America Founded as a Christian Nation

[Correll]

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.

How will they be chosen? Will a hand descend from a cloud, point at someone and say: "That's the one"?

Pathetic strawman of the sort people use, when they know they have lost the argument.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

#1011 There has been no requirement that an American President be a Christian in order to hold the highest office in the land.

#1002 reply to #999

I thought you had given up the argument that being a Christian Nation contradicts the idea of religious freedom.

There is no argument, We have never been s Christian Nation and will never be one because of religious freedom established by the Framers of Our Constitution. Something that will never exist and cannot be defined except as an abstract fantasy cannot contradict anything.

My growing case is that America has never been a Christian Nation. And none of it has been refuted.

Porter Rockwell has asserted we used to have a Christian Nation when state constitutions required political office holders to take an oath that they believed in a Christian God.

That was true in Jefferson’s day ........,

#479

The earliest state constitutions before, during and after the framers worked out the Constitution required political office holders to take an oath (but no test) that they believed in a Christian God.

.......but the reality is that it is not true with regard to our nation and the Federal Government..

I made no such claims. NONE OF NOTFOOLEDBYW'S CRITICISMS REFLECT MY VIEWS; NOTHING HE SAYS IS TRUE This list of NOTFOOLEDBYW to be updated soon

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

 

[Correll]

#1011 There has been no requirement that an American President be a Christian in order to hold the highest office in the land.

#1002 reply to #999

I thought you had given up the argument that being a Christian Nation contradicts the idea of religious freedom.

There is no argument, We have never been s Christian Nation and will never be one because of religious freedom established by the Framers of Our Constitution. Something that will never exist and cannot be defined except as an abstract fantasy cannot contradict anything.

My growing case is that America has never been a Christian Nation. And none of it has been refuted.

Porter Rockwell has asserted we used to have a Christian Nation when state constitutions required political office holders to take an oath that they believed in a Christian God.

That was true in Jefferson’s day ........,

#479

The earliest state constitutions before, during and after the framers worked out the Constitution required political office holders to take an oath (but no test) that they believed in a Christian God.

.......but the reality is that it is not true with regard to our nation and the Federal Government..

I made no such claims. NONE OF NOTFOOLEDBYW'S CRITICISMS REFLECT MY VIEWS; NOTHING HE SAYS IS TRUE This list of NOTFOOLEDBYW to be updated to be soon

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

I think the time is coming for you to declare victory and ask for the thread to be locked, because all the non-troll opponents, have fled.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

The federal government does not have any de jure / legal / constitutional authority in who a state does or does allow in.

I'm not a Democrat, so I do not support their laws.

If your claim is that foreigners steal jobs then you are saying a private citizen does not own what he creates. When the government owns the jobs, that is the typical definition of socialism. See how easy the left played you?

1. Someday, we will have to have an arcane historical debate about the role of the federal government in immigration policy. I can see you have a passion for that issue. Meanwhile, here in the 21st century, immigration is a federal issue.


2. Our laws were democratically enacted, and our the expression of our wishes. That our political class has failed to enforce them, is them failing in their role and betraying their responsibilities and the loyalty they owe to their fellow citizens.


3. I made no mention of "stealing". I just want to consider in the crafting of national policy, what will serve the interests of American citizens. Bringing in foreign labor to compete with American workers, would serve the interests of American employers while harming the interests of American workers. Generally speaking.

Here is the deal for me:

I do not like the fact that there is a deliberate flooding of America with non-white foreigners for the sole purpose of committing subtle genocide against ONE people. Furthermore, it is humiliating and depressing when every time you cut on the computer, tv or watch a movie it is multicultural propaganda being presented as entertainment.

WHEN I saw this stuff coming I went to work in immigration law to get the facts and best serve the interests of what were then constitutionalists. I manned the border; I went on radio, tv, and was in countless magazine and newspaper articles. I worked the prosecution (government side), the defense side; worked with Latino groups and was even called as an expert witness. Not bragging, but I have no superiors and damn few equals on the subject.

After six years of working in the field and sitting in and even having input on more strategy meetings than you can imagine, I used to think I had something to bring to the table. But, you cannot reason with people who have been brainwashed by political propaganda prostitutes that are in love with the sound of their own voice.

