Here's How The Founding Fathers Ensured America Would Not Be A Christian Nation

[SandSquid]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution ensured religious freedom for everyone. It wasn't until a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a concept of "separation of church and state" that didn't appear in the Constitution that the democrat party's war on Christian beliefs started.

Actually that term "separation of Church and state" was founded by.... Thomas Jefferson. When he wrote a letter to a church about what he meant with the 1st amendment saying "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. "

So while it is interesting to try and erase that history and rewrite it as new hundreds of years later, that is a lie. When the Supreme Court went to interpret what the Founding fathers meant with that clause, they went to what the founding fathers said was their meaning with that clause. A "WALL of separation between Church and State" was their intent.

And this is supported with Madison's writings (Madison led the proposal and was on the committee for this clause in the 1st), where he writes about the debates among the committee and how some initially pushed for allowing the federal government to endorse religion in a general way as long as it did not engage in preferential treatment of any sect. And how overall the committee decided that was too weak and that a clear separation needed to be established.

As for the "democratic war"... the supreme court decisions to follow that separation were supported by Eisenhower nominees in Abington Township v. Schempp which removed the Lords prayer and bible reading from schools, Lemon v Kurtzman which said that new laws could not push religion, and Nixon/Eisenhower appointees supporting and leading the majority opinion in Wallace v Jaffree that confirmed further laws that support religion can't be passed.

And the Lee v Weisman case which the court opposed school prayer had the majority with O'Conner/Kennedy (Reagan appointees), Stevens (Ford Appointee), Souter (HW Bush appointee), and Blackmun (Nixon appointee). The only Dem appointee to the SC actually dissented with that majority opinion.

So Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, HW Bush are now democrats? This just took an odd turn into some alternative history here.

 

[Picaro]

Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, so his opinion is merely his opinion and isn't representative of 'The Founders'; the fact is it's immediately obvious that the clause didn't apply to the individual state governments re original intent. We know this because many states did indeed have favored state sects, with taxing powers to boot, and no Supreme Court ruling had a thing to do with the gradual changes to 'secularism' at the state levels; that occurred via demographic changes over decades within the state governments themselves; the Feds didn't have anything to do with that.

We also know for a fact that their original intent didn't mean banning Christian symbols or activities, including church services, on Federal property, which is also immediately obvious as we have Jefferson himself attending church services being held on Federal property. In no case was Christianity ever banned from govt. or Federal property by the 'Founders'; that is a recent mythology.

As a fun exercise for the Peanut Gallery, go find all the recent Supreme Court rulings re religion that cite any Court precedents before 1947.

Cherry picking quotes from your favorite spin doctors is fun and all, but it isn't factual history.

 

[sparky]

Our FF's knew religmo's in Gub'Mit are all about control, not faith

~S~

 

[Picaro]

So while it is interesting to try and erase that history and rewrite it as new hundreds of years later, that is a lie. When the Supreme Court went to interpret what the Founding fathers meant with that clause, they went to what the founding fathers said was their meaning with that clause. A "WALL of separation between Church and State" was their intent.

And this is supported with Madison's writings (Madison led the proposal and was on the committee for this clause in the 1st), where he writes about the debates among the committee and how some initially pushed for allowing the federal government to endorse religion in a general way as long as it did not engage in preferential treatment of any sect. And how overall the committee decided that was too weak and that a clear separation needed to be established.

As for the "democratic war"... the supreme court decisions to follow that separation were supported by Eisenhower nominees in Abington Township v. Schempp which removed the Lords prayer and bible reading from schools, Lemon v Kurtzman which said that new laws could not push religion, and Nixon/Eisenhower appointees supporting and leading the majority opinion in Wallace v Jaffree that confirmed further laws that support religion can't be passed.

And the Lee v Weisman case which the court opposed school prayer had the majority with O'Conner/Kennedy (Reagan appointees), Stevens (Ford Appointee), Souter (HW Bush appointee), and Blackmun (Nixon appointee). The only Dem appointee to the SC actually dissented with that majority opinion.

So Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, HW Bush are now democrats? This just took an odd turn into some alternative history here.

And we know they were referring to the Federal government, not the individual state governments. And, we have also have Jefferson approving Federal funding during his Presidency for supporting religious activities' as well, so again it's obvious that 'original intent' is being grossly misrepresented by later 'interpretations'.

