Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion.

[Leo123]

No my answers was because she doesn’t want to die. I see you ignored it.

If dying were a real side effect of most pregnancies, there would be no more babies. Stop with the hysterical statements.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I didn't say anyone owed me anything. Just asking a question

A question you cannot explain why you ask it.

I fathered two kids in my early twenties I have six grandkids and great grandkids from those two daughters, I got snipped so my wife would not get pregnant because she couldn’t take the pill.

Later in life I have one more granddaughter from my stepdaughter who came into my life when she was five with her mother . My granddaughter will be one year old in a couple weeks, I take care of her five days a a week while mommy and daddy work. It’s the greatest work in my life, So quit with the moralizing bullshit.

Why do you ask that question of women you have no relationship with? What harm comes to you if a woman kills her fetus in her womb? You have no right to inquire about anyone’s health decisions! Who do you think you are.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If dying were a real side effect of most pregnancies, there would be no more babies. Stop with the hysterical statements.

Potential death is a side effect you would avoid if there was a safe medical procedure that would prevent it from happening. That is of course when there is not a reward great enough to rest you are willing to risk death to gain the reward.

But it should be you not the government that decides the risk reward choice - do you agree?

 

[Leo123]

Potential death is a side effect you would avoid if there was a safe medical procedure that would prevent it from happening. That is of course when there is not a reward great enough to rest you are willing to risk death to gain the reward.

But it should be you not the government that decides the risk reward choice - do you agree?

Abortion has a 100% death rate....So, there is that too.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If dying were a real side effect of most pregnancies, there would be no more babies.

Dying is not a side effect of “most” pregnancies. The point is when a woman finds out she is pregnant she has no way to know if she will be a “most” or “dead” in about 8 months.

So why do you want the government forcing women to take the risk when they do not want to take it?

 

[Leo123]

Potential death is a side effect you would avoid if there was a safe medical procedure that would prevent it from happening. That is of course when there is not a reward great enough to rest you are willing to risk death to gain the reward.

But it should be you not the government that decides the risk reward choice - do you agree?

I agree the government needs to stay out of abortion. They should rescind all subsidizes for abortions. Especially Planned Parenthood who received $553 million in 2014 to 2015 and performed over 300,000 abortions.

 

[Leo123]

Dying is not a side effect of “most” pregnancies. The point is when a woman finds out she is pregnant she has no way to know if she will be a “most” or “dead” in about 8 months.

So why do you want the government forcing women to take the risk when they do not want to take it?

Yeah I just said that. You are over stating the chances of death in a pregnancy. I already covered that and I guess it went right over your head. I never said I wanted the government to force anything on anyone. Are you even aware of what you are posting?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are over stating the chances of death in a pregnancy.

Where did I over state the chances of death in a pregnancy.


I’ve said: according to statistical probability on the maternal death rate, which is around 20 women, who die as a result of giving birth out of 100,000 births

When in fact: Rates increased with maternal age. Rates in 2021 were 20.4 deaths per 100,000 live births for women under age 25, 31.3 for those aged 25–39, and 138.5 for those aged 40 and over (Figure 2 and Table). Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2021

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Grand Juries don't hear exculpatory evidence and the 'evidence' presented was faked by biased prosecutors funded by George Soros. In this current 'hush money' trial, there has been no evidence that any of Trump's business records or filings were false. Bragg's star witness (Michael Cohen) admitted he stole from the Trump Organization for his own benefit. He stole 30 grand by overstating a billing. In a former case, Cohen also said he alone paid Daniels and Trump had no knowledge because he (Cohen) took out a personal HELOC loan to pay Daniels. For God's sake do some reading instead of parroting Democrat-Marxist talking points. Beyond all that, paying hush money to an extortionist is not illegal anyway.

Will you vote for a now convicted felon again because he takes all the credit for overturning Roe v Wade enabling states to force full term gestation on women after invading their privacy and telling them they will not get an abortion when they live in one of Donald Trump’s white Christian nationalist state. That does not include Ohio and Kansas because Republican women each to kill their unborn babies too!

 

[BackAgain]

Proof in writing that the OP is just plain silly:

The Mayflower Compact created laws for Mayflower Pilgrims and non-Pilgrims alike for the good of their new colony. It was a short document which established that:

• The colonists would remain loyal subjects to King James, despite their need for self-governance.
• The colonists would create and enact “laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices…” for the good of the colony, and abide by those laws.
• The colonists would create one society and work together to further it.
• The colonists would live in accordance with the Christian faith.

