America Founded as a Christian Nation

[Porter Rockwell]

If you took the time to READ the first post on this thread and read the link, you would find that you are factually wrong across the board. I have no disagreement with you in theory, but the Posterity of the founders / framers have no control over their country. For you to give it away through ignorance is a bitter pill for me to swallow. I will leave you with a personal story and see if you can understand.

When I was very young, I left home to go to work in Sevierville, Tennessee. There were signs all over the place. I couldn't get a 1 dollar an hour job if I had 2 dollars an hour to buy it with. After a few days my uncle and I were having a discussion. I related to him my experiences. He said to reapply at a place that didn't even let me fill out an application. He said that your uncle - then his name said I should apply. Twenty minutes later we were discussing my pay scale and work schedule.

Sorry, I don't get your story. Did you leave out a word or something?

Nothing was left out. The story has a moral to it. We cannot progress very far unless you start at the beginning.

It is unclear from the story, what role your uncle played.

You want to lay the immigration problem at the feet of undocumented workers. MILLIONS of our youth are locked out of the job market; millions are too damn lazy to work. Some have criminal records, drug habits, etc., etc. So first you clean up your back yard and come up with some human beings that are able, available and actively looking for work. THEN, those of like mind recommend you for a job.

If Hosea shows up in your country, but the jobs are reserved for the people of friends and family, unless somebody has to come out and draw you a picture, this ought to be saying something to you about how life used to work.

1. There is plenty of blame for our immigration problem to go around. Yes, some of it needs to go to the people that come here against our wishes and democratically enacted laws. But there is plenty of blame for our political class that has A. failed to enforce our laws, and B. failed to be honest about the immigration policies and their effects.

2. The immigration policy of this country should be structured, so that Hosea is not allowed to show up, if by doing so, he is taking a job away from Americans, or even suppressing their wages.

The federal government does not have any de jure / legal / constitutional authority in who a state does or does allow in.

I'm not a Democrat, so I do not support their laws.

If your claim is that foreigners steal jobs then you are saying a private citizen does not own what he creates. When the government owns the jobs, that is the typical definition of socialism. See how easy the left played you?

 

[Correll]

Post #999 reply to #229 Oath of Office / President? As written in the Constitution.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

#229 reply to #225

When this country made it a requirement to be a Christian in order to hold elective office; when children were taught from Christian books and when the Constitution acknowledges our Lord, you had a Christian nation. Period. End of story.

There has been no requirement that an American President be a Christian in order to hold the highest office in the land.

So Porter Rockwell reminds us that America was never a Christian nation;


Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address
“All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. . . [E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans: we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”

Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address - First Amendment Watch

I thought you had given up the argument that being a Christian Nation contradicts the idea of religious freedom.


Are you engaged in circular argument

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Post #999 reply to #229 Oath of Office / President? As written in the Constitution.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

#229 reply to #225

When this country made it a requirement to be a Christian in order to hold elective office; when children were taught from Christian books and when the Constitution acknowledges our Lord, you had a Christian nation. Period. End of story.

There has been no requirement that an American President be a Christian in order to hold the highest office in the land.

So Porter Rockwell reminds us that America was never a Christian nation;


Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address
“All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. . . [E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans: we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”

Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address - First Amendment Watch

UPDATED NOTFOOLEDBYW - YOU ARE A FILTHY LIAR. SEE THE UPDATES THAT PROVE SAME. Bolded for everyone's convenience below the stats in item # 1

NOTFOOLEDBYW'S FINAL RESPONSE

This thread is now 917 posts long as I begin this response. Of those, NOTFOOLEDBYW has made a total of 168 posts. They are posts # 78, 80, 111, 113, 118, 126, 140, 154, 157, 158, 159, 162, 172, 174, 179, 189, 192, 195, 196, 197, 203, 204, 205, 212, 220, 224, 225, 232, 233, 234, 235, 240, 240, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 254, 255, 256, 267, 279, 280, 285, 290, 296, 297, 302, 307, 309, 318, 321, 328, 330, 335, 339, 340, 341, 345, 347, 350, 350, 351, 352, 367, 370, 373, 381, 393, 394, 399, 401, 404, 411, 412, 413, 420, 421, 425, 426, 429, 430, 431, 432, 468, 485, 500, 504, 508, 512, 516, 519, 525, 527, 537, 539, 541, 546, 549, 551, 554, 557, 559, 561, 563, 565, 566, 569, 570, 574, 577, 581, 582, 587, 589, 606, 607, 610, 626, 630, 636, 642, 644, 646, 684, 688, 699, 700, 703, 704, 707, 708, 709, 715, 716, 718, 724, 725, 730, 740, 744, 746, 747, 750, 753, 754, 755, 761, 762, 769, 774, 782, 7998, 800, ... that is 155 posts out of 805, 807, 812, 824, 827, 830, 831, 832, 844, 847, 860, 872, 899, 904

In virtually every post NOTFOOLEDBYW has insulted posters, called them liars, misrepresented people, and NOBODY has defended his positions.