 

[sparky]

And nothing 'interprets' better than religmo's vying for control

 

[Picaro]

Our FF's knew religmo's in Gub'Mit are all about control, not faith

~S~

They knew most of the states were themselves colonies formed by specific sects, and none of them would ever agree on which sect got special favoritism at the Federal level. They needed to avoid getting bogged down on that issue when their main goal was merely to form a trade union among themselves and get back to making money.

 

[Picaro]

Our FF's knew religmo's in Gub'Mit are all about control, not faith

~S~

They weren't banning Da Evul Xians N Stuff, no matter what drivel assorted deviants and sociopaths dream up for slogans.

 

[norwegen]

The founders did not want doctrinal differences to wreak civic havoc of the kind then evident throughout Europe. That is why they left not only Jesus but indeed any deity out of the Constitution. That the American population was and is overwhelmingly Christian is a fact. That makes it all the more remarkable that the founders did not establish a Christian government.

The ungodliness of the Constitution kept popping up in public discourse throughout the nineteenth century, most notably when a powerful group of Protestant ministers came to Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and demanded that he support an amendment to declare Jesus Christ, not “We the People,” the source of all governmental power. Lincoln, a canny politician who knew when not to take on another battle in the middle of a bloody civil war, declined to take any action and instead went along with a move to placate the ministers by putting “In God We Trust” on a two-penny coin in 1864. Lincoln presumably viewed the inscription of trust in a deity on a coin as an innocuous action calculated to avoid the trouble that would surely be generated by a Christian amendment to the Constitution. Little did he know that nearly 150 years in the future, right-wing politicians would employ that slogan to attack the much older motto E Pluribus Unum.

Here is how the Founding Fathers ensured America would not be a Christian nation

And just so we are clear. E. Pluribus Unum is our national motto. NOT In God We Trust.

Actually, the founders drafted a charter called the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution came later.

The country's charter asserts that by God - the "Supreme Judge" - the states are free and independent and that by the same God - "divine Providence" - the signers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.

 

[norwegen]

Wait, didn't Jesus say: "Go, therefore, and set up Christian Nations, so you can lord over and dominate everyone else!"

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

~ Jesus

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm not sure what Black allegedly being former klan has to do with anything but I will point out that Klan members consider themselves to be Christian

And the 'Gay Rights' hoax was founded by a Communist Party member and had NAMBLA as part of it's 'Founding Faggots' groups. The 'Founder' also was a huge fan of NAMBLA, even liked to wear a " NAMBLA Walks With Me' sign in 'Pride' parades. "Progressives' love to gush over goods ole Harry, which is why your posts babbling about anything are so hilarious for the hypocrisy they represent.

Spare me the NAMBLA horseshit. The group barley exists anymore and what is left of them has nothing to do with the present day gay rights movement.

 

[SandSquid]

Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, so his opinion is merely his opinion and isn't representative of 'The Founders'; the fact is it's immediately obvious that the clause didn't apply to the individual state governments re original intent. We know this because many states did indeed have favored state sects, with taxing powers to boot, and no Supreme Court ruling had a thing to do with the gradual changes to 'secularism' at the state levels; that occurred via demographic changes over decades within the state governments themselves; the Feds didn't have anything to do with that.

We also know for a fact that their original intent didn't mean banning Christian symbols or activities, including church services, on Federal property, which is also immediately obvious as we have Jefferson himself attending church services being held on Federal property. In no case was Christianity ever banned from govt. or Federal property by the 'Founders'; that is a recent mythology.

As a fun exercise for the Peanut Gallery, go find all the recent Supreme Court rulings re religion that cite any Court precedents before 1947.

Cherry picking quotes from your favorite spin doctors is fun and all, but it isn't factual history.

It seems you are trying to spin a story there. Yes Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, but a delegate to France. Which is why when he saw the Constitution, he pushed for an addendum, a "bill of rights" to be added, which while Madison originally was opposed to finally relented at Jefferson's insistence. To say Jefferson wasn't representative of the bill of rights is a major wrong.

It's interesting you call out cherry picking. Then cherry pick that Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention and try to shed that history in a different light there.

You are right about precedent. There were very few court cases on religious freedom pre-1947. It doesn't mean the ones post-1947 are not Constitutionally fact and law.

As for historical pre-1947, there was one about polygamy (said religious freedom doesn't let you break the law), one that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the 1st amendment free exercise clause overrides state laws on religious groups. Also had Cochran vs. Louisiana which ruled that while tax money can go towards buying books for kids in school, it is illegal for Louisiana state tax money to go to religious books for kids or books for the religious school that were not for the students.

