America Founded as a Christian Nation

[Correll]

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The rub is, you cannot deny to others the unalienable Rights you expect for yourself. Either you believe in them or you don't. The greatest war for Rights on this argument ended up subverting the Second Amendment. Don't let emotion destroy your critical thinking skills.

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

The citizens of a nation, have the right to decide who to invite to join them.

This is an universal right.


The way that I as an American do not have any "Right" to move to and live in say, the Bahamas, if the people of that nation do not want me to join them,


is the way that they, the people of the Bahamas do not have the right to move here, if we do not want them to join us.

You are conflating two things:

Who a nation accepts as citizens is a privilege
Liberty is an unalienable Right.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

"He (King George) has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands."

Now, the best counter to that is:

"He (King George) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions."

So, on one hand, immigration was a good thing - something we should be doing. And if you look at the language aimed at the Indians, they sound like subhumans not fit to wear the title of human being. How do we get to the end of this quagmire?

If you want to accept the Democrats premise, then you can throw up your hands and let this country be taken over "legally" as you erroneously call it. The other way is to use the right strategies to get what you want. The way you're going about it is for the courts to declare that your Rights are not absolute. So, with the wrong government in charge, and you endorsing Democrat passed statutes, then they come after your Rights.

By insuring the Rights of others, I'm protecting my own Rights. If unalienable rights become privileges, then the government takes what you have with your consent. If you retain your Rights, exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress, you retain the right to resist an unconstitutional government. You can then, legitimately and morally resort to extraordinary actions to protect and preserve your Rights.

There is one thing that I'm going to tell you and you cannot argue around it. Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, the United States passed the first Naturalization Law as per the Constitution. It limited citizenship to white freemen. The first post has a link that will explain the WHY. Up until 1875 when the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench, only whites could be citizens, but people from all over the world were coming here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. Everybody has the Right to pursue Happiness, but they are not guaranteed Happiness. Without the welfare, Socialist Security, etc. we don't really have a Dept. of Happiness. Do you have enough critical thinking skills to read between the lines?

1. That one of the conflicts between the colonies and the imperial motherland, was a disagreement on "the laws for naturalization of foreigners" does not mean that those foreigners had/have an unalienable right to move to this country.


2. That the indians that England were using as allies, fought viciously, is not relevant to the immigration issue. There is no conflict between the Colonies wanting more immigration from more sources, than England wanted, and at the same time, the colonies not liking the style of warfare the indians practiced. The actions of the Indians in no way reflected on say, possible French immigrants.


3. Saying that people do not have the right to immigrate to nations, is not saying that unalienable rights do not exist. We have a disagreement on whether this act is a Right. You need to make your case that it is a human right. Good luck with that. I don't see how you can.


4. By giving others what you want to give them, I do not ensure my own rights. The libs, when they have power, have and will abuse it. THey do not need any type of permission from me. They know what they want, and my actions are irrelevant to them.


5. That that Founders wanted immigrants that were white men, was their Right. They would have the right to choose whom they wanted to allow to join them.

6. I think you are hinting that the lack of concern about non white male immigration somehow implies some policy...

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The rub is, you cannot deny to others the unalienable Rights you expect for yourself. Either you believe in them or you don't. The greatest war for Rights on this argument ended up subverting the Second Amendment. Don't let emotion destroy your critical thinking skills.

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

The citizens of a nation, have the right to decide who to invite to join them.

This is an universal right.


The way that I as an American do not have any "Right" to move to and live in say, the Bahamas, if the people of that nation do not want me to join them,


is the way that they, the people of the Bahamas do not have the right to move here, if we do not want them to join us.

You are conflating two things:

Who a nation accepts as citizens is a privilege
Liberty is an unalienable Right.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

"He (King George) has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands."

Now, the best counter to that is:

"He (King George) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions."

So, on one hand, immigration was a good thing - something we should be doing. And if you look at the language aimed at the Indians, they sound like subhumans not fit to wear the title of human being. How do we get to the end of this quagmire?

If you want to accept the Democrats premise, then you can throw up your hands and let this country be taken over "legally" as you erroneously call it. The other way is to use the right strategies to get what you want. The way you're going about it is for the courts to declare that your Rights are not absolute. So, with the wrong government in charge, and you endorsing Democrat passed statutes, then they come after your Rights.

By insuring the Rights of others, I'm protecting my own Rights. If unalienable rights become privileges, then the government takes what you have with your consent. If you retain your Rights, exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress, you retain the right to resist an unconstitutional government. You can then, legitimately and morally resort to extraordinary actions to protect and preserve your Rights.

There is one thing that I'm going to tell you and you cannot argue around it. Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, the United States passed the first Naturalization Law as per the Constitution. It limited citizenship to white freemen. The first post has a link that will explain the WHY. Up until 1875 when the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench, only whites could be citizens, but people from all over the world were coming here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. Everybody has the Right to pursue Happiness, but they are not guaranteed Happiness. Without the welfare, Socialist Security, etc. we don't really have a Dept. of Happiness. Do you have enough critical thinking skills to read between the lines?

1. That one of the conflicts between the colonies and the imperial motherland, was a disagreement on "the laws for naturalization of foreigners" does not mean that those foreigners had/have an unalienable right to move to this country.


2. That the indians that England were using as allies, fought viciously, is not relevant to the immigration issue. There is no conflict between the Colonies wanting more immigration from more sources, than England wanted, and at the same time, the colonies not liking the style of warfare the indians practiced. The actions of the Indians in no way reflected on say, possible French immigrants.


3. Saying that people do not have the right to immigrate to nations, is not saying that unalienable rights do not exist. We have a disagreement on whether this act is a Right. You need to make your case that it is a human right. Good luck with that. I don't see how you can.


