Zone1 Conservative American Evangelicals are taking this country to task

[whutTHEYsay]

If you mandate Human Secularism upon all US citizens if they wish to serve the people by being a Civil Servant..........

NFBW: The American government was set up to be a secular organization by and for religious and not religious persons from a multicultural mix with a preference for none. There is no mandate for human secularism upon all citizens who work in government. The violation comes when Christians demand that the secular government uses its power in support of Christian beliefs on non-believers. .END2208240002

 

[Clyde 154]

NFBW: The American government was set up to be a secular organization by and for religious and not religious persons from a multicultural mix with a preference for none. There is no mandate for human secularism upon all citizens who work in government. The violation comes when Christians demand that the secular government uses its power in support of Christian beliefs on non-believers. .END2208240002

Just like all people who are not capable of critical independent thought..........you have the mule attempting to push the plow.
1st. Your personal ad hominem opinion does not do away with "history actual" and the fact that the Untied States Constiution and the proceeding U.S. judicial system implemented Blackstone's Commentaires on the Laws of English into these founding documents. 2nd. Blackstone referrenced the Holy Scriptures in his "commentaries" on English Law.

It was not until the mid-20th century that the radical US supreme court appointed by the social communist supporter FDR and his new communist deal began to introduce legislation from the bench that YOUR OPINION appeared .........until that time Blackstone was the cornerstone of US jurisprudence. The only constiution that you will find a "legal", actual and literal writting, concerning a separation of "church and state" is in a USSR constitution..........your separation was opined into law by a radical court system. To prove a point.........show me the actual TERM, separation of church and state in the U.S constitution........do not attempt to point to "LEGAL PRECEDENT" coming from the sound of a gavel.....that simply demonstrates the TRUTH of its non existence.

According to the 10th ammendment............if there is no literal restriction of wording found in the federal constitution (which is nothing but a legal and binding contract among the states....drafted and ratified by state representatives)......any words not found in the constitution belong to the PEOPLE/STATES......not SCOUTS who is part of the Federal Government

Question? If you had a legal and binding contract and one party decided to change the language of the contract without any imput from the other legeally bound party............would any court allow such a change? That's exactly what the radical court at the Federal Level did (SCOTUS is in fact the 3rd part of the federal government, and it claims the right to change a contract that was specfically and literally ratified to place limits on the power and scope of that same federal government)

The US Constitution is a negative document............its not a document that declares what the states can't do........its a document definfing what the federal government is limited to doing. Liberals attempt to use the Constitution as a legal hammer to hit the states .....making them conform to federal mandate. What? Why do all the STATE constitutions mention GOD in their TEXT, if there is a legal separation of church and state, Are these State Constitutions good only for Federal outhouse tissue? Pick a state..........any state you wish and you will find God addressed in that constitution. What? are all 50 states in violation of the same US Constitution they drafted and ratified by supermajority?

.........they (radical non elected/non represented civil serverants, aka. SCOTUS appointees) not only added words in the constitution that never existed, they actually changed words by making them oppose the actual meaning..........such as "Freedom OF Relgion" is opined to mean "FREEDOOM FROM RELIGION".......as you just attempted to redefine the 1st amendment by claiming that RELIGION is forced upon someone because your neighbor wishes to pray in public places such as school room..........as if just hearing a prayer is forcing anything upon another person. If that is the case you have some ignorant and uniformed liberals who are incapable of an independent critical thought process.

Sir William Blackstone | Blackstone Institute

» Sir William Blackstone | Empowering With Knowledge

blackstoneinstitute.org

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Blackstone referrenced the Holy Scriptures in his "commentaries" on English Law.

NFBW: Blackstone was a monarchist and for that reason means nothing to me about the founding of the secular federal government of the United States of America just like the Judeo Christian Bible and the story of salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States of America except that when I become a citizen of the United States I am free to regard the Holy Bible and one of the King’s men’s references to to be a myth. END2208241628

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Blackstone referrenced the Holy Scriptures in his "commentaries" on English Law.

NFBW: Blackstone means absolutely nothing to me and has no impact on our current discussion regarding the flaws in your argument. I Prefer Jefferson the rebel who put his life and property on the line against Blackstone and his loyalty to the ******* King of Engjand who claimed to represent God on earth which was a lie.

Although his Commentaries were popular, Blackstone opposed American independence. Jefferson, instead of seeing Blackstone as an influence, saw him as a barrier to a distinctly American law profession. For more on Getting Jefferson Right, click the link.​

​

END2208241648

 

[Clyde 154]

NFBW: Blackstone means absolutely nothing to me and has no impact on our current discussion regarding the flaws in your argument. I Prefer Jefferson the rebel who put his life and property on the line against Blackstone and his loyalty to the ******* King of Engjand who claimed to represent God on earth which was a lie.