And yes, the founding fathers didn't always follow their words of what was right. They might talk that all men have freedom and own slaves. Speak that the federal government should be limited and then expand it's power when it suited them. Monroe would be a good example. Ran against the Federalists and said time and again he was a strict Constitutionalist. Take it word for word, no stretching of it's implied powers... Until it came time to double the size of the US when stretching it's implied powers was something he had to do to complete the Louisiana purchase.

 

[Picaro]

Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, so his opinion is merely his opinion and isn't representative of 'The Founders'; the fact is it's immediately obvious that the clause didn't apply to the individual state governments re original intent. We know this because many states did indeed have favored state sects, with taxing powers to boot, and no Supreme Court ruling had a thing to do with the gradual changes to 'secularism' at the state levels; that occurred via demographic changes over decades within the state governments themselves; the Feds didn't have anything to do with that.

We also know for a fact that their original intent didn't mean banning Christian symbols or activities, including church services, on Federal property, which is also immediately obvious as we have Jefferson himself attending church services being held on Federal property. In no case was Christianity ever banned from govt. or Federal property by the 'Founders'; that is a recent mythology.

As a fun exercise for the Peanut Gallery, go find all the recent Supreme Court rulings re religion that cite any Court precedents before 1947.

Cherry picking quotes from your favorite spin doctors is fun and all, but it isn't factual history.

It seems you are trying to spin a story there. Yes Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, but a delegate to France. Which is why when he saw the Constitution, he pushed for an addendum, a "bill of rights" to be added, which while Madison originally was opposed to finally relented at Jefferson's insistence. To say Jefferson wasn't representative of the bill of rights is a major wrong.

It's interesting you call out cherry picking. Then cherry pick that Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention and try to shed that history in a different light there.

You are right about precedent. There were very few court cases on religious freedom pre-1947. It doesn't mean the ones post-1947 are not Constitutionally fact and law.

As for historical pre-1947, there was one about polygamy (said religious freedom doesn't let you break the law), one that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the 1st amendment free exercise clause overrides state laws on religious groups. Also had Cochran vs. Louisiana which ruled that while tax money can go towards buying books for kids in school, it is illegal for Louisiana state tax money to go to religious books for kids or books for the religious school that were not for the students.

And yes, the founding fathers didn't always follow their words of what was right. They might talk that all men have freedom and own slaves. Speak that the federal government should be limited and then expand it's power when it suited them. Monroe would be a good example. Ran against the Federalists and said time and again he was a strict Constitutionalist. Take it word for word, no stretching of it's implied powers... Until it came time to double the size of the US when stretching it's implied powers was something he had to do to complete the Louisiana purchase.

I'm not 'spinning' anything, just the opposite, in fact; the fact is the clause restricts the Federal government from interfering with Christianity, not the other way around as you and some others seem to want to claim, and of course no rebuttal of any of the obvious facts I posted re Christian functions held on Federal property, states being free to establish their own sects as privileged as they wished, so we know for a fact the OP is rubbish and so is the claim that 'The Founders' understanding of 'Separation' doesn't even remotely resemble the modern myth peddled by left wingers, or right winger sociopaths and assorted deviants. Jefferson was only one opinion among many, not the be all and end all of anything, and didn't carry the weight of law in any way.

The topic is about original intent, not a bunch of stuff that came along in the 20th century to appease Xian bashing freak shows and sociopaths.

 

[Picaro]

I'm not sure what Black allegedly being former klan has to do with anything but I will point out that Klan members consider themselves to be Christian

And the 'Gay Rights' hoax was founded by a Communist Party member and had NAMBLA as part of it's 'Founding Faggots' groups. The 'Founder' also was a huge fan of NAMBLA, even liked to wear a " NAMBLA Walks With Me' sign in 'Pride' parades. "Progressives' love to gush over goods ole Harry, which is why your posts babbling about anything are so hilarious for the hypocrisy they represent.

Spare me the NAMBLA horseshit. The group barley exists anymore and what is left of them has nothing to do with the present day gay rights movement.

lol more blatant lying, as usual. That group will never die as long as they have faggot organixzations and faggot media to advertise in. The FBI occasionally shuts them down, but the faggot 'community' keeps them coming back, especially faggot 'travel agencies'.

