“America was founded as an Atheist and Christian Nation” 21st Century sin & salvation Christian agrees with Unitarian Deist John Adams.

OP
NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,812
Reaction score
1,299
Points
245
Correll, post: 25733874
You are still conflating the government with the Nation.
I ain’t conflating jack shit. So take your wormy weasel mouthed, one of three stock reply’s elsewhere.

White Christian mostly Evangelical Protestant is a force that is serious about controlling the government and courts of the United States of America - ONE nation under not just any God - the Judeo Christian God..

They don’t want theocracy - they want democratically elected control of government, entertainment, business and education by any means. AND they want absolute control of rewriting the history of the founding of America to include that the founders were a homogenized mix but all essentially Christian.

Here is the perfect example of that:

After 1962 No More Christian Nation - Porter
I have stated many many times that America is not now a Christian nation. We were founded as one. It was a part of our heritage and our culture. It was the guiding force to determine between right and wrong in our nation.

After 1962 (see my last six posts in this thread) from a social perspective the humanists / secularists/ secular humanists / nonbelievers illegally assumed control.

Since that time we have become a morally bankrupt third world cesspool barely fit to take a dump in.

IF Christians were a majority, you would see millions in the streets asking why in the HELL parents, doctors, the government, schools, and Big Pharma are putting children on hard core drugs

More people would be working for religious Liberty

Abortion would be outlawed

Gun control would take a hike

The people would not tolerate a plank out of the Communist Manifesto be used to steal their wages

There would be a much more civil tone among the people

We would care for the mentally ill and not leave them on the streets. We'd treat them instead of giving them a criminal record and denying them the same status as the rest of society

Christians would not allow the government to dictate the tenets of their faith and there would be no registered churches

The federal government would not be involved in education and parents would decide education at the county and state level

"Christians" would not run around saying that a Mormon cannot be a Christian or the Jehovah's Witness cannot be a Christian, or Christian Identity people can't be Christians, that Unitarians are not Christians... they would respect each other's differences.

If America were predominantly Christian, you would not see scores of kids stealing cars, breaking into houses and robbing their own families for drug money. You wouldn't see young girls sleeping with their boyfriends in mommy's house at the age of 16 while smoking pot with their thug boyfriend with a criminal record. Mothers would not make pansies out of their sons either - they would become MEN.

If America were Christian, people would work to keep their families together. Divorce would be rare, not predominant

If America were Christian, there would be fewer tattoos and body piercings and more Americans in colleges and universities so that the college seats were not being taken over by foreigners

How International Students Are Changing U.S. Colleges

If America were still a Christian nation, they would have some representation in entertainment that was greater than the buffoonery of Tim Allen (who is a comedian - a good one, but not a show for relating to Christian values.)

Claiming to be a Christian in a poll is not the same as giving of yourself, volunteering, being a good citizen, and a good steward of the Word of God. Claiming to being a good Christian and not looking out for your fellow man or displaying strong family values that others look up to won't help either. Sure, they would screw up, get mad, and with every mistake, people like you will judge the Christian, but Christians would not worry about your judging or your lopsided science ales.

BTW, how long do you need this list to be?
It was the work of great minds influenced by something much more relevant than believing the Son of God came to earth to teach morality and die on the Cross to wipe out the sins ( if you believe the story) of mankind and then ascended unto heaven a couple thousand years ago.

Most of today’s Christians are not white Christian nationalists. But there are enough to arouse concern.
 
Last edited:

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,070
Reaction score
13,918
Points
2,220
AGREE? DISAGREE? SUGGESTIONS?
Can we all kick the atheists out and send them on a slow to boat to China, an atheist country (!)?

Maybe that country was founded as an atheist nation???!!!???!!!
.
Can we all kick the atheists out and send them on a slow to boat to China, an atheist country (!)?