I have never lost a court case. The ONLY defeat I've ever felt is trying to reason with the right after they got conned into making the left's argument. The communists used to call those people useful idiots. I've spent many an hour working out legal scenarios and what ifs - the right is simply too stupid to listen. It's like a disease. It's like me watching the Titanic sink and people refusing to get on a life raft to keep from drowning. Let me put this in some simple terminology and give you an example. Stay with me here...

In the 1990s local sheriffs went to court, refusing to enforce federal gun laws. I gave money to the cause and did lots of research (free of course.) The case made it to the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled:

"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed." Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

We walked out with a victory. The federal government cannot force state and local governments to enforce federal laws.

A few years later, the undocumented people in California had to go court over "sanctuary cities." They won the case. On what legal precedent? Let me quote a news article:

"Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...h-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities/

Right now, in Virginia, the citizenry is getting counties to pass Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities. At Trump's State of the Union Address, Trump vows to shut down sanctuary cities. Why does the right fail to comprehend the 14th Amendment and the principles that will end sanctuary cities for undocumented foreigners will put their local LEOs into a position of being forced to confiscate firearms whether you have a sanctuary city or not? I can go to court and help win cases, but the right is stuck on stupid; They cannot take you win for an answer because you're stuck with socialist solutions that will destroy you. And you want to debate me????

1. I agree that the policy of flooding the nation with immigrants is a bad one, though I think the reasons are slightly more nuanced that you are seeing. I also agree the diversity propaganda is quite bad. Interestingly I am seeing more and more people agreeing on that one.


2. The sanctuary cities are doing more than just not helping, they are actively fighting against the rest of the nation, on the side of the foreign citizens and nations.


3. Yes, I am prepared to debate you. I see flaws in your position, specifically your unsupported insistence that foreign citizens have a Right to come live here or that we, as a people, do not have the right to decide who to invite to join us, or NOT.

I appreciate your sincerity. But, take it from someone who has had to plead court cases where his life (25 + years) hung in the balance. You are not prepared to be even a first time litigator, much less someone who has been up against the very best (Uncle Scam himself) and won.

The weakness of your argument is that you cannot argue the other side's case better than he can. You cannot empathize with his view (and a captive audience in a debate would.) As you see from the off topic crap on a discussion board creeps in, you'd have to put up with that; you're just not ready to.

When the Declaration of Independence was written there were no citizens of the United States. So, unalienable Rights could not be limited to them. The only way we could regulate the foreigners was via the naturalization laws. After the Constitution was ratified and for 86 years after the first Congress was installed, the states determined who comes and who goes within a state... and foreigners came from everywhere to work here. And although our side would be as happy as a hog in slop, the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench in 1875, bestowing upon Congress a power over immigration. No such power exists and the left can easily argue that, but they will never do it. Their game plan is solid. Short term defeats - long term victories. So, today, it's hard to defend ourselves from government over-reach. We're building that government that is too big to be resisted. And you don't seem to get the point: for everything you gain, there is something lost. So, we should just go back to what worked and quit trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

How will they be chosen? Will a hand descend from a cloud, point at someone and say: "That's the one"?

The method by which our political leaders are to be chosen already exists in law. Nothing is wrong with the method of selection... except the direct election of U.S. Senators. America was not intended to be run as a democracy.

The real problem in America is that the people are not united. As you sat there, watching the State of the Union being delivered, did you not notice that half of the people were clapping for the president and the other half were sitting on their butts frowning? Did you not see Nancy Pelosi disrespecting the office of the president by making faces and rolling her eyes - even tearing up her copy of the president's speech?

The problem in America is that the values and principles that made us great are being ignored by both sides. The right does not think twice about hiring political propaganda prostitutes that don't understand the Constitution and have little to no knowledge about strategies, studying long term ramifications of actions, nor how to actually lead.

The left wants an overthrow of the government - no more Rights - just socialism, a society devoid of any morals and NO respect for the value of human life.

"And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But mno one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house." Mark 3: 23 - 27

 

[Porter Rockwell]

correll wants to shut down this thread due to NOTFOOLEDBYW. I think we have been making some progress. A few people are posting and even leaving feedback. We will see how today goes. I'm going to do all I can not to allow a troll that violated the rules and tried to derail this post from having the last word. The following is an update of my refutation of his false claims. I left a follow up post as well.

ACKNOWLEDGING THE TROLL

I made no such claims. NONE OF NOTFOOLEDBYW'S CRITICISMS REFLECT MY VIEWS; NOTHING HE SAYS IS TRUE This list of NOTFOOLEDBYW updated today and an addendum follows in the next post...

