America founded by whites... for whites

[Porter Rockwell]

Yea tell that to Minnesota.. again you don’t under we the people.

Oh, and I understand exactly what "we the people" means. I also understand what the US Constitution means. A simple majority in a given community cannot void select parts of the US Constitution. Period.

You only read PART of the Preamble.

I know the entire Preamble to the Constitution. I do not see how that effects what I said.

We the people is limited to the framers and their offspring (Posterity.) It is NOT a multicultural document. Read the first two posts of this thread.

The 14th amendment clearly states that blacks were citizens. That it took a hundred years to recognize that is a simple matter or learning for both blacks and whites.

When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human. Certainly not capable of equality. In the next hundred years, having generations of education for blacks, this was seen as an error.

It is irrelevant. It is irrelevant. What part do you not understand???

The 14th Amendment was used to abolish unalienable Rights (i.e. the Bill of Rights) and today NOBODY has any God given unalienable Rights. Everything the blacks thought they were getting, they had save of the privilege of voting. EVERYBODY lost and the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified... IF you have any respect for the Rule of Law.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh, and I understand exactly what "we the people" means. I also understand what the US Constitution means. A simple majority in a given community cannot void select parts of the US Constitution. Period.

You only read PART of the Preamble.

I know the entire Preamble to the Constitution. I do not see how that effects what I said.

We the people is limited to the framers and their offspring (Posterity.) It is NOT a multicultural document. Read the first two posts of this thread.

The 14th amendment clearly states that blacks were citizens. That it took a hundred years to recognize that is a simple matter or learning for both blacks and whites.

When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human. Certainly not capable of equality. In the next hundred years, having generations of education for blacks, this was seen as an error.

Human?? Huh

Yep. Are you saying blacks are not human (homo sapien sapien)?

 

[Jitss617]

You only read PART of the Preamble.

I know the entire Preamble to the Constitution. I do not see how that effects what I said.

We the people is limited to the framers and their offspring (Posterity.) It is NOT a multicultural document. Read the first two posts of this thread.

The 14th amendment clearly states that blacks were citizens. That it took a hundred years to recognize that is a simple matter or learning for both blacks and whites.

When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human. Certainly not capable of equality. In the next hundred years, having generations of education for blacks, this was seen as an error.

Human?? Huh

Yep. Are you saying blacks are not human (homo sapien sapien)?

You said they aren’t human want to explain?

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh, and I understand exactly what "we the people" means. I also understand what the US Constitution means. A simple majority in a given community cannot void select parts of the US Constitution. Period.

You only read PART of the Preamble.

I know the entire Preamble to the Constitution. I do not see how that effects what I said.

We the people is limited to the framers and their offspring (Posterity.) It is NOT a multicultural document. Read the first two posts of this thread.

Also, when I have addressed the phrase "we the people" it was in reference to Jitler's claim that any community can remove any part of the US Constitution that they choose. That is certainly not the case.

More fake news from the anti trumper

Fake news? You might want to study the US Constitution. The only way you can remove a constitutional amendment is by another constitutional amendment. A community cannot decide an amendment in Bill of Rights does not apply.

 

[WinterBorn]

I know the entire Preamble to the Constitution. I do not see how that effects what I said.

We the people is limited to the framers and their offspring (Posterity.) It is NOT a multicultural document. Read the first two posts of this thread.

The 14th amendment clearly states that blacks were citizens. That it took a hundred years to recognize that is a simple matter or learning for both blacks and whites.

When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human. Certainly not capable of equality. In the next hundred years, having generations of education for blacks, this was seen as an error.

Human?? Huh

Yep. Are you saying blacks are not human (homo sapien sapien)?

You said they aren’t human want to explain?

I did not say they aren't human.

What I said was "When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human"

 

[Jitss617]

You only read PART of the Preamble.

I know the entire Preamble to the Constitution. I do not see how that effects what I said.

We the people is limited to the framers and their offspring (Posterity.) It is NOT a multicultural document. Read the first two posts of this thread.

Also, when I have addressed the phrase "we the people" it was in reference to Jitler's claim that any community can remove any part of the US Constitution that they choose. That is certainly not the case.