Maybe that country was founded as an atheist nation???!!!???!!!
So, in your mind, ANY reference to any religion, is a violation of non-religious citizens rights?
the christian nationalist are not content to exercise their religious preference among themselves but insist by corrosion to force their their views to be accepted unwillingly by a public at large that is protected from such intrusion by their constitution from the legislative enactments christianity has issued against them.
.
the christian nationalist disguise their political objectives using a false religion 4th century document to not only deceive the present societies they wish to control but also invalidate the true events of the 1st century liberation theology they likewise oppose - of self determination over their tyrannical control.
.
"In God we trust"
.

they demand to kneel before their book of forgeries as they have chosen themselves irregardless its errant message detrimental to society as a whole -

and skirt the founding principles of this nation and the emphasis's of minority rights as sacrosanct of liberties afforded to all citizens in regards to their lawful personal persuasions.

you are not making sense.
.
you are not making sense.
"In God we trust"
.
it's over your head corel ... just for you - - >

- your religion, christianity and tyranny walk hand in hand.

A few words on the Dollar Bill, is not "tyranny".

Try to be less of a hysterical drama queen.

YOu want to talk about "tyranny"?

Talk about violent mobs of thugs, murdering people in the streets while the mayor orders the cops to stand down.

View attachment 404131
.
A few words on the Dollar Bill, is not "tyranny".
.
you prove your culpability through deceit by the example you requested yourself.

it is coercion as stated earlier ... try and keep up corel, deny the obvious all day long if you like.
.
View attachment 404197
.
the face of christianity throughout history to this day is tyranny against the very events of the 1st century it steals for its own nefarious identity.

You claim that Christianity is "tyranny" yet your evidence to support your claim is some a few general words on the dollar and a photo from over a hundred years ago.


Dude. You have made a complete fool of yourself.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,070
Reaction score
13,918
Points
2,220
Correll, post: 25733874
You are still conflating the government with the Nation.
I ain’t conflating jack shit. So take your wormy weasel mouthed, one of three stock reply’s elsewhere.

White Christian mostly Evangelical Protestant is a force that is serious about controlling the government and courts of the United States of America - ONE nation under not just any God - the Judeo Christian God..

They don’t want theocracy - they want democratically elected control of government, entertainment, business and education by any means. AND they want absolute control of rewriting the history of the founding of America to include that the founders were a homogenized mix but all essentially Christian.

Here is the perfect example of that:

After 1962 No More Christian Nation - Porter
I have stated many many times that America is not now a Christian nation. We were founded as one. It was a part of our heritage and our culture. It was the guiding force to determine between right and wrong in our nation.

After 1962 (see my last six posts in this thread) from a social perspective the humanists / secularists/ secular humanists / nonbelievers illegally assumed control.

Since that time we have become a morally bankrupt third world cesspool barely fit to take a dump in.

IF Christians were a majority, you would see millions in the streets asking why in the HELL parents, doctors, the government, schools, and Big Pharma are putting children on hard core drugs

More people would be working for religious Liberty

Abortion would be outlawed

Gun control would take a hike

The people would not tolerate a plank out of the Communist Manifesto be used to steal their wages

There would be a much more civil tone among the people

We would care for the mentally ill and not leave them on the streets. We'd treat them instead of giving them a criminal record and denying them the same status as the rest of society

Christians would not allow the government to dictate the tenets of their faith and there would be no registered churches

The federal government would not be involved in education and parents would decide education at the county and state level

"Christians" would not run around saying that a Mormon cannot be a Christian or the Jehovah's Witness cannot be a Christian, or Christian Identity people can't be Christians, that Unitarians are not Christians... they would respect each other's differences.

If America were predominantly Christian, you would not see scores of kids stealing cars, breaking into houses and robbing their own families for drug money. You wouldn't see young girls sleeping with their boyfriends in mommy's house at the age of 16 while smoking pot with their thug boyfriend with a criminal record. Mothers would not make pansies out of their sons either - they would become MEN.

