The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[bodecea]

I look at it a bit differently. The Constitution ensured that the government would not be the Church, yes, and the government would never dictate what anybody's religious beliefs must be.

The Founders never intended that the government not 'promote' religion. That concept has been the courts' corruption of original intent. The Founders intended, however, that no one be denied their own convictions which fell into the area of unalienable rights, and that no government entity would have power to reward or punish anyone based on their beliefs.

"Promotion" of and "establishment" of religion are two entirely separate things. There is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit promotion of religion. Jefferson's 'wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists that Batman mentioned did not affirm 'separation of Church and State' in the way it is usually interpreted these days. It rather was intended to assure the Danbury Baptists that they had nothing to fear from their government.

The government operated under this congenial relationship with the Church for more than a hundred and fifty years and no theocracy developed or even threatened to develop. And what theocracies existed among the colonies soon phased out under the banner of human freedom. But with the advent of organizations like the ACLU egged on by Atheist organizations and judges who somehow never fully understood or cared about original intent, we have been slowly, bit by bit, losing our rights to religious freedom and expression.

If they were to promote religion then how come the Patrick Henry wing that wanted to promote religion with tax dollars LOST?
Their support was beaten back. They wanted tax dollars to fund churches and religous schools. They stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off.
You also have it backwards. No where is there any evidence that the Constituion promotes religion.
They did it that way in the Colonies. The Founders knew that the best way for a government to run was to stay out of religion altogether.
Religion is a personal thing, not a government thing. This government was not founded on religion and one only has to look at how the Founders lived their lives to know that Christian principles were not what motivated them. Slavery, indentured servants, women as 2nd class citizens, smuggling, trafficking in slavery, whiskey making (Washington was the largest liquor distributor in the Colonies) and flogging and forcing women out of societies for out of wedlock pregnancies are not Christian tenets.

Unfortunately for your ridiculous premise, the founding fathers left a lot of material behind putting the lie to all your ridiculous posturing.

Unless you are suggesting they were liars, that they were all involved in a spectacular conspiracy to mislead their families and the rest of their acquaintance.....

Is that what you are suggesting? Because that is what you are saying.

Retard.

Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
Slavery...Christian tenets.
Landowners only voting...Christian tenets.
Stealing land from natives...Christian tenets.
Women having little or no rights...Christian tenets.

Yep. You're right, Allie....the FACTS of our nation's early years has Christian tenets written all over it.

 

[TheBrain]

If they were to promote religion then how come the Patrick Henry wing that wanted to promote religion with tax dollars LOST?
Their support was beaten back. They wanted tax dollars to fund churches and religous schools. They stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off.
You also have it backwards. No where is there any evidence that the Constituion promotes religion.
They did it that way in the Colonies. The Founders knew that the best way for a government to run was to stay out of religion altogether.
Religion is a personal thing, not a government thing. This government was not founded on religion and one only has to look at how the Founders lived their lives to know that Christian principles were not what motivated them. Slavery, indentured servants, women as 2nd class citizens, smuggling, trafficking in slavery, whiskey making (Washington was the largest liquor distributor in the Colonies) and flogging and forcing women out of societies for out of wedlock pregnancies are not Christian tenets.

Unfortunately for your ridiculous premise, the founding fathers left a lot of material behind putting the lie to all your ridiculous posturing.

Unless you are suggesting they were liars, that they were all involved in a spectacular conspiracy to mislead their families and the rest of their acquaintance.....

Is that what you are suggesting? Because that is what you are saying.

Retard.

Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
Slavery...Christian tenets.
Landowners only voting...Christian tenets.
Stealing land from natives...Christian tenets.
Women having little or no rights...Christian tenets.

Yep. You're right, Allie....the FACTS of our nation's early years has Christian tenets written all over it.

That's strange, I thought you had already agreed that proof was given that this country was founded on Christian tenets and principles.

Which is of course not the same as saying Christians are perfect nor is our country so one can't say well our country has had some awful things in it's past, so it can't be Christian.