More fake news from the anti trumper

Fake news? You might want to study the US Constitution. The only way you can remove a constitutional amendment is by another constitutional amendment. A community cannot decide an amendment in Bill of Rights does not apply.

We the people is the
1st amendment

 

[WinterBorn]

I know the entire Preamble to the Constitution. I do not see how that effects what I said.

We the people is limited to the framers and their offspring (Posterity.) It is NOT a multicultural document. Read the first two posts of this thread.

Also, when I have addressed the phrase "we the people" it was in reference to Jitler's claim that any community can remove any part of the US Constitution that they choose. That is certainly not the case.

More fake news from the anti trumper

Fake news? You might want to study the US Constitution. The only way you can remove a constitutional amendment is by another constitutional amendment. A community cannot decide an amendment in Bill of Rights does not apply.

We the people is the
1st amendment

No, it is not.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If the "we the people" phrase counts to throw out the 6th amendment, then it can be used to throw out the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment. So by your claims the community can remove any constitution right.

 

[Jitss617]

We the people is limited to the framers and their offspring (Posterity.) It is NOT a multicultural document. Read the first two posts of this thread.

The 14th amendment clearly states that blacks were citizens. That it took a hundred years to recognize that is a simple matter or learning for both blacks and whites.

When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human. Certainly not capable of equality. In the next hundred years, having generations of education for blacks, this was seen as an error.

Human?? Huh

Yep. Are you saying blacks are not human (homo sapien sapien)?

You said they aren’t human want to explain?

I did not say they aren't human.

What I said was "When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human"

Wrong

We the people is limited to the framers and their offspring (Posterity.) It is NOT a multicultural document. Read the first two posts of this thread.

Also, when I have addressed the phrase "we the people" it was in reference to Jitler's claim that any community can remove any part of the US Constitution that they choose. That is certainly not the case.

More fake news from the anti trumper

Fake news? You might want to study the US Constitution. The only way you can remove a constitutional amendment is by another constitutional amendment. A community cannot decide an amendment in Bill of Rights does not apply.

We the people is the
1st amendment

No, it is not.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If the "we the people" phrase counts to throw out the 6th amendment, then it can be used to throw out the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment. So by your claims the community can remove any constitution right.

what’s the first thing written in the constitution? After the constitution

 

[WinterBorn]

The 14th amendment clearly states that blacks were citizens. That it took a hundred years to recognize that is a simple matter or learning for both blacks and whites.

When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human. Certainly not capable of equality. In the next hundred years, having generations of education for blacks, this was seen as an error.

Human?? Huh

Yep. Are you saying blacks are not human (homo sapien sapien)?

You said they aren’t human want to explain?

I did not say they aren't human.

What I said was "When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human"

Wrong

Also, when I have addressed the phrase "we the people" it was in reference to Jitler's claim that any community can remove any part of the US Constitution that they choose. That is certainly not the case.

More fake news from the anti trumper

Fake news? You might want to study the US Constitution. The only way you can remove a constitutional amendment is by another constitutional amendment. A community cannot decide an amendment in Bill of Rights does not apply.

We the people is the
1st amendment

No, it is not.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If the "we the people" phrase counts to throw out the 6th amendment, then it can be used to throw out the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment. So by your claims the community can remove any constitution right.

what’s the first thing written in the constitution? After the constitution

Wrong? Are you telling me that is not what I said?

You are talking about the Preamble?

 

[Jitss617]

Human?? Huh

Yep. Are you saying blacks are not human (homo sapien sapien)?

You said they aren’t human want to explain?

I did not say they aren't human.

What I said was "When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human"

Wrong

More fake news from the anti trumper

Fake news? You might want to study the US Constitution. The only way you can remove a constitutional amendment is by another constitutional amendment. A community cannot decide an amendment in Bill of Rights does not apply.

We the people is the
1st amendment

No, it is not.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If the "we the people" phrase counts to throw out the 6th amendment, then it can be used to throw out the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment. So by your claims the community can remove any constitution right.

what’s the first thing written in the constitution? After the constitution

Wrong? Are you telling me that is not what I said?

You are talking about the Preamble?