If America were Christian, people would work to keep their families together. Divorce would be rare, not predominant

If America were Christian, there would be fewer tattoos and body piercings and more Americans in colleges and universities so that the college seats were not being taken over by foreigners

How International Students Are Changing U.S. Colleges

If America were still a Christian nation, they would have some representation in entertainment that was greater than the buffoonery of Tim Allen (who is a comedian - a good one, but not a show for relating to Christian values.)

Claiming to be a Christian in a poll is not the same as giving of yourself, volunteering, being a good citizen, and a good steward of the Word of God. Claiming to being a good Christian and not looking out for your fellow man or displaying strong family values that others look up to won't help either. Sure, they would screw up, get mad, and with every mistake, people like you will judge the Christian, but Christians would not worry about your judging or your lopsided science ales.

BTW, how long do you need this list to be?
It was the work of great minds influenced by something much more relevant than believing the Son of God came to earth to teach morality and die on the Cross to wipe out the sins ( if you believe the story) of mankind and then ascended unto heaven a couple thousand years ago.

Most of today’s Christians are not white Christian nationalists. But there are enough to arouse concern.

1. You are conflating the two. Constantly. YOu talk about a Christian Nation, but nearly all of your arguments are actually about the Government.

2. "White Christians" want control of the government? Well, "white Christians" are not an united Group so your implication that they are, is simply false.

3. SOME white Christians, including the ones you hate the most, DO want control of the government. Much like you do. And that is what drives your hate, that they oppose your political agenda. Because YOU want that control.

They count just as much as you do, lib. Democracy means, you might not always get your way. Especially is you are a minoritity.


4. Rockwell is one guy on the internet. Using him to define what you claim is a serious threat to our democracy, is weak as hell. To define a movement, you would need a national leader, someone who has had serious power or influence, like a Soros or Trump himself.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,865
Reaction score
930
Points
170
Thomas Paine - Revolutionary Patriot - despised by intolerant Christians for not being Christian enough for them.,
Not just by Christians, but by everyone. When Thomas Paine died, no one went to his funeral. Just like no one should go to yours. You're upsetting everyone by bringing politics into Religion & Ethics. And spouting lies. Not very ethical of you. Were you kicked off the politics board?

Paine's book attacks the concept of revelation, saying,

"It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication - after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."

At one time, Paine may have become popular and a leader of the Revolution against the British because he was for independence from the tyrannical British and was for religious freedoms. Afterward, he ran away to France when there was the French Revolution. Later, after Americans won their hard fought freedom, Paine fell out of favor and his works largely dismissed because he was deist and against the established religions. He was against the miracles of Christianity and the Bible.

This is similar to what we have today by atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins. Jesse Kilgore commited suicide after reading his book and studying about evolution. Why don't you talk about him? Preferably from China.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,222
Reaction score
575
Points
85
Thomas Paine - Revolutionary Patriot - despised by intolerant Christians for not being Christian enough for them.,
Not just by Christians, but by everyone. When Thomas Paine died, no one went to his funeral. Just like no one should go to yours. You're upsetting everyone by bringing politics into Religion & Ethics. And spouting lies. Not very ethical of you. Were you kicked off the politics board?

Paine's book attacks the concept of revelation, saying,

"It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication - after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."

At one time, Paine may have become popular and a leader of the Revolution against the British because he was for independence from the tyrannical British and was for religious freedoms. Afterward, he ran away to France when there was the French Revolution. Later, after Americans won their hard fought freedom, Paine fell out of favor and his works largely dismissed because he was deist and against the established religions. He was against the miracles of Christianity and the Bible.

This is similar to what we have today by atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins. Jesse Kilgore commited suicide after reading his book and studying about evolution. Why don't you talk about him? Preferably from China.
.
Not just by Christians, but by everyone. When Thomas Paine died, no one went to his funeral. Just like no one should go to yours. You're upsetting everyone by bringing politics into Religion & Ethics. And spouting lies. Not very ethical of you. Were you kicked off the politics board?
.
and you haven't ...

that is the history of your christian religion of forgeries and fallacies - the persecution and victimization of the innocent. a political document disguised as a religion, nothing more.
.
1603213494719.png

.
and your attempt to plead your case otherwise without a shred of remorse likewise reflects your own nefarious motivations.
 