 

[SandSquid]

Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, so his opinion is merely his opinion and isn't representative of 'The Founders'; the fact is it's immediately obvious that the clause didn't apply to the individual state governments re original intent. We know this because many states did indeed have favored state sects, with taxing powers to boot, and no Supreme Court ruling had a thing to do with the gradual changes to 'secularism' at the state levels; that occurred via demographic changes over decades within the state governments themselves; the Feds didn't have anything to do with that.

We also know for a fact that their original intent didn't mean banning Christian symbols or activities, including church services, on Federal property, which is also immediately obvious as we have Jefferson himself attending church services being held on Federal property. In no case was Christianity ever banned from govt. or Federal property by the 'Founders'; that is a recent mythology.

As a fun exercise for the Peanut Gallery, go find all the recent Supreme Court rulings re religion that cite any Court precedents before 1947.

Cherry picking quotes from your favorite spin doctors is fun and all, but it isn't factual history.

It seems you are trying to spin a story there. Yes Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, but a delegate to France. Which is why when he saw the Constitution, he pushed for an addendum, a "bill of rights" to be added, which while Madison originally was opposed to finally relented at Jefferson's insistence. To say Jefferson wasn't representative of the bill of rights is a major wrong.

It's interesting you call out cherry picking. Then cherry pick that Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention and try to shed that history in a different light there.

You are right about precedent. There were very few court cases on religious freedom pre-1947. It doesn't mean the ones post-1947 are not Constitutionally fact and law.

As for historical pre-1947, there was one about polygamy (said religious freedom doesn't let you break the law), one that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the 1st amendment free exercise clause overrides state laws on religious groups. Also had Cochran vs. Louisiana which ruled that while tax money can go towards buying books for kids in school, it is illegal for Louisiana state tax money to go to religious books for kids or books for the religious school that were not for the students.

And yes, the founding fathers didn't always follow their words of what was right. They might talk that all men have freedom and own slaves. Speak that the federal government should be limited and then expand it's power when it suited them. Monroe would be a good example. Ran against the Federalists and said time and again he was a strict Constitutionalist. Take it word for word, no stretching of it's implied powers... Until it came time to double the size of the US when stretching it's implied powers was something he had to do to complete the Louisiana purchase.

I'm not 'spinning' anything, just the opposite, in fact; the fact is the clause restricts the Federal government from interfering with Christianity, not the other way around as you and some others seem to want to claim, and of course no rebuttal of any of the obvious facts I posted re Christian functions held on Federal property, states being free to establish their own sects as privileged as they wished, so we know for a fact the OP is rubbish and so is the claim that 'The Founders' understanding of 'Separation' doesn't even remotely resemble the modern myth peddled by left wingers, or right winger sociopaths and assorted deviants. Jefferson was only one opinion among many, not the be all and end all of anything, and didn't carry the weight of law in any way.

Again, it wasn't peddled by "left wingers" but passed as Constitutional law by Republican appointed Justices. Sorry but an attempt to rewrite history doesn't change it, and when you have to lie to support that cause, it doesn't help said cause.

 

[Picaro]

Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, so his opinion is merely his opinion and isn't representative of 'The Founders'; the fact is it's immediately obvious that the clause didn't apply to the individual state governments re original intent. We know this because many states did indeed have favored state sects, with taxing powers to boot, and no Supreme Court ruling had a thing to do with the gradual changes to 'secularism' at the state levels; that occurred via demographic changes over decades within the state governments themselves; the Feds didn't have anything to do with that.

We also know for a fact that their original intent didn't mean banning Christian symbols or activities, including church services, on Federal property, which is also immediately obvious as we have Jefferson himself attending church services being held on Federal property. In no case was Christianity ever banned from govt. or Federal property by the 'Founders'; that is a recent mythology.

As a fun exercise for the Peanut Gallery, go find all the recent Supreme Court rulings re religion that cite any Court precedents before 1947.

Cherry picking quotes from your favorite spin doctors is fun and all, but it isn't factual history.

It seems you are trying to spin a story there. Yes Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, but a delegate to France. Which is why when he saw the Constitution, he pushed for an addendum, a "bill of rights" to be added, which while Madison originally was opposed to finally relented at Jefferson's insistence. To say Jefferson wasn't representative of the bill of rights is a major wrong.

It's interesting you call out cherry picking. Then cherry pick that Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention and try to shed that history in a different light there.