By contrast, NOTFOOLEDBYW has been challenged by numerous posters to whom NOTFOOLEDBYW has called liars, fools, morons, and accused them of all manner of wrongdoing. Those posters responded a total of 126 times in posts: #120, 130, 134, 167, 169,174, 176, 175, 176, 180, 185, 206, 207, 250, 282, 299, 346, 346, 354, 396, 397, 403, 405, 406, 407, 414, 415, 416, 424, 427, 428, 433, 434, 438, 439, 440, 445, 446, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 460, 461, 464, 465, 466, 467, 469, 470, 472, 474, 476, 483, 484, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 496, 497, 498, 499, 501, 502, 517, 518, 521, 526, 528, 531, 558, 562, 564, 567, 568, 571, 573, 576, 578, 579, 588, 591, 593, 594, 595, 596, 598, 599, 600, 603, 608, 612, 613, 615, 618, 627, 628, 629, 633, 645, 648, 653, 658, 665, 668, 698, 701, 705, 706, 711, 722, 723, 726, 751, 764, 765, 779

I have been obliged to respond to NOTFOOLEDBYW a total of 85 times personally. That is a total of 379+ posts that have revolved around this one poster. I'm not updating any posters that responded beyond post # 805

One poster or another has successfully defeated each and every argument he brings to the table. He is now remaining, claiming I lied about Thomas Jefferson - as if that would change the balance of this discussion. Here is my position:

1) When other posters began discussing this as a conversation rather than a point by point, let's prove everything, I got conversational. I quoted Thomas Jefferson from an unnamed source in an online general conversation.

I really do not want to restart any conversations with THIS idiot about Thomas Jefferson and my quote. But, I cut and pasted the quote as I found it on the Internet:

http://peace2you.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Faith-of-Founding-Fathers1.pdf

If you look a few quotes down, you can see where I got it from. When that troll made a big deal out of my inadvertent faux pas of leaving out the link, I looked up the book from where the quote was obtained and put it in post #552. I DIDN'T LIE AND NOTFOOLEDBYW IS A ROTTEN, FILTHY, STINKING, LIAR. ALL of his posts were responded to honestly and openly. Check his posts... he's quoting me and it's there.


2) NOTFOOLEDBYW seized upon that accusing me of posting a lie; even claiming that I edited my source. I did not. I did, however, look at where my source got their material and I quoted where it could be found. I did not lie

3) Regardless of how that material reads, the bottom line is Thomas Jefferson said he was a Christian and I took him at his word as his early life indicates such. Jefferson states, and it was quoted on this thread, that his life experiences changed his outlook. Nothing has changed what Jefferson said at that point in his life

4) Regardless of how many times founders did or said one thing or another, I look at the bottom line and if over half the posts here are either one man arguing against those points compared to the scores of posts disagreeing with him, there is no point to prove. If this matters to you and you want to wade through who said what, you have each post - minus my own (which is unnecessary since all those people who agreed with me either quoted the relevant parts and / or the post itself. My point here is I did not lie and every time that troll posts, I will simply cut and paste this response (that took some hours to research just for him.)

If he still wants to call me a liar, he can do it to my face. Otherwise, he has been successfully defeated by other posters to the point that nothing I have to say would be relevant anyway. IF there are any other points to be addressed, I will be happy to entertain them, just not by the resident troll. The dumb ass needs to read. This post refutes his account of what happened.. I know because I'm the one who did it. I copied and pasted the ******* quote as it appeared and no amount of political jockeying will change that. It's over dumbass

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Post #999 reply to #229 Oath of Office / President? As written in the Constitution.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

#229 reply to #225

When this country made it a requirement to be a Christian in order to hold elective office; when children were taught from Christian books and when the Constitution acknowledges our Lord, you had a Christian nation. Period. End of story.

There has been no requirement that an American President be a Christian in order to hold the highest office in the land.