 

[AllieBaba]

If they were to promote religion then how come the Patrick Henry wing that wanted to promote religion with tax dollars LOST?
Their support was beaten back. They wanted tax dollars to fund churches and religous schools. They stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off.
You also have it backwards. No where is there any evidence that the Constituion promotes religion.
They did it that way in the Colonies. The Founders knew that the best way for a government to run was to stay out of religion altogether.
Religion is a personal thing, not a government thing. This government was not founded on religion and one only has to look at how the Founders lived their lives to know that Christian principles were not what motivated them. Slavery, indentured servants, women as 2nd class citizens, smuggling, trafficking in slavery, whiskey making (Washington was the largest liquor distributor in the Colonies) and flogging and forcing women out of societies for out of wedlock pregnancies are not Christian tenets.

Unfortunately for your ridiculous premise, the founding fathers left a lot of material behind putting the lie to all your ridiculous posturing.

Unless you are suggesting they were liars, that they were all involved in a spectacular conspiracy to mislead their families and the rest of their acquaintance.....

Is that what you are suggesting? Because that is what you are saying.

Retard.

Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
Slavery...Christian tenets.
Landowners only voting...Christian tenets.
Stealing land from natives...Christian tenets.
Women having little or no rights...Christian tenets.

Yep. You're right, Allie....the FACTS of our nation's early years has Christian tenets written all over it.

Er...what is it you're saying, exactly? Because that post makes exactly zero sense and is apropos of nothing.

 

[TheBrain]

Truth of the matter. SOME equate believing homosexuality is a sin to bashing homosexuals, so they don't want to admit that ANYTHING good could have came from a religion that defines homosexuality as a sin, even though that religion does NOT advocate bashing , or otherwise harming gays.

it really is that simple. It all comes down to a single issue for these people. It was proven in another thread when SEVERAL posters accused people of "bashing" gays merely because we gave our opinion that homosexuality is a sin, despite the overwhelming proof that have objected to bashing those who commit the sin.

 

[bodecea]

Unfortunately for your ridiculous premise, the founding fathers left a lot of material behind putting the lie to all your ridiculous posturing.

Unless you are suggesting they were liars, that they were all involved in a spectacular conspiracy to mislead their families and the rest of their acquaintance.....

Is that what you are suggesting? Because that is what you are saying.

Retard.

Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
Slavery...Christian tenets.
Landowners only voting...Christian tenets.
Stealing land from natives...Christian tenets.
Women having little or no rights...Christian tenets.

Yep. You're right, Allie....the FACTS of our nation's early years has Christian tenets written all over it.

That's strange, I thought you had already agreed that proof was given that this country was founded on Christian tenets and principles.

Which is of course not the same as saying Christians are perfect nor is our country so one can't say well our country has had some awful things in it's past, so it can't be Christian.

Please take the time to look at my post.....where am I saying that we are not founded on Christian tenets?

 

[TheBrain]

Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
Slavery...Christian tenets.
Landowners only voting...Christian tenets.
Stealing land from natives...Christian tenets.
Women having little or no rights...Christian tenets.

Yep. You're right, Allie....the FACTS of our nation's early years has Christian tenets written all over it.

That's strange, I thought you had already agreed that proof was given that this country was founded on Christian tenets and principles.

Which is of course not the same as saying Christians are perfect nor is our country so one can't say well our country has had some awful things in it's past, so it can't be Christian.

Please take the time to look at my post.....where am I saying that we are not founded on Christian tenets?

read my post and please notice that I was asking a question.

 

[bodecea]

Unfortunately for your ridiculous premise, the founding fathers left a lot of material behind putting the lie to all your ridiculous posturing.

Unless you are suggesting they were liars, that they were all involved in a spectacular conspiracy to mislead their families and the rest of their acquaintance.....

Is that what you are suggesting? Because that is what you are saying.

Retard.

Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
Slavery...Christian tenets.
Landowners only voting...Christian tenets.
Stealing land from natives...Christian tenets.
Women having little or no rights...Christian tenets.

Yep. You're right, Allie....the FACTS of our nation's early years has Christian tenets written all over it.

Er...what is it you're saying, exactly? Because that post makes exactly zero sense and is apropos of nothing.

What am I saying? I'm saying that our ACTIONS as a nation have Christian tenets written all over them. De Facto Christian Tenets.

 

[TheBrain]

Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
Slavery...Christian tenets.
Landowners only voting...Christian tenets.
Stealing land from natives...Christian tenets.
Women having little or no rights...Christian tenets.