You are right about precedent. There were very few court cases on religious freedom pre-1947. It doesn't mean the ones post-1947 are not Constitutionally fact and law.

As for historical pre-1947, there was one about polygamy (said religious freedom doesn't let you break the law), one that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the 1st amendment free exercise clause overrides state laws on religious groups. Also had Cochran vs. Louisiana which ruled that while tax money can go towards buying books for kids in school, it is illegal for Louisiana state tax money to go to religious books for kids or books for the religious school that were not for the students.

And yes, the founding fathers didn't always follow their words of what was right. They might talk that all men have freedom and own slaves. Speak that the federal government should be limited and then expand it's power when it suited them. Monroe would be a good example. Ran against the Federalists and said time and again he was a strict Constitutionalist. Take it word for word, no stretching of it's implied powers... Until it came time to double the size of the US when stretching it's implied powers was something he had to do to complete the Louisiana purchase.

I'm not 'spinning' anything, just the opposite, in fact; the fact is the clause restricts the Federal government from interfering with Christianity, not the other way around as you and some others seem to want to claim, and of course no rebuttal of any of the obvious facts I posted re Christian functions held on Federal property, states being free to establish their own sects as privileged as they wished, so we know for a fact the OP is rubbish and so is the claim that 'The Founders' understanding of 'Separation' doesn't even remotely resemble the modern myth peddled by left wingers, or right winger sociopaths and assorted deviants. Jefferson was only one opinion among many, not the be all and end all of anything, and didn't carry the weight of law in any way.

Again, it wasn't peddled by "left wingers" but passed as Constitutional law by Republican appointed Justices. Sorry but an attempt to rewrite history doesn't change it, and when you have to lie to support that cause, it doesn't help said cause.

lol more fake news, and I'm not the one with a 'cause' to peddle here. Duly noted that no one has yet to refute the facts I posted.

Actually that term "separation of Church and state" was founded by.... Thomas Jefferson. When he wrote a letter to a church about what he meant with the 1st amendment saying "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. "

In other news, it's ironic that the assorted deviants and sociopaths who want to get rid of Da Evul Xians would also have to get rid of the 'separation' clause as well, since it was a premise invented by Dose EVul Fundie Evangelical Baptists; it is one of their founding platforms in 1610 A.D. ...

. So, you fake history peddlers are screwed both ways. Jefferson was assuring the Baptists he was a supporter of their concerns; he didn't invent it, and he also depended on all those Evul Fundies for his election to office; the 'Second Great Awakening' in fact made him President; many Americans at the time were not Anglicans, as were most of the wealthy Federalists.

 

[SandSquid]

I'm not sure what Black allegedly being former klan has to do with anything but I will point out that Klan members consider themselves to be Christian

And the 'Gay Rights' hoax was founded by a Communist Party member and had NAMBLA as part of it's 'Founding Faggots' groups. The 'Founder' also was a huge fan of NAMBLA, even liked to wear a " NAMBLA Walks With Me' sign in 'Pride' parades. "Progressives' love to gush over goods ole Harry, which is why your posts babbling about anything are so hilarious for the hypocrisy they represent.

Spare me the NAMBLA horseshit. The group barley exists anymore and what is left of them has nothing to do with the present day gay rights movement.

lol more blatant lying, as usual. That group will never die as long as they have faggot organixzations and faggot media to advertise in. The FBI occasionally shuts them down, but the faggot 'community' keeps them coming back, especially faggot 'travel agencies'.

Ewww didn't realize you were one of those filthy homophobes. Never mind, enjoy your life, I'll ignore ya.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm not sure what Black allegedly being former klan has to do with anything but I will point out that Klan members consider themselves to be Christian

And the 'Gay Rights' hoax was founded by a Communist Party member and had NAMBLA as part of it's 'Founding Faggots' groups. The 'Founder' also was a huge fan of NAMBLA, even liked to wear a " NAMBLA Walks With Me' sign in 'Pride' parades. "Progressives' love to gush over goods ole Harry, which is why your posts babbling about anything are so hilarious for the hypocrisy they represent.

Spare me the NAMBLA horseshit. The group barley exists anymore and what is left of them has nothing to do with the present day gay rights movement.

lol more blatant lying, as usual. That group will never die as long as they have faggot organixzations and faggot media to advertise in. The FBI occasionally shuts them down, but the faggot 'community' keeps them coming back, especially faggot 'travel agencies'.

Bullshit!