4. By giving others what you want to give them, I do not ensure my own rights. The libs, when they have power, have and will abuse it. THey do not need any type of permission from me. They know what they want, and my actions are irrelevant to them.


5. That that Founders wanted immigrants that were white men, was their Right. They would have the right to choose whom they wanted to allow to join them.

6. I think you are hinting that the lack of concern about non white male immigration somehow implies some policy...

If you took the time to READ the first post on this thread and read the link, you would find that you are factually wrong across the board. I have no disagreement with you in theory, but the Posterity of the founders / framers have no control over their country. For you to give it away through ignorance is a bitter pill for me to swallow. I will leave you with a personal story and see if you can understand.

When I was very young, I left home to go to work in Sevierville, Tennessee. There were signs all over the place. I couldn't get a 1 dollar an hour job if I had 2 dollars an hour to buy it with. After a few days my uncle and I were having a discussion. I related to him my experiences. He said to reapply at a place that didn't even let me fill out an application. He said that your uncle - then his name said I should apply. Twenty minutes later we were discussing my pay scale and work schedule.

 

[Correll]

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

The citizens of a nation, have the right to decide who to invite to join them.

This is an universal right.


The way that I as an American do not have any "Right" to move to and live in say, the Bahamas, if the people of that nation do not want me to join them,


is the way that they, the people of the Bahamas do not have the right to move here, if we do not want them to join us.

You are conflating two things:

Who a nation accepts as citizens is a privilege
Liberty is an unalienable Right.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

"He (King George) has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands."

Now, the best counter to that is:

"He (King George) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions."

So, on one hand, immigration was a good thing - something we should be doing. And if you look at the language aimed at the Indians, they sound like subhumans not fit to wear the title of human being. How do we get to the end of this quagmire?

If you want to accept the Democrats premise, then you can throw up your hands and let this country be taken over "legally" as you erroneously call it. The other way is to use the right strategies to get what you want. The way you're going about it is for the courts to declare that your Rights are not absolute. So, with the wrong government in charge, and you endorsing Democrat passed statutes, then they come after your Rights.

By insuring the Rights of others, I'm protecting my own Rights. If unalienable rights become privileges, then the government takes what you have with your consent. If you retain your Rights, exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress, you retain the right to resist an unconstitutional government. You can then, legitimately and morally resort to extraordinary actions to protect and preserve your Rights.

There is one thing that I'm going to tell you and you cannot argue around it. Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, the United States passed the first Naturalization Law as per the Constitution. It limited citizenship to white freemen. The first post has a link that will explain the WHY. Up until 1875 when the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench, only whites could be citizens, but people from all over the world were coming here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. Everybody has the Right to pursue Happiness, but they are not guaranteed Happiness. Without the welfare, Socialist Security, etc. we don't really have a Dept. of Happiness. Do you have enough critical thinking skills to read between the lines?

1. That one of the conflicts between the colonies and the imperial motherland, was a disagreement on "the laws for naturalization of foreigners" does not mean that those foreigners had/have an unalienable right to move to this country.


2. That the indians that England were using as allies, fought viciously, is not relevant to the immigration issue. There is no conflict between the Colonies wanting more immigration from more sources, than England wanted, and at the same time, the colonies not liking the style of warfare the indians practiced. The actions of the Indians in no way reflected on say, possible French immigrants.


3. Saying that people do not have the right to immigrate to nations, is not saying that unalienable rights do not exist. We have a disagreement on whether this act is a Right. You need to make your case that it is a human right. Good luck with that. I don't see how you can.


4. By giving others what you want to give them, I do not ensure my own rights. The libs, when they have power, have and will abuse it. THey do not need any type of permission from me. They know what they want, and my actions are irrelevant to them.


5. That that Founders wanted immigrants that were white men, was their Right. They would have the right to choose whom they wanted to allow to join them.

6. I think you are hinting that the lack of concern about non white male immigration somehow implies some policy...

If you took the time to READ the first post on this thread and read the link, you would find that you are factually wrong across the board. I have no disagreement with you in theory, but the Posterity of the founders / framers have no control over their country. For you to give it away through ignorance is a bitter pill for me to swallow. I will leave you with a personal story and see if you can understand.

When I was very young, I left home to go to work in Sevierville, Tennessee. There were signs all over the place. I couldn't get a 1 dollar an hour job if I had 2 dollars an hour to buy it with. After a few days my uncle and I were having a discussion. I related to him my experiences. He said to reapply at a place that didn't even let me fill out an application. He said that your uncle - then his name said I should apply. Twenty minutes later we were discussing my pay scale and work schedule.

Sorry, I don't get your story. Did you leave out a word or something?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

The citizens of a nation, have the right to decide who to invite to join them.

This is an universal right.


The way that I as an American do not have any "Right" to move to and live in say, the Bahamas, if the people of that nation do not want me to join them,


is the way that they, the people of the Bahamas do not have the right to move here, if we do not want them to join us.

You are conflating two things:

Who a nation accepts as citizens is a privilege
Liberty is an unalienable Right.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

"He (King George) has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands."

Now, the best counter to that is:

"He (King George) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions."

So, on one hand, immigration was a good thing - something we should be doing. And if you look at the language aimed at the Indians, they sound like subhumans not fit to wear the title of human being. How do we get to the end of this quagmire?

If you want to accept the Democrats premise, then you can throw up your hands and let this country be taken over "legally" as you erroneously call it. The other way is to use the right strategies to get what you want. The way you're going about it is for the courts to declare that your Rights are not absolute. So, with the wrong government in charge, and you endorsing Democrat passed statutes, then they come after your Rights.