NOTFOOLEDBYW - YOU ARE A FILTHY LIAR. SEE THE UPDATES THAT PROVE SAME. Bolded for everyone's convenience

NOTFOOLEDBYW'S FINAL RESPONSE

This thread is now 1025 posts long as I begin this response. Of those, NOTFOOLEDBYW has made a total of 187 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, 904,913, 929, 936, 943, 946, 951, 965, 973, 986, 999, 1011, 1018

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 137 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, 834, 837, 839, 954, 971, 974, 976, 1002, 1016, 1019

I have been obliged to respond to NOTFOOLEDBYW a total of 90 times personally. That is a total of 414 posts that have revolved around this one poster.

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]

AN ADDENDUM TO NOTFOOLEDBYW if you are following that whizzing contest

Just in case anyone has followed the saga of the poster known as NOTFOOLEDBYW, I want to take a moment to acknowledge his vicious attacks on me that, as I type those were 187 out of the 1025 posts. He received 137 negative responses for his attacks and a single hit and run poster (which is against the rules) took a swipe at me (and that violated the rules in this zone.)

NOTFOOLEDBYW's very first post (#78) was to take a swipe at Christianity with a claim that it was bullshit (sic.) The post did not address the OP; it was just an off topic insult. If his post was not relative to the OP (it was not) then he deliberately, knowingly and purposely insulted me.

NOTFOOLEDBYW has made it his mission to claim I insulted him first. My position is that his post did not address the OP, it started the thread on a downward spiral. So, when I said "ignorance is bliss," he comes unglued for 187 posts so far. His entire argument rests on an accusation regarding what "I" said. I left a quote from a source. The quote is italicized and in quotation marks AND the title and page of a book, but no link. It should be apparent to any idiot that those were not my words.

NOTFOOLEDBYW made a big deal about it, so I researched the book and posted the title and everything needed to locate it on the page my link said it was on. Then NOTFOOLEDBYW issued a challenge in post # 831. He says:

"Can anyone find a direct quote by Thomas Jefferson that reads this way in these exact words. If you do I will no longer post to this thread.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

In post # 838 I accepted his challenge and repeated the quote I had from the Internet:

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

NOTFOOLEDBYW's argument is that I lied. Pardon my language, but you have to be one dumb fuck not to understand that a quote in quotation marks AND in italics are not my words, but a quote. Consequently, it is dishonest to say I lied. I provided the source and there is no requirement in NOTFOOLEDBYW'S challenge that says the quote must be accurate or fit some standard. NOTFOOLEDBYW is a dishonorable liar that did not keep his word.

And so this saga has caused NOTFOOLEDBYW to misrepresent my positions, lie, complain, and attempt to derail this thread to the point that correll wants to lock the thread. I simply don't want to give one troll that kind of power over me. NOTFOOLEDBYW has gotten 137 negative responses and he has called posters here morons, liars, fools, etc. He wanted to be the poster boy for the secularists or maybe humanists. The best he could do is waste a tremendous amount of bandwidth over one word. Ironically, with or without that word, it does not change the facts that were brought to the table AND WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO THE OP.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
- 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.

.

“The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us.

why do you refer to the declaration of independence when no where in the u s constitution is there the mention of equality or inalienable rights - what exactly do you believe the 19th amendment represents than the lack of your very basic argument no less ridiculous than alito's - what they left out actually really exists ...

tell us rockwell are you screaming for the ratification of the equal rights amendment or do you already believe it exists as fundamental law - christian. you can not be for both. equality and christianity.

What is the answer that will make you happy? Whatever you're arguing is a lot of disjointed nonsense. What is your real issue? Of what relevance does it have with the OP? OR are we even allowed to discuss the OP?

If you don't know the difference between inalienable versus unalienable FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, you are not going to get too far. At the end of the day, what is your point? Is the Equal Rights Amendment in the Bible? Liberty is. What are you getting at? When do we discuss the OP? You're in violation of the board rules by attempting to change the subject and none of what you're saying will lead to any productive conversation. Tie your posts to the OP or find someone else to troll.

