Andylusion
Platinum Member
..The Declaration of Independence says openly "rights endowed by our creator". Th
was Jesus Christ our creator.
We are talking about the specific “founded as a Christian Nation” lie.
why post evidence that has no connection?
Do you still not understand what we are talking about here.
Well I don't know what to say to that, because when the entire basis for forming a new country was that we have rights endowed by our creator, which everyone admits was the Christian G-d.... to me that means our founding core basis for creating this country was the Christian G-d.
So.... I guess we agree to disagree? Because there is no logical answer, to something that sounds illogical. I can't even identify with your thought pattern when people say "We are endowed by our creator" as the basis for independence, and yet say obviously our creator is....... what? The tooth fairy?
What do you think they had in mind, when the smallest number of people were full deists, and most believed in Christianity, and Adams directly says the basis for the country was Christian core principals?
.Well I don't know what to say to that, because when the entire basis for forming a new country was that we have rights endowed by our creator, which everyone admits was the Christian G-d.... to me that means our founding core basis for creating this country was the Christian G
the written document is secular with appeasement for religion without specific references and uses generic creator as the example - you ignore.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...
your religion is excluded from the constitution - not your choice of what if any religion you chose to attach yourself to.
.
.What do you think they had in mind, when the smallest number of people were full deists, and most believed in Christianity, and Adams directly says the basis for the country was Christian core principals?
the document as written is not what any of the politicians may have been "saying" ...
Gouverneur Morris - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Preamble was created at the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787. It was probably written by Governeur Morris, who drafted much of the rest of the Constitution.
Gouverneur Morris - WikipediaAt the convention he gave more speeches than any other delegate, a total of 173. As a matter of principle, he often vigorously defended the right of anyone to practice his chosen religion without interference, and he argued to include such language in the Constitution.[13]
the written language of the document - is the law. the document - all that matters is everything but an endorsement of any particular religion - and was then and is now a cornerstone of this countries enduring heritage, religious freedom. - - >
- freedom from 4th century christianity recognized at that time and presently as a politically motivated document disguised as a religion without any verifiable evidence for any of its conclusions.
I'm not sure what point you think you are making here. Nothing you said, contradicted anything I said.
In fact, I would agree with all the evidence you cited, just not your conclusion. There is no "freedom from religion" in the constitution, nor did anyone ever make such a statement.
So I'm not sure what point you think you made.
.There is no "freedom from religion" in the constitution, nor did anyone ever make such a statement.
that was morris - the author of the amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...
.
freedom from religion is the very point of the exclusionary clause - the first line of the bill of rights -
.
.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.
the second phrase - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - is a statement to allow religion if so desired.
morris deliberately left christianity to its own demise as over time that clearly has been the outcome for those that pretend they were ever in charge of the intent they today simply refuse to comprehend, their exclusion, when confronted with its reality and the clever penmanship of its author.
freedom from religion is the very point of the exclusionary clause
No. Not in the sense that you should be able to stop a pizza shop that doesn't want to cater a gay wedding, because you have 'freedom from religion', no. That's wrong.
I can't force you to pray. Well... that's not a big deal. Jesus himself, never tried to force anyone to do anything.
So, that's a Christian virtue. I consider the lack of trying to force people to abide by a standard of religion, to be part of those core christian values that was used in founding of the country.
But that is not the same at all, to saying you have a freedom from religion.
The idea that you have a right to a freedom from religion, meaning you can demand students not pray in school.... no. There is no such right. You are just wrong. And if that is what Morris meant, then he is wrong as well.