 

[Picaro]

I'm not sure what Black allegedly being former klan has to do with anything but I will point out that Klan members consider themselves to be Christian

And the 'Gay Rights' hoax was founded by a Communist Party member and had NAMBLA as part of it's 'Founding Faggots' groups. The 'Founder' also was a huge fan of NAMBLA, even liked to wear a " NAMBLA Walks With Me' sign in 'Pride' parades. "Progressives' love to gush over goods ole Harry, which is why your posts babbling about anything are so hilarious for the hypocrisy they represent.

Spare me the NAMBLA horseshit. The group barley exists anymore and what is left of them has nothing to do with the present day gay rights movement.

lol more blatant lying, as usual. That group will never die as long as they have faggot organixzations and faggot media to advertise in. The FBI occasionally shuts them down, but the faggot 'community' keeps them coming back, especially faggot 'travel agencies'.

Ewww didn't realize you were one of those filthy homophobes. Never mind, enjoy your life, I'll ignore ya.

Good. you don't know any real history anyway, and it's obvious you are big fan of sicko deviants like your buddy 'Pee Pee here, shilling for a fake narrative, complete with fake pop psychology terms to boot, definitely just a shill.

 

[Picaro]

I'm not sure what Black allegedly being former klan has to do with anything but I will point out that Klan members consider themselves to be Christian

And the 'Gay Rights' hoax was founded by a Communist Party member and had NAMBLA as part of it's 'Founding Faggots' groups. The 'Founder' also was a huge fan of NAMBLA, even liked to wear a " NAMBLA Walks With Me' sign in 'Pride' parades. "Progressives' love to gush over goods ole Harry, which is why your posts babbling about anything are so hilarious for the hypocrisy they represent.

Spare me the NAMBLA horseshit. The group barley exists anymore and what is left of them has nothing to do with the present day gay rights movement.

lol more blatant lying, as usual. That group will never die as long as they have faggot organizations and faggot media to advertise in. The FBI occasionally shuts them down, but the faggot 'community' keeps them coming back, especially faggot 'travel agencies'.

Bullshit!

You can never refute the facts, as usual for you. You faggots are the only 'Movement' in world history that actually felt it had to be 'fair' to your founding pedophile gangs and hold a vote on whether or not to expel them after their many decades of being a major part of your 'Rights' scam. Of course, there never would have been even that if it hadn't been for Jesse Helms screwing up your potential gravy train at the UN by forcing the serial rapist Bill Clinton to refuse to endorse the ILGA for NGO status because of your buddies from NAMBLA being such a prominent part of the whole 'movement'. So yes, we get why you hate not being able to completely censor the facts there, PeePee. You 'Progressives' loves you some of the pedophile fan Harry Hay.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm not sure what Black allegedly being former klan has to do with anything but I will point out that Klan members consider themselves to be Christian

And the 'Gay Rights' hoax was founded by a Communist Party member and had NAMBLA as part of it's 'Founding Faggots' groups. The 'Founder' also was a huge fan of NAMBLA, even liked to wear a " NAMBLA Walks With Me' sign in 'Pride' parades. "Progressives' love to gush over goods ole Harry, which is why your posts babbling about anything are so hilarious for the hypocrisy they represent.

Spare me the NAMBLA horseshit. The group barley exists anymore and what is left of them has nothing to do with the present day gay rights movement.

lol more blatant lying, as usual. That group will never die as long as they have faggot organizations and faggot media to advertise in. The FBI occasionally shuts them down, but the faggot 'community' keeps them coming back, especially faggot 'travel agencies'.

Bullshit!

You can never refute the facts, as usual for you. You faggots are the only 'Movement' in world history that actually felt it had to be 'fair' to your founding pedophile gangs and hold a vote on whether or not to expel them after their many decades of being a major part of your 'Rights' scam. Of course, there never would have been even that if it hadn't been for Jesse Helms screwing up your potential gravy train at the UN by forcing the serial rapist Bill Clinton to refuse to endorse the ILGA for NGO status because of your buddies from NAMBLA being such a prominent part of the whole 'movement'. So yes, we get why you hate not being able to completely censor the facts there, PeePee. You 'Progressives' loves you some of the pedophile fan Harry Hay.

Listen slick. You are the one making these absurd and bizarre allegations and asinine conspiracy theories yet you offer no evidence what so ever. The burden of proof is on the accuser. You have to be beyond stupid to think that the accused needs to prove a negative.