OP
NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,812
Reaction score
1,299
Points
245
conflating - Correll, post: 25736209
1. You are conflating the two. Constantly. YOu talk about a Christian Nation, but nearly all of your arguments are actually about the Government.
Two big IFs ...

If America was actually founded as a Christian nation and we actually had no secular non-Christian founding fathers...

If Those non-Christian leaders who were deeply imbued in the rational religion of the times could not obstruct the establishment of some form of national Christian religion in 1787 ......

If those two IFs were reality I have quite a bit of doubt that America starts out with the strong defense of religious freedom for non-Christians that it did.

But we had those Enlightenment Founders didn’t we? That’s the reality.

And I can’t believe for one second that if the fake Christianized reality you are pushing - “founded as a Christian nation” would mean out of all the toleration and kindness in hard core Christian hearts that the founding of a Christian nation would not mean the formation of a Christian run and leaning government.

That is not conflating government and nation. Thats seeing the same 15 centuries of Christian persecution and oppression that our Enlightened founding fathers were much closer to than we are. That’s seeing what religious fanaticism can do to a society.

You want to erase our enlightenment forefathers from memory with your Christian Nation LIE..

Why, why why? Why do you lie.

Do you denounce the butcher job Andylusion on John Adam’s letter to Jefferson regarding general principles of Christianity?

So sorry dude your assurances that white Evangelical Christian nationalists are not up to no good when you support the lies and the liars that spread then.

When you and your Christian Nation cohorts stop pushing the Christian Nation lie I’ll quit needing to defend the genius, wisdom and rational religion of the leaders of 1787 who made religious freedom the law of our land.
 
OP
NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,812
Reaction score
1,299
Points
245
. And spouting lies. Not very ethical of you.
Point out one single lie from me. Don’t run away before you do? If you cant find anything go ahead and run.
 
Last edited:

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,070
Reaction score
13,918
Points
2,220
conflating - Correll, post: 25736209
1. You are conflating the two. Constantly. YOu talk about a Christian Nation, but nearly all of your arguments are actually about the Government.
Two big IFs ...

If America was actually founded as a Christian nation and we actually had no secular non-Christian founding fathers...

If Those non-Christian leaders who were deeply imbued in the rational religion of the times could not obstruct the establishment of some form of national Christian religion in 1787 ......

If those two IFs were reality I have quite a bit of doubt that America starts out with the strong defense of religious freedom for non-Christians that it did.

But we had those Enlightenment Founders didn’t we? That’s the reality.

And I can’t believe for one second that if the fake Christianized reality you are pushing - “founded as a Christian nation” would mean out of all the toleration and kindness in hard core Christian hearts that the founding of a Christian nation would not mean the formation of a Christian run and leaning government.

....
Makes complete sense. The Christians that dominated the Founding were Christians that also respected the right of the non-Christian minorities.



D'uh.


Your pretense that this is confusing, makes no sense.


You are putting a lot of effort into pretending that this is a complex problem, when it is simple as pie.
 
OP
NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,812
Reaction score
1,299
Points
245
The Christians that dominated the Founding were Christians that also respected the right of the non-Christian minorities.
No. That’s not what I wrote.


The rational no hocus pocus, no sin and salvation, men of enlightenment and reason dominated the convention in Philadelphia.

Sin and Saving types could not muster a Christian Superstition Coalition to go against the genius of Madison, who had the support if the Danbury who had reason to get religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution.

Hocus POCUS RELIGION LOST to rational thought. It is simple. You are right.

