America’s Founders Were Deeply Religious

[Hollie]

I mean....look at the lying dunce who keeps denying that the reference at article seven, 'in the year of our Lord,' isn't a reference to Jesus Christ.

Uh ----------- that would be you. Read much?

It is indeed not a reference to "Jesus Christ", yet her you sit, denying that it is not.

Self-making pretzels. Yum. Thanks for fessing up that you're a liar.

Let's check:

Here is the true quote.


done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

If you obtained your version from wikipedia, it is proof that Liberals corrupted and lie about the Constitution.

The same is the case for government school.


Clearly, the Constitution references Jesus




Or....

in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.



Liberals never have the class, honesty, or character to admit when they're proven wrong.
Thank goodness, I never have to.

No direct reference to Jesus there. Sorry, Comrade. Words have meaning.

Answer the question, dope.


in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

Is any possible explanation for the above that doesn't specify....SPECIFY... Jesus Christ?


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.


Here comes the chorus of 'is not, isssssssss nooooottttttttttt!!!"

The above has been addressed on each of the many occassions you have spammed the thread with that tiresome cut and paste diatribe.

 

[Pogo]

I mean....look at the lying dunce who keeps denying that the reference at article seven, 'in the year of our Lord,' isn't a reference to Jesus Christ.

Uh ----------- that would be you. Read much?

It is indeed not a reference to "Jesus Christ", yet her you sit, denying that it is not.

Self-making pretzels. Yum. Thanks for fessing up that you're a liar.

It's a reference to one creator which everyone back then believed.

It was a cultural custom, as you pointed out, to mark the date, just as we'll be calling tomorrow "Tiw's Day", the next day "Woden's Day" and follow it with "Thor's Day" all while giving no thought whatsoever to Norse gods. But what it isn't is a reference to Jesus.

 

[Pogo]

‘Year of our lord’ was the standard way dating of a document. No one in the 1700s or the 2000s argues that we shouldn’t use the Gregorian calendar, or that it’s ‘fake news’.

Sorry for your latest fail, wingnut.

Answer the question, dope.


in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.

It references a calendar that is based on Christianity. It was the only calendar we were using at the time. It’s a very nice calendar. The custom of the day in documents was to use the official ‘the year of our lord’.

Using your faulty thinking, if a Jew today tells you the date, they’re really espousing Christianity.

Stomping your feet won’t change the facts, dear.

Funny how you numbskulls pretend.....

In simply post the truth and force you Leftists to lie, pretend, ignore the facts, and refuse to admit the truth even when it is documented.....e.g., the line from the Constitution itself.



Now....those who do not accept Christianity have many ways to not the date without 'in the year of our Lord.'



"If the Framers were interested in being pluralistic, multi-cultural, and politically correct, they would have refrained from using the B.C./A.D. designation. Or they would have used the religionless designations “C.E.,” Common Era, and “B.C.E.,” Before the Common Era (see “Common Era,” 2008). In so doing, they would have avoided offending Jews, atheists, agnostics, and humanists. Or they could have used “A.H.” (anno hegirae—which means “in the year of the Hijrah” and refers to Muhammad’s flight from Mecca in A.D. 622), the date used by Muslims as the commencement date for the Islamic calendar.

Instead, the Framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared. What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—an explicit reference to Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, nor the gods of Hindus or Native Americans!

Let’s get this straight: The Declaration of Independence contains four allusions to the God of the Bible. The U.S. Constitution contains allusions to the freedom to practice the Christian religion unimpeded, the significance and priority of Sunday worship, as well as the place of Jesus Christ in history.

So, according to the thinking of the ACLU and a host of liberal educators, politicians, and judges, the Constitution is—unconstitutional! Go figure."
Christianity is in the Constitution



No one forced the Founders to sign their names after in the year of our Lord.


Hurts????


Excellent.

Political chick whined:

“Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ...”

Odd how no such explicit reference is to be found.

Such are the failings of religious extremists.

Words have meanings.....either she was lying from the git go, knowing she lied, or else she doesn't really understand the American English terminology.

To be fair, there's no reason both cannot be true.

 

[Pogo]

Uh ----------- that would be you. Read much?

It is indeed not a reference to "Jesus Christ", yet her you sit, denying that it is not.

Self-making pretzels. Yum. Thanks for fessing up that you're a liar.

Let's check:

Here is the true quote.


done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

If you obtained your version from wikipedia, it is proof that Liberals corrupted and lie about the Constitution.