By insuring the Rights of others, I'm protecting my own Rights. If unalienable rights become privileges, then the government takes what you have with your consent. If you retain your Rights, exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress, you retain the right to resist an unconstitutional government. You can then, legitimately and morally resort to extraordinary actions to protect and preserve your Rights.

There is one thing that I'm going to tell you and you cannot argue around it. Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, the United States passed the first Naturalization Law as per the Constitution. It limited citizenship to white freemen. The first post has a link that will explain the WHY. Up until 1875 when the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench, only whites could be citizens, but people from all over the world were coming here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. Everybody has the Right to pursue Happiness, but they are not guaranteed Happiness. Without the welfare, Socialist Security, etc. we don't really have a Dept. of Happiness. Do you have enough critical thinking skills to read between the lines?

1. That one of the conflicts between the colonies and the imperial motherland, was a disagreement on "the laws for naturalization of foreigners" does not mean that those foreigners had/have an unalienable right to move to this country.


2. That the indians that England were using as allies, fought viciously, is not relevant to the immigration issue. There is no conflict between the Colonies wanting more immigration from more sources, than England wanted, and at the same time, the colonies not liking the style of warfare the indians practiced. The actions of the Indians in no way reflected on say, possible French immigrants.


3. Saying that people do not have the right to immigrate to nations, is not saying that unalienable rights do not exist. We have a disagreement on whether this act is a Right. You need to make your case that it is a human right. Good luck with that. I don't see how you can.


4. By giving others what you want to give them, I do not ensure my own rights. The libs, when they have power, have and will abuse it. THey do not need any type of permission from me. They know what they want, and my actions are irrelevant to them.


5. That that Founders wanted immigrants that were white men, was their Right. They would have the right to choose whom they wanted to allow to join them.

6. I think you are hinting that the lack of concern about non white male immigration somehow implies some policy...

If you took the time to READ the first post on this thread and read the link, you would find that you are factually wrong across the board. I have no disagreement with you in theory, but the Posterity of the founders / framers have no control over their country. For you to give it away through ignorance is a bitter pill for me to swallow. I will leave you with a personal story and see if you can understand.

When I was very young, I left home to go to work in Sevierville, Tennessee. There were signs all over the place. I couldn't get a 1 dollar an hour job if I had 2 dollars an hour to buy it with. After a few days my uncle and I were having a discussion. I related to him my experiences. He said to reapply at a place that didn't even let me fill out an application. He said that your uncle - then his name said I should apply. Twenty minutes later we were discussing my pay scale and work schedule.

Sorry, I don't get your story. Did you leave out a word or something?

Nothing was left out. The story has a moral to it. We cannot progress very far unless you start at the beginning.

 

[Correll]

The citizens of a nation, have the right to decide who to invite to join them.

This is an universal right.


The way that I as an American do not have any "Right" to move to and live in say, the Bahamas, if the people of that nation do not want me to join them,


is the way that they, the people of the Bahamas do not have the right to move here, if we do not want them to join us.

You are conflating two things:

Who a nation accepts as citizens is a privilege
Liberty is an unalienable Right.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

"He (King George) has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands."

Now, the best counter to that is:

"He (King George) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions."

So, on one hand, immigration was a good thing - something we should be doing. And if you look at the language aimed at the Indians, they sound like subhumans not fit to wear the title of human being. How do we get to the end of this quagmire?

If you want to accept the Democrats premise, then you can throw up your hands and let this country be taken over "legally" as you erroneously call it. The other way is to use the right strategies to get what you want. The way you're going about it is for the courts to declare that your Rights are not absolute. So, with the wrong government in charge, and you endorsing Democrat passed statutes, then they come after your Rights.

By insuring the Rights of others, I'm protecting my own Rights. If unalienable rights become privileges, then the government takes what you have with your consent. If you retain your Rights, exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress, you retain the right to resist an unconstitutional government. You can then, legitimately and morally resort to extraordinary actions to protect and preserve your Rights.

There is one thing that I'm going to tell you and you cannot argue around it. Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, the United States passed the first Naturalization Law as per the Constitution. It limited citizenship to white freemen. The first post has a link that will explain the WHY. Up until 1875 when the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench, only whites could be citizens, but people from all over the world were coming here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. Everybody has the Right to pursue Happiness, but they are not guaranteed Happiness. Without the welfare, Socialist Security, etc. we don't really have a Dept. of Happiness. Do you have enough critical thinking skills to read between the lines?

1. That one of the conflicts between the colonies and the imperial motherland, was a disagreement on "the laws for naturalization of foreigners" does not mean that those foreigners had/have an unalienable right to move to this country.


2. That the indians that England were using as allies, fought viciously, is not relevant to the immigration issue. There is no conflict between the Colonies wanting more immigration from more sources, than England wanted, and at the same time, the colonies not liking the style of warfare the indians practiced. The actions of the Indians in no way reflected on say, possible French immigrants.


3. Saying that people do not have the right to immigrate to nations, is not saying that unalienable rights do not exist. We have a disagreement on whether this act is a Right. You need to make your case that it is a human right. Good luck with that. I don't see how you can.


4. By giving others what you want to give them, I do not ensure my own rights. The libs, when they have power, have and will abuse it. THey do not need any type of permission from me. They know what they want, and my actions are irrelevant to them.


5. That that Founders wanted immigrants that were white men, was their Right. They would have the right to choose whom they wanted to allow to join them.

6. I think you are hinting that the lack of concern about non white male immigration somehow implies some policy...

If you took the time to READ the first post on this thread and read the link, you would find that you are factually wrong across the board. I have no disagreement with you in theory, but the Posterity of the founders / framers have no control over their country. For you to give it away through ignorance is a bitter pill for me to swallow. I will leave you with a personal story and see if you can understand.