Yep. You're right, Allie....the FACTS of our nation's early years has Christian tenets written all over it.

Er...what is it you're saying, exactly? Because that post makes exactly zero sense and is apropos of nothing.

What am I saying? I'm saying that our ACTIONS as a nation have Christian tenets written all over them. De Facto Christian Tenets.

Excellent point. The next time a gay person does something wrong I will point out that it is obviously a gay tenet.

 

[bodecea]

That's strange, I thought you had already agreed that proof was given that this country was founded on Christian tenets and principles.

Which is of course not the same as saying Christians are perfect nor is our country so one can't say well our country has had some awful things in it's past, so it can't be Christian.

Please take the time to look at my post.....where am I saying that we are not founded on Christian tenets?

read my post and please notice that I was asking a question.

Indeed you did...a question that is quite easily answered by actually LOOKING at my post....all about Christian Tenets.

So...to say the least...for you to even need to ask a question about a very clear post is puzzling.

 

[bodecea]

Er...what is it you're saying, exactly? Because that post makes exactly zero sense and is apropos of nothing.

What am I saying? I'm saying that our ACTIONS as a nation have Christian tenets written all over them. De Facto Christian Tenets.

Excellent point. The next time a gay person does something wrong I will point out that it is obviously a gay tenet.

Oh...we are referring to just ONE person now? So....those Christian Tenets I listed were the actions of only one person? Really? Then those history books are all wrong.

 

[TheBrain]

What am I saying? I'm saying that our ACTIONS as a nation have Christian tenets written all over them. De Facto Christian Tenets.

Excellent point. The next time a gay person does something wrong I will point out that it is obviously a gay tenet.

Oh...we are referring to just ONE person now? So....those Christian Tenets I listed were the actions of only one person? Really? Then those history books are all wrong.

Are you even capable of having an adult conversation? You know damn good and well that mistreating women , just for example, is not a Christian principle. Certainly it was accepted by nearly everyone, including the women themselves in most cases, that they were second class citizens, but that is NOT the same as saying it was a Christian tenet.


Don't even bother responding because I'm not playing your merry go round pretend facts aren't facts bullshit.

 

[bodecea]

Either we were founded on Christian Tenets....or not. It is hypocritical to pick and choose.

 

[bodecea]

Excellent point. The next time a gay person does something wrong I will point out that it is obviously a gay tenet.

Oh...we are referring to just ONE person now? So....those Christian Tenets I listed were the actions of only one person? Really? Then those history books are all wrong.

Are you even capable of having an adult conversation? You know damn good and well that mistreating women , just for example, is not a Christian principle. Certainly it was accepted by nearly everyone, including the women themselves in most cases, that they were second class citizens, but that is NOT the same as saying it was a Christian tenet.


Don't even bother responding because I'm not playing your merry go round pretend facts aren't facts bullshit.

Why do you insist on misrepresenting what I said?

 

[Iridescence]

OMGorsh

 

[8atman]

You have it backwards. The Constitution ENDED the church's domination over the population and government as it had been here and in Europe.

First of all, point out for us who in this thread made the claim that the Constitution was NOT an answer to and a defeat of the Church of England? That statement answers nothing in my last post, or any other claim made in this thread (that I am aware of). Do you understand the difference between the Church of England’s relationship to the monarchy, and a republic founded upon Judeo-Christian morals and precepts? Seriously, I don’t mean any offense to you or to “get in your face,” but I’ve seen you confuse things of this sort over and over in this thread.

Secondly, while the Constitution certainly was a start regarding the church/state relationship, it was faaaar from “ENDING” (as you say) that discussion. The First Amendment was not ratified until 1789 and was not adopted until 1791; this was nearly halfway into Washington’s entire service as president. Do I even have to mention Jefferson’s struggle with these issues? He left office in 1809. Was this issue all wrapped up in a nice, neat, little bow at that time?

If they were to promote religion.. .

“If”? “If”??

Permit me to reiterate a part of my post you chose to completely ignore. The purpose of the 1787 Congressional land act was for the federal government to designate the use of federal lands “for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity.” I don’t see any ifs there; do you?

Keeping in mind your claim of no governmental promotion of Christianity, answer the following:

George Washington instituted Thanksgiving as a federal holiday in 1789. For what purpose?

