The Founders on Religion

[P@triot]

Jefferson was a deist.

Where do you left-wing patriots get off making shit up and attempting to pass it off as "fact"? Who do you think you are to just make up reality for others? Thomas Jefferson was a devout christian. He revered Jesus Christ - and fawned over Him in all of his writings.

“My views of [the Christian religion] … are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be–sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other". – Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush (April 21, 1803)

Jefferson's Religious Beliefs | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” The Real Thomas Jefferson

“I hold the precepts of Jesus, as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man.” - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Jared Sparks (November 4, 1820)

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to Jared Sparks, 4 November 1820

Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” The Real Thomas Jefferson

In short - you are a moron Political Junky and you should be ashamed of yourself for blatantly lying to people. You are everything that Jesus preached against.

 

[P@triot]

I can count on one hand now the number of RWnuts on this forum who DON"T lie about my views.

And I can count on one hand now the number of people on USMB who have even an ounce of respect for you...

 

[P@triot]

Was the 3/5ths compromise not in the Constitution? Are you denying that? Goddam that is funny.

What is "Goddamn funny" is the fact that you have absolutely no idea what the 3/5ths Compromise was or why it came about (hint: it's not good for your side of the aisle - not good at all). It's also tragic that you don't know. But then, we've all become accustomed to you not knowing what you're talking about.

 

[P@triot]

Where the Constitution establishes a Supreme Court that has the authority to interpret what the Constitution says. That's where.

Please cite for us the Article and Section of the U.S. Constitution which grants the Supreme Court the authority to "interpret what the U.S. Constitution says".

 

[Doc1]

Was the 3/5ths compromise not in the Constitution? Are you denying that? Goddam that is funny.

What is "Goddamn funny" is the fact that you have absolutely no idea what the 3/5ths Compromise was or why it came about (hint: it's not good for your side of the aisle - not good at all). It's also tragic that you don't know. But then, we've all become accustomed to you not knowing what you're talking about.

Once again they've been taught something in the complete reverse of what it really was and what it really meant. They just don't know.

 

[P@triot]

Was the 3/5ths compromise not in the Constitution? Are you denying that? Goddam that is funny.

What is "Goddamn funny" is the fact that you have absolutely no idea what the 3/5ths Compromise was or why it came about (hint: it's not good for your side of the aisle - not good at all). It's also tragic that you don't know. But then, we've all become accustomed to you not knowing what you're talking about.

Once again they've been taught something in the complete reverse of what it really was and what it really meant. They just don't know.

He literally doesn't have the slightest CLUE what the 3/5th's Compromise was. Sad.

 

[Doc1]

Was the 3/5ths compromise not in the Constitution? Are you denying that? Goddam that is funny.

What is "Goddamn funny" is the fact that you have absolutely no idea what the 3/5ths Compromise was or why it came about (hint: it's not good for your side of the aisle - not good at all). It's also tragic that you don't know. But then, we've all become accustomed to you not knowing what you're talking about.

Once again they've been taught something in the complete reverse of what it really was and what it really meant. They just don't know.

He literally doesn't have the slightest CLUE what the 3/5th's Compromise was. Sad.

None of them do, them just regurgitate what their America hating educators told them. Never mind that they could get the truth from the Federalist Papers, that's too much work. It's very sad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Was the 3/5ths compromise not in the Constitution? Are you denying that? Goddam that is funny.

What is "Goddamn funny" is the fact that you have absolutely no idea what the 3/5ths Compromise was or why it came about (hint: it's not good for your side of the aisle - not good at all). It's also tragic that you don't know. But then, we've all become accustomed to you not knowing what you're talking about.

What's interesting about your post is that it offers NOTHING about the 3/5ths compromise, proving you're mentally retarded,

but amply supplied with bluff and bluster.

 

[Doc1]

Was the 3/5ths compromise not in the Constitution? Are you denying that? Goddam that is funny.

