Secularists...Hoist By Their Own Petard

[amrchaos]

Here is a better question

Why did this 28 page report not come out with the other reports?

Why was it witheld during the Bush administration?

By the way, politicians on both sides argued against suing the Saudis. This bill was first purposed under the Bush administration and was blocked for both political and diplomatic reasons.

Neither party are willing to pass it.

 

[ptbw forever]

3. The change in America, from a spiritual to a materialist entity, is largely due to the efforts of the 32nd President. He promised all sorts of material rewards, if America would only give up the individualism, and freedoms that the Founders embodied in the Constitution.
He promised rewards such as

Oh, Mail Order Bride from Hell, I don't think you would be happy in 1787 America, where only white property owning males were considered people worthy of the vote.

But let's pick a few more things from "Mail Order College Thesis of the Day"....

....the very antithesis of 'a moral and religious people.'
The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

The Founders believed in Freedom, all right. Unless you were poor Sally Hemings getting her 15 year old Cherry popped by Thomas Jefferson because she had the bad luck to be his dead-wife's half sister AND his property.

Now to put htis in the proper perspective... Yes, the Founding Slave Rapists did believe there was a magic man in the sky who created the world. A lot of them were Deists and not Christians, but they still believed in a magic man in the sky.

And they still thought Witchcraft was a real thing.

Historical Witches and Witchtrials in North America

And they thought Bleeding was a valid medical treatment.

http://www.tehistory.org/hqda/pdf/v41/Volume41_N3_100.pdf

And they thought Slavery was perfectly okay because the bible said so.

Today, we know that there are no witches, that bleeding someone is a bad idea, and that people owning other people as property is wrong.

But we are supposed to go to these guys as be all and end alls on how to run a modern society because they are some kind of deified paragons of virtue?

I think not.

Unless you use your same arguments against the Constitution and the Foundation of this country in its entirety, you have no point with this rabble.

 

[ptbw forever]

The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

Think fast, which amendment actually made America secular in all levels of government(hint: it wasn't the 1st)?

 

[ptbw forever]

From a nation designed for 'a moral and religious people' to one designed for a materialist lot......what happened?

That's what you get when the job creating corporations killed all the Indians....

I am pretty sure that was the smallpox...

 

[ptbw forever]

We are a more moral nation than at the time of our founding

Not even close

Sure we are....

If today's western world was somehow transported to a time when slavery was the absolute norm, many "progressives" would enslave their own neighbors to plant fucking pot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


b. In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country.

You lie. A Big, Nazi-esque Lie.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP began thus:
Don't ya' just love it when the villains get what they deserve, a dose of their own medicine?
I sure do.


Can you imagine....secularists squealing like stuck pigs when their own methods are used against them!
'...a consummation devoutly to be wished....'



Now....what if religious folks used material reward to point others toward the right path....

....wouldn't that be turning the tables?

And they did....here:


11. "School administrators are asking parents to stop hosting free lunches accompanied by discussions about Christianity outside a high school in Middleton, citing legal concerns." Wisconsin school, parents at odds over 'Jesus lunches'

Get that???
Free lunch....
...voluntary, unlike government school....
....centered around freedom of speech and the right of people peaceably to assemble, as per the first amendment.....
....discussing the sort of values and attitudes that abounded at America's founding?????


Well....we (secularists) can't have that, can we????


"Superintendent Donald Johnson and Principal Stephen Plank emailed the parents this week asking them to end the lunches.

"We believe that religious or political events do not have a place in our school or on our campus, except when sponsored by a student group in accordance with our rules, which require prior approval," the email said. "In addition, many students have conveyed to us their concern about a group offering free food to incentivize participation in a religious event on campus."


[Get that "our rules" stuff??? Sieg Heil! ]



A statement from organizers provided by parent Beth Williams said the group is legally allowed to gather at the public park, which is accessible to everyone for the purposes of assembly and free speech.

[Hey!! Watch that 'freedom' stuff!!! This is Amerika!]