I’m saying you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about motherfucker

 

[WinterBorn]

Yep. Are you saying blacks are not human (homo sapien sapien)?

You said they aren’t human want to explain?

I did not say they aren't human.

What I said was "When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human"

Wrong

Fake news? You might want to study the US Constitution. The only way you can remove a constitutional amendment is by another constitutional amendment. A community cannot decide an amendment in Bill of Rights does not apply.

We the people is the
1st amendment

No, it is not.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If the "we the people" phrase counts to throw out the 6th amendment, then it can be used to throw out the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment. So by your claims the community can remove any constitution right.

what’s the first thing written in the constitution? After the constitution

Wrong? Are you telling me that is not what I said?

You are talking about the Preamble?

View attachment 300072 I’m saying you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about motherfucker

You are an ignorant motherfucker.

Your own post proves me right.

Look at the paragraph above what is circled.

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing any appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)


"The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement."

That says it all.

And if that isn't clear enough, "It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid."

The circled phrase doesn't say if the law is repugnant to you. It says if it is repugnant to the Constitution, you moron.

Try to learn something here, ok?

 

[Jitss617]

You said they aren’t human want to explain?

I did not say they aren't human.

What I said was "When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human"

Wrong

We the people is the
1st amendment

No, it is not.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If the "we the people" phrase counts to throw out the 6th amendment, then it can be used to throw out the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment. So by your claims the community can remove any constitution right.

what’s the first thing written in the constitution? After the constitution

Wrong? Are you telling me that is not what I said?

You are talking about the Preamble?

View attachment 300072 I’m saying you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about motherfucker

You are an ignorant motherfucker.

Your own post proves me right.

Look at the paragraph above what is circled.

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing any appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)


"The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement."

That says it all.

And if that isn't clear enough, "It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid."

The circled phrase doesn't say if the law is repugnant to you. It says if it is repugnant to the Constitution, you moron.

Try to learn something here, ok?

Says the guy encouraging more regulations to the 1st and 2nd amendment lol dumb ass

 

[WinterBorn]

I did not say they aren't human.

What I said was "When the immigration law was written in the original constitution, blacks were barely considered human"

Wrong

No, it is not.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If the "we the people" phrase counts to throw out the 6th amendment, then it can be used to throw out the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment. So by your claims the community can remove any constitution right.

what’s the first thing written in the constitution? After the constitution

Wrong? Are you telling me that is not what I said?

You are talking about the Preamble?

View attachment 300072 I’m saying you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about motherfucker

You are an ignorant motherfucker.

Your own post proves me right.

Look at the paragraph above what is circled.

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing any appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)


"The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement."

That says it all.

And if that isn't clear enough, "It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid."

The circled phrase doesn't say if the law is repugnant to you. It says if it is repugnant to the Constitution, you moron.

Try to learn something here, ok?

Says the guy encouraging more regulations to the 1st and 2nd amendment lol dumb ass

I happen to agree with the SCOTUS where the 2nd amendment is concerned. There can be regulations.

And I do not recall encouraging regulations to the 1st amendment.

But I do recall you advocating (and defending) trying to ignore the 6th amendment completely. Not regulating it, but completely ignoring it.

 

[Jitss617]

Wrong
what’s the first thing written in the constitution? After the constitution

Wrong? Are you telling me that is not what I said?

You are talking about the Preamble?

View attachment 300072 I’m saying you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about motherfucker

You are an ignorant motherfucker.

Your own post proves me right.

Look at the paragraph above what is circled.

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing any appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)


"The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement."

That says it all.

And if that isn't clear enough, "It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid."

The circled phrase doesn't say if the law is repugnant to you. It says if it is repugnant to the Constitution, you moron.

Try to learn something here, ok?

Says the guy encouraging more regulations to the 1st and 2nd amendment lol dumb ass

I happen to agree with the SCOTUS where the 2nd amendment is concerned. There can be regulations.

And I do not recall encouraging regulations to the 1st amendment.

But I do recall you advocating (and defending) trying to ignore the 6th amendment completely. Not regulating it, but completely ignoring it.

I encourage lynching

 

[WinterBorn]

Wrong? Are you telling me that is not what I said?

