America Founded as a Christian Nation

[NotfooledbyW]

23982548

You are a liar. I have not laid down ANY qualifications other than the person's own self declarations.

That’s the problem. That is what I said you do.
You are too ignorant to understand that you lied when you posted your filthy less than half Truth that Jefferson’s self-declaration means he identifies with the same corrupted Christianity that you identify with.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

23982627

My contention is that Jefferson's view of the Bible was constantly evolving and he did not share his views with people until later in his life.

No. You quoted a very tiny piece of one statement out of one letter at one time in his life, took that piece completely out of the context of the entire statement, and deleted the part where Jefferson said his personal Christianity is “very different from” the type of the Christians in churches in his time that call him an atheist.


It’s as if I said “I am a dog, very different from the canine species we all know and love, but my heart and my spirit is that of a dog “

And you edit it to mean I have self-identified as a dog.

As an example you would quote my statement as proof.

NotfooledbyW wrote: “I am a dog.”


My wife is taking in the beauty of ST Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC right now, last night we enjoyed the Phantom of the Opera on Broadway. Life is good.

 

[rightwinger]

“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.

The principle applies to legal precedents
Citing the Bible as your precedent will get your case thrown out

Want to know why?



Because we are not a Christian Nation

Citing the Bible will not get a case thrown out of court. Not citing a legal precedent to uphold your arguments in a question of law will. And the common law is predicated upon Christianity.

We do not have an established religion. We have Freedom OF Religion in a country whose legal system understands the concepts of right and wrong from a Christian perspective.

If that is the basis of your legal challenge, it sure as hell will
<notice how I said “hell”?>

 

[Porter Rockwell]

23982548

You are a liar. I have not laid down ANY qualifications other than the person's own self declarations.

That’s the problem. That is what I said you do.
You are too ignorant to understand that you lied when you posted your filthy less than half Truth that Jefferson’s self-declaration means he identifies with the same corrupted Christianity that you identify with.

That is pure idiocy. I posted the quote I had and gave a complete source for verification. In addition, that statement did not stand on its own. There were other quotes, which makes YOU the rotten, filthy liar.

Even adding what you believe disproves what Jefferson said about himself, it was explained to you that Jefferson was a linguist - and you are NOT. To people that work with words, things don't always mean the same thing to linguists, lawyers, and other wordsmiths that they do to you. You are wholly dishonest that you refused to look at the sum total of what Jefferson said and DID in the course of his life. Make no mistake, in your efforts to destroy your credibility, you are a proven liar and we both know I'm not the first on this thread to see that.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

23982627

My contention is that Jefferson's view of the Bible was constantly evolving and he did not share his views with people until later in his life.

No. You quoted a very tiny piece of one statement out of one letter at one time in his life, took that piece completely out of the context of the entire statement, and deleted the part where Jefferson said his personal Christianity is “very different from” the type of the Christians in churches in his time that call him an atheist.


It’s as if I said “I am a dog, very different from the canine species we all know and love, but my heart and my spirit is that of a dog “

And you edit it to mean I have self-identified as a dog.

As an example you would quote my statement as proof.

NotfooledbyW wrote: “I am a dog.”


My wife is taking in the beauty of ST Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC right now, last night we enjoyed the Phantom of the Opera on Broadway. Life is good.

You are a liar. I used the quote I had, gave a source, and allowed the reader to see for themselves. You quote enough of what a person says to bolster your claim, but YOU TOO STOPPED. If you want the truly full context, you would have to quote the entire book. You are a lying POS as I did not edit a damn thing. You are a liar. I used the quote I had and researched where the quote originated from.

 

[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.

The principle applies to legal precedents
Citing the Bible as your precedent will get your case thrown out

Want to know why?



Because we are not a Christian Nation

Citing the Bible will not get a case thrown out of court. Not citing a legal precedent to uphold your arguments in a question of law will. And the common law is predicated upon Christianity.

We do not have an established religion. We have Freedom OF Religion in a country whose legal system understands the concepts of right and wrong from a Christian perspective.

