If God doesn't exist...

[sealybobo]

They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women

Can you prove that that is what they believed?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1

March 7, 1850

(In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."


Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.


“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History


"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "


So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."


So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery

That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later

Did Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States?

Today on PBS they were talking about the time around Sam Adams day. The church of England warned about catholics, Presbyterians or all the other denomination just as much as we fear Islam today.

Yep, the whack a mole game has been around for a long time. There's a reason we say birds of a feather flock together. I believe in tolerance that is more like live and let live rather than indiscriminate indiscriminateness.

In hindsight we see their worries about people who worship a foreign prince (the Pope) was nothing to be concerned about.

 

[ding]

Can you prove that that is what they believed?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1

March 7, 1850

(In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."


Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.


“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History


"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "


So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."


So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery

That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later

Did Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States?

Today on PBS they were talking about the time around Sam Adams day. The church of England warned about catholics, Presbyterians or all the other denomination just as much as we fear Islam today.

Yep, the whack a mole game has been around for a long time. There's a reason we say birds of a feather flock together. I believe in tolerance that is more like live and let live rather than indiscriminate indiscriminateness.

In hindsight we see their worries about people who worship a foreign prince (the Pope) was nothing to be concerned about.

lol, that sure was a thinly veiled slight.

 

[sealybobo]

The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery

That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later

Did Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States?

Today on PBS they were talking about the time around Sam Adams day. The church of England warned about catholics, Presbyterians or all the other denomination just as much as we fear Islam today.

Yep, the whack a mole game has been around for a long time. There's a reason we say birds of a feather flock together. I believe in tolerance that is more like live and let live rather than indiscriminate indiscriminateness.

In hindsight we see their worries about people who worship a foreign prince (the Pope) was nothing to be concerned about.

lol,that sure was a thinly veiled slight.

Very interesting times. They told about how preachers of churches that weren't sanctioned were imprisoned and they would preach from their prison cells.

This was in Virginia not too long ago. We aren't that much different than the people back then. I'm glad we've worked it out so you can worship who you want or not worship if you don't want to. No religion scares me except Islam.

 

[rightwinger]

They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women

Can you prove that that is what they believed?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1

March 7, 1850

(In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."


Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.


“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History


"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "


So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."


So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery

That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later

No. That's not what happened. I just proved to you what happened. Is there anything I wrote, that you believe is false?

Please tell me what I got wrong so that I may correct the error of my beliefs.

Lot of cut and paste there but irrelevant

Banning the import of new slaves did nothing to stop the breeding of the four million slaves we already had

Their failure to resolve the issue resulted in untold misery for millions of slaves

No. It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass. Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.

but, but, but....

Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed

It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function

 

[ding]

Can you prove that that is what they believed?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1

March 7, 1850

(In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."


Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.


“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History


"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "


So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."


So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery

That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later

No. That's not what happened. I just proved to you what happened. Is there anything I wrote, that you believe is false?

Please tell me what I got wrong so that I may correct the error of my beliefs.

Lot of cut and paste there but irrelevant

Banning the import of new slaves did nothing to stop the breeding of the four million slaves we already had

Their failure to resolve the issue resulted in untold misery for millions of slaves

No. It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass. Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.

but, but, but....

Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed

It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function

Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South. Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus. Exactly as I predicted.

 

[rightwinger]

The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery

That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later

No. That's not what happened. I just proved to you what happened. Is there anything I wrote, that you believe is false?

Please tell me what I got wrong so that I may correct the error of my beliefs.

Lot of cut and paste there but irrelevant

Banning the import of new slaves did nothing to stop the breeding of the four million slaves we already had

Their failure to resolve the issue resulted in untold misery for millions of slaves

No. It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass. Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.

but, but, but....

Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed

It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function

Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South. Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus. Exactly as I predicted.

Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy

In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"

 

[BreezeWood]

.
and where was christianity to be found in the slaves hour of need ...