.
America Founded as a Christian Nation

When do we discuss the OP?

you do not reply in response to inquires that are relevant to your skewed position the declaration of independence you incorporate in your discussion for the founding of the nation has any relevancy for the distinguishing document that is the relevant document for that purpose, the u s constitution. they did not incorporate the declaration, that was fought for by the citizenry during the revolutionary war into the final document, the constitution by removing the precepts of equality - inalienable rights from its language.

by their omission, christians, the nation was influenced by their discretion despite the inclusion of the bill of rights mitigating that influence and in future amendments, 19th removed entirely their misogynistic influence altogether.

this country was not founded as a christian nation and if believed so is no longer a consideration at this time by the ensuing amendments added to the u s constitution that have removed much if not all the regressive christian influence at the time of its ratification.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
- 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.

.

“The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us.

why do you refer to the declaration of independence when no where in the u s constitution is there the mention of equality or inalienable rights - ...

The Declaration of Independence is the declaration of intent for the founding of the nation. It is obviously a valid place to look, when the topic is the intent of the Founding.


That the Constitution, which is more about HOW to do it, the basic structure of the government, does not have the exact same language, does not prove anything.


AND, I'm not sure why you don't see the Bill of Rights, as evidence that they were still intent on unalienable rights.

.

AND, I'm not sure why you don't see the Bill of Rights, as evidence that they were still intent on unalienable rights.

the bill of rights was made necessary by the ambiguity of the christian influence to not include equality into the founding document, u s constitution. -

what are the ensuing amendments after ratification and the resistance against them - in that sense yes, christianity has been the source of resistance against the declaration of independence the citizenry of the time fought for. if you claim christianity as the founding of the nation it was done so serendipitously and is no longer at this time the case.

what is the equal rights amendment - and christian opposition, misogyny.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

.

“The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us.

why do you refer to the declaration of independence when no where in the u s constitution is there the mention of equality or inalienable rights - what exactly do you believe the 19th amendment represents than the lack of your very basic argument no less ridiculous than alito's - what they left out actually really exists ...

tell us rockwell are you screaming for the ratification of the equal rights amendment or do you already believe it exists as fundamental law - christian. you can not be for both. equality and christianity.

What is the answer that will make you happy? Whatever you're arguing is a lot of disjointed nonsense. What is your real issue? Of what relevance does it have with the OP? OR are we even allowed to discuss the OP?

If you don't know the difference between inalienable versus unalienable FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, you are not going to get too far. At the end of the day, what is your point? Is the Equal Rights Amendment in the Bible? Liberty is. What are you getting at? When do we discuss the OP? You're in violation of the board rules by attempting to change the subject and none of what you're saying will lead to any productive conversation. Tie your posts to the OP or find someone else to troll.

.
America Founded as a Christian Nation

When do we discuss the OP?

you do not reply in response to inquires that are relevant to your skewed position the declaration of independence you incorporate in your discussion for the founding of the nation has any relevancy for the distinguishing document that is the relevant document for that purpose, the u s constitution. they did not incorporate the declaration, that was fought for by the citizenry during the revolutionary war into the final document, the constitution by removing the precepts of equality - inalienable rights from its language.

by their omission, christians, the nation was influenced by their discretion despite the inclusion of the bill of rights mitigating that influence and in future amendments, 19th removed entirely their misogynistic influence altogether.

this country was not founded as a christian nation and if believed so is no longer a consideration at this time by the ensuing amendments added to the u s constitution that have removed much if not all the regressive christian influence at the time of its ratification.

I'm sorry, but my training forces me to be a wordsmith of sorts. What you are typing is not very coherent English. So, I'm forced to guess at what you're saying.

I have quoted United States Supreme Court Associate Justice, Samuel Alito once on how the Bill of Rights codified the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence:

“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. ”

In the Heller decision, the United States Supreme Court HELD:

"The appellate court held that the District had the authority under D.C. law to promulgate the challenged gun laws; the court upheld as constitutional the prohibitions of assault weapons and of large-capacity magazines and some of the registration requirements. Using the Heller framework, the court upheld the requirement of mere registration because it was longstanding and hence, presumptively lawful, and the presumption stood unrebutted. In Heller the Supreme Court of the United States explained the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing" individual right to keep and bear arms..."

From where do you think the Second Amendment was codified from, if not from the Declaration of Independence? The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension to your Right to Life AND a means to protect your unalienable Right to Liberty.