See: Mayflower Compact - Definition, Purpose & Significance | HISTORY

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion. 240601 {post•170}

silly

Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion. 240601 {post•170} BackAgain Jun’24 Spiwtt “Proof in writing that the OP is just plain silly •¥• The Mayflower Comoact: The colonists would live in accordance with the Christian faith. bckvgn 240601 Spiwtt00170



Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion. 240601 {post•171}

NotfooledbyW Jun’24 Vpiwtt: What “Nation” did the “loyal subjects to King James” found? nfbw 240601 Vpiwtt00171


The ding “Saint Porterrockwell fallacy”
VIPOST! Vpiwtt00171 to Spiwtt00170

 

[NotfooledbyW]

America's Christian Heritage 240310 {post•260}

Example #4 of America's Christian Heritage

“In 1609, because of persecution, a group of Christians left their village in Scrooby, England . . . “ and “led by their pastor, John Robinson this group settled in Leyden, Holland where they formed an English Separatist Church. After a few years . . . they wanted to live in a society that was thoroughly founded on the Bible, not simply a place where they would have the freedom to go to the church of their choice. These Separatists (Pilgrims), decided to go to the New World. . . . In September of 1620 the, Pilgrims set sail from Plymouth, England, in a ship named the Mayflower. After more than two months at sea, the Mayflower reached American
shore. . .”

Gary DeMar in America’s Christian Heritage, (Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN), page 16

dvng 240310 Sachyz00260

Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion. 240601 {post•170} BackAgain Jun’24 Spiwtt “Proof in writing that the OP is just plain silly •¥• The Mayflower Comoact: The colonists would live in accordance with the Christian faith. bckvgn 240601 Spiwtt00170


Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion. 240601 post•172}.

Yes it is true that Saint Ding promotes the idea that America was founded by colonists in the year of our lord -1620 - who were loyal subjects to King James of England.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It only matters if the historical truth matters to you that it is realistic to say truthfully based upon historical facts that America was founded by revolutionary intellectuals who decided the Christian Church could not be trusted to protect liberty of conscience for the law abiding citizenry of the new experimental nation based on self governance / no more divine rights based upon the heredity of God’s chosen families or nations.

In 1776 we the people declared Independence from centuries of Christian based authoritarian government.

In 2024 authoritarian Christian government hopes to take over by ballot - the leaders in favor of Christian authoritarianism are pictured believe

It is the religion of the great almighty desert God of Abraham and the morality of the white Christian nationalists depicted in the photo below laying hands on their beloved ‘baby fetus savior’ who alone can establish the principles of a Biblical Worldview upon which freedom can securely stand except for pregnant women.


Republicans fail to make any rational argument why society must force full term gestation on all women. 240525 {post•748}

945754 inserted by NFBW Vrftma00748. Faith leaders pray over President Donald Trump during a 'Evangelicals for Trump' campaign event held at the King Jesus International Ministry on January 03, 2020 in Miami, Florida. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

and they are the authors of the treaty?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No! I also think the State should not support it with our tax dollars. I don't give a shit if some skank want's to leave a trail of dead fetuses.

Then why do you vote for Republicans?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

America was founded by folks with Judeo Christian morals and values who did not want a State church.

but not because they did not want "Judeo-Christian morals and values" to guide them/us?...now can you tell me who authored the treaty?

your post is probably correct, certainly honest.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

can you tell me who authored the treaty

The US Senate,

1797 Treaty of Tripoli

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli has been used by some to counter arguments that the United States is a "Christian nation." The treaty, aimed to protect American ships from the Muslim Barbary pirates, assures that the United States was not founded upon Christianity.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

1797 Treaty of Tripoli​

Written by John R. Vile, published on July 25, 2022 , last updated on May 7, 2024

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli that sought to secure America from attacks by the so-called Barbary pirates who were Muslim made a point to say that the United States "is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." (Source: Painting by Lorenzo A. Castro entitled "A Sea Fight with Barbary Corsairs." Public domain)
The U.S. Constitution does not mention God, the first clause of the First Amendment forbids Congress from adopting any laws tending to the “establishment of religion,” and 19th century efforts to adopt an amendment specifically acknowledging God failed. However, some contemporary politicians have argued that the United States is a “Christian nation.” Although some are simply highlighting the fact that a majority of Americans identify with a Christian denomination, others use the “Christian nation” belief to encourage legislation to enforce what they perceive to be Christian religious beliefs.



One document that is sometimes used to counter this argument is a treaty that representatives of the United States entered into with Tripoli in 1796. The Senate ratified the treaty and John Adams signed it the next year. The treaty was an unsuccessful attempt (the U.S. went to war over this issue during the Jefferson Administration) to prevent the so-called Barbary pirates — Muslim pirates and privateers who operated from North Africa — from interfering with American trade, which, flying under the U.S. flag, was no longer covered by treaties as it had been when such vessels were flying under British flags.

Treaty assures U.S. is not founded on Christian religion​

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



The provision, which may have been written by Joel Barlow (one of the American negotiators), but which is missing from its Arabic counterpart, was not repeated in other treaties with other powers in the region, and the treaty itself was superseded by another treaty in 1805 (Crane 2020, 404-405).



The treaty received little contemporary comment. American Jews later used the treaty provision to oppose antisemitic discrimination; strict church-state separationists have cited the provision to counter the view that the U.S. is a Christian nation, and others have interpreted it merely as a way of reassuring Muslim states that the U.S. would not use the Christian religion as a pretext for conflict.