The same is the case for government school.


Clearly, the Constitution references Jesus




Or....

in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.



Liberals never have the class, honesty, or character to admit when they're proven wrong.
Thank goodness, I never have to.

that passage is NOT part of the constitution

and it does NOT say "jesus"

It merely states that the document was WRITTEN on that date.

And I am NOT surprised that a FASCIST like you would INSIST that the constitution mentions YOUR god and YOUR religion in your attempt to create a theocracy and deny non-christians equal rights AFTER you have started ANOTHER OP stating that we didn't need to worry about theocrats and dominionists because they are NOT trying to create a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY.

yet here you are doing that very thing.




golly

I'm (yawn) shocked.

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

 

[peach174]

Let's check:

Here is the true quote.


done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

If you obtained your version from wikipedia, it is proof that Liberals corrupted and lie about the Constitution.

The same is the case for government school.


Clearly, the Constitution references Jesus




Or....

in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.



Liberals never have the class, honesty, or character to admit when they're proven wrong.
Thank goodness, I never have to.

that passage is NOT part of the constitution

and it does NOT say "jesus"

It merely states that the document was WRITTEN on that date.

And I am NOT surprised that a FASCIST like you would INSIST that the constitution mentions YOUR god and YOUR religion in your attempt to create a theocracy and deny non-christians equal rights AFTER you have started ANOTHER OP stating that we didn't need to worry about theocrats and dominionists because they are NOT trying to create a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY.

yet here you are doing that very thing.




golly

I'm (yawn) shocked.

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

"Everyone believed in one creator" is simply and inarguably not true.

What do you think "Deist" means?



Thomas Paine:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. [ The Age of Reason]

Tell us again, who is this "everyone" you're forcing your gods on?

No one is forced in America to worship God.
In America you have the right to worship whatever religion you believe in.
You also have the right not to believe in any gods.
It seems you don't know what it means.
Deist-
reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to establish the existence of a Supreme Being or creator of the universe.
This was pretty universal around the world in the 1700's.

 

[Hollie]

that passage is NOT part of the constitution

and it does NOT say "jesus"

It merely states that the document was WRITTEN on that date.

And I am NOT surprised that a FASCIST like you would INSIST that the constitution mentions YOUR god and YOUR religion in your attempt to create a theocracy and deny non-christians equal rights AFTER you have started ANOTHER OP stating that we didn't need to worry about theocrats and dominionists because they are NOT trying to create a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY.

yet here you are doing that very thing.




golly

I'm (yawn) shocked.

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

"Everyone believed in one creator" is simply and inarguably not true.

What do you think "Deist" means?



Thomas Paine:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. [ The Age of Reason]

Tell us again, who is this "everyone" you're forcing your gods on?

No one is forced in America to worship God.
In America you have the right to worship whatever religion you believe in.
You also have the right not to believe in any gods.
It seems you don't know what it means.
Deist-
reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to establish the existence of a Supreme Being or creator of the universe.
This was pretty universal around the world in the 1700's.

Nothing in the Deist description suggests a specific god or gods.

It’s also important to remember that the framers were aware the early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.


America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

 

[peach174]

Let's check:

Here is the true quote.


done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

If you obtained your version from wikipedia, it is proof that Liberals corrupted and lie about the Constitution.

The same is the case for government school.


Clearly, the Constitution references Jesus




Or....

in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.



Liberals never have the class, honesty, or character to admit when they're proven wrong.
Thank goodness, I never have to.

that passage is NOT part of the constitution

and it does NOT say "jesus"

It merely states that the document was WRITTEN on that date.

And I am NOT surprised that a FASCIST like you would INSIST that the constitution mentions YOUR god and YOUR religion in your attempt to create a theocracy and deny non-christians equal rights AFTER you have started ANOTHER OP stating that we didn't need to worry about theocrats and dominionists because they are NOT trying to create a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY.

yet here you are doing that very thing.




golly

I'm (yawn) shocked.

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

Let's check:

Here is the true quote.


done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

If you obtained your version from wikipedia, it is proof that Liberals corrupted and lie about the Constitution.

The same is the case for government school.


Clearly, the Constitution references Jesus




Or....

in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.



Liberals never have the class, honesty, or character to admit when they're proven wrong.
Thank goodness, I never have to.

that passage is NOT part of the constitution

and it does NOT say "jesus"

It merely states that the document was WRITTEN on that date.