DREAD SCOTT


"The Taney Court ruled that persons of African descent could not be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution, and thus the plaintiff (Scott) was without legal standing to file a suit. The framers of the Constitution, Taney famously wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."[3] The court also declared the Missouri Compromise (1820) unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories. Taney died during the final months of the American Civil War on the same day that his home state of Maryland abolished slavery.


He is also notable as the first Roman Catholic (and first non-Protestant) appointed both to a presidential cabinet, as Attorney General under President Andrew Jackson, as well as to the Court."


He is also notable as the first Roman Catholic ...



... out front where everyone can worship their religion of denial and oppression.


.

 

[rightwinger]

.
and where was christianity to be found in the slaves hour of need ...



DREAD SCOTT


"The Taney Court ruled that persons of African descent could not be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution, and thus the plaintiff (Scott) was without legal standing to file a suit. The framers of the Constitution, Taney famously wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."[3] The court also declared the Missouri Compromise (1820) unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories. Taney died during the final months of the American Civil War on the same day that his home state of Maryland abolished slavery.


He is also notable as the first Roman Catholic (and first non-Protestant) appointed both to a presidential cabinet, as Attorney General under President Andrew Jackson, as well as to the Court."


He is also notable as the first Roman Catholic ...



... out front where everyone can worship their religion of denial and oppression.


.

As offensive as the findings of Taney were, they reflect the views of America not just in 1860 but at our founding. Negros were no better than property and deserved no more rights than a horse or a cow.

 

[ding]

No. That's not what happened. I just proved to you what happened. Is there anything I wrote, that you believe is false?

Please tell me what I got wrong so that I may correct the error of my beliefs.

Lot of cut and paste there but irrelevant

Banning the import of new slaves did nothing to stop the breeding of the four million slaves we already had

Their failure to resolve the issue resulted in untold misery for millions of slaves

No. It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass. Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.

but, but, but....

Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed

It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function

Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South. Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus. Exactly as I predicted.

Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy

In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"

They supported slavery. That is what we are talking about, right? Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats. If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.

 

[rightwinger]

Lot of cut and paste there but irrelevant

Banning the import of new slaves did nothing to stop the breeding of the four million slaves we already had

Their failure to resolve the issue resulted in untold misery for millions of slaves

No. It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass. Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.

but, but, but....

Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed

It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function

Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South. Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus. Exactly as I predicted.

Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy

In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"

They supported slavery. That is what we are talking about, right? Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats. If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.

Complete nonsense

Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk

 

[ding]

No. It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass. Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.

but, but, but....

Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed

It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function

Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South. Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus. Exactly as I predicted.

Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy

In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"

They supported slavery. That is what we are talking about, right? Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats. If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.

Complete nonsense

Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk

Republicans didn't oppose civil rights. Republicans championed civil rights.

In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. [133] Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. [134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]

[133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.

[134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.

[135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”

Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.

 

[rightwinger]

Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed

It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function

Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South. Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus. Exactly as I predicted.

Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy

In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"

They supported slavery. That is what we are talking about, right? Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats. If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.

Complete nonsense

Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk

Republicans didn't oppose civil rights. Republicans championed civil rights.

In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. [133] Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. [134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]

[133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.

[134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.

[135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”

Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.

FAIL

I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights

Try again

 

[ding]

Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South. Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus. Exactly as I predicted.

Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy

In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"

They supported slavery. That is what we are talking about, right? Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats. If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.

Complete nonsense

Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk

Republicans didn't oppose civil rights. Republicans championed civil rights.

In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. [133] Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. [134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]

[133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.

[134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.

[135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”

Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.

FAIL

I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights

Try again

Your logic eludes me. The 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. You do realize that at this time only northern Democrats were in the House and Senate, right?

38th United States Congress - Wikipedia

 

[rightwinger]

Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy

In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"

They supported slavery. That is what we are talking about, right? Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats. If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.

Complete nonsense

Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk

Republicans didn't oppose civil rights. Republicans championed civil rights.

In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. [133] Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. [134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]

[133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.

[134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.

[135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”

Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.

