YES, America CERTAINLY WAS FOUNDED as a CHRISTIAN NATION...

[JimBowie1958]

Now you are saying that the States have state religions....and have the right to establish state religions.

I know the state religion of Utah then.......

I said that they did at the time of the Constitution being written.

State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.

Do they now?

No, obviously they do not, which is not relevant to the assertion about what the Founding Fathers meant, lol.

See, this is what I mean by you trolling. You know damned good and well the context of my claim, but yet you pretend I am talking about todays states, lol.

Now while I do not claim that todays states still endorse religion, the ACLU would, apparently if they had the balls to actually state what they think openly.

 

[bodecea]

He asked ' Fake what?' and I responded 'fake conversationalist' with some explanation appended.

How is that tautological?

You are a fake conversationalist because you are a troll....circular....with NO explanation as to what is fake about his conversations or what is troll-like....Basically, it's a version of "You stink because....you stink".

Circular.

I gave a summary, not an argument, and I am not trolling as I mean what I say and do not yank peoples chains to amuse myself like you do.

And now it's deflection to me personally rather than addressing the circular argument. Why do you think that is?

 

[bodecea]

I said that they did at the time of the Constitution being written.

State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.

Do they now?

No, obviously they do not, which is not relevant to the assertion about what the Founding Fathers meant, lol.

See, this is what I mean by you trolling. You know damned good and well the context of my claim, but yet you pretend I am talking about todays states, lol.

Now while I do not claim that todays states still endorse religion, the ACLU would, apparently if they had the balls to actually state what they think openly.

The Founding Fathers were not responsible for the state constitutions....many of which were written before the U.S. Constitution. They were responsible for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights which do NOT favor christianity or any religion at all.

Now...why do you think none of the state constitutions establish christianity anymore?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are a fake conversationalist because you are a troll....circular....with NO explanation as to what is fake about his conversations or what is troll-like....Basically, it's a version of "You stink because....you stink".

Circular.

I gave a summary, not an argument, and I am not trolling as I mean what I say and do not yank peoples chains to amuse myself like you do.

And now it's deflection to me personally rather than addressing the circular argument. Why do you think that is?

Because you are a troll?

Look, Bodey-poo, anyone can read this thread and see the pretentiousness and posteuring you engage in. Its not like its some secret or anything.

You ask questions and do not answer in return with any significant effort expended.

You ignore answers given and eventually return to asking the same question or asserting the same disproven assertion all over again.

This kind of bullshit might work with your libtard buddies but most people here arent as stupid as your experiences might lead you to expect.

 

[bodecea]

I gave a summary, not an argument, and I am not trolling as I mean what I say and do not yank peoples chains to amuse myself like you do.

And now it's deflection to me personally rather than addressing the circular argument. Why do you think that is?

Because you are a troll?

Back to circular arguments.

Look, Bodey-poo, anyone can read this thread and see the pretentiousness and posteuring you engage in. Its not like its some secret or anything.

You ask questions and do not answer in return with any significant effort expended.

You ignore answers given and eventually return to asking the same question or asserting the same disproven assertion all over again.

This kind of bullshit might work with your libtard buddies but most people here arent as stupid as your experiences might lead you to expect.

Again, making it about me, personally, than actually taking responsibility for your own accusations and assertions.

I suppose you can spin and spin and spin thru your circular arguments ... it beats actually debating the points. But it seems to be making you dizzy trying to keep up.

 

[bodecea]

Well, this has been....enlightening....but beddie bye time. Nightie Nite...don't let the Bed Bugs bite.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do they now?

No, obviously they do not, which is not relevant to the assertion about what the Founding Fathers meant, lol.

See, this is what I mean by you trolling. You know damned good and well the context of my claim, but yet you pretend I am talking about todays states, lol.

Now while I do not claim that todays states still endorse religion, the ACLU would, apparently if they had the balls to actually state what they think openly.

The Founding Fathers were not responsible for the state constitutions....many of which were written before the U.S. Constitution. They were responsible for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights which do NOT favor christianity or any religion at all.

Obviously, but the fact that the states do have such past claims shows that the Founding Fathers were not trying to do what the ACLU claims they intended to do which is to bleach all reference to religion from the public square.

Now...why do you think none of the state constitutions establish christianity anymore?

We went from this:
Adamson v. California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
to this:
Malloy v. Hogan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SCOTUS was teken over by people who thought that the US Constitution had to protect the due process of citizens of the seperate states, but this only began in the 1960s and was not held to prior to that.

But the incorporation of federal restrictions is slowly getting reversed. When the federal government no longer has the money to buy people off it might not be able to stop any of it at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And now it's deflection to me personally rather than addressing the circular argument. Why do you think that is?