When I was very young, I left home to go to work in Sevierville, Tennessee. There were signs all over the place. I couldn't get a 1 dollar an hour job if I had 2 dollars an hour to buy it with. After a few days my uncle and I were having a discussion. I related to him my experiences. He said to reapply at a place that didn't even let me fill out an application. He said that your uncle - then his name said I should apply. Twenty minutes later we were discussing my pay scale and work schedule.

Sorry, I don't get your story. Did you leave out a word or something?

Nothing was left out. The story has a moral to it. We cannot progress very far unless you start at the beginning.

It is unclear from the story, what role your uncle played.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#965 & 986 Jefferson vs Calvinism

We were not founded as a Christian Nation for many reasons. One reason is due to the conflicts within and the many variations of Christianity itself at the time,

If Porter Rockwell cannot point to one unified
Christian consensus on what “Christian
Nation” means. How in all honesty can the phrase ever be used to define the founding of our great nation.


There was no consensus religion at the time:

For full version of my Post #965 click link below:

TJ to John Adams. April II, 1823, ibid., p. 289: "It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.".

Was it Jeffersonian non-Biblical Christianity or was it John Calvin’s Christianity.

There were many contributions but of course not limited to;

Constitutional Calvinist | The American Conservative

”Lockean, classical republican, Scottish Enlightenment traditions,“

• While prominent accounts of the American Revolution’s intellectual underpinnings devote considerable attention to the influence of Lockean, classical republican, Scottish Enlightenment traditions,

And

Reformed Protestantism—that is, Calvinism

• Reformed Protestantism—that is, Calvinism—tends to be overlooked. Although the focus is on Sherman’s political thinking, Hall tell us, his book shows that the Reformed tradition was central to the thought of Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Oliver Ellsworth, Jonathan Trumbull, William Paterson, John Witherspoon, and several other prominent Calvinist politicians as well.

America was not founded as a Christian Nation because it was founded on a myriad of ideas, principles and by men that could not agree or be held back by differing matters of religion.

My judgement is that religion for the most part was out of mind during the work of building and assembling a new kind of nation

My points are a threat to Porter Rockwell’s dream, I guess, for a return to a certain form of Christian religiosity. But he cannot realistically define religiosity in one word such as “Christian”

 

[deanrd]

Christian nation? When so-called Christians elected a serial adulterer and liar like Donald Trump who defiled the prayer breakfast?

what does he defile next?

thank God he belongs to the Republicans.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION Part 6 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 located at posts # 941, 942, 962, 963 and 964

Since people do not read the first post of this thread, we keep having to start over, hoping someone will actually READ what is meant by American being a Christian nation. Theocracy? Forced religion? No. The first two posts are the introductory of what the subject is about. Since I cannot get any conversation regarding the first two posts, I'm obliged to counter the critics.

Just before I began this series of posts, my critics came at me from two different angles. They said that America was founded by theists, deists, secularists, and atheists. Then they wanted to prey on peoples emotional weaknesses: slavery, racism and women's rights. When I threw the ball back into their court and said if the theists, deists, secularists, and atheists want to claim the credit for founding America, they had to take the bad with the good. So, I asked them to explain how those theists, deists, secularists, and atheists wound up promoting slavery, racism and the domination of women. They've apparently beat a hasty retreat. So, I move to the next criticism aimed at me. According to virtually all atheists (and secularists, humanists, deists, etc. to varying degrees), they love this one:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Article 11 Treaty of Tripoli 1796

Well, despite all those Charters, Compacts, Proclamations, statutes, court rulings, etc., etc. to the contrary, this settles it. We have a separation of church and state based on that one line. But wait:

First, there is a dispute as to whether or not that Article was in the version presented to the Musselmen. That one is minor and of no major importance. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli was only one of several treaties we entered into because the Muslims were committing terrorist attacks against what the Muslims called Christian nations (namely England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States.) So, the treaty was more of a political statement to allay the objections and fears of the Muslims... but wait for it.... That treaty was broken, rescinded and we entered into a different treaty. SO IT CANNOT BE RELIED ON AS PROOF OF ANYTHING FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT!!!

Treaty of Tripoli - WallBuilders

Secularists, please stop quoting the Treaty of Tripoli

Under our system of jurisprudence, the United States Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the law is. Well, we quoted them eariler, but, let's do it again:

"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

RECTOR, ETC., OF HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. UNITED STATES. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Nearly a hundred years AFTER the Treaty of Tripoli was rescinded and new one put in its place, the final arbiter of what the law is disagreed with the U.S.Senate. I challenge each and every one of you to fact check me and make sure that this is the whole truth. AND you will see that I am not taking the United States Supreme Court's declaration out of context.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Christian nation? When so-called Christians elected a serial adulterer and liar like Donald Trump who defiled the prayer breakfast?

what does he defile next?

thank God he belongs to the Republicans.

Okay, now you're not being topical. I do not support the antics of Donald Trump. But, if you like hiding behind baby murderers and a party that endorses drugs that kill hundreds of thousands of our younger people, then have at it. BOTH parties are less than fit to rule a nation like ours.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You are conflating two things:

Who a nation accepts as citizens is a privilege
Liberty is an unalienable Right.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

"He (King George) has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands."

Now, the best counter to that is:

"He (King George) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions."

So, on one hand, immigration was a good thing - something we should be doing. And if you look at the language aimed at the Indians, they sound like subhumans not fit to wear the title of human being. How do we get to the end of this quagmire?