What is "Goddamn funny" is the fact that you have absolutely no idea what the 3/5ths Compromise was or why it came about (hint: it's not good for your side of the aisle - not good at all). It's also tragic that you don't know. But then, we've all become accustomed to you not knowing what you're talking about.

What's interesting about your post is that it offers NOTHING about the 3/5ths compromise, proving you're mentally retarded,

but amply supplied with bluff and bluster.

Do tell son? Enlighten us on the 3/5ths clause?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Founders lived in a time when the biggest, bloodiest, most brutal religious conflicts were between different sorts of CHRISTIANS,

the idea they wanted a CHRISTIAN nation is immeasurably preposterous.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Was the 3/5ths compromise not in the Constitution? Are you denying that? Goddam that is funny.

What is "Goddamn funny" is the fact that you have absolutely no idea what the 3/5ths Compromise was or why it came about (hint: it's not good for your side of the aisle - not good at all). It's also tragic that you don't know. But then, we've all become accustomed to you not knowing what you're talking about.

What's interesting about your post is that it offers NOTHING about the 3/5ths compromise, proving you're mentally retarded,

but amply supplied with bluff and bluster.

Do tell son? Enlighten us on the 3/5ths clause?

Like I said, you are all bluff. You claimed I didn't know something, so back it up with facts or fuck off.

 

[Doc1]

Was the 3/5ths compromise not in the Constitution? Are you denying that? Goddam that is funny.

What is "Goddamn funny" is the fact that you have absolutely no idea what the 3/5ths Compromise was or why it came about (hint: it's not good for your side of the aisle - not good at all). It's also tragic that you don't know. But then, we've all become accustomed to you not knowing what you're talking about.

What's interesting about your post is that it offers NOTHING about the 3/5ths compromise, proving you're mentally retarded,

but amply supplied with bluff and bluster.

Do tell son? Enlighten us on the 3/5ths clause?

Like I said, you are all bluff. You claimed I didn't know something, so back it up with facts or fuck off.

You brought up the 3/5ths clause son, tell us what it means.

 

[P@triot]

Was the 3/5ths compromise not in the Constitution? Are you denying that? Goddam that is funny.

What is "Goddamn funny" is the fact that you have absolutely no idea what the 3/5ths Compromise was or why it came about (hint: it's not good for your side of the aisle - not good at all). It's also tragic that you don't know. But then, we've all become accustomed to you not knowing what you're talking about.

What's interesting about your post is that it offers NOTHING about the 3/5ths compromise, proving you're mentally retarded, but amply supplied with bluff and bluster.

That's because you have dug yourself into a deep hole. I'm waiting for you to dig just a little deeper before humiliating you. I'm enjoying the moment. Like a hunter who has the animal in their crosshairs but waits just a little longer to fire.

Are you saying that you are ready for your education snowflake? Would you like me to explain it to you?

 

[Doc1]

Fact is I'll bury you

Was the 3/5ths compromise not in the Constitution? Are you denying that? Goddam that is funny.

What is "Goddamn funny" is the fact that you have absolutely no idea what the 3/5ths Compromise was or why it came about (hint: it's not good for your side of the aisle - not good at all). It's also tragic that you don't know. But then, we've all become accustomed to you not knowing what you're talking about.

What's interesting about your post is that it offers NOTHING about the 3/5ths compromise, proving you're mentally retarded, but amply supplied with bluff and bluster.

That's because you have dug yourself into a deep hole. I'm waiting for you to dig just a little deeper before humiliating you. I'm enjoying the moment. Like a hunter who has the animal in their crosshairs but waits just a little longer to fire.

Are you saying that you are ready for your education snowflake? Would you like me to explain it to you?

He ran away.

 

[P@triot]

He ran away.

Smartest thing he has ever done...

 

[P@triot]

Was the 3/5ths compromise not in the Constitution? Are you denying that? Goddam that is funny.

