Why do liberals hate Christianity ?

People can snivel and cry or not take their Prozac or whatever, but the establishment clause only restricted the Federal govt., not the states.



Much attention is given to examining the Federal Constitution in an effort to learn what the original intent of America's founders was towards religion, yet little attention is given to examining the individual States' Constitutions, which at the time were regarded by citizens living in those States as being more important to their everyday life.

In an effort to shed light on the subject, a few excerpts are included below from the hundreds contained in the new book by William J. Federer, titled: “THE ORIGINAL 13-A Documentary History of Religion in America’s First Thirteen States” (Amerisearch, Inc., 2005, www.AmericanMinute.com):

CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA, June 29, 1776 (written by James Madison and George Mason): BILL OF RIGHTS, SECTION 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 15, 1780 (written by John Adams): ARTICLE 3. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God...Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to...make suitable provision...for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality...And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSTITUTION, 1784:
PART 2-THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, SENATE: That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion...
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES...Every member of the house of representatives...shall be of the Protestant religion.

CONSTITUTION OF VERMONT July 8, 1777, (claimed by New Hampshire and New York at the time of the Revolution): SECTION 9...And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. "I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the Protestant religion."

CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND, November 11, 1776:
ARTICLE 35. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.

CONSTITUTION OF NEW JERSEY, 1776:
ARTICLE 19: That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government...shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust.

CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA, September 28, 1776 (Signed by Ben Franklin): PLAN OR FRAME OF GOVERNMENT, SECTION 10. And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and the Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration. And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

CONSTITUTION OF DELAWARE, 1776 (written by George Read and Thomas McKean, both signers of the Declaration of Independence): ARTICLE 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall...make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

CONSTITUTION OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1776:
ARTICLE 32. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, March 19, 1778:
ARTICLE 12: And that no person shall be eligible to a seat in the said senate unless he be of the Protestant religion, and hath attained the age of thirty years...

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA, 1777:
ARTICLE 6: The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county...and they shall be of the Protestant religion.

CONSTITUTION OF CONNECTICUT, 1662 till 1818:
PREAMBLE. The People of this State being by the Providence of God, free and independent, have the sole and exclusive Right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and having from their ancestors derived a free and excellent Constitution of Government whereby the legislature depends on the free and annual election of the people, they have the best security for the preservation of their civil and religious rights and Liberties. And forasmuch as the free Fruition of such Liberties and Privileges as Humanity, Civility and Christianity call for, as is due to every Man in his Place and Proportion, without impeachment and infringement, hath ever been, and will be the Tranquillity and Stability of Churches and Commonwealths.

CONSTITUTION OF RHODE ISLAND, 1663 till 1842:
That they, pursuing, with peaceable and loyal minces, their sober, serious and religious intentions, of godly edifying themselves, and one another, in the holy Christian faith and worship as they were persuaded...to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained...with a full liberty in religious concernements; and that true piety rightly grounded upon Gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignty...Now know ye, that we being willing...to secure them in the free exercise and enjoyment of all their civil and religious rights...and to preserve unto them that liberty, in the true Christian faith and worship of God...and because some of the people and inhabitants of the same colony cannot, in their private opinions, conforms to the public exercise of religion, according to the liturgy, forms and ceremonies of the Church of England, or take or subscribe the oaths and articles made and established in that behalf; and for that the same, by reason of the remote distances of those places, will (as we hope) be no breach of the unity and uniformity established in this nation.

CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK, April 20, 1777:
38. And whereas we are required, by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.

After examining the Constitutions of the original States, it becomes clearer that the initial purpose of the First Amendment, and for that matter the First Ten Amendments, was to limit Federal Government jurisdiction, not the States, as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833:

"The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their sense of justice and the State Constitutions."
___
Permission granted to forward, email or reprint, provided credit given to William J. Federer, “THE ORIGINAL 13-A Documentary History of Religion in America’s First Thirteen States” ISBN 0977808521 (Available at www.AmericanMinute.com 1-888-USA-WORD, 314-487-4395, Amerisearch, Inc., P.O. Box 20163, St. Louis, MO 63123) 2005 www.AmericanMinute.com)