So Porter Rockwell reminds us that America was never a Christian nation;


Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address
“All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. . . [E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans: we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”

Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address - First Amendment Watch

I thought you had given up the argument that being a Christian Nation contradicts the idea of religious freedom.


Are you engaged in circular argument

Did you know that in America we only have a national holiday for two men? One is Jesus Christ and the other one a godless communist that pretended to be a Christian preacher.

 

[Correll]

Sorry, I don't get your story. Did you leave out a word or something?

Nothing was left out. The story has a moral to it. We cannot progress very far unless you start at the beginning.

It is unclear from the story, what role your uncle played.

You want to lay the immigration problem at the feet of undocumented workers. MILLIONS of our youth are locked out of the job market; millions are too damn lazy to work. Some have criminal records, drug habits, etc., etc. So first you clean up your back yard and come up with some human beings that are able, available and actively looking for work. THEN, those of like mind recommend you for a job.

If Hosea shows up in your country, but the jobs are reserved for the people of friends and family, unless somebody has to come out and draw you a picture, this ought to be saying something to you about how life used to work.

1. There is plenty of blame for our immigration problem to go around. Yes, some of it needs to go to the people that come here against our wishes and democratically enacted laws. But there is plenty of blame for our political class that has A. failed to enforce our laws, and B. failed to be honest about the immigration policies and their effects.

2. The immigration policy of this country should be structured, so that Hosea is not allowed to show up, if by doing so, he is taking a job away from Americans, or even suppressing their wages.

The federal government does not have any de jure / legal / constitutional authority in who a state does or does allow in.

I'm not a Democrat, so I do not support their laws.

If your claim is that foreigners steal jobs then you are saying a private citizen does not own what he creates. When the government owns the jobs, that is the typical definition of socialism. See how easy the left played you?

1. Someday, we will have to have an arcane historical debate about the role of the federal government in immigration policy. I can see you have a passion for that issue. Meanwhile, here in the 21st century, immigration is a federal issue.


2. Our laws were democratically enacted, and our the expression of our wishes. That our political class has failed to enforce them, is them failing in their role and betraying their responsibilities and the loyalty they owe to their fellow citizens.


3. I made no mention of "stealing". I just want to consider in the crafting of national policy, what will serve the interests of American citizens. Bringing in foreign labor to compete with American workers, would serve the interests of American employers while harming the interests of American workers. Generally speaking.

 

[Correll]

Post #999 reply to #229 Oath of Office / President? As written in the Constitution.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

#229 reply to #225

When this country made it a requirement to be a Christian in order to hold elective office; when children were taught from Christian books and when the Constitution acknowledges our Lord, you had a Christian nation. Period. End of story.

There has been no requirement that an American President be a Christian in order to hold the highest office in the land.

So Porter Rockwell reminds us that America was never a Christian nation;


Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address
“All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. . . [E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans: we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”

Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address - First Amendment Watch

I thought you had given up the argument that being a Christian Nation contradicts the idea of religious freedom.


Are you engaged in circular argument

Did you know that in America we only have a national holiday for two men? One is Jesus Christ and the other one a godless communist that pretended to be a Christian preacher.

MLK, was certainly left leaning. That quite often means not religious, it is true. But I do not know his history well enough to have an opinion on the sincerity of his religious beliefs.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does.

- that is the premise of the christian influence is shaping the u s constitution - no mention of equality.

it has been pointed out to you already, there is no mention of equality rights in the u s constitution - whatever you claim as founding the nation, states rights the declaration of independence have no bearing on the final document that is the source for your thread and the founding of the nation, the u s constitution as written -

it was the christian influence that removed inalienable rights, equality from the constitution to institutionalize slavery, misogyny etc. after the military victory they had fought for and was used against those believing in equality after their sacrifices.

the same as the christian "religion" using the 1st century events to institutionalize the same misgivings accomplished by someone else's sacrifices. porter rockwell - the slanderer.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

you can not have your argument of the founding as a christian nation and then deny the written document you base your proposal on as a matter of ambiguity - there is no mention of inalienable rights or equality mentioned in the final document, u s constitution therefore by your own argument that was a rendering by christianity despite the declaration of independence the citizenry fought for.

for its time the written u s constitution was indubitably the first truly sociologically secular document ever ascribed to as a governance in the recorded history of mankind - despite the christian influence.

You can't fix stupid.