"Fireman's Park, a public park owned by the city of Middleton, remains accessible to everyone in the public for the purposes of assembly and free speech," the statement said. "By law, the lease agreement between the city and the school district of Middleton does not privatize the park." Ibid.



I love watching the Liberals/Progressives/secularists squirm!!!!

Repeat after me..."Jesus is Lord..."

"...there's a good boy..."

 

[ptbw forever]

Jefferson:

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.



Seneca the Younger:

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.




church was separate from the state (Mt. 22:21; 1Cor. 5:12, 13 1 Pet. 2:13, 14



Albert Einstein:

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

And Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist running for president in the 2016 election....

You are deliberately using the most radical anti-religious founder as the mainstream opinion of early America and it is utterly amazing how only Democrats are too stupid to understand why that is wrong.

 

[ptbw forever]

The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

Wrong...another lefty lie...read what Franklin said about God and sin...

Not every person who professes a belief in God wants his country governed by a theocracy.

it certainly isn't government's place to impose some theocratic christian belief system on us. that's why the first amendment exists.

the fact that they can't stand not forcing us to live by THEIR brand of religion is their problem. not the rest of ours.

You mean the 14th Amendment......in conjunction with the same 1st Amendment that originally allowed multiple states to have religious government's when the Constitution was first established almost 100 years before that.

 

[ptbw forever]

there was no genocide of Indians...no resistance to foreign diseases is not genocide...

Yeah, so when they handed out smallpox blankets to the Indians, that was a conincidence, right?

Hey, how about when they slaughtered the bison to deprive them of a food source. That's kind of Genocidal, isn't it?

The Europeans and Africans brought the slaves to America...we ended the practice...a practice that was already here before the Europeans came and was practiced all around the world...till we ended it here...and it is still going on in Africa.....

We did nothing of the sort. The BRITISH ended the slave trade. they were the ones who actually had the navy to do it.

Look joe......the current sex doll

What's your sudden infatuation with sex dolls, Dick Tiny? You seem to be awefully obsessed with the subject.

Yes...innocent men, women and children were murdered because they did not believe in collectivism.....and had they been able to resist with guns history might have been changed....

They had guns. They had REALLY FUCKING NASTY CIVIL WARS. And then one side one and killed the side that lost.

Read about the Chinese Civil Wars. Lasted for something like 30 years between the abdication of the last Q'ing emperor and Mao's final victory. tens of millions killed, and that's not even counting what the Japanese did.

You mean the same idiots who believed in blood letting knew about germ theory?

 

[ptbw forever]

The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

What proof do you have that they wanted religion far away from government.

Please don't cite the first amendment.

It says "no laws respecting the establishment of religion".....guess what.

States could and did establish religions.....most of those colonies were divided along lines of religion and they were allowed to keep that.

At the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Constitution of Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of theProtestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or NewTestaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with thefreedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office,or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina, 1776

Thread.

 

[ptbw forever]

The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

the founders were largely deists.

and they wanted religious nutters as far away from government as possible....

but thanks for your usual cut and paste.

What proof do you have that they wanted religion far away from government.

Please don't cite the first amendment.

It says "no laws respecting the establishment of religion".....guess what.

States could and did establish religions.....most of those colonies were divided along lines of religion and they were allowed to keep that.

And that is the beauty of the Constitution as a piece of diplomacy between the states! Again it demonstrates itself as a political tool, a 'subtle' agreement, a propaganda piece to unite the colonies!

Yes, most states had a " state" religion, but few were identical! And no one group of christian wanted a different brand of Christianity dictating to them.

The Constitution said that it would not submit to any religious group and hence you could practice your brand of Christianity as the way you see it without fear of the federal government!

The major part that most modern Christians miss is that in the day of our forefathers, the different christian sects were bitter rivals. They would start fights based on their different understandings of their bible. Hell, some did not have the exact copy of the bible! To unite this group of self-righteous Christians, the constitution declared not to take a side in the argument. In other words, play a neutral role in the argument.