Because you are a troll?

Back to circular arguments.

Look, Bodey-poo, anyone can read this thread and see the pretentiousness and posteuring you engage in. Its not like its some secret or anything.

You ask questions and do not answer in return with any significant effort expended.

You ignore answers given and eventually return to asking the same question or asserting the same disproven assertion all over again.

This kind of bullshit might work with your libtard buddies but most people here arent as stupid as your experiences might lead you to expect.

Again, making it about me, personally, than actually taking responsibility for your own accusations and assertions.

I suppose you can spin and spin and spin thru your circular arguments ... it beats actually debating the points. But it seems to be making you dizzy trying to keep up.

ITs not that difficult really, Bodecea.

Summaries are not arguments and therefore cannot be tautologies.

 

[UltimateReality]

Speaking of Islam always being a part of American history:

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once." [18]

Yep, pretty much seems like history hasn't changed in 230 years.

Ah...have you read the Treaty of Tripoli?


Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Did you read the entire article? It is a favorite technique of revisionists to quote half truths and take statements out of context. Go back and read the entire wiki entry. Also, this just proves the Political Correctness movement is not new. Finally, do you know how the story ends?

"The treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to submit to the Pasha's demands for increased payments."

 

[UltimateReality]

Where is the word "God" in AD?

And those state constitutions....are they pre-or post Constitution? Are the "god" references still there?

You are trying so hard to connect dots to something that doesn't exist...a direct reference to the christian god in the Constitution.

Did you think that maybe they did that.....on purpose?

And you are trying very hard to be rude to the Lord. We get it, you don't love the Lord, which means that you do not love yourself, which means that you love no one. We don't need a direct reference to the Lord. We know that most if not every single one of the FF bowed their heads to God the Father, His Son the Savior, Christ and prayed for them to be bless by them and the Holy Spirit to make a great nation and to serve the Lord (all three of those mentioned). You and hoooollerie are the ones asking for proof, and changing the goal posts. Our proof is in this great nation, and the blessings the Lord gives us every single day: '
we have food on our table
we have rooves over our heads
our families are relatively "safe"
we don't have to wall our property from marauders
we have energy so we do not have to have slaves
we have energy so our water is delivered to our taps 'clean' and drinkable
we have energy so our wastes are not running down our streets or into our water supplies
we have a country with a military that protects us
we have a better standard of living than most people in the entire world
even our poor live better than most "middle class" people in countries of the world that do not have a Christian influence.
etc, etc, etc.

Just for giggles, I will add:
many of us bow our heads to the Lord and pray for this country still. We pray for people like you and hollarie to find the Lord, and to be blessed by Him. We pray that our leaders will be strong enough to do the "Lord's will", and to serve well. It is a traddition that has been in this country since the earliest settlers came here. It is a traddition that will hopefully last as long as this is a nation. We do not need proof of the Lord rubbed in our faces. We can look around and see His blessings, everywhere.

Where is the word "God" in the Constitution?

And by my NOT seeing a word that doesn't exist in the Constitution is somehow rude? To whom? Some entity that you believe in and I don't....nor am I required to.

Maybe, if you want to see "rude", read JimBowie's posts.....

Oh, one more thing...nice that you bow your head....I do too...I too pray for this country and our military (I was in for 21 years myself) and our leaders....I just don't pray to the same entity you do. And I'm not aware of any rudeness in NOT capitalizing my gods/goddess' names....other than the standard proper noun type of stuff.

I think you are splitting hairs but here is a cut and paste from Merriam Webster:

Definition of LORD
1
: one having power and authority over others: a : a ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due b : one of whom a fee or estate is held in feudal tenure c : an owner of land or other real property d obsolete : the male head of a household e : husband f : one that has achieved mastery or that exercises leadership or great power in some area <a drug lord>
2
capitalized a : god 1 b : jesus

 

[UltimateReality]

This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Shall we take the Constitution as a document existing in and of itself, with no authors, no history, and no other works from that period? [I don't even have an inkling of hope that Hollie will answer this. Here come the attacks] I would hope that folks here on this thread would not be so gullible to your Christian-hating, twisted, atheistic version of the truth, but it looks like JakeStarkey has already succumbed. The mistaken belief it is a "living" document has already been used to bastardize it and shred an Christ inspired truth that once existed in it.

Hollie, why do you hate God so much?

how is it hating G-d to acknowledge that the first amendment is pretty clear that the government is out of the G-d business and the church is out of the government business?

They seem pretty upset that their version of a deity isn't acknowledged as the one and only this nation was founded on.....even tho they can't give us any proof it was.