NOWHERE does any document connected to our founding speak of "inalienable rights." The Bill of Rights codified the unalienable Rights

Samuel Alito, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice said:

“The seed that became the Bill of Rights was planted here in Philadelphia in 1776 when the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence,” he said. “The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us. The Bill of Rights codifies the promise of the Declaration of Independence., it codifies unalienable rights that are precious to us as Americans. ”
Justice Samuel Alito on the Bill of Rights’ meaning here and globally - National Constitution Center

The balance of your argument has been refuted so many times here that only an idiot would post what you did. Read the thread. We don't have to litigate the same disproven B.S. daily.

.

“The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us.

why do you refer to the declaration of independence when no where in the u s constitution is there the mention of equality or inalienable rights - what exactly do you believe the 19th amendment represents than the lack of your very basic argument no less ridiculous than alito's - what they left out actually really exists ...

tell us rockwell are you screaming for the ratification of the equal rights amendment or do you already believe it exists as fundamental law - christian. you can not be for both. equality and christianity.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Nothing was left out. The story has a moral to it. We cannot progress very far unless you start at the beginning.

It is unclear from the story, what role your uncle played.

You want to lay the immigration problem at the feet of undocumented workers. MILLIONS of our youth are locked out of the job market; millions are too damn lazy to work. Some have criminal records, drug habits, etc., etc. So first you clean up your back yard and come up with some human beings that are able, available and actively looking for work. THEN, those of like mind recommend you for a job.

If Hosea shows up in your country, but the jobs are reserved for the people of friends and family, unless somebody has to come out and draw you a picture, this ought to be saying something to you about how life used to work.

1. There is plenty of blame for our immigration problem to go around. Yes, some of it needs to go to the people that come here against our wishes and democratically enacted laws. But there is plenty of blame for our political class that has A. failed to enforce our laws, and B. failed to be honest about the immigration policies and their effects.

2. The immigration policy of this country should be structured, so that Hosea is not allowed to show up, if by doing so, he is taking a job away from Americans, or even suppressing their wages.

The federal government does not have any de jure / legal / constitutional authority in who a state does or does allow in.

I'm not a Democrat, so I do not support their laws.

If your claim is that foreigners steal jobs then you are saying a private citizen does not own what he creates. When the government owns the jobs, that is the typical definition of socialism. See how easy the left played you?

1. Someday, we will have to have an arcane historical debate about the role of the federal government in immigration policy. I can see you have a passion for that issue. Meanwhile, here in the 21st century, immigration is a federal issue.


2. Our laws were democratically enacted, and our the expression of our wishes. That our political class has failed to enforce them, is them failing in their role and betraying their responsibilities and the loyalty they owe to their fellow citizens.


3. I made no mention of "stealing". I just want to consider in the crafting of national policy, what will serve the interests of American citizens. Bringing in foreign labor to compete with American workers, would serve the interests of American employers while harming the interests of American workers. Generally speaking.

Here is the deal for me:

I do not like the fact that there is a deliberate flooding of America with non-white foreigners for the sole purpose of committing subtle genocide against ONE people. Furthermore, it is humiliating and depressing when every time you cut on the computer, tv or watch a movie it is multicultural propaganda being presented as entertainment.

WHEN I saw this stuff coming I went to work in immigration law to get the facts and best serve the interests of what were then constitutionalists. I manned the border; I went on radio, tv, and was in countless magazine and newspaper articles. I worked the prosecution (government side), the defense side; worked with Latino groups and was even called as an expert witness. Not bragging, but I have no superiors and damn few equals on the subject.

After six years of working in the field and sitting in and even having input on more strategy meetings than you can imagine, I used to think I had something to bring to the table. But, you cannot reason with people who have been brainwashed by political propaganda prostitutes that are in love with the sound of their own voice.

I have never lost a court case. The ONLY defeat I've ever felt is trying to reason with the right after they got conned into making the left's argument. The communists used to call those people useful idiots. I've spent many an hour working out legal scenarios and what ifs - the right is simply too stupid to listen. It's like a disease. It's like me watching the Titanic sink and people refusing to get on a life raft to keep from drowning. Let me put this in some simple terminology and give you an example. Stay with me here...

In the 1990s local sheriffs went to court, refusing to enforce federal gun laws. I gave money to the cause and did lots of research (free of course.) The case made it to the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled:

"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed." Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

We walked out with a victory. The federal government cannot force state and local governments to enforce federal laws.