Many people like to claim that we are a christian nation. If so, then it is a nondenominational one at best. Which means no christian group has a claim over it.

But, if this is the case. That is, our nation is founded on nondenominational christian principles, then it can not recognize any other christian group as its model!

You may think this is not a problem, until you try to find the bible that our government supposedly. Turns out, there is no bible mandated by the federal government. It can not by way of the first amendment!!

Hence, America is not a christian nation. It is a nonreligious secular nation. Nonreligious through compromise by the various different state religions that could not see eye to eye to form a simple compromise on which denomination the government should follow!

Yes, Christians did help found it. No, it is not christian because the various denominations at the time did not trust each other!

Thomas Jefferson Wall Of Separation Letter


Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

You do realize that letters back then were every bit as irrelevant to the laws of this country as they are today, right?

Jefferson and his tiny group of Bible bashers had no power what-so-ever to institute this.

 

[ptbw forever]

Those were relious tests for holding office in the federal government.

Making the Constitution the most strongly secularist document in America at the time.

Which means nothing when it comes to states wanting to put the Ten Commandments in front of state court houses.

Your supposed understanding of the constitution only comes across as some form of hero worship.

It's too bad.

That's as non sequitur as a non sequitur can get.

Since you can't keep up....we'll go back.....

Historically speaking....those who came out of the time the constitution was founded understood it's limitations.

States could do what they wanted to do back then with regard to religion and the federal government never even tried to step in.

Pretty simple.

That is only relevant to you.

There was a big fight to put religion INTO the Constitution. Those people LOST.

BTW, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively bans religious tests for elected officials at all levels, state on down.

The 14th Amendment came nearly 100 years after the 1st.

 

[ptbw forever]

Since you can't keep up....we'll go back.....

Historically speaking....those who came out of the time the constitution was founded understood it's limitations.

States could do what they wanted to do back then with regard to religion and the federal government never even tried to step in.

Pretty simple.

That is only relevant to you.

There was a big fight to put religion INTO the Constitution. Those people LOST.

BTW, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively bans religious tests for elected officials at all levels, state on down.

Stop deflecting.....

I really don't care about any fight to put it into the constitution....I don't recall ever reading that......

Thank heavens it never made it.

And when did the fourteenth ban religous tests ?

Please show me.....

If you mean the SCOTUS used the 14th to do so...I agree.

That was likely sometime in the 20th century...about 150 years post ratification of the Constitution.

The 14th requires equal protection under the law. That, OBVIOUSLY, means that it is unlawful to bar people of one religion, or no religion, from holding office, all else being equal.

Religious tests to hold office are clearly banned by the 14th amendment.

Why do you keep wondering off track......

Jillhag, the moron was commenting on the founders.

When was the 14th ratified ?

all of which is irrelevant, idiota. and therein lies your fail.

but i think it's cute that you can't distinguish between a cut and paste queen and someone who's told you the status of the law.

what people said over 200 years ago is lovely....but ultimately not relevant.

Is that why you idiots quote a fucking letter by Thomas Jefferson like it is a Supreme Court ruling?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is only relevant to you.

There was a big fight to put religion INTO the Constitution. Those people LOST.

BTW, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively bans religious tests for elected officials at all levels, state on down.

Stop deflecting.....

I really don't care about any fight to put it into the constitution....I don't recall ever reading that......

Thank heavens it never made it.

And when did the fourteenth ban religous tests ?

Please show me.....

If you mean the SCOTUS used the 14th to do so...I agree.

That was likely sometime in the 20th century...about 150 years post ratification of the Constitution.

The 14th requires equal protection under the law. That, OBVIOUSLY, means that it is unlawful to bar people of one religion, or no religion, from holding office, all else being equal.

Religious tests to hold office are clearly banned by the 14th amendment.

Why do you keep wondering off track......

Jillhag, the moron was commenting on the founders.

When was the 14th ratified ?

all of which is irrelevant, idiota. and therein lies your fail.

but i think it's cute that you can't distinguish between a cut and paste queen and someone who's told you the status of the law.

what people said over 200 years ago is lovely....but ultimately not relevant.