THE ORIGINAL 13-A Documentary History of Religion in America's Original Thirteen States - "The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their sense of justice and the State Constitutions," wrote Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833.
Who was Joseph Story? He was the founder of Harvard Law School and appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison - the same James Madison who introduced the First Amendment in the first session of Congress.
To understand the progression of religious freedom in America, it is necessary to review the Constitutions of the original thirteen States, together with the Colonial Charters that preceded them, i.e.:
VIRGINIA CHARTER OF KING JAMES I, 1606 "...propagating of Christian Religion to such People as yet live in Darkness..."
DELAWARE CHARTER OF KING ADOLPHUS, 1626 "...further propagation of the Holy Gospel..."
MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION, 1780, Part 1, Article 3 "Every denomination of Christians...shall be equally under the protection of the law and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established..."
PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION, 1968, Article 1, Section 3 "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences..."
NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION, 1971, Article 11, Section 4 "Beneficent provision for the poor, the unfortunate, and the orphan is one of the first duties of a civilized and a Christian state..."
Examining Charters, Constitutions, Court Decisions and Correspondence, this overview of history is intended as a study help for those interested in discovering the role religion played in America's original thirteen States. The process of how the Federal Courts used the 14th Amendment to remove religion from States' jurisdiction, most notably in the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case, and subsequently evolved it into its present interpretation, is the subject of another book. (Paperback, 416 pages, illustrations)


http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Hst/US/Orig13ReligHist.htm


 
There is no such thing as freedom from religion.

As an American I am entitled to be free of having religion imposed upon me by the state. That is what freedom FROM religion means.

It also means that no one else with a religious agenda can use the state to impose their beliefs on me. That applies to things such as when life begins and who gets to marry whom.

My right to freedom from religion means that those who hold religious views cannot pervert the secular state for their own purposes.

Yeah, I've heard the line. It's BS strawman argument. What you really mean is you want to remove religious symbols and monuments from federal, state, county, and municipal governments. Isn't that right.


"Remove"? :confused:

Why would such symbols exist in a government that is not a theocracy in the first place? How is it any of government's business to be mongering any religious symbols at all?

Indeed - what does religion have to do with government?
 
they rarely say anything bad about Islam, they will even label someone who does as hateful, racist, or intolerant,but when it comes to Christianity a lot of liberals do not hesitate to tout the so called evils of the Christian faith ....Why ??
I do not hate the Christian faith. I hate those who pretend they are Christian without having a clue what Christianity is. You cannot love your neighbor while taking food out of their mouth. You cannot do harm onto others while you are enriching yourself at their expense. You cannot be your brothers keeper while kicking him to the curb. And you cannot be a Christian if you forgive the rich but condemn the poor.
 
Last edited:
I hate all religions.

----------------------------------------------------------------

You would do better to figure out which religion you should fear.

Christ taught nothing but peace and love...and lived the example. The Christian religion is based on that example...though its adherents fail too often to follow it.

Mohammed used to cut people in half with his Persian scimitar...just below the breastbone...because he like to watch the internal organs on both ends writhe and contort about in their death throes. The Muslim religion is based on that example...and they have been adhering faithfully to it for about 1500 years.
 
they rarely say anything bad about Islam, they will even label someone who does as hateful, racist, or intolerant,but when it comes to Christianity a lot of liberals do not hesitate to tout the so called evils of the Christian faith ....Why ??

Liberals do not generally believe that Christianity in its entirety is "evil." Religion is responsible for a lot of good. But Christianity is also responsible for some harmful movements, in legislature and in society in general. When Christian groups try to legislate their morality or spread misinformation, they deserve to be called out for it.

- teaching Creationism/"Intelligent Design" in public schools
- abstinence-only sex education
- the pushback against the HPV vaccine
- resistance to a woman's right to choose
- resistance to condom use in Africa to fight HIV
- climate change denialism
- blue laws (which do affect more than just liquor stores)
- gay conversion therapy
 
As an American I am entitled to be free of having religion imposed upon me by the state. That is what freedom FROM religion means.

It also means that no one else with a religious agenda can use the state to impose their beliefs on me. That applies to things such as when life begins and who gets to marry whom.

My right to freedom from religion means that those who hold religious views cannot pervert the secular state for their own purposes.

Yeah, I've heard the line. It's BS strawman argument. What you really mean is you want to remove religious symbols and monuments from federal, state, county, and municipal governments. Isn't that right.


"Remove"? :confused:

Why would such symbols exist in a government that is not a theocracy in the first place? How is it any of government's business to be mongering any religious symbols at all?

Indeed - what does religion have to do with government?

The synbols exist in America and have from day one because my constitution protects religious freedom. Why don't you remove the religious symbols from Washington DC. They're all over the place. Nope. What you pissants do is find some little town in Idaho that has a Liberty Bell in their municipal park and demand it be removed, and you don't even live there. One person is offended so it has to be removed. Fuck you.
 
:cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo:

"Liberals have chosen... " :rofl: Blanket much, Linus?

"Christianity is the majority religion that provided the founding principles to which this country was formed" -- HORSEshit. The founding principles come from philosophy -- definitely not religion.

Wacko.

Message boards and threads like this really bring out the deep level of blind ignorance that sadly exists out there -- somewhere...

