bible was the word of God.

#188 23874264.

If you had read this thread, I proved, unequivocally, that Jefferson was a Christian. I am not going to argue what has been established as fact..

#193. 23874352

I made a case for Jefferson being a Christian. Since you have not quoted it and refuted those facts and obvious conclusions, one must accept the fact that silence is acceptance.

I responded to your post #188 thusly:

#192 23874333

No. You watered down the meaning of being a Christian so low that even I am a Christian by your definition.

But you have also stated that all Christians believe the Holy Bible is the Word if God? I don’t. Jefferson didn’t. So we must not be Christians. .

You also have stated that America is no longer s Christian Nation even though 65% of Americans profess to be Christians. You must have some criteria for you to have decided take many professing Christians are Christian enough to keep America a Christian Nation.

In the following post your criteria for being a Christian is self-identifying as a Christian.

#531 23934105

. FACT: Thomas Jefferson self identified as a Christian. Yes, at points in his life he questioned religion, rejected a lot of it; however at points in his life he himself self identified as a Christian. So, what he a Christian? YES. Was he Christian at every point in his life? Maybe not. His childish outbursts and mood swings leaves one to wonder.

Since Jefferson self-identifies himself as a real Christian in a hand written sentence but in the same sentence says he is real Christian ONLY as one believing in the moral teachings of Jesus and none of the hocus pocus in the Bible it certainly looks as if you are saying that belief in the moral teachings of Jesus alone meets your criteria for being a Christian.