And I am NOT surprised that a FASCIST like you would INSIST that the constitution mentions YOUR god and YOUR religion in your attempt to create a theocracy and deny non-christians equal rights AFTER you have started ANOTHER OP stating that we didn't need to worry about theocrats and dominionists because they are NOT trying to create a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY.

yet here you are doing that very thing.




golly

I'm (yawn) shocked.

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

All of our laws ,amendments and morals are based on the Bible.
Without a moral nation you are seeing the results of lawlessness like we are seeing now.

Our founders created a document based on a political theory of natural rights, public policies based on moral conditions of freedom.
Without self morals you have lawlessness where anything and everything is acceptable.
Totally opposite of what we are.
With lawlessness you need more government control over those who are lawless.

 

[Hollie]

that passage is NOT part of the constitution

and it does NOT say "jesus"

It merely states that the document was WRITTEN on that date.

And I am NOT surprised that a FASCIST like you would INSIST that the constitution mentions YOUR god and YOUR religion in your attempt to create a theocracy and deny non-christians equal rights AFTER you have started ANOTHER OP stating that we didn't need to worry about theocrats and dominionists because they are NOT trying to create a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY.

yet here you are doing that very thing.




golly

I'm (yawn) shocked.

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

that passage is NOT part of the constitution

and it does NOT say "jesus"

It merely states that the document was WRITTEN on that date.

And I am NOT surprised that a FASCIST like you would INSIST that the constitution mentions YOUR god and YOUR religion in your attempt to create a theocracy and deny non-christians equal rights AFTER you have started ANOTHER OP stating that we didn't need to worry about theocrats and dominionists because they are NOT trying to create a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY.

yet here you are doing that very thing.




golly

I'm (yawn) shocked.

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

All of our laws ,amendments and morals are based on the Bible.
Without a moral nation you are seeing the results of lawlessness like we are seeing now.

Our founders created a document based on a political theory of natural rights, public policies based on moral conditions of freedom.
Without self morals you have lawlessness where anything and everything is acceptable.
Totally opposite of what we are.
With lawlessness you need more government control over those who are lawless.

So, we’re to understand that laws which enforced segregation were based on the Bible?

 

[G.T.]

that passage is NOT part of the constitution

and it does NOT say "jesus"

It merely states that the document was WRITTEN on that date.

And I am NOT surprised that a FASCIST like you would INSIST that the constitution mentions YOUR god and YOUR religion in your attempt to create a theocracy and deny non-christians equal rights AFTER you have started ANOTHER OP stating that we didn't need to worry about theocrats and dominionists because they are NOT trying to create a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY.

yet here you are doing that very thing.




golly

I'm (yawn) shocked.

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

that passage is NOT part of the constitution

and it does NOT say "jesus"

It merely states that the document was WRITTEN on that date.

And I am NOT surprised that a FASCIST like you would INSIST that the constitution mentions YOUR god and YOUR religion in your attempt to create a theocracy and deny non-christians equal rights AFTER you have started ANOTHER OP stating that we didn't need to worry about theocrats and dominionists because they are NOT trying to create a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY.

yet here you are doing that very thing.




golly

I'm (yawn) shocked.

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

All of our laws ,amendments and morals are based on the Bible.
Without a moral nation you are seeing the results of lawlessness like we are seeing now.

Our founders created a document based on a political theory of natural rights, public policies based on moral conditions of freedom.
Without self morals you have lawlessness where anything and everything is acceptable.
Totally opposite of what we are.
With lawlessness you need more government control over those who are lawless.

Wait. Do you really think that things like do not murder, do not steal, respect property etc. originated in the Bible?


LOL!

 

[ding]

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

All of our laws ,amendments and morals are based on the Bible.
Without a moral nation you are seeing the results of lawlessness like we are seeing now.

Our founders created a document based on a political theory of natural rights, public policies based on moral conditions of freedom.
Without self morals you have lawlessness where anything and everything is acceptable.
Totally opposite of what we are.
With lawlessness you need more government control over those who are lawless.

Wait. Do you really think that things like do not murder, do not steal, respect property etc. originated in the Bible?


LOL!

I don’t believe that’s what her statement means.

The Bible was the number one best selling book in colonial America. The number two best selling book was the New England Primer which relies exclusively on the Bible. So Judaeo Christian principles were prevalent in early America and their understanding of morality and virtue were derived from the Judaeo Christian religion because that’s what was taught and passed down.