After the Constitution was ratified The hocus pocus types slowly found that the founding men of enlightenment genius were right.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,070
Reaction score
13,918
Points
2,220
The Christians that dominated the Founding were Christians that also respected the right of the non-Christian minorities.
No. That’s not what I wrote.


The rational no hocus pocus, no sin and salvation, men of enlightenment and reason dominated the convention in Philadelphia.

Sin and Saving types could not muster a Christian Superstition Coalition to go against the genius of Madison, who had the support if the Danbury who had reason to get religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution.

Hocus POCUS RELIGION LOST to rational thought. It is simple. You are right.

After the Constitution was ratified The hocus pocus types slowly found that the founding men of enlightenment genius were right.

You spin removed, your claim that the tiny minority of non-Christians somehow won some type of conflict is completely unsupported and implausible.


Far more like is that the vast majority of people involved, who were Christians, all, or mostly shared a deep respect for the rights of All Men, created equal, including the tiny non-Christian Minorities, and thus were happy to work with the few non-Christians in their midst who agreed with the idea of protecting their rights, and thus were happy to work together.


And you pretense otherwise, is just an Anti-Christian bigot masturbatory fantasy.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,304
Reaction score
5,611
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society. They recognized that the several states did not share uniform values. We lived and worshipped differently. The framers were a diverse bunch with wildly divergent opinions on many issues, but eliminating the very foundations of America’s heritage would have horrified them. On few issues was there more unanimity.

Where the French Revolution and its official policy of “De-Christianization” quickly devolved into bloodshed and oppression, here freedom flourished. Our independence was seen as the culmination of a march toward liberty, not a rejection of America’s historical cultural moorings. Our forbears embraced tradition and left local autonomy largely intact.

Schools, courts and the public square were often overtly Christian and had been since their colonial beginnings. Few Americans would have tolerated a coercive central government infringing on their rights to post religious symbols on local schools, courts or anywhere else.

Americans built society from the ground up. Many had fled oppression. The colonies instituted local self-government indigenously to confirm the rights resident in their persons and property. Few would have willingly been dispossessed by Washington of the very freedoms which they had just secured from London.

Here men could and did rise as their efforts merited. Commoners were unshackled from feudal paralysis and freed to find God individually. Both the economy and church thrived. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans intertwined individual liberty with vibrant faith. “It is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.”

Even non-Christian founders thought religion essential. None would have wished to upend the very basis for education, law or culture. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Americans understood freedom without morality quickly devolves into debauchery. Whether from sincere faith, or, prudence instilling an honest, law-abiding, responsible and hardworking populace, all esteemed biblical morality as the bedrock of self government. George Washington believed, “Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed.

His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.” Such were state matters..."

www.forbes.com

The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State
The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.
www.forbes.com
www.forbes.com
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,222
Reaction score
575
Points
85
The Christians that dominated the Founding were Christians that also respected the right of the non-Christian minorities.
No. That’s not what I wrote.


The rational no hocus pocus, no sin and salvation, men of enlightenment and reason dominated the convention in Philadelphia.

Sin and Saving types could not muster a Christian Superstition Coalition to go against the genius of Madison, who had the support if the Danbury who had reason to get religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution.

Hocus POCUS RELIGION LOST to rational thought. It is simple. You are right.

After the Constitution was ratified The hocus pocus types slowly found that the founding men of enlightenment genius were right.

You spin removed, your claim that the tiny minority of non-Christians somehow won some type of conflict is completely unsupported and implausible.


Far more like is that the vast majority of people involved, who were Christians, all, or mostly shared a deep respect for the rights of All Men, created equal, including the tiny non-Christian Minorities, and thus were happy to work with the few non-Christians in their midst who agreed with the idea of protecting their rights, and thus were happy to work together.