Although his Commentaries were popular, Blackstone opposed American independence. Jefferson, instead of seeing Blackstone as an influence, saw him as a barrier to a distinctly American law profession. For more on Getting Jefferson Right, click the link.​

​

END2208241648

Exactly: as I demonstrated..........your opinion is nothing but AD HOMINEM Bull Shit, it has nothing to do with history actual or facts in evidence. Ain't it a grand thing to live in such a nation where you can demonstrate both your hatred and ignorance Legally, without some Brown Shirt liberal NAZI attempting to silence your freedom of religion and speech?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

social communist supporter FDR and his new communist deal

NFBW: And you think you are an independent thinker? COMMIE’s hiding under your bed are they?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

your opinion is nothing but AD HOMINEM Bull Shit

NFBW: Agreeing with Jefferson on Blackstone is AD HOMINEM Bull Shit to you? care to explain that?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

In essence the United States of America owes its birth to the Judeo/Christian philosophy.....as the majority of the founding document's legal positions were taken directly from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (one of which is the US Constitution).......which was referenced from the Word of God by Majority by Blackstone.

NFBW: That is nonsense.

• Jul 17, 2022
• #2,291

NFBW2207170134
Ding220716-#2,284 “Blackstone affirmed in his Commentaries that an individual’s right to life is an “immediate gift of God.””

NFBW wrote: Not surprised that 2020’s white Trump Catholic Taliban are quoting a 1760’s failed lawyer and judge and author who was rejected by Jefferson who saw none of the Biblical Christianity in the natural law that Blackstone claimed was there.

And Blackstone surely kept women in their place didn’t he ding .

The husband and wife are one, and that one is the husband.

No worries about the impending man-pocalypse under Blackstone laws.

This is the very cornerstone of our Constitutional republic; without it, the entire system crumbles into tyranny. Our entire Constitutional system may be seen as an explicit rejection of the rule of church law in the common law.
William Blackstone and the Founding Fathers | ScienceBlogs
Thus, those who continue to cite Blackstone and English common law in this regard, as justification for the imposition of Biblical injunctions as the civil and criminal law of the land, are missing the most crucial lesson of the Declaration of Independence and America's founding. The right to liberty is unalienable and may not be violated even by those who claim to know the will of God END2207170134

END2208242607

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Clyde_15220823-#132 “The United States of America was founded upon the the principle of FREEDOM "OF" RELIGION..........not freedom "FROM" religion.”

NFBW: That is not true. I am an American and I have freedom “from” religion as guaranteed in the Constitution. Can you present a case as to why you say I only have freedom “of” religion?

Clyde_152208234-#142 “the United States Constitution and the proceeding U.S. judicial system implemented Blackstone's Commentaires on the Laws of English into these founding documents. 2nd. Blackstone referrenced the Holy Scriptures in his "commentaries" on English Law”

NFBW: Bringing up William Blackstone is not making a case for denying any US citizen the right to freedom “from” religion. Why bring a KING’s Man who opposed American independence to argue your absurd belief? END2208241747

 

[Clyde 154]

NFBW: Agreeing with Jefferson on Blackstone is AD HOMINEM Bull Shit to you? care to explain that

Show me the passage in the constitution were Jefferson addressed a separation of church and state.....it does not exist. Last time I looked the "misinterpretation" of a personal correspondence between a "Baptisit" memeber who feared that the federal government was going to endorse one religion over another....does not constitute legal precedence. Even in the opion of the court in 1879 in the case of Reynolds v. the United States....the court opined that the wall being refrenced could be used as precendent only in endorsing the 1st amendment that prohibits the federal congress from MAKING ANY LAW that infringes upon the right of free exercise.

Jefferson was informing the minister that he had nothing to fear....as the 1st amendment guaranteed Freedom of Relgion with the express langague that "congress could pass NO LAW" prohibiting such....the 1st was a wall that separates free choice and state mandated religion.

There is nothing in this letter that even comes close to suggesting that the state would or could endorse one faith over another...nor is there a so called legal wall that separates the faiths in mandating ONE faith over another.......or forbidding the FREE EXERCISE thereof...........the only WALL ERECTED was and remains in the 1st amendmenet........"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" forbidding the free exercise of the religion of one's choice. Yet the radical liberals appointed to FDR's packed court declared the exact opposite........FREEDOM "FROM" the religion of someone's personal choice.

