Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Too funny.
If "multicultural" means "White", then ok.#1. We will start with the Puritans
The first group of “Mayflower” Christians to set foot on what was to become Massachusetts’s soil were separatists meaning they left the Church of England behind. Those separatists were eventually absorbed into the following groups of non-separatist Puritans who under Congregationalist Churches maintained a loyal relationship with the Church of England until the revolt against King Charles in 1776 was declared.
In no way should the early separatist Puritans be confused with the Revolutionary War Separatists. Many of the 1776 separatists were not Christian in a Puritan/Calvinistic sense at all. They were more philosophically aligned with the modern liberal mindset of the times when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
“So who, then, were the Puritans? While the Separatists believed that the only way to live according to Biblical precepts was to leave the Church of England entirely, the Puritans thought they could reform the church from within. Sometimes called non-separating Puritans, this less radical group shared a lot in common with the Separatists, particularly a form of worship and self-organization called “the congregational way.” What’s the Difference Between Puritans and Pilgrims?
Because people like to make up their own stories.Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.#11 reply to #3.
The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.
The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.
You don’t recognize the change.
Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.
What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.
So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.
In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.
There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.
So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.
“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”
in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.
That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.
Diversity scares you.Because people like to make up their own stories.Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.#11 reply to #3.
The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.
The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.
You don’t recognize the change.
Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.
What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.
So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.
In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.
There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.
So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.
“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”
in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.
That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.
It should. If you mean a nation with a hodgepodge of religions, cultures and yes, races. That was NOT the country the Founders envisionedDiversity scares you.Because people like to make up their own stories.Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.#11 reply to #3.
The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.
The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.
You don’t recognize the change.
Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.
What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.
So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.
In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.
There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.
So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.
“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”
in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.
That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.
I give them more credit than you do.It should. If you mean a nation with a hodgepodge of religions, cultures and yes, races. That was NOT the country the Founders envisionedDiversity scares you.Because people like to make up their own stories.Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.#11 reply to #3.
The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.
The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.
You don’t recognize the change.
Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.
What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.
So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.
In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.
There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.
So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.
“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”
in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.
That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.
I give them more credit than you do.It should. If you mean a nation with a hodgepodge of religions, cultures and yes, races. That was NOT the country the Founders envisionedDiversity scares you.Because people like to make up their own stories.Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.#11 reply to #3.
The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.
The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.
You don’t recognize the change.
Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.
What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.
So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.
In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.
There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.
So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.
“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”
in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.
That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.
I'm not talking about diverse goals. Besides, I'm pretty sure we have always been a nation of people with diverse goals. It's our differences which which propel us forward. You will have a hard time finding anyone in biology or in business who doesn't believe diversity is good.I give them more credit than you do.It should. If you mean a nation with a hodgepodge of religions, cultures and yes, races. That was NOT the country the Founders envisionedDiversity scares you.Because people like to make up their own stories.Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.#11 reply to #3.
The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.
The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.
You don’t recognize the change.
Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.
What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.
So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.
In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.
There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.
So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.
“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”
in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.
That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.
Have you learned nothing from the world around you?
All of the countries with extreme diversity have been disasters. And all the places with very homogeneous societies, are the ones worth living in.
You can all it being "scared" but the fact is, that is the reality.
The more diversity you have, the more of a nightmare it becomes.
There is no example of a truly diverse country, that wasn't a mess.
In all my years, I have yet to see one single example where diversity had a positive outcome.
By definition, in order to achieve any goal, everyone in a group or team, must have the same goal. A diversity of goals, leads to disaster.
How can two people who want to go in opposite directions, end up achieving either goal together?
Well obviously they can't. You have to have a homogeneous goal, to achieve it together in a group.
It is not possible to have a wide diversity of goals and cultures and purposes, and end up achieving anything.
It WAS our UNITY as one nation under the God of Israel that united us and blessed us. We are not to be a "multicultural" nation in any wayIt's our differences which which propel us forward
Being diverse doesn't necessarily mean being multi-cultured but our heritage was more multi-cultured than most nations.It WAS our UNITY as one nation under the God of Israel that united us and blessed us. We are not to be a "multicultural" nation in any wayIt's our differences which which propel us forward
NOT REALLY. Religiosity was at a low point when the thirteen colonies became the UNITED States.It WAS our UNITY as one nation under the God of Israel that united us and blessed us.
Half of the states had established state religions at the time of ratification. I wouldn't call that the low point of religiosity.NOT REALLY. Religiosity was at a low point when the thirteen colonies became the UNITED States.It WAS our UNITY as one nation under the God of Israel that united us and blessed us.
There is a reason that there was no mention of the God of Israel or his supposed son was mentioned in the Constitution. Many of the founders knew that the damned god of Israel would divide us more than unite us.
Half of the states had established state religions at the time of ratification. I wouldn't call that the low point of religiosity.
Here George Washington mention’s what Christian Nationalists refuse to hear.
“.. ...the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present {1790s} age.
"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." [George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]
Not sure what that has to do with my destroying your argument but George also said. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”Half of the states had established state religions at the time of ratification. I wouldn't call that the low point of religiosity.
Here is what the father of our country had to say about your ‘god of Israel/Christianity UNITING us. It’s bull. George was there - he saw nothing but animosities which have existed among mankind caused by difference of sentiments in religion”
George went on to say that the historic differences in religions “appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated.“
Earlier in this conversation.
Here George Washington mention’s what Christian Nationalists refuse to hear.
“.. ...the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present {1790s} age.
"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." [George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]
Sorry dude, I’m seeing nothing about Christian religion in the 1770s in the eyes one of our most consequential founding fathers fathers being what it was that united the original thirteen colonies to forge a new nation.
And your great idea is to bring up the states establishing their own official religion as a basis for what united the founding generation. Do you realize how absurd that is with the esteemed George Washington looking over your shoulder?
.reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”