A few years later, the undocumented people in California had to go court over "sanctuary cities." They won the case. On what legal precedent? Let me quote a news article:

"Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...h-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities/

Right now, in Virginia, the citizenry is getting counties to pass Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities. At Trump's State of the Union Address, Trump vows to shut down sanctuary cities. Why does the right fail to comprehend the 14th Amendment and the principles that will end sanctuary cities for undocumented foreigners will put their local LEOs into a position of being forced to confiscate firearms whether you have a sanctuary city or not? I can go to court and help win cases, but the right is stuck on stupid; They cannot take you win for an answer because you're stuck with socialist solutions that will destroy you. And you want to debate me????

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Post #999 reply to #229 Oath of Office / President? As written in the Constitution.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

#229 reply to #225

When this country made it a requirement to be a Christian in order to hold elective office; when children were taught from Christian books and when the Constitution acknowledges our Lord, you had a Christian nation. Period. End of story.

There has been no requirement that an American President be a Christian in order to hold the highest office in the land.

So Porter Rockwell reminds us that America was never a Christian nation;


Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address
“All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. . . [E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans: we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”

Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address - First Amendment Watch

I thought you had given up the argument that being a Christian Nation contradicts the idea of religious freedom.


Are you engaged in circular argument

Did you know that in America we only have a national holiday for two men? One is Jesus Christ and the other one a godless communist that pretended to be a Christian preacher.

MLK, was certainly left leaning. That quite often means not religious, it is true. But I do not know his history well enough to have an opinion on the sincerity of his religious beliefs.

I knew his right hand men personally. King's record was so bad, it was sealed for 50 years. Now that we are socialist across the board, it won't be shocking nor offensive.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does.

- that is the premise of the christian influence is shaping the u s constitution - no mention of equality.

it has been pointed out to you already, there is no mention of equality rights in the u s constitution - whatever you claim as founding the nation, states rights the declaration of independence have no bearing on the final document that is the source for your thread and the founding of the nation, the u s constitution as written -

it was the christian influence that removed inalienable rights, equality from the constitution to institutionalize slavery, misogyny etc. after the military victory they had fought for and was used against those believing in equality after their sacrifices.

the same as the christian "religion" using the 1st century events to institutionalize the same misgivings accomplished by someone else's sacrifices. porter rockwell - the slanderer.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

you can not have your argument of the founding as a christian nation and then deny the written document you base your proposal on as a matter of ambiguity - there is no mention of inalienable rights or equality mentioned in the final document, u s constitution therefore by your own argument that was a rendering by christianity despite the declaration of independence the citizenry fought for.

for its time the written u s constitution was indubitably the first truly sociologically secular document ever ascribed to as a governance in the recorded history of mankind - despite the christian influence.

You can't fix stupid.

NOWHERE does any document connected to our founding speak of "inalienable rights." The Bill of Rights codified the unalienable Rights

Samuel Alito, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice said:

“The seed that became the Bill of Rights was planted here in Philadelphia in 1776 when the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence,” he said. “The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us. The Bill of Rights codifies the promise of the Declaration of Independence., it codifies unalienable rights that are precious to us as Americans. ”
Justice Samuel Alito on the Bill of Rights’ meaning here and globally - National Constitution Center

The balance of your argument has been refuted so many times here that only an idiot would post what you did. Read the thread. We don't have to litigate the same disproven B.S. daily.

.

“The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us.

why do you refer to the declaration of independence when no where in the u s constitution is there the mention of equality or inalienable rights - what exactly do you believe the 19th amendment represents than the lack of your very basic argument no less ridiculous than alito's - what they left out actually really exists ...

tell us rockwell are you screaming for the ratification of the equal rights amendment or do you already believe it exists as fundamental law - christian. you can not be for both. equality and christianity.

What is the answer that will make you happy? Whatever you're arguing is a lot of disjointed nonsense. What is your real issue? Of what relevance does it have with the OP? OR are we even allowed to discuss the OP?

If you don't know the difference between inalienable versus unalienable FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, you are not going to get too far. At the end of the day, what is your point? Is the Equal Rights Amendment in the Bible? Liberty is. What are you getting at? When do we discuss the OP? You're in violation of the board rules by attempting to change the subject and none of what you're saying will lead to any productive conversation. Tie your posts to the OP or find someone else to troll.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#1011 There has been no requirement that an American President be a Christian in order to hold the highest office in the land.

#1002 reply to #999

I thought you had given up the argument that being a Christian Nation contradicts the idea of religious freedom.

There is no argument, We have never been s Christian Nation and will never be one because of religious freedom established by the Framers of Our Constitution. Something that will never exist and cannot be defined except as an abstract fantasy cannot contradict anything.

My growing case is that America has never been a Christian Nation. And none of it has been refuted.