In 1854, Congress passed a resolution including verbiage defining what they felt was of extreme importance to our governmental system. What was so important?

Would you like something a tad more current? A joint resolution of the House and Senate officially sanctioned 1983 as The Year of the ______?

...then how come the Patrick Henry wing that wanted to promote religion with tax dollars LOST?
Their support was beaten back. They wanted tax dollars to fund churches and religous schools. They stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off.

Once again, no offense, but there’s so much error there it’s hard to know where to start.

First of all, the Founders were struggling with specific issues relating to governmental aid to religious institutions, not overarching issues of religious foundations in government. Jefferson and Madison believed that state financial aid to religious institutions would inevitably lead to another Church-State. Patrick Henry, among others, believed that as long as one denomination was not favored over the over, there was nothing wrong with state aid. (More on this in a bit when I address the second half of your post.) In other words, this has nothing to do with, for example, declaring that man has unalienable rights because he was created in God’s image and implementing a system guaranteeing that ideal.

Quite the contrary, the Constitution- and post-Constitution-era culture universally believed, and quite strongly at that, that one of government’s duties was to promote Christianity and moral living amongst the citizenry. Any attempts to implement some sort of “God has no place in government” ideal would have been viewed as nothing short of repugnant, and met with universal indignation. In fact, this view of yours did even to begin to gain traction until the mid 1960’s.

Regarding the second half of your statement, you claim “[Henry and supporters] stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off,” is a wildly gross distortion. The notion that Patrick Henry and those that agreed with him stood up against the others with the statement “we are founded on Christian tenets,” and the others, allegedly disagreeing with that specific statement (as you imply), thusly “ran them off” is not found in any history book or meeting minutes I am aware of. This incident, as you have represented it here, quite simply NEVER HAPPENED. As I explained earlier, they disagreed over the extent to which religious institutions should receive government aid (and would struggle with this issue, by the way, through several administrations). They were specifically concerned with how government aid might affect 1) The rise of another Church-State (which some territories had already created), and 2) The governmental promotion of one Christian denomination over the other. That’s it. That’s all. It was in no way some sort of “religion has no place in government” ideal as you have attempted to represent here.

The Founders knew that the best way for a government to run was to stay out of religion altogether.
Religion is a personal thing, not a government thing.

Oh? Is that so? I’ll try this one more time. I’m going to repeat a question you completely avoided last time: What was the Founders’ view of civil law vis-à-vis Divine Law?

 

[8atman]

Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
Slavery...Christian tenets.
Landowners only voting...Christian tenets.
Stealing land from natives...Christian tenets.
Women having little or no rights...Christian tenets.

Moses was guilty of murder. Many times he showed a lack of faith in God. God became so infuriated with him, Moses was specifically forbidden from ever setting foot in the Promised Land and died after he and the Hebrews came within sight of it. Aaron, Moses’ brother and “governmental” assistant, dishonored and distrusted God. The Israelite people, because of their own disobedience and lack of faith, were sentenced by God to wander the desert for forty years.

Therefore, the Jewish nation was not founded on Jewish law.

 

[Gadawg73]

Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
Slavery...Christian tenets.
Landowners only voting...Christian tenets.
Stealing land from natives...Christian tenets.
Women having little or no rights...Christian tenets.

Moses was guilty of murder. Many times he showed a lack of faith in God. God became so infuriated with him, Moses was specifically forbidden from ever setting foot in the Promised Land and died after he and the Hebrews came within sight of it. Aaron, Moses’ brother and “governmental” assistant, dishonored and distrusted God. The Israelite people, because of their own disobedience and lack of faith, were sentenced by God to wander the desert for forty years.

Therefore, the Jewish nation was not founded on Jewish law.

Where is there a United States of Jews? What is their Constitution?

 

[Gadawg73]

You have it backwards. The Constitution ENDED the church's domination over the population and government as it had been here and in Europe.

First of all, point out for us who in this thread made the claim that the Constitution was NOT an answer to and a defeat of the Church of England? That statement answers nothing in my last post, or any other claim made in this thread (that I am aware of). Do you understand the difference between the Church of England’s relationship to the monarchy, and a republic founded upon Judeo-Christian morals and precepts? Seriously, I don’t mean any offense to you or to “get in your face,” but I’ve seen you confuse things of this sort over and over in this thread.