For all of the uninformed, uneducated, left-wing hatriots out there such as NYcarbineer - here is what the 3/5th's Compromise actually was:

During the census, the Democrats wanted to count all of their slaves as "people" (despite the fact that they were not allowed to vote) so that they would have a larger population and thus would receive a larger body of representation and thus more power in the federal government (with the obvious goal of keeping slavery).

The Republicans were not happy. Since the Democrats openly referred to slaves as "property" and refused to let them vote, how could they possibly be "people"? You can't be both. So Republicans threatened to count all of their property in the census. Since the north was more densely populated (New York City, Boston, etc.) they had way more chairs, desks, buildings, etc. and threatened to use all of that as "people".

The Democrats went ape-shit (knowing that they would lose that battle). There was a long and ugly stand off. The ultimate compromise was to count slaves as 3/5th's of a person in the census. Republicans and Democrats equally agreed to it. However, Republicans agreed to it with an eye for limiting southern representation in the federal government and thus, ending slavery - while Democrats agreed to it with an eye for expanding representation in the federal government, and thus, retaining slavery.

Those are the facts behind the 3/5th's compromise. It had nothing to do with black people themselves and whether they were "human" or not. It had to do with the census. Do you realize now how dumb you've looked citing that all of the years while having absolutely no idea what it was about?

 

[bravoactual]

Fuck Your Fucking god.

Article VI is very clear.

".....But No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required As a A Qualification To Any Office or Public Trust Under The United States."'

You to not have to believe in a magic non-existent sky man to hold office or work for the U.S. Government.

First Amendment.

"Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion or The Free Exercise Thereof...."

There is no State Sanctioned, State Supported, State Mandated, State Required or State Funded Religion in the United States.

That is what the U.S. Constitution Says.

Fuck Your Fucking god. Butt Fuck Your fucking god.

 

[2aguy]

I can count on one hand now the number of RWnuts on this forum who DON"T lie about my views.

And I can count on one hand now the number of people on USMB who have even an ounce of respect for you...

A whole ounce...really? That much?

 

[2aguy]

Was the 3/5ths compromise not in the Constitution? Are you denying that? Goddam that is funny.

For all of the uninformed, uneducated, left-wing hatriots out there such as NYcarbineer - here is what the 3/5th's Compromise actually was:

During the census, the Democrats wanted to count all of their slaves as "people" (despite the fact that they were not allowed to vote) so that they would have a larger population and thus would receive a larger body of representation and thus more power in the federal government (with the obvious goal of keeping slavery).

The Republicans were not happy. Since the Democrats openly referred to slaves as "property" and refused to let them vote, how could they possibly be "people"? You can't be both. So Republicans threatened to count all of their property in the census. Since the north was more densely populated (New York City, Boston, etc.) they had way more chairs, desks, buildings, etc. and threatened to use all of that as "people".

The Democrats went ape-shit (knowing that they would lose that battle). There was a long and ugly stand off. The ultimate compromise was to count slaves as 3/5th's of a person in the census. Republicans and Democrats equally agreed to it. However, Republicans agreed to it with an eye for limiting southern representation in the federal government and thus, ending slavery - while Democrats agreed to it with an eye for expanding representation in the federal government, and thus, retaining slavery.

Those are the facts behind the 3/5th's compromise. It had nothing to do with black people themselves and whether they were "human" or not. It had to do with the census. Do you realize now how dumb you've looked citing that all of the years while having absolutely no idea what it was about?

You should say Future Republicans, and Future democrats since those specific titles hadn't attached to the anti-slavery people, and the pro-slavery democrats at that time...

 

[2aguy]

The Founders lived in a time when the biggest, bloodiest, most brutal religious conflicts were between different sorts of CHRISTIANS,

the idea they wanted a CHRISTIAN nation is immeasurably preposterous.

You are simply wrong on that point...they wanted religious freedom...but they practiced their religion and set up religious charters in most, if not all of the colonies.....