Well you have expressed you opinion and just as I said, you are stating it as you are the end of all things.

But let us look at what real men swore their sacred honor too, note the word sacred. They staked their very lives on signing the document with these very words:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights

Jesus Christ on a Cracker, that's simply how they talked then. It doesn't make any of them "religious" or "Christian". I believe most were Deists anyway...

By the way --- you notice "Nature" is capitalized there, and equal to "God"? I do. :thup:
Reality and your beliefs don't intersect much, do they? Thomas Payne, nominally considered a founder, may have dabbled in Deism briefly. The others? Not so much. Maybe one or two thought about it, maybe tried it, but no, they really weren't Deists.

This labeling is such a tired liberal meme.
 
Also note that while the Federal government was barred from favoring one denomination over another, nearly all the states at the time indeed had state religions; all of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention represented states that had official religions, or most of them did. It wasn't until decades later that the last state favored religion was voted out, and that was because of demographic changes, i.e. the original denomination's voting base became outnumbered by immigrants with different religions. It is just wrong to claim The Founders were proposing freedom from religion; it was just impossible with so many different state religions for any compromise on what would be the Federal governments favored religion. People also need to get over the idea that Thomas Jefferson and deists were the only Founders.

What state had a state religion??

Are you actually suggesting with a straight face that the reason the First Amendment exists is that we had so many state religions it was impossible to pick one? You're going with the "betcha can't eat just one" theory? Really??
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, to name three.

Sleep in class much?
 
I hate all religions.

----------------------------------------------------------------

You would do better to figure out which religion you should fear.

Christ taught nothing but peace and love...and lived the example. The Christian religion is based on that example...though its adherents fail too often to follow it.

Mohammed used to cut people in half with his Persian scimitar...just below the breastbone...because he like to watch the internal organs on both ends writhe and contort about in their death throes. The Muslim religion is based on that example...and they have been adhering faithfully to it for about 1500 years.
this is what liberals refuse to acknowledge .
 
Well you have expressed you opinion and just as I said, you are stating it as you are the end of all things.

But let us look at what real men swore their sacred honor too, note the word sacred. They staked their very lives on signing the document with these very words:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights

Jesus Christ on a Cracker, that's simply how they talked then. It doesn't make any of them "religious" or "Christian". I believe most were Deists anyway...

By the way --- you notice "Nature" is capitalized there, and equal to "God"? I do. :thup:
Reality and your beliefs don't intersect much, do they? Thomas Payne, nominally considered a founder, may have dabbled in Deism briefly. The others? Not so much. Maybe one or two thought about it, maybe tried it, but no, they really weren't Deists.

This labeling is such a tired liberal meme.

:lol: irony noted. Fair exchange for "Jesus Christ on a Cracker" :rofl:

Btw you left out Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and a few more minor luminaries. But I love the irony.
 
Last edited:
I hate all religions.

----------------------------------------------------------------

You would do better to figure out which religion you should fear.

Christ taught nothing but peace and love...and lived the example. The Christian religion is based on that example...though its adherents fail too often to follow it.

Mohammed used to cut people in half with his Persian scimitar...just below the breastbone...because he like to watch the internal organs on both ends writhe and contort about in their death throes. The Muslim religion is based on that example...and they have been adhering faithfully to it for about 1500 years.
this is what liberals refuse to acknowledge .

You have yet to explain this mysterious connection equation between religion and politics.

Where is it?
impatient.gif
 
What the fuck is a "Progressive"? I've been asking that for months on here, have yet to get an answer. Derideo_Te is right in his definition of Liberal; all you've done is try to muddy the water with "progressives" -- who were actually around a century ago.
Answers may be found in Progressive Era literature. That's where some of the rest of have found them. Here's an example from Woodrow Wilson, no doubt an academic of your caliber:
I am, therefore, forced to be a progressive, if for no other reason, because we have not kept up with our changes of conditions, either in the economic field or in the political field.
He says, in other words, that "the trouble with the [Whig] theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing."*

Please allow me to use my own words. Progressives wanted to start removing Constitutional frames of reference. Sound familiar, Liberal?


* Woodrow Wilson, What is Progress?, 1912
 
Jesus Christ on a Cracker, that's simply how they talked then. It doesn't make any of them "religious" or "Christian". I believe most were Deists anyway...

By the way --- you notice "Nature" is capitalized there, and equal to "God"? I do. :thup:
Reality and your beliefs don't intersect much, do they? Thomas Payne, nominally considered a founder, may have dabbled in Deism briefly. The others? Not so much. Maybe one or two thought about it, maybe tried it, but no, they really weren't Deists.

This labeling is such a tired liberal meme.