If that is the basis of your legal challenge, it sure as hell will
<notice how I said “hell”?>

“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.

The principle applies to legal precedents
Citing the Bible as your precedent will get your case thrown out

Want to know why?



Because we are not a Christian Nation

Citing the Bible will not get a case thrown out of court. Not citing a legal precedent to uphold your arguments in a question of law will. And the common law is predicated upon Christianity.

We do not have an established religion. We have Freedom OF Religion in a country whose legal system understands the concepts of right and wrong from a Christian perspective.

If that is the basis of your legal challenge, it sure as hell will
<notice how I said “hell”?>

Blow smoke somewhere else. I've been in court and won cases. You haven't. Now, leave me alone.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

April 21, 1803, Jefferson wrote this to Dr. Benjamin Rush (also a signer of the Declaration of Independence):

“My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.”

It has been the position of our resident troll that Thomas Jefferson occupies a position greater than the other founders because he penned the Declaration of Independence. It is his position that Jefferson came out of the womb declaring only one set of beliefs and went through life, never changing his world view based upon his experiences.

Biographers and historians have stated many times that Jefferson was an ambiguous man and nobody has a handle on understanding him. Jefferson said as much above. Yet we have a troll here who is making false claims about what I said regarding Jefferson; these claims have been refuted over and over. I looked at the time in which Jefferson said and did different things and what he signed his name to that would identify him as a Christian. The troll has done no such thing.

This is the 1776 Jefferson:

According to Wikipedia regarding Thomas Jefferson:

"He was then elected to the Virginia House of Delegates for Albemarle County in September 1776, when finalizing a state constitution was a priority.

Jefferson was elected governor for one-year terms in 1779 and 1780."

Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia

Now, the troll wasted all this bandwidth to make Jefferson a God. You have to admit that Jefferson must have wielded some power and influence in the wording of the 1776 Constitution of Virginia. He's been so all fired important up to this point. His priority is finalizing a state constitution. May I quote from that document?

"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."

My contention is that Jefferson's view of the Bible was constantly evolving and he did not share his views with people until later in his life. Historians speculate that had Jefferson made some of his views, written in later years, public it would have been the controversy of all controversies.

https://www.history.com/news/thomas-jefferson-bible-religious-beliefs

Jefferson said enough of the right things to get the support of the religious community so he either believed as Christians of that era believed OR he was a slick con man. Jefferson said he was a Christian. I take him at his word. I simply do not believe that ANYONE comes out of the womb believing the same things throughout a 80 + year span of life.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Congress passed this resolution: “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”

– United States Congress 1782

“The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.” – John Quincy Adams (second president of the United States)


“Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and, indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast.” – Patrick Henry


"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

– Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial

“I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law … There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.”

– Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Harvard Speech, 1829

"It becomes a people publicly to acknowledge the over-ruling hand of Divine Providence and their dependence upon the Supreme Being as their Creator and Merciful Preserver . . . and with becoming humility and sincere repentance to supplicate the pardon that we may obtain forgiveness through the merits and mediation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" Samuel Huntington, signer of the Declaration of Independence (NOTE: Divine Providence was always synonymous with Jesus Christ in that time period. Yep. Jesus was in the Declaration too.

America's Founding Fathers & Early Statesmen: A Few Declarations on Jesus, Christianity & the Bible

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#£760 23982627

Jefferson said enough of the right things to get the support of the religious community so he either believed as Christians of that era believed OR he was a slick con man. Jefferson said he was a Christian. I take him at his word. I simply do not believe that ANYONE comes out of the womb believing the same things throughout a 80 + year span of life.

You don’t hold a candle to this scholar:

Catholic view Library : The Relevance of Thomas Jefferson

The Relevance of Thomas Jefferson by Donald J. D'Elia

DESCRIPTION In this analysis of Thomas Jefferson, Dr. D 'Elia lays the groundwork for a truly Catholic perception of American history in general, in addition to unveiling an accurate portrait of the man.