Porter Rockwell has asserted we used to have a Christian Nation when state constitutions required political office holders to take an oath that they believed in a Christian God.

That was true in Jefferson’s day ........,

#479

The earliest state constitutions before, during and after the framers worked out the Constitution required political office holders to take an oath (but no test) that they believed in a Christian God.

.......but the reality is that it is not true with regard to our nation and the Federal Government..

 

[Correll]

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does.

- that is the premise of the christian influence is shaping the u s constitution - no mention of equality.

it has been pointed out to you already, there is no mention of equality rights in the u s constitution - whatever you claim as founding the nation, states rights the declaration of independence have no bearing on the final document that is the source for your thread and the founding of the nation, the u s constitution as written -

it was the christian influence that removed inalienable rights, equality from the constitution to institutionalize slavery, misogyny etc. after the military victory they had fought for and was used against those believing in equality after their sacrifices.

the same as the christian "religion" using the 1st century events to institutionalize the same misgivings accomplished by someone else's sacrifices. porter rockwell - the slanderer.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

you can not have your argument of the founding as a christian nation and then deny the written document you base your proposal on as a matter of ambiguity - there is no mention of inalienable rights or equality mentioned in the final document, u s constitution therefore by your own argument that was a rendering by christianity despite the declaration of independence the citizenry fought for.

for its time the written u s constitution was indubitably the first truly sociologically secular document ever ascribed to as a governance in the recorded history of mankind - despite the christian influence.

You can't fix stupid.

NOWHERE does any document connected to our founding speak of "inalienable rights." The Bill of Rights codified the unalienable Rights

Samuel Alito, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice said:

“The seed that became the Bill of Rights was planted here in Philadelphia in 1776 when the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence,” he said. “The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us. The Bill of Rights codifies the promise of the Declaration of Independence., it codifies unalienable rights that are precious to us as Americans. ”
Justice Samuel Alito on the Bill of Rights’ meaning here and globally - National Constitution Center

The balance of your argument has been refuted so many times here that only an idiot would post what you did. Read the thread. We don't have to litigate the same disproven B.S. daily.

.

“The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us.

why do you refer to the declaration of independence when no where in the u s constitution is there the mention of equality or inalienable rights - ...

The Declaration of Independence is the declaration of intent for the founding of the nation. It is obviously a valid place to look, when the topic is the intent of the Founding.


That the Constitution, which is more about HOW to do it, the basic structure of the government, does not have the exact same language, does not prove anything.


AND, I'm not sure why you don't see the Bill of Rights, as evidence that they were still intent on unalienable rights.

 

[sparky]

Pointing out religious influence as foundational of a Nation, while denying it constitutionally, is cognitive dissonance on steroids...

~S~

 

[Correll]

It is unclear from the story, what role your uncle played.

You want to lay the immigration problem at the feet of undocumented workers. MILLIONS of our youth are locked out of the job market; millions are too damn lazy to work. Some have criminal records, drug habits, etc., etc. So first you clean up your back yard and come up with some human beings that are able, available and actively looking for work. THEN, those of like mind recommend you for a job.

If Hosea shows up in your country, but the jobs are reserved for the people of friends and family, unless somebody has to come out and draw you a picture, this ought to be saying something to you about how life used to work.

1. There is plenty of blame for our immigration problem to go around. Yes, some of it needs to go to the people that come here against our wishes and democratically enacted laws. But there is plenty of blame for our political class that has A. failed to enforce our laws, and B. failed to be honest about the immigration policies and their effects.

2. The immigration policy of this country should be structured, so that Hosea is not allowed to show up, if by doing so, he is taking a job away from Americans, or even suppressing their wages.

The federal government does not have any de jure / legal / constitutional authority in who a state does or does allow in.

I'm not a Democrat, so I do not support their laws.

If your claim is that foreigners steal jobs then you are saying a private citizen does not own what he creates. When the government owns the jobs, that is the typical definition of socialism. See how easy the left played you?

1. Someday, we will have to have an arcane historical debate about the role of the federal government in immigration policy. I can see you have a passion for that issue. Meanwhile, here in the 21st century, immigration is a federal issue.


2. Our laws were democratically enacted, and our the expression of our wishes. That our political class has failed to enforce them, is them failing in their role and betraying their responsibilities and the loyalty they owe to their fellow citizens.


3. I made no mention of "stealing". I just want to consider in the crafting of national policy, what will serve the interests of American citizens. Bringing in foreign labor to compete with American workers, would serve the interests of American employers while harming the interests of American workers. Generally speaking.