If you want to accept the Democrats premise, then you can throw up your hands and let this country be taken over "legally" as you erroneously call it. The other way is to use the right strategies to get what you want. The way you're going about it is for the courts to declare that your Rights are not absolute. So, with the wrong government in charge, and you endorsing Democrat passed statutes, then they come after your Rights.

By insuring the Rights of others, I'm protecting my own Rights. If unalienable rights become privileges, then the government takes what you have with your consent. If you retain your Rights, exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress, you retain the right to resist an unconstitutional government. You can then, legitimately and morally resort to extraordinary actions to protect and preserve your Rights.

There is one thing that I'm going to tell you and you cannot argue around it. Within six months of the ratification of the Constitution, the United States passed the first Naturalization Law as per the Constitution. It limited citizenship to white freemen. The first post has a link that will explain the WHY. Up until 1875 when the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench, only whites could be citizens, but people from all over the world were coming here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. Everybody has the Right to pursue Happiness, but they are not guaranteed Happiness. Without the welfare, Socialist Security, etc. we don't really have a Dept. of Happiness. Do you have enough critical thinking skills to read between the lines?

1. That one of the conflicts between the colonies and the imperial motherland, was a disagreement on "the laws for naturalization of foreigners" does not mean that those foreigners had/have an unalienable right to move to this country.


2. That the indians that England were using as allies, fought viciously, is not relevant to the immigration issue. There is no conflict between the Colonies wanting more immigration from more sources, than England wanted, and at the same time, the colonies not liking the style of warfare the indians practiced. The actions of the Indians in no way reflected on say, possible French immigrants.


3. Saying that people do not have the right to immigrate to nations, is not saying that unalienable rights do not exist. We have a disagreement on whether this act is a Right. You need to make your case that it is a human right. Good luck with that. I don't see how you can.


4. By giving others what you want to give them, I do not ensure my own rights. The libs, when they have power, have and will abuse it. THey do not need any type of permission from me. They know what they want, and my actions are irrelevant to them.


5. That that Founders wanted immigrants that were white men, was their Right. They would have the right to choose whom they wanted to allow to join them.

6. I think you are hinting that the lack of concern about non white male immigration somehow implies some policy...

If you took the time to READ the first post on this thread and read the link, you would find that you are factually wrong across the board. I have no disagreement with you in theory, but the Posterity of the founders / framers have no control over their country. For you to give it away through ignorance is a bitter pill for me to swallow. I will leave you with a personal story and see if you can understand.

When I was very young, I left home to go to work in Sevierville, Tennessee. There were signs all over the place. I couldn't get a 1 dollar an hour job if I had 2 dollars an hour to buy it with. After a few days my uncle and I were having a discussion. I related to him my experiences. He said to reapply at a place that didn't even let me fill out an application. He said that your uncle - then his name said I should apply. Twenty minutes later we were discussing my pay scale and work schedule.

Sorry, I don't get your story. Did you leave out a word or something?

Nothing was left out. The story has a moral to it. We cannot progress very far unless you start at the beginning.

It is unclear from the story, what role your uncle played.

You want to lay the immigration problem at the feet of undocumented workers. MILLIONS of our youth are locked out of the job market; millions are too damn lazy to work. Some have criminal records, drug habits, etc., etc. So first you clean up your back yard and come up with some human beings that are able, available and actively looking for work. THEN, those of like mind recommend you for a job.

If Hosea shows up in your country, but the jobs are reserved for the people of friends and family, unless somebody has to come out and draw you a picture, this ought to be saying something to you about how life used to work.

 

[Bezukhov]

Christian nation? When so-called Christians elected a serial adulterer and liar like Donald Trump who defiled the prayer breakfast?

what does he defile next?

thank God he belongs to the Republicans.

Okay, now you're not being topical. I do not support the antics of Donald Trump. But, if you like hiding behind baby murderers and a party that endorses drugs that kill hundreds of thousands of our younger people, then have at it. BOTH parties are less than fit to rule a nation like ours.

If America is a Christian Nation shouldn't we just wait around for a Voice to thunder from On High, telling us what we're supposed to do next? Not that I'm going to pay any attention, of course.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

#965 & 986 Jefferson vs Calvinism

We were not founded as a Christian Nation for many reasons. One reason is due to the conflicts within and the many variations of Christianity itself at the time,

If Porter Rockwell cannot point to one unified
Christian consensus on what “Christian
Nation” means. How in all honesty can the phrase ever be used to define the founding of our great nation.


There was no consensus religion at the time:

For full version of my Post #965 click link below:

TJ to John Adams. April II, 1823, ibid., p. 289: "It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.".

Was it Jeffersonian non-Biblical Christianity or was it John Calvin’s Christianity.

There were many contributions but of course not limited to;

Constitutional Calvinist | The American Conservative

”Lockean, classical republican, Scottish Enlightenment traditions,“

• While prominent accounts of the American Revolution’s intellectual underpinnings devote considerable attention to the influence of Lockean, classical republican, Scottish Enlightenment traditions,

And

Reformed Protestantism—that is, Calvinism

• Reformed Protestantism—that is, Calvinism—tends to be overlooked. Although the focus is on Sherman’s political thinking, Hall tell us, his book shows that the Reformed tradition was central to the thought of Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Oliver Ellsworth, Jonathan Trumbull, William Paterson, John Witherspoon, and several other prominent Calvinist politicians as well.

America was not founded as a Christian Nation because it was founded on a myriad of ideas, principles and by men that could not agree or be held back by differing matters of religion.