 

[G.T.]

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

All of our laws ,amendments and morals are based on the Bible.
Without a moral nation you are seeing the results of lawlessness like we are seeing now.

Our founders created a document based on a political theory of natural rights, public policies based on moral conditions of freedom.
Without self morals you have lawlessness where anything and everything is acceptable.
Totally opposite of what we are.
With lawlessness you need more government control over those who are lawless.

Wait. Do you really think that things like do not murder, do not steal, respect property etc. originated in the Bible?


LOL!

I don’t believe that’s what her statement means.

The Bible was the number one best selling book in colonial America. The number two best selling book was the New England Primer which relies exclusively on the Bible. So Judaeo Christian principles were prevalent in early America and their understanding of morality and virtue were derived from the Judaeo Christian religion because that’s what was taught and passed down.

Judeo Christian values, apart from the Spiritual belief parts - were normal secular societal values. The way you charlatans phrase it is as though the cart came before the horse - it didn't. Judeo Christian values that weren't adopted were the more ridiculous and barbaric ones - the notion of picking and choosing alludes to the obvious...leaving you sillies to figure that out for yourselves.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I mean....look at the lying dunce who keeps denying that the reference at article seven, 'in the year of our Lord,' isn't a reference to Jesus Christ.

Uh ----------- that would be you. Read much?

It is indeed not a reference to "Jesus Christ", yet her you sit, denying that it is not.

Self-making pretzels. Yum. Thanks for fessing up that you're a liar.

It's a reference to one creator which everyone back then believed.

It was a cultural custom, as you pointed out, to mark the date, just as we'll be calling tomorrow "Tiw's Day", the next day "Woden's Day" and follow it with "Thor's Day" all while giving no thought whatsoever to Norse gods. But what it isn't is a reference to Jesus.

Answer the question, dope.


in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

Is any possible explanation for the above that doesn't specify....SPECIFY... Jesus Christ?


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.

 

[Pogo]

that passage is NOT part of the constitution

and it does NOT say "jesus"

It merely states that the document was WRITTEN on that date.

And I am NOT surprised that a FASCIST like you would INSIST that the constitution mentions YOUR god and YOUR religion in your attempt to create a theocracy and deny non-christians equal rights AFTER you have started ANOTHER OP stating that we didn't need to worry about theocrats and dominionists because they are NOT trying to create a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY.

yet here you are doing that very thing.




golly

I'm (yawn) shocked.

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

that passage is NOT part of the constitution

and it does NOT say "jesus"

It merely states that the document was WRITTEN on that date.

And I am NOT surprised that a FASCIST like you would INSIST that the constitution mentions YOUR god and YOUR religion in your attempt to create a theocracy and deny non-christians equal rights AFTER you have started ANOTHER OP stating that we didn't need to worry about theocrats and dominionists because they are NOT trying to create a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY.

yet here you are doing that very thing.

golly

I'm (yawn) shocked.

The USA has never been nor will it ever be a Theocracy, nor deny rights to non Christians.
Our amendment rights belong to all Americans no matter what their certain ideologies are.

The vast majority of Europeans used in the year of our lord meaning God as legal endings.
In the 1700's most of Europe was Christian.
That does not mean it's a theocracy.
It's a legal recognition of the creator. One God.

A salutation common for the time and the parlance commonly used as a closing salutation is certainly not a legal recognition. The framers of the Constitution explicitly excluded any mention of "the creator", meaning the Christian gods in the body of the Constitution.

Everyone believed in one creator.
Our constitution was written by that ideology.
The Constitution and our laws are based on that whole belief system one creator of the universe.
Even the native Americans believed in one creator.
It does not mean we are a theocracy, we have never nor will be one either.

Actually the Constitution was written by the ideology of Liberalism. Had nothing to do with creators or universes. And no, not everyone believed in "one creator" at all anyway.

And the idea of Liberalism was and is that power derives from the consent of the governed and NOT from an authoritarian hierarchy of royalty and an established Church -- which had been the "standard" way of things up to then. That's why it was called the Great Experiment -- it was a new approach. And that's what the entire structure of the government as laid out in the COTUS is all about.

You are absolutely correct that neither that structure, nor the archaic phrasing of the date, means we are a theocracy.

All of our laws ,amendments and morals are based on the Bible.

That's true, except for the word "all" which should read "none".

The exceptions to that are the outlier laws that squeak through which are plainly unConstitutional such as blasphemy laws. Other than that they're all simply based on maintaining an orderly and democratic society, which has nothing to do with the bible.