And you pretense otherwise, is just an Anti-Christian bigot masturbatory fantasy.
.
You spin removed, your claim that the tiny minority of non-Christians somehow won some type of conflict is completely unsupported and implausible.
.
yes, that is exactly what occurred, the document prevails as written to prevent an establishment of any religion including christianity from any authority vested in it by the gov't of the state. if by no other means than by the sole intent of author of the amendment itself.

- are you afraid to read the amendment as ratified -
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
it clearly states what you endlessly and blindly argue against as though your ignoring the text will miraculously make it disappear.

try writing it on a chalk board - its meaning will be a lite in the darkness when you finally understand its true meaning.
 

LittleNipper

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
4,754
Reaction score
577
Points
130
Unfortunately, what is now promoted in public education is HUMANIST HEDONISTIC SECULARISM. Students have been misdirected from respecting AUTHORITY (including a least the possibility of a CREATOR) to caring only for one's own personal desires, needs and wants ---- without having to listen to contrary values which may be revealed to be far more superior simply through comparison with that of ones own.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,222
Reaction score
575
Points
85
"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society. They recognized that the several states did not share uniform values. We lived and worshipped differently. The framers were a diverse bunch with wildly divergent opinions on many issues, but eliminating the very foundations of America’s heritage would have horrified them. On few issues was there more unanimity.

Where the French Revolution and its official policy of “De-Christianization” quickly devolved into bloodshed and oppression, here freedom flourished. Our independence was seen as the culmination of a march toward liberty, not a rejection of America’s historical cultural moorings. Our forbears embraced tradition and left local autonomy largely intact.

Schools, courts and the public square were often overtly Christian and had been since their colonial beginnings. Few Americans would have tolerated a coercive central government infringing on their rights to post religious symbols on local schools, courts or anywhere else.

Americans built society from the ground up. Many had fled oppression. The colonies instituted local self-government indigenously to confirm the rights resident in their persons and property. Few would have willingly been dispossessed by Washington of the very freedoms which they had just secured from London.

Here men could and did rise as their efforts merited. Commoners were unshackled from feudal paralysis and freed to find God individually. Both the economy and church thrived. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans intertwined individual liberty with vibrant faith. “It is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.”

Even non-Christian founders thought religion essential. None would have wished to upend the very basis for education, law or culture. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Americans understood freedom without morality quickly devolves into debauchery. Whether from sincere faith, or, prudence instilling an honest, law-abiding, responsible and hardworking populace, all esteemed biblical morality as the bedrock of self government. George Washington believed, “Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed.

His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.” Such were state matters..."

www.forbes.com

The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State
The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.
www.forbes.com
www.forbes.com
.
"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society.
.
they did intend to exclude religion from the state government as history attests to their logic - from the very beginning and as ratified.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,070
Reaction score
13,918
Points
2,220
The Christians that dominated the Founding were Christians that also respected the right of the non-Christian minorities.
No. That’s not what I wrote.


The rational no hocus pocus, no sin and salvation, men of enlightenment and reason dominated the convention in Philadelphia.

Sin and Saving types could not muster a Christian Superstition Coalition to go against the genius of Madison, who had the support if the Danbury who had reason to get religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution.

Hocus POCUS RELIGION LOST to rational thought. It is simple. You are right.

After the Constitution was ratified The hocus pocus types slowly found that the founding men of enlightenment genius were right.

You spin removed, your claim that the tiny minority of non-Christians somehow won some type of conflict is completely unsupported and implausible.


Far more like is that the vast majority of people involved, who were Christians, all, or mostly shared a deep respect for the rights of All Men, created equal, including the tiny non-Christian Minorities, and thus were happy to work with the few non-Christians in their midst who agreed with the idea of protecting their rights, and thus were happy to work together.


And you pretense otherwise, is just an Anti-Christian bigot masturbatory fantasy.
.
You spin removed, your claim that the tiny minority of non-Christians somehow won some type of conflict is completely unsupported and implausible.
.
yes, that is exactly what occurred, the document prevails as written to prevent an establishment of any religion including christianity from any authority vested in it by the gov't of the state. if by no other means than by the sole intent of author of the amendment itself.