Here is the deal for me:

I do not like the fact that there is a deliberate flooding of America with non-white foreigners for the sole purpose of committing subtle genocide against ONE people. Furthermore, it is humiliating and depressing when every time you cut on the computer, tv or watch a movie it is multicultural propaganda being presented as entertainment.

WHEN I saw this stuff coming I went to work in immigration law to get the facts and best serve the interests of what were then constitutionalists. I manned the border; I went on radio, tv, and was in countless magazine and newspaper articles. I worked the prosecution (government side), the defense side; worked with Latino groups and was even called as an expert witness. Not bragging, but I have no superiors and damn few equals on the subject.

After six years of working in the field and sitting in and even having input on more strategy meetings than you can imagine, I used to think I had something to bring to the table. But, you cannot reason with people who have been brainwashed by political propaganda prostitutes that are in love with the sound of their own voice.

I have never lost a court case. The ONLY defeat I've ever felt is trying to reason with the right after they got conned into making the left's argument. The communists used to call those people useful idiots. I've spent many an hour working out legal scenarios and what ifs - the right is simply too stupid to listen. It's like a disease. It's like me watching the Titanic sink and people refusing to get on a life raft to keep from drowning. Let me put this in some simple terminology and give you an example. Stay with me here...

In the 1990s local sheriffs went to court, refusing to enforce federal gun laws. I gave money to the cause and did lots of research (free of course.) The case made it to the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled:

"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed." Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

We walked out with a victory. The federal government cannot force state and local governments to enforce federal laws.

A few years later, the undocumented people in California had to go court over "sanctuary cities." They won the case. On what legal precedent? Let me quote a news article:

"Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...h-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities/

Right now, in Virginia, the citizenry is getting counties to pass Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities. At Trump's State of the Union Address, Trump vows to shut down sanctuary cities. Why does the right fail to comprehend the 14th Amendment and the principles that will end sanctuary cities for undocumented foreigners will put their local LEOs into a position of being forced to confiscate firearms whether you have a sanctuary city or not? I can go to court and help win cases, but the right is stuck on stupid; They cannot take you win for an answer because you're stuck with socialist solutions that will destroy you. And you want to debate me????

1. I agree that the policy of flooding the nation with immigrants is a bad one, though I think the reasons are slightly more nuanced that you are seeing. I also agree the diversity propaganda is quite bad. Interestingly I am seeing more and more people agreeing on that one.


2. The sanctuary cities are doing more than just not helping, they are actively fighting against the rest of the nation, on the side of the foreign citizens and nations.


3. Yes, I am prepared to debate you. I see flaws in your position, specifically your unsupported insistence that foreign citizens have a Right to come live here or that we, as a people, do not have the right to decide who to invite to join us, or NOT.

 

[Correll]

.
- that is the premise of the christian influence is shaping the u s constitution - no mention of equality.

it has been pointed out to you already, there is no mention of equality rights in the u s constitution - whatever you claim as founding the nation, states rights the declaration of independence have no bearing on the final document that is the source for your thread and the founding of the nation, the u s constitution as written -

it was the christian influence that removed inalienable rights, equality from the constitution to institutionalize slavery, misogyny etc. after the military victory they had fought for and was used against those believing in equality after their sacrifices.

the same as the christian "religion" using the 1st century events to institutionalize the same misgivings accomplished by someone else's sacrifices. porter rockwell - the slanderer.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

you can not have your argument of the founding as a christian nation and then deny the written document you base your proposal on as a matter of ambiguity - there is no mention of inalienable rights or equality mentioned in the final document, u s constitution therefore by your own argument that was a rendering by christianity despite the declaration of independence the citizenry fought for.

for its time the written u s constitution was indubitably the first truly sociologically secular document ever ascribed to as a governance in the recorded history of mankind - despite the christian influence.

You can't fix stupid.

NOWHERE does any document connected to our founding speak of "inalienable rights." The Bill of Rights codified the unalienable Rights

Samuel Alito, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice said:

“The seed that became the Bill of Rights was planted here in Philadelphia in 1776 when the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence,” he said. “The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us. The Bill of Rights codifies the promise of the Declaration of Independence., it codifies unalienable rights that are precious to us as Americans. ”
Justice Samuel Alito on the Bill of Rights’ meaning here and globally - National Constitution Center

The balance of your argument has been refuted so many times here that only an idiot would post what you did. Read the thread. We don't have to litigate the same disproven B.S. daily.