He starts with this:

• Often it has happened in history and in life itself that a good but naive man's principles have been mercilessly exposed by time to reveal logical implications, which he would have condemned in his own lifetime. Such was notably the case with Thomas Jefferson who, bereft of the Church's wisdom and maternal protection, fell victim to false principles long ago unmasked by Revelation and true philosophy. These false principles, known collectively as liberalism, were made by Jefferson into a kind of religion, as we shall see; and in using the prestige of the presidency to advance this secular religion, Jefferson unwittingly proved himself to be the first of a long line of abusers of the highest office of the land. For the Jeffersonian mentality, despite all good intentions, leads inexorably to moral nihilism and the abortionist Supreme Court of the 1970's.

I’ll post more as we walk around NYC!!!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

#£760 23982627

Jefferson said enough of the right things to get the support of the religious community so he either believed as Christians of that era believed OR he was a slick con man. Jefferson said he was a Christian. I take him at his word. I simply do not believe that ANYONE comes out of the womb believing the same things throughout a 80 + year span of life.

You don’t hold a candle to this scholar:

Catholic view Library : The Relevance of Thomas Jefferson

The Relevance of Thomas Jefferson by Donald J. D'Elia

DESCRIPTION In this analysis of Thomas Jefferson, Dr. D 'Elia lays the groundwork for a truly Catholic perception of American history in general, in addition to unveiling an accurate portrait of the man.

He starts with this:

• Often it has happened in history and in life itself that a good but naive man's principles have been mercilessly exposed by time to reveal logical implications, which he would have condemned in his own lifetime. Such was notably the case with Thomas Jefferson who, bereft of the Church's wisdom and maternal protection, fell victim to false principles long ago unmasked by Revelation and true philosophy. These false principles, known collectively as liberalism, were made by Jefferson into a kind of religion, as we shall see; and in using the prestige of the presidency to advance this secular religion, Jefferson unwittingly proved himself to be the first of a long line of abusers of the highest office of the land. For the Jeffersonian mentality, despite all good intentions, leads inexorably to moral nihilism and the abortionist Supreme Court of the 1970's.

I’ll post more as we walk around NYC!!!

I didn't know I was in a competition. It's the work of one man, not every biographer or researcher that's studied Jefferson.

 

[Bezukhov]

Porter, do you think Jesus wants Christians to be segregated on the basis of race? Are interracial marriages a sin?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Adding more fuel to the fire to prove our Christian roots that made us a Christian nation:

Sample Letters to the Editor - WallBuilders

Is America a Christian Nation? More Quotes from our Founders

Now, let's boil the left's argument down to its basic level:

Was America Founded As A Christian Nation?

Soooooo.... the greatest proof in the minds of the secularists / humanists / atheists is the Treaty of Tripoli.

So, let me see... The Treaty of Tripoli was challenged, denounced, and repealed. Another Treaty was made, omitting the false declaration that we were not founded on the Christian religion

VERSUS

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULING Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892):

In the case of Holy Trinity, the United States Supreme Court stated:

"If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen"; the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. 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."

The Treaty of Tripoli was rescinded and no longer exists. It was replaced by another treaty during the lives of the founders. In addition, there is a lot of doubt that the words the left likes to harp on were ever actually in that treaty:

"In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States' treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean to the United States' legal position in relationship with the rest of the world.[22] According to Hunter Miller's notes, "the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic" and "Article 11 ... does not exist at all."

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia

So, you have a treaty that no longer exists and the section making the claim that we were not founded on the Christian religion being disputed versus a STANDING SUPREME COURT RULING stating we ARE a Christian Nation a century later.

You do not have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand which of these positions is the most authoritative.

 

[irosie91]

the Treaty of Tripoli issue reveals----nothin' more than
### don't try to make treaties with muzzies ###
^^^^^ this fact was RATIFIED Oct 31, 2011 with
joyous event----the death of Ghadaffy-duck of the
sewer pipe. "treaty of Tripoli" is an oxymoron

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#. 23983110

I used the quote I had, gave a source, and allowed the reader to see for themselves.