- are you afraid to read the amendment as ratified -
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
it clearly states what you endlessly and blindly argue against as though your ignoring the text will miraculously make it disappear.

try writing it on a chalk board - its meaning will be a lite in the darkness when you finally understand its true meaning.

I was clearly not disagreeing with the historical fact that the end result was the respecting of the rights of religious minorities but that there was any large scale conflict between the vast majority of Christians (desiring Establishment Church) and the tiny non-Christian minority, (desiring religious freedom).


i was clear about that. That you deleted the vast majority of what I wrote and then pretended I said something I did not say,


is just you using dishonesty to keep alive the pretense of a continuing debate, when you have lost, and lost so badly that you look terrible and feel worse.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,304
Reaction score
5,611
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society. They recognized that the several states did not share uniform values. We lived and worshipped differently. The framers were a diverse bunch with wildly divergent opinions on many issues, but eliminating the very foundations of America’s heritage would have horrified them. On few issues was there more unanimity.

Where the French Revolution and its official policy of “De-Christianization” quickly devolved into bloodshed and oppression, here freedom flourished. Our independence was seen as the culmination of a march toward liberty, not a rejection of America’s historical cultural moorings. Our forbears embraced tradition and left local autonomy largely intact.

Schools, courts and the public square were often overtly Christian and had been since their colonial beginnings. Few Americans would have tolerated a coercive central government infringing on their rights to post religious symbols on local schools, courts or anywhere else.

Americans built society from the ground up. Many had fled oppression. The colonies instituted local self-government indigenously to confirm the rights resident in their persons and property. Few would have willingly been dispossessed by Washington of the very freedoms which they had just secured from London.

Here men could and did rise as their efforts merited. Commoners were unshackled from feudal paralysis and freed to find God individually. Both the economy and church thrived. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans intertwined individual liberty with vibrant faith. “It is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.”

Even non-Christian founders thought religion essential. None would have wished to upend the very basis for education, law or culture. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Americans understood freedom without morality quickly devolves into debauchery. Whether from sincere faith, or, prudence instilling an honest, law-abiding, responsible and hardworking populace, all esteemed biblical morality as the bedrock of self government. George Washington believed, “Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed.

His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.” Such were state matters..."

www.forbes.com

The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State
The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.
www.forbes.com
www.forbes.com
.
"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society.
.
they did intend to exclude religion from the state government as history attests to their logic - from the very beginning and as ratified.
No, they did not intend to exclude religion from the state government, dummy.

The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed.

His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.”
Such were state matters..."

www.forbes.com


The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State
The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.

Now prove differently with something other than your silly opinion which is not supported by fact.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,222
Reaction score
575
Points
85
"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society. They recognized that the several states did not share uniform values. We lived and worshipped differently. The framers were a diverse bunch with wildly divergent opinions on many issues, but eliminating the very foundations of America’s heritage would have horrified them. On few issues was there more unanimity.

Where the French Revolution and its official policy of “De-Christianization” quickly devolved into bloodshed and oppression, here freedom flourished. Our independence was seen as the culmination of a march toward liberty, not a rejection of America’s historical cultural moorings. Our forbears embraced tradition and left local autonomy largely intact.

Schools, courts and the public square were often overtly Christian and had been since their colonial beginnings. Few Americans would have tolerated a coercive central government infringing on their rights to post religious symbols on local schools, courts or anywhere else.

Americans built society from the ground up. Many had fled oppression. The colonies instituted local self-government indigenously to confirm the rights resident in their persons and property. Few would have willingly been dispossessed by Washington of the very freedoms which they had just secured from London.

Here men could and did rise as their efforts merited. Commoners were unshackled from feudal paralysis and freed to find God individually. Both the economy and church thrived. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans intertwined individual liberty with vibrant faith. “It is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.”