My judgement is that religion for the most part was out of mind during the work of building and assembling a new kind of nation

My points are a threat to Porter Rockwell’s dream, I guess, for a return to a certain form of Christian religiosity. But he cannot realistically define religiosity in one word such as “Christian”

UPDATED NOTFOOLEDBYW - YOU ARE A FILTHY LIAR. SEE THE UPDATES THAT PROVE SAME. Bolded for everyone's convenience below the stats in item # 1

NOTFOOLEDBYW'S FINAL RESPONSE

This thread is now 917 posts long as I begin this response. Of those, NOTFOOLEDBYW has made a total of 168 posts. They are posts # 78, 80, 111, 113, 118, 126, 140, 154, 157, 158, 159, 162, 172, 174, 179, 189, 192, 195, 196, 197, 203, 204, 205, 212, 220, 224, 225, 232, 233, 234, 235, 240, 240, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 254, 255, 256, 267, 279, 280, 285, 290, 296, 297, 302, 307, 309, 318, 321, 328, 330, 335, 339, 340, 341, 345, 347, 350, 350, 351, 352, 367, 370, 373, 381, 393, 394, 399, 401, 404, 411, 412, 413, 420, 421, 425, 426, 429, 430, 431, 432, 468, 485, 500, 504, 508, 512, 516, 519, 525, 527, 537, 539, 541, 546, 549, 551, 554, 557, 559, 561, 563, 565, 566, 569, 570, 574, 577, 581, 582, 587, 589, 606, 607, 610, 626, 630, 636, 642, 644, 646, 684, 688, 699, 700, 703, 704, 707, 708, 709, 715, 716, 718, 724, 725, 730, 740, 744, 746, 747, 750, 753, 754, 755, 761, 762, 769, 774, 782, 7998, 800, ... that is 155 posts out of 805, 807, 812, 824, 827, 830, 831, 832, 844, 847, 860, 872, 899, 904

In virtually every post NOTFOOLEDBYW has insulted posters, called them liars, misrepresented people, and NOBODY has defended his positions.


By contrast, NOTFOOLEDBYW has been challenged by numerous posters to whom NOTFOOLEDBYW has called liars, fools, morons, and accused them of all manner of wrongdoing. Those posters responded a total of 126 times in posts: #120, 130, 134, 167, 169,174, 176, 175, 176, 180, 185, 206, 207, 250, 282, 299, 346, 346, 354, 396, 397, 403, 405, 406, 407, 414, 415, 416, 424, 427, 428, 433, 434, 438, 439, 440, 445, 446, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 460, 461, 464, 465, 466, 467, 469, 470, 472, 474, 476, 483, 484, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 496, 497, 498, 499, 501, 502, 517, 518, 521, 526, 528, 531, 558, 562, 564, 567, 568, 571, 573, 576, 578, 579, 588, 591, 593, 594, 595, 596, 598, 599, 600, 603, 608, 612, 613, 615, 618, 627, 628, 629, 633, 645, 648, 653, 658, 665, 668, 698, 701, 705, 706, 711, 722, 723, 726, 751, 764, 765, 779

I have been obliged to respond to NOTFOOLEDBYW a total of 85 times personally. That is a total of 379+ posts that have revolved around this one poster. I'm not updating any posters that responded beyond post # 805

One poster or another has successfully defeated each and every argument he brings to the table. He is now remaining, claiming I lied about Thomas Jefferson - as if that would change the balance of this discussion. Here is my position:

1) When other posters began discussing this as a conversation rather than a point by point, let's prove everything, I got conversational. I quoted Thomas Jefferson from an unnamed source in an online general conversation.

I really do not want to restart any conversations with THIS idiot about Thomas Jefferson and my quote. But, I cut and pasted the quote as I found it on the Internet:

http://peace2you.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Faith-of-Founding-Fathers1.pdf

If you look a few quotes down, you can see where I got it from. When that troll made a big deal out of my inadvertent faux pas of leaving out the link, I looked up the book from where the quote was obtained and put it in post #552. I DIDN'T LIE AND NOTFOOLEDBYW IS A ROTTEN, FILTHY, STINKING, LIAR. ALL of his posts were responded to honestly and openly. Check his posts... he's quoting me and it's there.


2) NOTFOOLEDBYW seized upon that accusing me of posting a lie; even claiming that I edited my source. I did not. I did, however, look at where my source got their material and I quoted where it could be found. I did not lie

3) Regardless of how that material reads, the bottom line is Thomas Jefferson said he was a Christian and I took him at his word as his early life indicates such. Jefferson states, and it was quoted on this thread, that his life experiences changed his outlook. Nothing has changed what Jefferson said at that point in his life

4) Regardless of how many times founders did or said one thing or another, I look at the bottom line and if over half the posts here are either one man arguing against those points compared to the scores of posts disagreeing with him, there is no point to prove. If this matters to you and you want to wade through who said what, you have each post - minus my own (which is unnecessary since all those people who agreed with me either quoted the relevant parts and / or the post itself. My point here is I did not lie and every time that troll posts, I will simply cut and paste this response (that took some hours to research just for him.)

If he still wants to call me a liar, he can do it to my face. Otherwise, he has been successfully defeated by other posters to the point that nothing I have to say would be relevant anyway. IF there are any other points to be addressed, I will be happy to entertain them, just not by the resident troll. The dumb ass needs to read. This post refutes his account of what happened.. I know because I'm the one who did it. I copied and pasted the fucking quote as it appeared and no amount of political jockeying will change that. It's over dumbass

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Christian nation? When so-called Christians elected a serial adulterer and liar like Donald Trump who defiled the prayer breakfast?

what does he defile next?

thank God he belongs to the Republicans.

Okay, now you're not being topical. I do not support the antics of Donald Trump. But, if you like hiding behind baby murderers and a party that endorses drugs that kill hundreds of thousands of our younger people, then have at it. BOTH parties are less than fit to rule a nation like ours.