Secondly, while the Constitution certainly was a start regarding the church/state relationship, it was faaaar from “ENDING” (as you say) that discussion. The First Amendment was not ratified until 1789 and was not adopted until 1791; this was nearly halfway into Washington’s entire service as president. Do I even have to mention Jefferson’s struggle with these issues? He left office in 1809. Was this issue all wrapped up in a nice, neat, little bow at that time?

If they were to promote religion.. .

“If”? “If”??

Permit me to reiterate a part of my post you chose to completely ignore. The purpose of the 1787 Congressional land act was for the federal government to designate the use of federal lands “for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity.” I don’t see any ifs there; do you?

Keeping in mind your claim of no governmental promotion of Christianity, answer the following:

George Washington instituted Thanksgiving as a federal holiday in 1789. For what purpose?

In 1854, Congress passed a resolution including verbiage defining what they felt was of extreme importance to our governmental system. What was so important?

Would you like something a tad more current? A joint resolution of the House and Senate officially sanctioned 1983 as The Year of the ______?

...then how come the Patrick Henry wing that wanted to promote religion with tax dollars LOST?
Their support was beaten back. They wanted tax dollars to fund churches and religous schools. They stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off.

Once again, no offense, but there’s so much error there it’s hard to know where to start.

First of all, the Founders were struggling with specific issues relating to governmental aid to religious institutions, not overarching issues of religious foundations in government. Jefferson and Madison believed that state financial aid to religious institutions would inevitably lead to another Church-State. Patrick Henry, among others, believed that as long as one denomination was not favored over the over, there was nothing wrong with state aid. (More on this in a bit when I address the second half of your post.) In other words, this has nothing to do with, for example, declaring that man has unalienable rights because he was created in God’s image and implementing a system guaranteeing that ideal.

Quite the contrary, the Constitution- and post-Constitution-era culture universally believed, and quite strongly at that, that one of government’s duties was to promote Christianity and moral living amongst the citizenry. Any attempts to implement some sort of “God has no place in government” ideal would have been viewed as nothing short of repugnant, and met with universal indignation. In fact, this view of yours did even to begin to gain traction until the mid 1960’s.

Regarding the second half of your statement, you claim “[Henry and supporters] stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off,” is a wildly gross distortion. The notion that Patrick Henry and those that agreed with him stood up against the others with the statement “we are founded on Christian tenets,” and the others, allegedly disagreeing with that specific statement (as you imply), thusly “ran them off” is not found in any history book or meeting minutes I am aware of. This incident, as you have represented it here, quite simply NEVER HAPPENED. As I explained earlier, they disagreed over the extent to which religious institutions should receive government aid (and would struggle with this issue, by the way, through several administrations). They were specifically concerned with how government aid might affect 1) The rise of another Church-State (which some territories had already created), and 2) The governmental promotion of one Christian denomination over the other. That’s it. That’s all. It was in no way some sort of “religion has no place in government” ideal as you have attempted to represent here.

The Founders knew that the best way for a government to run was to stay out of religion altogether.
Religion is a personal thing, not a government thing.

Oh? Is that so? I’ll try this one more time. I’m going to repeat a question you completely avoided last time: What was the Founders’ view of civil law vis-à-vis Divine Law?

We do not have Divine Law.
We have civil law.
The monarchies declared their power from divine law. We do it differently per THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[Gadawg73]

You have it backwards. The Constitution ENDED the church's domination over the population and government as it had been here and in Europe.

First of all, point out for us who in this thread made the claim that the Constitution was NOT an answer to and a defeat of the Church of England? That statement answers nothing in my last post, or any other claim made in this thread (that I am aware of). Do you understand the difference between the Church of England’s relationship to the monarchy, and a republic founded upon Judeo-Christian morals and precepts? Seriously, I don’t mean any offense to you or to “get in your face,” but I’ve seen you confuse things of this sort over and over in this thread.

Secondly, while the Constitution certainly was a start regarding the church/state relationship, it was faaaar from “ENDING” (as you say) that discussion. The First Amendment was not ratified until 1789 and was not adopted until 1791; this was nearly halfway into Washington’s entire service as president. Do I even have to mention Jefferson’s struggle with these issues? He left office in 1809. Was this issue all wrapped up in a nice, neat, little bow at that time?