You are talking about the Preamble?

View attachment 300072 I’m saying you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about motherfucker

You are an ignorant motherfucker.

Your own post proves me right.

Look at the paragraph above what is circled.

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing any appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)


"The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement."

That says it all.

And if that isn't clear enough, "It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid."

The circled phrase doesn't say if the law is repugnant to you. It says if it is repugnant to the Constitution, you moron.

Try to learn something here, ok?

Says the guy encouraging more regulations to the 1st and 2nd amendment lol dumb ass

I happen to agree with the SCOTUS where the 2nd amendment is concerned. There can be regulations.

And I do not recall encouraging regulations to the 1st amendment.

But I do recall you advocating (and defending) trying to ignore the 6th amendment completely. Not regulating it, but completely ignoring it.

I encourage lynching

You certainly have. And that is not regulating the 6th amendment. It is completely violating and ignoring it.

 

[sparky]

If you will take the time to access the links in my first two posts and read them, you will learn a LOT about what our forefathers thought - and it ain't what the extremists and ill educated here think it is

I'm thinking they had a history to fall back on for inspiration Porter

I mean, let's take the timeline from 1492 to 1776, nearly 3 centuries since the 'new world' was discovered by euro's. At that time, they were just out of the dark ages , and a staunch theocracy.

Church & State were synonymous.

The explorers of the time, be it Columbus or Cortez rode in on the cross with their 'join or die' enrollment plan

A century later we have Winthrop and Cotton writing and preaching like they were tethered across the Atlantic by the church. And yes , they cloaked their malevolent motivations in the guise of self righteous religious sanctimony , no less than the zionists or islamics of today's world.

America may have been settled by quasi-theocratic white dudes , but that had quite the while to fester before the revolution , where it all turned around i do not know, what i do know is only 3% came forward.

WHY is this relevant to OP?

Was the whole 'Church of England' theocratic subjugation as oppressive as we are led to believe? 97% of us didn't seem to mind......nor did we mind paying taxes to the queen.

Keep in mind England was the 'super power' of the time....

Yet somehow we came out on top, throwing any notion of theocratic bureaucracy under the constitutional bus

How they convinced the populace at that time must have been something of a feat

~S~

 

[Syriusly]

Instead of hijacking someone else's thread, I wanted to defend the title of this thread by creating a thread to talk about one thing. However, before I do, I want to ask each of you a question: If I tell you that due to the court case of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal in America, does that make me pro-abortion for stating a fact?

In this thread, I will give you the facts. I'll also put perspective into it and challenge my critics to respond without name calling and without long harangues to try and derail the thread. If you participate and you begin name calling, it will be noted and then no future responses will be required as you will have lost any pretend debate. Secondary, I will not respond to long diatribes that look like a book. Let's make our posts not exceed about a dozen paragraphs (give or take a few sentences. That said, let's rock:

The United States was founded by white Christians for the benefit of white Christians. Personally, I do not find it racist or white supremacist in its proper context. But, what I'm telling you is true. The very first governing document of the New World began with these words:

'In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith..." (see the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

About a decade later in 1630, aboard the ship the Arbella, John Winthrop gave a sermon that has been cited (in part) by all kinds of statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. I'd like to give a couple of excerpts from that sermon and put this into perspective:

"First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.

...Thirdly, when God gives a special commission He looks to have it strictly observed in every article; When He gave Saul a commission to destroy Amaleck, He indented with him upon certain articles, and because he failed in one of the least, and that upon a fair pretense, it lost him the kingdom, which should have been his reward, if he had observed his commission.

...Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission..."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

They were far from the only colonist of the United States.

Nor did George Washington view only Christians as Americans

When acquiring workmen for Mount Vernon, he wrote to his agent, "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."[50]

In 1790, Washington expressed his support for religious tolerance where in a letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, he stated, "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."[60] The phrase “under his own vine and fig tree” is from the Hebrew Bible (Micah 4:4).[61]

Of course none of that has anything to do with America being founded by whites for whites. Which makes makes the OP even wierder.