If America is a Christian Nation shouldn't we just wait around for a Voice to thunder from On High, telling us what we're supposed to do next? Not that I'm going to pay any attention, of course.

If you are not interested in paying attention or participating, you do not belong here. I advise you to check out the Rules of posting in this Zone. If you enjoy your stay here, stand down. I'm not playing your game. Become part of the conversation or feel free to leave.

 

[Bezukhov]

Christian nation? When so-called Christians elected a serial adulterer and liar like Donald Trump who defiled the prayer breakfast?

what does he defile next?

thank God he belongs to the Republicans.

Okay, now you're not being topical. I do not support the antics of Donald Trump. But, if you like hiding behind baby murderers and a party that endorses drugs that kill hundreds of thousands of our younger people, then have at it. BOTH parties are less than fit to rule a nation like ours.

If America is a Christian Nation shouldn't we just wait around for a Voice to thunder from On High, telling us what we're supposed to do next? Not that I'm going to pay any attention, of course.

If you are not interested in paying attention or participating, you do not belong here. I advise you to check out the Rules of posting in this Zone. If you enjoy your stay here, stand down. I'm not playing your game. Become part of the conversation or feel free to leave.

You did say : "BOTH parties are less than fit to rule a nation like ours." I'm wondering who you think should rule us.

 

[BreezeWood]

Even if we were to revoke the 14th, or at least the silly interpretation of it we currently use, that is no reason to welcome people here that we don't want to welcome.

The rub is, you cannot deny to others the unalienable Rights you expect for yourself. Either you believe in them or you don't. The greatest war for Rights on this argument ended up subverting the Second Amendment. Don't let emotion destroy your critical thinking skills.

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does.

- that is the premise of the christian influence is shaping the u s constitution - no mention of equality.

it has been pointed out to you already, there is no mention of equality rights in the u s constitution - whatever you claim as founding the nation, states rights the declaration of independence have no bearing on the final document that is the source for your thread and the founding of the nation, the u s constitution as written -

it was the christian influence that removed inalienable rights, equality from the constitution to institutionalize slavery, misogyny etc. after the military victory they had fought for and was used against those believing in equality after their sacrifices.

the same as the christian "religion" using the 1st century events to institutionalize the same misgivings accomplished by someone else's sacrifices. porter rockwell - the slanderer.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

you can not have your argument of the founding as a christian nation and then deny the written document you base your proposal on as a matter of ambiguity - there is no mention of inalienable rights or equality mentioned in the final document, u s constitution therefore by your own argument that was a rendering by christianity despite the declaration of independence the citizenry fought for.

for its time the written u s constitution was indubitably the first truly sociologically secular document ever ascribed to as a governance in the recorded history of mankind - despite the christian influence.

 

[Correll]

1. That one of the conflicts between the colonies and the imperial motherland, was a disagreement on "the laws for naturalization of foreigners" does not mean that those foreigners had/have an unalienable right to move to this country.


2. That the indians that England were using as allies, fought viciously, is not relevant to the immigration issue. There is no conflict between the Colonies wanting more immigration from more sources, than England wanted, and at the same time, the colonies not liking the style of warfare the indians practiced. The actions of the Indians in no way reflected on say, possible French immigrants.


3. Saying that people do not have the right to immigrate to nations, is not saying that unalienable rights do not exist. We have a disagreement on whether this act is a Right. You need to make your case that it is a human right. Good luck with that. I don't see how you can.


4. By giving others what you want to give them, I do not ensure my own rights. The libs, when they have power, have and will abuse it. THey do not need any type of permission from me. They know what they want, and my actions are irrelevant to them.


5. That that Founders wanted immigrants that were white men, was their Right. They would have the right to choose whom they wanted to allow to join them.

6. I think you are hinting that the lack of concern about non white male immigration somehow implies some policy...

If you took the time to READ the first post on this thread and read the link, you would find that you are factually wrong across the board. I have no disagreement with you in theory, but the Posterity of the founders / framers have no control over their country. For you to give it away through ignorance is a bitter pill for me to swallow. I will leave you with a personal story and see if you can understand.

When I was very young, I left home to go to work in Sevierville, Tennessee. There were signs all over the place. I couldn't get a 1 dollar an hour job if I had 2 dollars an hour to buy it with. After a few days my uncle and I were having a discussion. I related to him my experiences. He said to reapply at a place that didn't even let me fill out an application. He said that your uncle - then his name said I should apply. Twenty minutes later we were discussing my pay scale and work schedule.

Sorry, I don't get your story. Did you leave out a word or something?

Nothing was left out. The story has a moral to it. We cannot progress very far unless you start at the beginning.

It is unclear from the story, what role your uncle played.

You want to lay the immigration problem at the feet of undocumented workers. MILLIONS of our youth are locked out of the job market; millions are too damn lazy to work. Some have criminal records, drug habits, etc., etc. So first you clean up your back yard and come up with some human beings that are able, available and actively looking for work. THEN, those of like mind recommend you for a job.

If Hosea shows up in your country, but the jobs are reserved for the people of friends and family, unless somebody has to come out and draw you a picture, this ought to be saying something to you about how life used to work.

1. There is plenty of blame for our immigration problem to go around. Yes, some of it needs to go to the people that come here against our wishes and democratically enacted laws. But there is plenty of blame for our political class that has A. failed to enforce our laws, and B. failed to be honest about the immigration policies and their effects.

2. The immigration policy of this country should be structured, so that Hosea is not allowed to show up, if by doing so, he is taking a job away from Americans, or even suppressing their wages.

 

[Correll]

The rub is, you cannot deny to others the unalienable Rights you expect for yourself. Either you believe in them or you don't. The greatest war for Rights on this argument ended up subverting the Second Amendment. Don't let emotion destroy your critical thinking skills.