Even non-Christian founders thought religion essential. None would have wished to upend the very basis for education, law or culture. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Americans understood freedom without morality quickly devolves into debauchery. Whether from sincere faith, or, prudence instilling an honest, law-abiding, responsible and hardworking populace, all esteemed biblical morality as the bedrock of self government. George Washington believed, “Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed.

His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.” Such were state matters..."

www.forbes.com

The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State
The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.
www.forbes.com
www.forbes.com
.
"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society.
.
they did intend to exclude religion from the state government as history attests to their logic - from the very beginning and as ratified.
No, they did not intend to exclude religion from the state government, dummy.

The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed.

His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.”
Such were state matters..."

www.forbes.com


The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State
The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.

Now prove differently with something other than your silly opinion which is not supported by fact.
.
Now prove differently with something other than your silly opinion which is not supported by fact.
No, they did not intend to exclude religion from the state government, dummy.
.
the discussion is the 1st amendment - dummy, not state gov't - that is covered now by the civil war amendments, equal protection - due process ...

you are another one - are you afraid to read the amendment - here's a copy ...
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
in your own words what does it say ... as written.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,304
Reaction score
5,611
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society. They recognized that the several states did not share uniform values. We lived and worshipped differently. The framers were a diverse bunch with wildly divergent opinions on many issues, but eliminating the very foundations of America’s heritage would have horrified them. On few issues was there more unanimity.

Where the French Revolution and its official policy of “De-Christianization” quickly devolved into bloodshed and oppression, here freedom flourished. Our independence was seen as the culmination of a march toward liberty, not a rejection of America’s historical cultural moorings. Our forbears embraced tradition and left local autonomy largely intact.

Schools, courts and the public square were often overtly Christian and had been since their colonial beginnings. Few Americans would have tolerated a coercive central government infringing on their rights to post religious symbols on local schools, courts or anywhere else.

Americans built society from the ground up. Many had fled oppression. The colonies instituted local self-government indigenously to confirm the rights resident in their persons and property. Few would have willingly been dispossessed by Washington of the very freedoms which they had just secured from London.

Here men could and did rise as their efforts merited. Commoners were unshackled from feudal paralysis and freed to find God individually. Both the economy and church thrived. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans intertwined individual liberty with vibrant faith. “It is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.”

Even non-Christian founders thought religion essential. None would have wished to upend the very basis for education, law or culture. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Americans understood freedom without morality quickly devolves into debauchery. Whether from sincere faith, or, prudence instilling an honest, law-abiding, responsible and hardworking populace, all esteemed biblical morality as the bedrock of self government. George Washington believed, “Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed.

His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.” Such were state matters..."

www.forbes.com

The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State
The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.
www.forbes.com
www.forbes.com
.
"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society.
.
they did intend to exclude religion from the state government as history attests to their logic - from the very beginning and as ratified.
No, they did not intend to exclude religion from the state government, dummy.

The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed.

His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.”
Such were state matters..."

www.forbes.com


The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State
The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.

Now prove differently with something other than your silly opinion which is not supported by fact.
.
Now prove differently with something other than your silly opinion which is not supported by fact.
No, they did not intend to exclude religion from the state government, dummy.
.
the discussion is the 1st amendment - dummy, not state gov't - that is covered now by the civil war amendments, equal protection - due process ...

you are another one - are you afraid to read the amendment - here's a copy ...
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
in your own words what does it say ... as written.
Dummy, the 1st Amendment only applied to the federal government. States were free to write any religious law they saw fit as long as there was free exercise of religion.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,013
Reaction score
5,484
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
. And spouting lies. Not very ethical of you.
Point out one single lie from me. Don’t run away before you do? If you cant find anything go ahead and run.
Several of us have already proven some of your lies, and you just keep repeating them. We don't have to run away... because we've already proven you wrong multiple time. You just sit there with your hands over your ears going "la la la la I can't hear you".

If anything, you are the one mentally running away, while still running your mouth.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top