.

“The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us.

why do you refer to the declaration of independence when no where in the u s constitution is there the mention of equality or inalienable rights - what exactly do you believe the 19th amendment represents than the lack of your very basic argument no less ridiculous than alito's - what they left out actually really exists ...

tell us rockwell are you screaming for the ratification of the equal rights amendment or do you already believe it exists as fundamental law - christian. you can not be for both. equality and christianity.

What is the answer that will make you happy? Whatever you're arguing is a lot of disjointed nonsense. What is your real issue? Of what relevance does it have with the OP? OR are we even allowed to discuss the OP?
...l.

Agreed. Disjointed is a great way to describe that. Pointing to the Declaration is obviously valid, and that the Constitution, which came years later, does not have use the exact same wording, nor make the exact same point(s), does not prove anything.

 

[Correll]

#1011 There has been no requirement that an American President be a Christian in order to hold the highest office in the land.

#1002 reply to #999

I thought you had given up the argument that being a Christian Nation contradicts the idea of religious freedom.

There is no argument, We have never been s Christian Nation and will never be one because of religious freedom established by the Framers of Our Constitution. Something that will never exist and cannot be defined except as an abstract fantasy cannot contradict anything.

My growing case is that America has never been a Christian Nation. And none of it has been refuted.
.....

You are engaging in circular debating. It has been refuted that there is any contradiction between being a Christian Nation and having religious freedom.


Remember that whole bit where I beat you over the head about your inability to distinguish between "government" and "nation"?


That was a rhetorical statement, I know you do.


You just waited a few days, and just reasserted an argument that had already been refuted.


Standard lefty tactics.

Mmm, I have been calling you W for short. I will now call you Wally. I take it you will not mind? It is obviously appropriate.

 

[Correll]

Pointing out religious influence as foundational of a Nation, while denying it constitutionally, is cognitive dissonance on steroids...

~S~

Who denied it constitutionally?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#1018 reply to #1016

You are engaging in circular debating.

You are not engaged in debating at all.

Your fantasies about beating me over the head define you. My focus right now is on defining Porter Rockwell’s fallacies on a brick by brick basis.

Neither you nor Porter Rockwell wish to play by open rules.

Your can start by explaining what the Christian part of Christian Nation means to you.

Is it Jefferson’s anti-Church, anti-Calvinism Christian-ness, or the Calvinism it Roger Sherman the Constitutional Calvinist.

 

[Correll]

#1016

You are engaging in circular debating.

You are not engaged in debating at all.

Your fantasies about beating me over the head define you. My focus right now is on defining Porter Rockwell’s fallacies on a brick by brick basis.

Neither you nor Porter Rockwell wish to play by open rules.

Your can start by explaining what the Christian part of Christian Nation means to you.

Is it Jefferson’s anti-Church, anti-Calvinism Christian-ness, or the Calvinism it Roger Sherman the Constitutional Calvinist.

Christian is a general term. Obviously. Your pretense of not knowing that and putting that argument forth, for me to easily demolish, with the already stated intent of moving on quickly to the next weak ass argument?


Is exactly what the little comic I posted showed.


Wally.


So, we won't be playing that game. YOu have made a sincere argument here, and you lost. Now you are, in normal human fashion, doubling down on your position.


I will not harm you by pretending that your flailing is anything useful at this point.


You have done what you can, and your side lost the debate. THIS debate.


You can try again next time. Maybe you learned something.

 

[Bezukhov]

Christian nation? When so-called Christians elected a serial adulterer and liar like Donald Trump who defiled the prayer breakfast?

what does he defile next?

thank God he belongs to the Republicans.

Okay, now you're not being topical. I do not support the antics of Donald Trump. But, if you like hiding behind baby murderers and a party that endorses drugs that kill hundreds of thousands of our younger people, then have at it. BOTH parties are less than fit to rule a nation like ours.

If America is a Christian Nation shouldn't we just wait around for a Voice to thunder from On High, telling us what we're supposed to do next? Not that I'm going to pay any attention, of course.

If you are not interested in paying attention or participating, you do not belong here. I advise you to check out the Rules of posting in this Zone. If you enjoy your stay here, stand down. I'm not playing your game. Become part of the conversation or feel free to leave.

You did say : "BOTH parties are less than fit to rule a nation like ours." I'm wondering who you think should rule us.

We need qualified leaders that have a direction.

How will they be chosen? Will a hand descend from a cloud, point at someone and say: "That's the one"?