If they were to promote religion.. .

“If”? “If”??

Permit me to reiterate a part of my post you chose to completely ignore. The purpose of the 1787 Congressional land act was for the federal government to designate the use of federal lands “for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity.” I don’t see any ifs there; do you?

Keeping in mind your claim of no governmental promotion of Christianity, answer the following:

George Washington instituted Thanksgiving as a federal holiday in 1789. For what purpose?

In 1854, Congress passed a resolution including verbiage defining what they felt was of extreme importance to our governmental system. What was so important?

Would you like something a tad more current? A joint resolution of the House and Senate officially sanctioned 1983 as The Year of the ______?

...then how come the Patrick Henry wing that wanted to promote religion with tax dollars LOST?
Their support was beaten back. They wanted tax dollars to fund churches and religous schools. They stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off.

Once again, no offense, but there’s so much error there it’s hard to know where to start.

First of all, the Founders were struggling with specific issues relating to governmental aid to religious institutions, not overarching issues of religious foundations in government. Jefferson and Madison believed that state financial aid to religious institutions would inevitably lead to another Church-State. Patrick Henry, among others, believed that as long as one denomination was not favored over the over, there was nothing wrong with state aid. (More on this in a bit when I address the second half of your post.) In other words, this has nothing to do with, for example, declaring that man has unalienable rights because he was created in God’s image and implementing a system guaranteeing that ideal.

Quite the contrary, the Constitution- and post-Constitution-era culture universally believed, and quite strongly at that, that one of government’s duties was to promote Christianity and moral living amongst the citizenry. Any attempts to implement some sort of “God has no place in government” ideal would have been viewed as nothing short of repugnant, and met with universal indignation. In fact, this view of yours did even to begin to gain traction until the mid 1960’s.

Regarding the second half of your statement, you claim “[Henry and supporters] stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off,” is a wildly gross distortion. The notion that Patrick Henry and those that agreed with him stood up against the others with the statement “we are founded on Christian tenets,” and the others, allegedly disagreeing with that specific statement (as you imply), thusly “ran them off” is not found in any history book or meeting minutes I am aware of. This incident, as you have represented it here, quite simply NEVER HAPPENED. As I explained earlier, they disagreed over the extent to which religious institutions should receive government aid (and would struggle with this issue, by the way, through several administrations). They were specifically concerned with how government aid might affect 1) The rise of another Church-State (which some territories had already created), and 2) The governmental promotion of one Christian denomination over the other. That’s it. That’s all. It was in no way some sort of “religion has no place in government” ideal as you have attempted to represent here.

The Founders knew that the best way for a government to run was to stay out of religion altogether.
Religion is a personal thing, not a government thing.

Oh? Is that so? I’ll try this one more time. I’m going to repeat a question you completely avoided last time: What was the Founders’ view of civil law vis-à-vis Divine Law?

Your claim that the Founders were arguing over which religous institutions would get aid and which would not is absurd. FALSE AND A BOGUS FRAUD ARGUMENT.
They declared NO religous institution would get ANY aid and you know it.
Your entire post is full of opinion and no fact.
Show me where GOD is in the Constitution and where government can give legal aid to any religous institution.
James Madison STATED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
"Religion itself may become a motive to PERSECUTION AND OPPRESSION"
Read it and weep. The Founders SPOKE PUBLICLY they wanted NO PART of any religion anywhere in government.
Madison led the charge THAT NO TAX be passed, as your buddies tried that, to aid ANY RELIGOUS EFFORTS, and he prevailed. Founders sure were smart, weren't they?
First draft by Madison was the State of New Hampshire's Constitution wording on religion:
"Congress shall MAKE NO LAWS TOUCHING ON RELIGION."

 

[AllieBaba]

Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
Slavery...Christian tenets.
Landowners only voting...Christian tenets.
Stealing land from natives...Christian tenets.
Women having little or no rights...Christian tenets.

Yep. You're right, Allie....the FACTS of our nation's early years has Christian tenets written all over it.

Er...what is it you're saying, exactly? Because that post makes exactly zero sense and is apropos of nothing.

What am I saying? I'm saying that our ACTIONS as a nation have Christian tenets written all over them. De Facto Christian Tenets.

What does your opinion of Christianity have to do with anything?