Is that why you idiots quote a fucking letter by Thomas Jefferson like it is a Supreme Court ruling?

Actually you’re the idiot, because what’s being quoted is a Supreme Court ruling.

In case you missed it:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

 

[ptbw forever]

Stop deflecting.....

I really don't care about any fight to put it into the constitution....I don't recall ever reading that......

Thank heavens it never made it.

And when did the fourteenth ban religous tests ?

Please show me.....

If you mean the SCOTUS used the 14th to do so...I agree.

That was likely sometime in the 20th century...about 150 years post ratification of the Constitution.

The 14th requires equal protection under the law. That, OBVIOUSLY, means that it is unlawful to bar people of one religion, or no religion, from holding office, all else being equal.

Religious tests to hold office are clearly banned by the 14th amendment.

Why do you keep wondering off track......

Jillhag, the moron was commenting on the founders.

When was the 14th ratified ?

all of which is irrelevant, idiota. and therein lies your fail.

but i think it's cute that you can't distinguish between a cut and paste queen and someone who's told you the status of the law.

what people said over 200 years ago is lovely....but ultimately not relevant.

Is that why you idiots quote a fucking letter by Thomas Jefferson like it is a Supreme Court ruling?

Actually you’re the idiot, because what’s being quoted is a Supreme Court ruling.

In case you missed it:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

Jefferson wrote a letter in the 1940s?

Are you retarded?

At most they used the letter(erroneously) to justify their position, and that means nothing when it comes to the lawful authority of the letter itself.

 

[there4eyeM]

At the Bastille, about four people died. How many died in the French Revolution would be difficult to say with precision. Trying to include Napoleon's wars in the numbers is not valid. Estimates range from about 20,000 to 40,000 in the so-called "Terror".
As mentioned above, France's historic enemies tried to take advantage of perceived weakness and invaded. Defense and security were imposed burdens that Americans did not have to contend with in the same way.
Slavery was one thing the French Revolution ended. It is safe to say fewer died from the French effort to advance from the age of monarchy than slaves that died while the American 'revolution' got around to abolishing it

 

[jillian]

Stop deflecting.....

I really don't care about any fight to put it into the constitution....I don't recall ever reading that......

Thank heavens it never made it.

And when did the fourteenth ban religous tests ?

Please show me.....

If you mean the SCOTUS used the 14th to do so...I agree.

That was likely sometime in the 20th century...about 150 years post ratification of the Constitution.

The 14th requires equal protection under the law. That, OBVIOUSLY, means that it is unlawful to bar people of one religion, or no religion, from holding office, all else being equal.

Religious tests to hold office are clearly banned by the 14th amendment.

Why do you keep wondering off track......

Jillhag, the moron was commenting on the founders.

When was the 14th ratified ?

all of which is irrelevant, idiota. and therein lies your fail.

but i think it's cute that you can't distinguish between a cut and paste queen and someone who's told you the status of the law.

what people said over 200 years ago is lovely....but ultimately not relevant.

Is that why you idiots quote a fucking letter by Thomas Jefferson like it is a Supreme Court ruling?

Actually you’re the idiot, because what’s being quoted is a Supreme Court ruling.

In case you missed it:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

yes.

but it's a rightwingnut troll.

so it's not like we can expect it to know anything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

At the Bastille, about four people died. How many died in the French Revolution would be difficult to say with precision. Trying to include Napoleon's wars in the numbers is not valid. Estimates range from about 20,000 to 40,000 in the so-called "Terror".
As mentioned above, France's historic enemies tried to take advantage of perceived weakness and invaded. Defense and security were imposed burdens that Americans did not have to contend with in the same way.
Slavery was one thing the French Revolution ended. It is safe to say fewer died from the French effort to advance from the age of monarchy than slaves that died while the American 'revolution' got around to abolishing it

Total nonsense.

 

[there4eyeM]

Thanks for reminding me.
You're correct. Participating here is senseless.