FAIL

I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights

Try again

Your logic eludes me. The 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. You do realize that at this time only northern Democrats were in the House and Senate, right?

38th United States Congress - Wikipedia

Why do Republicans struggle so much with mathematics?

Most Democrats were in the SOUTH. Those in the NORTH voted for the 13th amendment

The conclusion to be drawn is that both slavery and civil rights were north/south issues not democrat/republican issues

 

[ding]

They supported slavery. That is what we are talking about, right? Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats. If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.

Complete nonsense

Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk

Republicans didn't oppose civil rights. Republicans championed civil rights.

In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. [133] Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. [134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]

[133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.

[134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.

[135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”

Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.

FAIL

I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights

Try again

Your logic eludes me. The 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. You do realize that at this time only northern Democrats were in the House and Senate, right?

38th United States Congress - Wikipedia

Why do Republicans struggle so much with mathematics?

Most Democrats were in the SOUTH. Those in the NORTH voted for the 13th amendment

The conclusion to be drawn is that both slavery and civil rights were north/south issues not democrat/republican issues

At the time the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress, the only Democrats in Congress were Northern Democrats. 77% of Northern Democrats voted against the 13th Amendment. You reported my post, didn't you? That's weak.

 

[RWS]

What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.

You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?

And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.

Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science? Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?

"The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time." Who says? Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually? Is that a fact or scientific consensus?

I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know. So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years. What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?

Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...

The lady who survived the black church shooting said if dillan roof doesn't get the death penalty then he will be visited every night by 9 angels talking about Jesus. Oh brother. And she looked so sure if herself. I suppose that lie provides her comfort.

Whatever gives her peace is good. I never question a person's faith. In the case that you mention, I personally hope there is a Hell, with eternal damnation, and that he forever rots there! Squeeking out silently into blackness is not a proper penalty for him. I can just hope he suffers so bad in his final days, that people like him learn something. But we all know that they won't...

Because racism such as his, is as much a religion as the others. It is fueled by people seeking money, and promoting lies and hatred of others. And innocently passed along by parents to their children.

 

[RWS]

What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.

You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?

And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.

Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science? Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?

"The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time." Who says? Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually? Is that a fact or scientific consensus?

I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know. So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years. What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?

Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...

That's good because I don't build cars.

happinessbeyondthought: How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle?

Are you still serious? You know the "God particle" has nothing to do with "god", right? It was just an unfortunate term in a book?

The Higgs Boson and the Nobel: Why We Call It the 'God Particle'

It took off because religious people thought that there could actually be a particle that proved "god"!

But it has nothing to do with "god" or anything else supernatural!!! It has to do with the way a particle interacts with space-time to create mass!

It's good that you're not engineering cars, or any other moving thing (i hope). What exactly are you engineering?

 

[RWS]

So He doesn't exist, doesn't care, is unaware, likes the savagery, or is just a really bad Player in the Universal God Game.

We should be travelling to other star systems by now. Except that religion keeps erasing our knowledge for the benefit of the ruler.

We have to start over every 1000 years or so.... Why?

That is an idiotic statement. The external locus of control is strong in this one.

You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?

And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?

And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?

So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?

And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.

Or he doesn't have the power to care.

Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.

Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?


Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?

 

[RWS]

Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.

Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!

Wow...

And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them, just to prove they're right!

 

[PoliticalChic]

If God doesn't exist...

... then maybe Gods do
... or maybe not.

Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".

You must be a government school grad, huh?


Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.

Or this:
“52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh


Maybe they said it like this:
Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”


Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
Could be?

They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women

Wadda dope.

The anti-Americanism didn't work for Bill's wife, but you'll keep riding that horse, huh?

I kinda like this quote:
"There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his."
Helen Keller

Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution?

"Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution"

Of course they did.

You really are a dunce.....one would have thought you'd read the Constitution before you stat what is or isn't in it.

Second paragraph of Article VII.
Post it, please.
And never make that mistake again.



Oh......and Merry Christmas