Again....show me before the Radical Courts decision that errantly used a private communication, projecting it as legal precedent in favor of PROHIBITING RELIGION........there was any mention of a separation of church and state that prohibited public religion. If it exists then every state in the Union, who actually radified the US Constitution by a super majority vote....are guilty of not separating church and state (as God is directly referenced in every State Constitution)......so is the US military guilty who uses tax payer funding for a Chaplin Corp...........or the courts throughout the US who use taxpayer funding to purchase Bibles for the courtroom swearing in, or the congress of the US that still uses the Holy bible oath........is just as guility....so is the US mint who declares IN GOD WE TRUST on its legal tender...........so is every politician that uses a bible to take an oath of office in defending the US Constitution. That would include Joe Hide'n.

Again.........the US Constitution is a "negative" document that places limits upon the power and scrope of the Central Government, its the only way that a federal government could have ever came into existence, the states would have remained independent each with their own governments etc. In reality the Central Government was formed for the express reason of doing what the states were incapable of doing for themselves.......1st and foremost is the creation of a Federal Military to defend all the states, next a central government could fairly requlate interstate trade and commerce........lastly interstate infrastructure to made trade between the states fast and convenient....as well as troop movements should the need ever be required again.

Why do you assume the Federal Government used tax payer funding to build a coast to coast rail system? It was for Military purposes in the beginning.........then for private development.

The central government was never intended to be a Nanny to the states nor a welfare state.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Show me the passage in the constitution were Jefferson addressed a separation of church and state.....it does not exist.

NFBW: Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written, but the Constitution says this:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”​

​

The Free Exercise Clause . . . withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.”​

​

My “church” is no organized religion whatsoever and I shall call it “secular humanism” . . . . . Therefore the US Constitution guarantees in the free exercise clause that the ‘state’ shall make no law prohibiting me from exercising my secular humanism which is my church. If you seek to argue that the free exercise clause is not expressing there must be a wall of separation between church and state you are arguing in favor of religious fascism for the religious majority by tearing down the wall that protects me. You are unAmericsn if you tear down that wall.

Jefferson was the only one who didn't make his Christian belief public.

NFBW: Do you agree with JGalt that Jefferson was a Christian as one who believes in the divinity of Christ?

END2208242226

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Again....show me before the Radical Courts decision that errantly used a private communication, projecting it as legal precedent in favor of PROHIBITING RELIGION...

NFBW: When in the history of the United States of America has Congress passed a law in favor of prohibiting any individual from exercising his or her religion? END2208242236

 

[whutTHEYsay]

FREEDOM "FROM" the religion of someone's personal choice. Trump

NFBW: What is FREEDOM "FROM" the religion of someone's personal choice.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Jefferson was informing the minister that he had nothing to fear...

NFBW: Jefferson would have informed a secular humanist that he had nothing to fear as well. So why are you living in constant fear that your freedom of religion is under threat if the governments allows freedom from religion to be in effect? END2208250222

 

[themirrorthief]

They sound just like the Taliban or ISIS.

Both the Taliban and the other islamic extremist group are theocracies.

That christian group wants to spit on the very constitution this country was founded on and turn it into a theocracy.

satan cant get everyone

 

[themirrorthief]

Exactly: as I demonstrated..........your opinion is nothing but AD HOMINEM Bull Shit, it has nothing to do with history actual or facts in evidence. Ain't it a grand thing to live in such a nation where you can demonstrate both your hatred and ignorance Legally, without some Brown Shirt liberal NAZI attempting to silence your freedom of religion and speech?

if you support the police the brownshirts will be in your yard in a new york second

 

[Clyde 154]

if you support the police the brownshirts will be in your yard in a new york second

What's wrong with this picture? Some truth....... you do have a point............THE FBI did raid President Trump's home on a phishing expedition on the orders of a despot. These the BROWN SHIRTS should be dealt with.............

 

[whutTHEYsay]

IN GOD WE TRUST on its legal tender..

NFBW: It’s no bother to me as an agnostic secular humanist to see “In God We Trust” on money because it is not a reference to Jesus Christ or the alleged anthropomorphic white bearded author of the Judeo Christian Bible. As Trump-Jesus-Reiligion accelerates the decline in white wing Christian ideology - that silly slogan like that will eventually be taken off our money,

The first five Presidents didn’t openly embrace the Christian teaching that Jesus was a divine being, but they believed in ‘Natures’ God. - So when I see “In God We Trust” I see a reference to what WASHINGTON Adams Jefferson Madison and Monroe likely believed God not to be Jesus Christ.

Monroe was the last founding father who became President, the fifth one who did not partake in the Christian ritual of Communion perhaps the only exception would be Madison , but Madison is my greatest hero among founders who built the wall of separation between conscience and state.

Monroe was raised in a family that belonged to the Church of England when it was the state church in Virginia before the Revolution. As an adult, he frequently attended Episcopal churches, though there is no record he ever took communion. Some historians see "deistic tendencies" in his few references to an impersonal God. Unlike Jefferson, Monroe was rarely attacked as an atheist and infidel for his deistic views. In 1832 James Renwick Willson, a Reformed Presbyterian minister in Albany, New York, criticized Monroe for having "lived and died like a second-rate Athenian philosopher."