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does.

- that is the premise of the christian influence is shaping the u s constitution - no mention of equality.

it has been pointed out to you already, there is no mention of equality rights in the u s constitution - whatever you claim as founding the nation, states rights the declaration of independence have no bearing on the final document that is the source for your thread and the founding of the nation, the u s constitution as written -

it was the christian influence that removed inalienable rights, equality from the constitution to institutionalize slavery, misogyny etc. after the military victory they had fought for and was used against those believing in equality after their sacrifices.

the same as the christian "religion" using the 1st century events to institutionalize the same misgivings accomplished by someone else's sacrifices. porter rockwell - the slanderer.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

you can not have your argument of the founding as a christian nation and then deny the written document you base your proposal on as a matter of ambiguity - there is no mention of inalienable rights or equality mentioned in the final document, u s constitution therefore by your own argument that was a rendering by christianity despite the declaration of independence the citizenry fought for.
....

That makes zero sense. It could easily be that the nation was founded as a Christian Nation while OTHER cultural or political factions or motives were responsible for the lack of an explicit mention of equality.


Your pretense that the presence of Christians and Christianity in the Founding, means that every event and choice is solely the result of or responsibility of Christianity,



is completely unsupported. You might as well scream "because" over and over again.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Christian nation? When so-called Christians elected a serial adulterer and liar like Donald Trump who defiled the prayer breakfast?

what does he defile next?

thank God he belongs to the Republicans.

Okay, now you're not being topical. I do not support the antics of Donald Trump. But, if you like hiding behind baby murderers and a party that endorses drugs that kill hundreds of thousands of our younger people, then have at it. BOTH parties are less than fit to rule a nation like ours.

If America is a Christian Nation shouldn't we just wait around for a Voice to thunder from On High, telling us what we're supposed to do next? Not that I'm going to pay any attention, of course.

If you are not interested in paying attention or participating, you do not belong here. I advise you to check out the Rules of posting in this Zone. If you enjoy your stay here, stand down. I'm not playing your game. Become part of the conversation or feel free to leave.

You did say : "BOTH parties are less than fit to rule a nation like ours." I'm wondering who you think should rule us.

We need qualified leaders that have a direction.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Post #999 reply to #229 Oath of Office / President? As written in the Constitution.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

#229 reply to #225

When this country made it a requirement to be a Christian in order to hold elective office; when children were taught from Christian books and when the Constitution acknowledges our Lord, you had a Christian nation. Period. End of story.

There has been no requirement that an American President be a Christian in order to hold the highest office in the land.

So Porter Rockwell reminds us that America was never a Christian nation;


Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address
“All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. . . [E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans: we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”

Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address - First Amendment Watch

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The rub is, you cannot deny to others the unalienable Rights you expect for yourself. Either you believe in them or you don't. The greatest war for Rights on this argument ended up subverting the Second Amendment. Don't let emotion destroy your critical thinking skills.

There is no unalienable right to be welcome here. That is a privilege.

Okay, I'm going to start agreeing with you. The right will have it no other way. Congratulations, you win. If people do not have an unalienable Right to cross the border to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered then the government can come take your gun, tell you to STFU and we can all become good little socialists.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does. IF my critics had asked questions relevant to the OP, we would have delved into this. Suffice it to say, everybody is too scared to have this conversation. You, through ignorance, have signed your name to those who demand human slavery. I'm getting tired of fighting for freedom on my own, but the fact is we had this fight won in the 1990s before the left flipped the right. Know this: Your "win" here today is a hollow victory. We had better ideas in the 1990s and the left easily flipped you. We could've won, but without an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights, NOBODY has them. What you want done (or achieved the same result) could be done WITHOUT the government. They will not give you what you want and it will permanently backfire in your face - of that I can promise. But, FWIW, congratulations.

.

The Declaration of Independence precedes the Constitution and if all men are not equal then and have unalienable Rights, then nobody does.

- that is the premise of the christian influence is shaping the u s constitution - no mention of equality.

it has been pointed out to you already, there is no mention of equality rights in the u s constitution - whatever you claim as founding the nation, states rights the declaration of independence have no bearing on the final document that is the source for your thread and the founding of the nation, the u s constitution as written -

it was the christian influence that removed inalienable rights, equality from the constitution to institutionalize slavery, misogyny etc. after the military victory they had fought for and was used against those believing in equality after their sacrifices.

the same as the christian "religion" using the 1st century events to institutionalize the same misgivings accomplished by someone else's sacrifices. porter rockwell - the slanderer.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

.

How do you support the claim that is was "christian influence" that led to "no mention of equality" in the Constitution?

you can not have your argument of the founding as a christian nation and then deny the written document you base your proposal on as a matter of ambiguity - there is no mention of inalienable rights or equality mentioned in the final document, u s constitution therefore by your own argument that was a rendering by christianity despite the declaration of independence the citizenry fought for.

for its time the written u s constitution was indubitably the first truly sociologically secular document ever ascribed to as a governance in the recorded history of mankind - despite the christian influence.

You can't fix stupid.

NOWHERE does any document connected to our founding speak of "inalienable rights." The Bill of Rights codified the unalienable Rights

Samuel Alito, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice said:

“The seed that became the Bill of Rights was planted here in Philadelphia in 1776 when the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence,” he said. “The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us. The Bill of Rights codifies the promise of the Declaration of Independence., it codifies unalienable rights that are precious to us as Americans. ”
Justice Samuel Alito on the Bill of Rights’ meaning here and globally - National Constitution Center

The balance of your argument has been refuted so many times here that only an idiot would post what you did. Read the thread. We don't have to litigate the same disproven B.S. daily.