If you want to discuss something else, you will have to make it plainer. Don't try to use big words to convey a ten cent concept unless you can put it into understandable English. And quit with the straw man stuff. In LAW, the rulings of inalienable and unalienable are different. I do not support inalienable rights and couldn't care less about them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

NOTICE - The title of this thread is that America was founded as a Christian nation. It is not about what happened AFTER the founding. It is not about the way this country was governed by the British under their laws of which no descendant of the founders / framers are responsible for. It is not about how we've been transformed into the divisive socialist democracy that the founders / framers would never have accepted.

There are over 1,000 posts here and not a single one directly about the points the first post addresses. WTH people?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

.

“The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us.

why do you refer to the declaration of independence when no where in the u s constitution is there the mention of equality or inalienable rights - ...

The Declaration of Independence is the declaration of intent for the founding of the nation. It is obviously a valid place to look, when the topic is the intent of the Founding.


That the Constitution, which is more about HOW to do it, the basic structure of the government, does not have the exact same language, does not prove anything.


AND, I'm not sure why you don't see the Bill of Rights, as evidence that they were still intent on unalienable rights.

.

AND, I'm not sure why you don't see the Bill of Rights, as evidence that they were still intent on unalienable rights.

the bill of rights was made necessary by the ambiguity of the christian influence to not include equality into the founding document, u s constitution. -

what are the ensuing amendments after ratification and the resistance against them - in that sense yes, christianity has been the source of resistance against the declaration of independence the citizenry of the time fought for. if you claim christianity as the founding of the nation it was done so serendipitously and is no longer at this time the case.

what is the equal rights amendment - and christian opposition, misogyny.

I reread your post a couple of times and decided to give you more info on the Bill of Rights:

"The Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution to guarantee the protection of the people from a strong central government. It served as a compromise between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to achieve the ratification of the Constitution."

Why Was the Bill of Rights Added to the United States Constitution?

This link will also explain the Bill of Rights. FWIW if you look at the chart, I would be an anti-federalist.

The Bill of Rights [ushistory.org]

I even just went to the trouble to reread the Constitution before replying. I don't see anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights connected to the founding that make any statement relative to equality as you are writing about.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#1029

you do not reply in response to inquires that are relevant to your skewed position

Amen to that.

..and FOR THE RECORD: Porter Rockwell insulted my intelligence in his first reply to my very first post which contained no insults.

that is a fact.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

#1029

you do not reply in response to inquires that are relevant to your skewed position

Amen to that.

..and FOR THE RECORD: Porter Rockwell insulted my intelligence in his first reply to my very first post which contained no insults.

that is a fact.

I've had to suffer your stupidity for - what was it 368 posts or thereabouts?

You insulted me by posting an off topic post AND basically calling Christianity bullshit.

You are a very immature and self centered individual who took this thread away from the people I intended to discuss the topic with. The moment Christians see we're headed into a gutter language shitstorm, they hightail it out. But, I went to your level just to make sure you're contained and not polluting the rest of this forum with your insanity.

You hurled the first insult with the gutter talk, so my snarky comment was justified. You hurled the first insult by trying to derail the thread - and you've made damn sure no Christian will want to take part in this discussion. All I can do now is contain you here, hope somebody is making progress in another thread and expose you for what you are.

I take no pleasure in exposing you. And you would never act in public the way you've acted here. Every morning, I have to respond to you by ignoring whatever idiotic remark you make as the standard canard never changes. I have to forgive you and move forward. But, I could have complained at your first post and got you kicked off - your post was condescending, off topic and blatant trolling (all prohibited in the rules for this posting zone.) But, I support your right to make an ass of yourself.

IF breezewood is supposed to be supporting your position, it is another of your sockpuppets. That was a no no too. If breezwood thinks that your posts have not been answered, tell him to ask the question. I'll tell him where it was already responded to - TO THAT POINT THAT I PARTED COMPANY AND TOLD YOU I WOULD NOT ENGAGE IN FUTURE CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU. I owe you nothing past that point until you apologize for calling me and other posters fools, morons, and liars. You screwed this thread beyond repair and you WILL be held accountable.

 

[Correll]

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.

.

“The Declaration of Independence proclaims the every person has a certain unalienable rights that are precious to us.

why do you refer to the declaration of independence when no where in the u s constitution is there the mention of equality or inalienable rights - ...

The Declaration of Independence is the declaration of intent for the founding of the nation. It is obviously a valid place to look, when the topic is the intent of the Founding.