This article was published July 25, 2022. John Vile is professor of political science and dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University. He is co-editor of the Encyclopedia of the First Amendment.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

And the bloviating has begun

The US Senate,

And which states did the signers of the document in the OP represent?

1797 Treaty of Tripoli

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli has been used by some to counter arguments that the United States is a "Christian nation." The treaty, aimed to protect American ships from the Muslim Barbary pirates, assures that the United States was not founded upon Christianity.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

1797 Treaty of Tripoli​

Written by John R. Vile, published on July 25, 2022 , last updated on May 7, 2024

​

​

​

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli that sought to secure America from attacks by the so-called Barbary pirates who were Muslim made a point to say that the United States "is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."​

Why?

(Source: Painting by Lorenzo A. Castro entitled "A Sea Fight with Barbary Corsairs." Public domain)
The U.S. Constitution does not mention God, the first clause of the First Amendment forbids Congress from adopting any laws tending to the “establishment of religion,” and 19th century efforts to adopt an amendment specifically acknowledging God failed.

Why then did "the senate" feel the need to mention it in the treaty? and why didn't the Arabic nations include it? especially if it wasn't in play and for their benefit?

However, some contemporary politicians have argued that the United States is a “Christian nation.” Although some are simply highlighting the fact that a majority of Americans identify with a Christian denomination, others use the “Christian nation” belief to encourage legislation to enforce what they perceive to be Christian religious beliefs.

did/do the signers/authors of the failed treaty fall into that category?

One document that is sometimes used to counter this argument is a treaty that representatives of the United States entered into with Tripoli in 1796. The Senate ratified the treaty and John Adams signed it the next year. The treaty was an unsuccessful attempt (the U.S. went to war over this issue during the Jefferson Administration) to prevent the so-called Barbary pirates — Muslim pirates and privateers who operated from North Africa — from interfering with American trade, which, flying under the U.S. flag, was no longer covered by treaties as it had been when such vessels were flying under British flags.

Treaty assures U.S. is not founded on Christian religion​

Article 11 of the treaty stated: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
The provision, which may have been written by Joel Barlow (one of the American negotiators), but which is missing from its Arabic counterpart, was not repeated in other treaties with other powers in the region, and the treaty itself was superseded by another treaty in 1805 (Crane 2020, 404-405).

May have been written by? cannot be found in any Arabic counterpart? was not repeated in other treaties? what did the treaties replacement say? does the exclusion in other treaties preclude article 11 now? this is journalistic license, nothing else.

The treaty received little contemporary comment. American Jews later used the treaty provision to oppose antisemitic discrimination; strict church-state separationists have cited the provision to counter the view that the U.S. is a Christian nation, and others have interpreted it merely as a way of reassuring Muslim states that the U.S. would not use the Christian religion as a pretext for conflict.

And why would anyone need reassuring that the U.S. would not use the Christian religion as a pretext for conflict [or any other reason] since Christianity plays no part in our political heritage?

This article was published July 25, 2022. John Vile is professor of political science and dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University. He is co-editor of the Encyclopedia of the First Amendment.

This article is typical of white liberal journalism, made to sound like something it is not and designed to fool those who are fooled by most anything outside of the letter "W" ...even/especially the byline:

"1797 Treaty of Tripoli​

Written by John R. Vile, published on July 25, 2022 , last updated on May 7, 2024"

any casual reader not familiar with "Vile" [gee wonder what percentile that is?] but understands the language would understand that to mean you are suggesting my question was answered 200 plus years ago when in fact you once again have used heavy laden proxy Yada to avoid answering the question at all [which no doubt will litter yet another thread] to encourage such instances all in an effort to fool the geniuses who boast they are not fooled by the alphabet.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

but not because they did not want "Judeo-Christian morals and values" to guide them/us?..

The United States of America was and has always been neutral on what morals and values are to guide us. The founders were wary against all organized religion because of the corruption and oppression they fought a rebellion to oppose that was in trenched in the European religious state system.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The United States of America was and has always been neutral on what morals and values are to guide us.

as am I, which allows for my pro-choice opinions and an understanding of/by/for those who oppose it/them, in fact it would be impossible to make/take that stance if I and this country were not neutral on the matter.

The founders were wary against all organized religion because of the corruption and oppression they fought a rebellion to oppose that was in trenched in the European religious state system.

hmmm, on 'european debrief' the other day a/an MeP asked, "is europe dying"? "what should be done about this"?

 

[BackAgain]

Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion. 240601 {post•170}

Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion. 240601 {post•170} BackAgain Jun’24 Spiwtt “Proof in writing that the OP is just plain silly •¥• The Mayflower Comoact: The colonists would live in accordance with the Christian faith. bckvgn 240601 Spiwtt00170



Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion. 240601 {post•171}

NotfooledbyW Jun’24 Vpiwtt: What “Nation” did the “loyal subjects to King James” found? nfbw 240601 Vpiwtt00171


The ding “Saint Porterrockwell fallacy”
VIPOST! Vpiwtt00171 to Spiwtt00170

Eieio