You did not use a direct quote from Jefferson. You used an altered quote or you altered it yourself. You took a tiny piece out of a full sentence and used ONLY the part that fuels your lie.

This reader and any reader with a brain can see what you did and how dishonest you are.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Porter, do you think Jesus wants Christians to be segregated on the basis of race? Are interracial marriages a sin?

One has to hand it to you. You try very hard to inquire of my personal views as if they would somehow diminish the principles behind the founding of our country.

If my main critic is to believed, the standard of measurement for proving or disproving my position in the first thread would be Thomas Jefferson.

Inter-racial marriage was officially declared illegal in Virginia in 1691 (as the law stated:“for prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue.”) and it remained that way until the United States Supreme Court declared it illegal in 1967 by way of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment (BTW, my objection to that amendment lies in the origination of your unalienable Rights.) So, since Jefferson was instrumental in the wording of the Virginia state constitution in 1776, what is the reason he did not address this topic then? Did Jefferson and / or the colonists see inter-racial marriage as a sin? What prompted that wording of the law?

You tell me. If you want to discuss whether or not interracial marriage is a sin, that IS a separate discussion and you have no intention of explaining the answers to my reply to your inquiry. Since there were people on both sides of the issue at that time, I'd say that was one of many reasons the framers did not establish a religion, but were content to have a Christian nation so that we didn't squabble over divisive issues. If you want my personal input, it has no bearing on this issue. OTOH, if you start a separate thread and ask for my personal input, I will tell you what I think. My opinions and historical facts are different issues.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

#. 23983110

I used the quote I had, gave a source, and allowed the reader to see for themselves.

You did not use a direct quote from Jefferson. You used an altered quote or you altered it yourself. You took a tiny piece out of a full sentence and used ONLY the part that fuels your lie.

This reader and any reader with a brain can see what you did and how dishonest you are.

You are a liar. When I did the quote, I used the information I had at that moment. That doesn't make me a liar. It makes you an idiot to keep making the false and misleading claim.

You did exactly what you accused me of and when I delved deeper into Jefferson's activities, you ignored them and keep coming back to what you believe is a weakness in my argument - except that you are doing what you are accusing me of doing.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

“Is it not that in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? – that it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? – that it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?” –John Quincy Adams

“To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness, which mankind now enjoys…Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government – and all blessings which flow from them – must fall with them.” –Jedidiah Morse - notable geographer whose textbooks became a staple for students in the United States.

7 Christian Quotes From America’s Founding Fathers

Adding more evidence to the mountains of evidence already collected

My Turn: Reader says America founded as Christian nation

Our entire argument here has been done in video format:

Was America Founded on Christian Principles?/Program 3 | John Ankerberg Show

 

[initforme]

Interracial marriage is a great thing accepted by all Christians. No issue there.

 

[Correll]

The vast majority of the liberals have run screaming from this thread. THe few that remained, like W, have done what they could, but they have not been able to deny Rockwell's premise.


Indeed some, like Ascelipa, have admitted the premise.


It is not time to shut down THIS thread and start another where the premise is a given, and discuss the long term ramifications?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Interracial marriage is a great thing accepted by all Christians. No issue there.

That is not a true statement, but not the subject of this thread. The issue for Bezukhov is that if I take his bait and oppose inter-racial marriage, it (at least in his mind) would discredit this entire thread. If you read the thread, posters have asked me if I were a Jehovah's Witness while another guessed Mormon. Early in life I did graduate from a non-denominational Bible College, but when the church merged into the LDS, I did not follow.

America does not have an established religion. We were founded on Christian principles. To give you a rough analogy, if a specially trained military unit used Sun Tzu's Art of War ideology to drive their tactics, my critics would have to claim that some of our Special Forces units are Chinese because you cannot have a policy driven by a Chinese writer's treatise on military warfare unless you are Chinese.