That the Constitution, which is more about HOW to do it, the basic structure of the government, does not have the exact same language, does not prove anything.


AND, I'm not sure why you don't see the Bill of Rights, as evidence that they were still intent on unalienable rights.

.

AND, I'm not sure why you don't see the Bill of Rights, as evidence that they were still intent on unalienable rights.

the bill of rights was made necessary by the ambiguity of the christian influence to not include equality into the founding document, u s constitution. -
.....

That is a completely unsupported claim, every aspect of what you claim is completely unsupported.

1. The Constitution was a framework for the set up on the GOvernment system. That they had a section afterwards for a list of "rights" does not demonstrate anything that you claim it demonstrates.

2. That there was some opposition to some or all of the rights, does not mean that the opposition was motivated by Christianity. INdeed, one of the primary opposing reasons was the fear that any list of rights would encourage people to restrict any rights NOT on the list.


You have come late to this discussion. YOu are not adding anything new, just slightly different versions of th same logical fallacies already offered many times.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Do you remember the attitudes of people before secularists took over?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#1037. It must be that America was not founded as a Christian Nation if “Christian” is nothing but a general term that does not identify who the Christians were and what their religious belief had to do with the founding of the United States of America and writing of the Constitution.

#1019

Christian is a general term.

Correll did not answer the key part of the question. I asked about two of the most prominent founders. Thomas Jefferson and Roger Sherman. One was a devout Protestant Christian in the Tradition of French theologian John Calvin. The other respected Jesus of a Nazareth as a great moral teacher with no hocus pocus of the Bible, Who considered
Calvinism to be “ daemonism. If ever man worshipped are false God” John Calvin did.

This was my question posed in Post #1018

Is it Jefferson’s anti-Church, anti-Calvinism Christian-ness, or the Calvinism it Roger Sherman the Constitutional Calvinist.

So if we are to accept Porter Rockwell’s request to define America as a Christian Nation, is It based upon two very much involved founders; was it a John Calvin reform Christian or was it a Jesus the human moral teacher Christian.

 

[Correll]

#1037. It must be that America was not founded as a Christian Nation if “Christian” is nothing but a general term that does not identify who the Christians were and what their religious belief had to do with the founding of the United States of America and writing of the Constitution.

#1019

Christian is a general term.

Correll did not answer the key part of the question. I asked about two of the most prominent founders. Thomas Jefferson and Roger Sherman. One was a devout Protestant Christian in the Tradition of French theologian John Calvin. The other respected Jesus of a Nazareth as a great moral teacher with no hocus pocus of the Bible, Who considered
Calvinism to be “ daemonism. If ever man worshipped are false God” John Calvin did.

This was my question posed in Post #1018

Is it Jefferson’s anti-Church, anti-Calvinism Christian-ness, or the Calvinism it Roger Sherman the Constitutional Calvinist.

So if we are to accept Porter Rockwell’s request to define America as a Christian Nation, is It based upon two very much involved founders; was it a John Calvin
reform Christian or was it a Jesus the human moral teacher Christian.

Christian as a general term.

The way that liberals pretend to not understand the concept of generalizations, is well known and not the topic of this thread.

YOur desire to avoid that point, by muddying the waters with insane detail and meaningless squabbles about those details,


has already been denied.


YOU HAVE LOST. ALL YOU ARE DOING NOW, IS DEMONSTRATING THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO ADMIT THAT, AND THAT ROCKWELL, RELATIVE TO YOU, IS THE VOICE OF REASON.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#1034

You insulted me by posting an off topic post AND basically calling Christianity bullshit.

If quoting the “exact words” from one of the most prominent founding fathers and our third president, in a discussion regarding the religious beliefs in Jefferson’s time on a Thread titled “America was founded as a Christian Nation “ perhaps you are in the wrong line of work.

I take pride submitting only ‘exact’ quotes in what I write. I’m not going to misquote a former president because Jefferson’s attacks on the corrupt Christian Church hurt your feelings.


OFF TOPIC POST?????? My god,

Jefferson’s views on Christianity is off topic, has nothing to do with Founding a Christian Nation??????

i hope everybody gets a chance to read this.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#1040 reply to #1038.

Christian as a general term.

I agree. My point was that being so, makes the case that America was not founded as a Christian Nation. You are Unable to define what Christians contributed specifically and directly to the founding.