The true question, James Nafudon wrote, was not whether religion was necessary. It was whether religious establishments were necessary for religion. The answer to that, he scribbled, was simple—“no.”

The state cannot actually support religion, because religion’s strength depends on men’s mind, their reason, and their conscience alone.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

THE FBI did raid President Trump's home on a phishing expedition on the orders of a despot

You are a liar. Trump and his lawyers lied to the FBI when they signed statements that all documents were returned

• A Trump lawyer told the Justice Department in June there were no classified materials on the property, The New York Times reported.

 

[Clyde 154]

NFBW: It’s no bother to me as an agnostic secular humanist to see “In God We Trust” on money because it is not a reference to Jesus Christ or the alleged anthropomorphic white bearded author of the Judeo Christian Bible. As Trump-Jesus-Reiligion accelerates the decline in white wing Christian ideology - that silly slogan like that will eventually be taken off our money,

The first five Presidents didn’t openly embrace the Christian teaching that Jesus was a divine being, but they believed in ‘Natures’ God. - So when I see “In God We Trust” I see a reference to what WASHINGTON Adams Jefferson Madison and Monroe likely believed God not to be Jesus Christ.

Monroe was the last founding father who became President, the fifth one who did not partake in the Christian ritual of Communion perhaps the only exception would be Madison , but Madison is my greatest hero among founders who built the wall of separation between conscience and state.

Monroe was raised in a family that belonged to the Church of England when it was the state church in Virginia before the Revolution. As an adult, he frequently attended Episcopal churches, though there is no record he ever took communion. Some historians see "deistic tendencies" in his few references to an impersonal God. Unlike Jefferson, Monroe was rarely attacked as an atheist and infidel for his deistic views. In 1832 James Renwick Willson, a Reformed Presbyterian minister in Albany, New York, criticized Monroe for having "lived and died like a second-rate Athenian philosopher."



The true question, James Nafudon wrote, was not whether religion was necessary. It was whether religious establishments were necessary for religion. The answer to that, he scribbled, was simple—“no.”

The state cannot actually support religion, because religion’s strength depends on men’s mind, their reason, and their conscience alone.

So...........by your own logic.......or the lack thereof, the only Religion that is fobidden by Constitutional decree is Christiantiy, and the only relgion on earth is Christianity? Referenceing the God of Creation is not a violation of church and state.......unless you are referencing the God of Christianity? LMAO The quint essential example of left wing logic.........no congnitive connection whatsoever to REASON. Do you not see just how convoluted your "circular logic" becomes when you are attempting to deny the facts in evidence? You go into some bloviating historical account of the founding fathers........that refutes nothing as to the historical fact that Blackstone's theories on law are the foundation to the US system of Jurisprudence/US Constitution/Bill of Rights and Blackstone referenced the Holy Bible almost exclusively, specifically the 10 commandments as presented in the Judeo/Christian philosophy. The very idea of mandating 3 distinct branches of Government comes from the Holy Scriptures.........Blackstone introduced the legal theory of SEPARTION OF POWER to US founding documents and this theory comes directly from the Bible according to John Adams who stated the theory came from Jer. 17:9

Another Historical Fact..........the United States owes its very foundation to those who decided to flee Europe during the "Protestant" reformation period of world history. They fled to the western world in order to rid themselves of Government tyranny in mandating how, who, when and How they should worship.

The founding documents of this nation began with the "1620" landing of 102 people who where called Pilgrams looking for the promise land, under inspiration of the Holy Bible. This is where the very idea of "Federalist" came from........Federalist is translated from the Latin, used by the RCC ........."Fodeus".......which literally means Covenant between man and God. Thus, the Federalist Papers were the companion document of the US Constitution in explaing the langague used in the US Constitution...before the Constitution was ratified by a super majority vote among the STATES.

Then consider the "Liberty Bell"........no need to give a history lesson, but the Term Liberty comes from the Holy Scriptures ........place liberty and bell together if means ".......to proclaim liberty thoughout the land", a direct quote from Lev. 25:10

And speaking of James Madison? Madison was greatly influenced by his study of the Hebrew Language and the Old Testament when he studied at the "College of New Jersey".......today called Princeton, in 1778 while giving a speech to the General Assembly of Va. he stated, "We have stated the future of ALL OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS upon on our captivity, TO SUSTAIN OURSELVES ACCORDING TO THE 10 COMMANDMENTS." -- James Madison

Commentaries on the Laws of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How The Bible Inspired The American Founding From The Beginning

Four centuries ago, the Mayflower Pilgrims saw themselves as modern-day heirs of Moses seeking the Promised Land — forming a kinship with deep roots.

thefederalist.com