:lol: irony noted. Fair exchange for "Jesus Christ on a Cracker" :rofl:

Btw you left out Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and a few more minor luminaries. But I love the irony.
Saying more than once that most of the founders were Deists doesn't make most of the founders Deists. It just makes you wrong more than once.
 
Yeah, I've heard the line. It's BS strawman argument. What you really mean is you want to remove religious symbols and monuments from federal, state, county, and municipal governments. Isn't that right.


"Remove"? :confused:

Why would such symbols exist in a government that is not a theocracy in the first place? How is it any of government's business to be mongering any religious symbols at all?

Indeed - what does religion have to do with government?

The synbols exist in America and have from day one because my constitution protects religious freedom. Why don't you remove the religious symbols from Washington DC. They're all over the place. Nope. What you pissants do is find some little town in Idaho that has a Liberty Bell in their municipal park and demand it be removed, and you don't even live there. One person is offended so it has to be removed. Fuck you.

What in the wide world of blue fuck does the Liberty Bell have to do with religion?

You also failed to address any of the post's questions. So no, fuck YOU.
 
Last edited:
What the fuck is a "Progressive"? I've been asking that for months on here, have yet to get an answer. Derideo_Te is right in his definition of Liberal; all you've done is try to muddy the water with "progressives" -- who were actually around a century ago.
Answers may be found in Progressive Era literature. That's where some of the rest of have found them. Here's an example from Woodrow Wilson, no doubt an academic of your caliber:
I am, therefore, forced to be a progressive, if for no other reason, because we have not kept up with our changes of conditions, either in the economic field or in the political field.
He says, in other words, that "the trouble with the [Whig] theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing."*

Please allow me to use my own words. Progressives wanted to start removing Constitutional frames of reference. Sound familiar, Liberal?


* Woodrow Wilson, What is Progress?, 1912

Still doesn't give me a definition but it is over 100 years old. Which is what I already noted.

The poster I actually addressed there was flailing at some throw-it-against-the-wall tomfoolery that had this century-old catchphrase somehow morphing his definition of "Liberal" in the present day. He fails to essplain that. Why don't you let him try to speak for himself.
 
Last edited:
What the fuck is a "Progressive"? I've been asking that for months on here, have yet to get an answer. Derideo_Te is right in his definition of Liberal; all you've done is try to muddy the water with "progressives" -- who were actually around a century ago.
Answers may be found in Progressive Era literature. That's where some of the rest of have found them. Here's an example from Woodrow Wilson, no doubt an academic of your caliber:
I am, therefore, forced to be a progressive, if for no other reason, because we have not kept up with our changes of conditions, either in the economic field or in the political field.
He says, in other words, that "the trouble with the [Whig] theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing."*

Please allow me to use my own words. Progressives wanted to start removing Constitutional frames of reference. Sound familiar, Liberal?


* Woodrow Wilson, What is Progress?, 1912

Still doesn't give me a definition but it is over 100 years old. Which is what I already noted.
Do they get any denser?
 
Reality and your beliefs don't intersect much, do they? Thomas Payne, nominally considered a founder, may have dabbled in Deism briefly. The others? Not so much. Maybe one or two thought about it, maybe tried it, but no, they really weren't Deists.

This labeling is such a tired liberal meme.

:lol: irony noted. Fair exchange for "Jesus Christ on a Cracker" :rofl:

Btw you left out Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and a few more minor luminaries. But I love the irony.
Saying more than once that most of the founders were Deists doesn't make most of the founders Deists. It just makes you wrong more than once.

And gainsaying makes no point.
 
The Founding Fathers took great pains to separate church and state for a very sound reason. Many of those who emigrated to the colonies did so in order to avoid state sponsored religious persecution. The concept of freedom from a state religion is a de facto freedom from all religion. A true secular state does not endorse any religion and treats believers of all faiths and none at all equally.

The current evangelical push to impose religiously inspired beliefs as legislation on the nation is a violation of everything the founders worked for. To oppose those unconstitutional measures is not "hatred" at all. It is simply being an American and upholding the principles on which this nation was founded.

Nice spin.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

Too bad you find the historical facts to be inconvenient when it comes to your personal ideology.

So you hate Christians, why?


Sent from my iPad using an Android.
 
Before christerism was defange an declawed during the enlightenment it spread itself by the sword, as in inquisitions and crusades , even in America the witch trials. Up until the last century it was pogroms, etc

You just gave another justification for hate. I am asking is the fact that one feels it is a fairy tale, is a reason or justification for hate.

"Hate" was never established. It's the strawman of the OP, who plugged it into a blanket generalization, and, that not being fallacious enough, tries to equate religious views with political ones.

So you like Christians, yet call them fools?


Sent from my iPad using an Android.
 

Forum List

Back
Top