Without a moral nation you are seeing the results of lawlessness like we are seeing now.

Again, the function of laws cannot be "morals". A good example of how that doesn't work is Prohibition. What you're talking about here is basically culture.

Our founders created a document based on a political theory of natural rights, public policies based on moral conditions of freedom.

To the extent that a political philosophy about who has the right to govern is 'moralistic', sure.
But that's human philosophy, not a religious prescript. The religious machinations is what they were defending us from.. Divine Right of Kings. State religion. Witch burning. Heresy trials. The same element where the Ku Klux Klan pulls a woman out of her house and whips her for "not going to church".

Without self morals you have lawlessness where anything and everything is acceptable.

Now you're referring to culture. You can't legislate that. We can opine that television, Nosebook and Tweeter, fast food, fast cars, whatever your poison, degrade the society but we can't say that's the result of not having either laws or bible verses prohibiting them. That's where the function of societal peer pressure ("PC") comes into play. The idea of Liberalism in the Constitution is that those choices are left to the individual and the overarching authority, whether it be the Church or the Law, does not have the right to make those choices for the individual. In effect it shifts more responsibility to the collective to enforce whatever mores that collective agrees on, with the understanding that such enforcement cannot be a disciplinarian dictum. It takes that authority of deciding "what is acceptable" out of the hands of the hierarchy and re-places it in the hands of We the People. That's the whole point.

 

[Pogo]

I mean....look at the lying dunce who keeps denying that the reference at article seven, 'in the year of our Lord,' isn't a reference to Jesus Christ.

Uh ----------- that would be you. Read much?

It is indeed not a reference to "Jesus Christ", yet her you sit, denying that it is not.

Self-making pretzels. Yum. Thanks for fessing up that you're a liar.

It's a reference to one creator which everyone back then believed.

It was a cultural custom, as you pointed out, to mark the date, just as we'll be calling tomorrow "Tiw's Day", the next day "Woden's Day" and follow it with "Thor's Day" all while giving no thought whatsoever to Norse gods. But what it isn't is a reference to Jesus.

Answer the question, dope.


in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

Is any possible explanation for the above that doesn't specify....SPECIFY... Jesus Christ?


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.

I'm afraid you already own that question and you can't answer it. Maybe it's the dope.

Today is Tuesday, right? Tiw's Day. Tell us all the ways you're honouring the god Tiw today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I mean....look at the lying dunce who keeps denying that the reference at article seven, 'in the year of our Lord,' isn't a reference to Jesus Christ.

Uh ----------- that would be you. Read much?

It is indeed not a reference to "Jesus Christ", yet her you sit, denying that it is not.

Self-making pretzels. Yum. Thanks for fessing up that you're a liar.

It's a reference to one creator which everyone back then believed.

It was a cultural custom, as you pointed out, to mark the date, just as we'll be calling tomorrow "Tiw's Day", the next day "Woden's Day" and follow it with "Thor's Day" all while giving no thought whatsoever to Norse gods. But what it isn't is a reference to Jesus.

Answer the question, dope.


in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

Is any possible explanation for the above that doesn't specify....SPECIFY... Jesus Christ?


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.

I'm afraid you already own that question and you can't answer it. Maybe it's the dope.

Today is Tuesday, right? Tiw's Day. Tell us all the ways you're honouring the god Tiw today.

Every reader who has seen the posts, and how I cowed you into refusing to answer recognizes what you are.


The good news?

They knew already.

 

[Frannie]

That refers to the Judeo-Christian faith. Compare this fact with the elites of the major political party today, and the schools they oversee, teaching quite the reverse.

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundamentalist hate group.”



Last week Att’y Gen William Barr gave a speech about the importance of having a religious America. And, of course, he was attacked for it.


1.“United States Attorney General William Barr spoke at Notre Dame Law School [enemies of religion] raced to warn us of our impending doom. Also as per usual, in their screeds were seeds of the very things Barr described.

…RefuseFascism.org, which proclaimed in a headline, “At Notre Dame, William Barr Lays Out a Christian Fascist Nightmare.”

…writer Joan Walsh described Barr as "a paranoid right-wing Catholic ideologue who won't respect the separation of church and state." She mocked the Catholic men's service group Knights of Columbus (of which Barr has been a member) as "a patriarchal cosplay group." Walsh's distaste for Catholicism is matched only by her evident loathing of evangelicals. She writes: "(I)t's worth noting that Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney were all also raised Catholic -- but Pence and Pompeo went one better than Barr and joined the official GOP denomination, White Evangelical Protestantism ... I couldn't wish these guys better company to spend time with in hell.