 

[Syriusly]

Instead of hijacking someone else's thread, I wanted to defend the title of this thread by creating a thread to talk about one thing. However, before I do, I want to ask each of you a question: If I tell you that due to the court case of Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal in America, does that make me pro-abortion for stating a fact?

In this thread, I will give you the facts. I'll also put perspective into it and challenge my critics to respond without name calling and without long harangues to try and derail the thread. If you participate and you begin name calling, it will be noted and then no future responses will be required as you will have lost any pretend debate. Secondary, I will not respond to long diatribes that look like a book. Let's make our posts not exceed about a dozen paragraphs (give or take a few sentences. That said, let's rock:

The United States was founded by white Christians for the benefit of white Christians. Personally, I do not find it racist or white supremacist in its proper context. But, what I'm telling you is true. The very first governing document of the New World began with these words:

'In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith..." (see the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

About a decade later in 1630, aboard the ship the Arbella, John Winthrop gave a sermon that has been cited (in part) by all kinds of statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. I'd like to give a couple of excerpts from that sermon and put this into perspective:

"First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.

...Thirdly, when God gives a special commission He looks to have it strictly observed in every article; When He gave Saul a commission to destroy Amaleck, He indented with him upon certain articles, and because he failed in one of the least, and that upon a fair pretense, it lost him the kingdom, which should have been his reward, if he had observed his commission.

...Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission..."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

The ONLY people to have a special commission from God were the biblical Israelites. That is how the colonists viewed themselves: They were the Israelites of the Bible; the land we call America was the promised land - the New Jerusalem.

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

Yeah, those who engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing, conquering and colonizing others always have some wackass feckless attempt at a rationale. It's the same with our endless bogus illegal unconstitutional wars. Hey! We're a takin' on "evil"! It's the Lord's work!

Founding a country on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and biblical precepts is a Hell of a long way from genocide.

No, it was genocide and if your Bible is real, your God knows this.

Slavery is not a sin in the Bible. Biblical Israelites living under a yoke of bondage where mortal men hand down religious laws is a sin.

You're right, slavery is never called a sin. However..............God really wasn't into slavery, because He sent the 10 plagues to get Egypt to release the Hebrews. While it's not specifically called a sin, it's not something God was really pleased about.

Sorry to disagree but Paul gave specific instructions to slaves to obey their masters.

Christian churches in America used those words for decades to explain why slavery was all part of the God's plan.

 

[Syriusly]

ALL of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States were white. By the time we get to the Preamble of the Constitution, we see some very specific language:

They were all also all men. I guess that means America was founded only for men.

I didn't realize who you were until you got into your usual idiocy about the 14th Amendment.

I leave you to your usual rants about your singular point of view about America being only for people like yourself.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If you will take the time to access the links in my first two posts and read them, you will learn a LOT about what our forefathers thought - and it ain't what the extremists and ill educated here think it is

I'm thinking they had a history to fall back on for inspiration Porter

I mean, let's take the timeline from 1492 to 1776, nearly 3 centuries since the 'new world' was discovered by euro's. At that time, they were just out of the dark ages , and a staunch theocracy.

Church & State were synonymous.

The explorers of the time, be it Columbus or Cortez rode in on the cross with their 'join or die' enrollment plan

A century later we have Winthrop and Cotton writing and preaching like they were tethered across the Atlantic by the church. And yes , they cloaked their malevolent motivations in the guise of self righteous religious sanctimony , no less than the zionists or islamics of today's world.

America may have been settled by quasi-theocratic white dudes , but that had quite the while to fester before the revolution , where it all turned around i do not know, what i do know is only 3% came forward.

WHY is this relevant to OP?

Was the whole 'Church of England' theocratic subjugation as oppressive as we are led to believe? 97% of us didn't seem to mind......nor did we mind paying taxes to the queen.

Keep in mind England was the 'super power' of the time....

Yet somehow we came out on top, throwing any notion of theocratic bureaucracy under the constitutional bus

How they convinced the populace at that time must have been something of a feat

~S~

I continue to tell people we were founded as a constitutional Republic, not a theocracy. No matter what I do, it's falling on deaf ears and blind eyes. What we need is perspective. I'm going to start another thread to cover it, if this one ever slows down.