“From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States.

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.

In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty….precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.



How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.”
America’s great experiment with freedom needs religion
A Moral Citizenry Is Not a Theocracy



Faith is inseparable from liberty and freedom.

Rabid anti-religion bigots attacked Barr....hoping that all of America renounce the views of our Founders, that which made our nation the shining city on the hill.

If you agree with Barr about the relationship between religion and liberty, you cannot, of course, vote Democrat.

Yea so what

 

[Frannie]

Uh ----------- that would be you. Read much?

It is indeed not a reference to "Jesus Christ", yet her you sit, denying that it is not.

Self-making pretzels. Yum. Thanks for fessing up that you're a liar.

It's a reference to one creator which everyone back then believed.

It was a cultural custom, as you pointed out, to mark the date, just as we'll be calling tomorrow "Tiw's Day", the next day "Woden's Day" and follow it with "Thor's Day" all while giving no thought whatsoever to Norse gods. But what it isn't is a reference to Jesus.

Answer the question, dope.


in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

Is any possible explanation for the above that doesn't specify....SPECIFY... Jesus Christ?


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.

I'm afraid you already own that question and you can't answer it. Maybe it's the dope.

Today is Tuesday, right? Tiw's Day. Tell us all the ways you're honouring the god Tiw today.

Every reader who has seen the posts, and how I cowed you into refusing to answer recognizes what you are.


The good news?

They knew already.

Yea you saved the earth

Congrats

 

[Hollie]

I mean....look at the lying dunce who keeps denying that the reference at article seven, 'in the year of our Lord,' isn't a reference to Jesus Christ.

Uh ----------- that would be you. Read much?

It is indeed not a reference to "Jesus Christ", yet her you sit, denying that it is not.

Self-making pretzels. Yum. Thanks for fessing up that you're a liar.

It's a reference to one creator which everyone back then believed.

It was a cultural custom, as you pointed out, to mark the date, just as we'll be calling tomorrow "Tiw's Day", the next day "Woden's Day" and follow it with "Thor's Day" all while giving no thought whatsoever to Norse gods. But what it isn't is a reference to Jesus.

Answer the question, dope.


in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

Is any possible explanation for the above that doesn't specify....SPECIFY... Jesus Christ?


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.

If the framers intended to identify Jesus H. Christ in the body of the Constitution, it would have been a simple matter to do so.

The constitution includes a closing salutation generally used at the time.

There's no need to attempt to force your religious beliefs on others.

Thanks.

 

[beautress]

Can someone explain to me what Judeo-Christianity is?

Is there an Judeo-Islamism?

I have always found that term to be ridiculous.

Why? Jesus Christ was a Jewish Rabbi. He taught directly from the Torah to masses of Jews who did not understand the meaning of the scriptures. Those who believe in him know that he is the Word of God made flesh. A small number of Jewish Rabbis took umbrage that a junior rabbi was winning over the masses and making their for-profit rituals obsolete. And they did everything to discredit Jesus, no matter how low they had to go to discredit him. There were exceptions, but unfortunately, they suffered the fate of most fence-sitters. Neither side had use for them.

 

[Frannie]

I mean....look at the lying dunce who keeps denying that the reference at article seven, 'in the year of our Lord,' isn't a reference to Jesus Christ.

Uh ----------- that would be you. Read much?

It is indeed not a reference to "Jesus Christ", yet her you sit, denying that it is not.

Self-making pretzels. Yum. Thanks for fessing up that you're a liar.

It's a reference to one creator which everyone back then believed.

It was a cultural custom, as you pointed out, to mark the date, just as we'll be calling tomorrow "Tiw's Day", the next day "Woden's Day" and follow it with "Thor's Day" all while giving no thought whatsoever to Norse gods. But what it isn't is a reference to Jesus.

Answer the question, dope.


in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

Is any possible explanation for the above that doesn't specify....SPECIFY... Jesus Christ?


...give your alternate explanation for whom the reference describes.

If the framers intended to identify Jesus H. Christ in the body of the Constitution, it would have been a simple matter to do so.

The constitution includes a closing salutation generally used at the time.

There's no need to attempt to force your religious beliefs on others.

Thanks.

Excellently put.