I have given you mountains of proof. Did you even bother to check out any of the documents on the Yale Avalon project links? Apparently not. I really tire of these strawman debates. I am not claiming no freedom of religion. I am claiming the first colonies were founded by men who claimed the reason they traveled to the New World was for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith. I am claiming that professing Christian men authored many of our founding documents. I am claiming the Christian inspired belief that our inalienable rights come from our Creator-capital C. I am claming that many of the founding documents prior to the US Constitution provided references to God and Jesus. I am claiming that Christian services were held in the House of Representatives for almost 100 years. I am claiming that numerous presidents held Christian beliefs and called on the nation to engage in those beliefs, including national days of fasting and prayer. I am claiming that even claimed diests like Ben Franklin called for prayer at the opening of the Constitutional Convention and made specific references to the Bible. I am claiming that one of the requirements to serve in the earlier colonial governments was to be a professing Christian. I am claiming the God of "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" is the Christian God, not the Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Puritan, Hindu, or Muslim God.

Can anyone deny these claims?

 

[UltimateReality]

Which is what we've been saying all along. The United States is NOT founded on Christianity...ergo, is not a Christian nation. We are a secular nation founded on the basis of Law...made up of people from all religions and none.

lol

The federal government is required to be secular, the nation is not nor shall it ever be, God Willing.

Define "the nation" then....as YOU used it, of course.

The nation is the people silly. The government is the people that think they know best for the rest of the people.

 

[UltimateReality]

Might I remind observers to evaluate Christianity on its teachings and not on the flawed, fallen humans claiming Christianity. A Christian is defined as merely a Christ follower. So your lesson for today is to paint the picture of what a Christian looks like according to the Bible. If the person is claiming to be a Christ follower, but isn't described below, proceed with caution.

Galatians 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

1 Corinthians 13 (New International Version)

13 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails.

 

[UltimateReality]

Excerpts from Washington's Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. [1]

[1] John 14:2-3 King James Version (KJV)

[Jesus Speaking] In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

 

[UltimateReality]

By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation March 30th, 1861

Whereas the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and of nations, has by a resolution requested the President to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation; and

Whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord;

And, insomuch as we know that by His divine law nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.

It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do by this my proclamation designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting, and prayer. And I do hereby request all the people to abstain on that day from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite at their several places of public worship and their respective homes in keeping the day holy to the Lord and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.

All this being done in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the divine teachings that the united cry of the nation will be heard on high and answered with blessings no less than the pardon of our national sins and the restoration of our now divided and suffering country to its former happy condition of unity and peace. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 30th day of March, A. D. 1863, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-seventh.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State .

 

[UltimateReality]

Second Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln

SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 1865
Fellow-Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

 

[Hollie]

Second Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln

SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 1865
Fellow-Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

It seems that we've been subjected to a cut and paste jihad.

That was a pointless waste of bandwidth as a president making claims to gods is not the constitution.

I have yet to see the U.S. defined by the constitution as a "christian nation". It seems the christian jihadist doesn't have a clue as to the wording and intent of the constitution.

Fortunately, that very constitution protects us all from fundie zealots who little different from the Taliban except for choice of religion.

 

[Hollie]

And you are trying very hard to be rude to the Lord. We get it, you don't love the Lord, which means that you do not love yourself, which means that you love no one. We don't need a direct reference to the Lord. We know that most if not every single one of the FF bowed their heads to God the Father, His Son the Savior, Christ and prayed for them to be bless by them and the Holy Spirit to make a great nation and to serve the Lord (all three of those mentioned). You and hoooollerie are the ones asking for proof, and changing the goal posts. Our proof is in this great nation, and the blessings the Lord gives us every single day: '
we have food on our table
we have rooves over our heads
our families are relatively "safe"
we don't have to wall our property from marauders
we have energy so we do not have to have slaves
we have energy so our water is delivered to our taps 'clean' and drinkable
we have energy so our wastes are not running down our streets or into our water supplies
we have a country with a military that protects us
we have a better standard of living than most people in the entire world
even our poor live better than most "middle class" people in countries of the world that do not have a Christian influence.
etc, etc, etc.

Just for giggles, I will add:
many of us bow our heads to the Lord and pray for this country still. We pray for people like you and hollarie to find the Lord, and to be blessed by Him. We pray that our leaders will be strong enough to do the "Lord's will", and to serve well. It is a traddition that has been in this country since the earliest settlers came here. It is a traddition that will hopefully last as long as this is a nation. We do not need proof of the Lord rubbed in our faces. We can look around and see His blessings, everywhere.

Where is the word "God" in the Constitution?

And by my NOT seeing a word that doesn't exist in the Constitution is somehow rude? To whom? Some entity that you believe in and I don't....nor am I required to.

Maybe, if you want to see "rude", read JimBowie's posts.....

Oh, one more thing...nice that you bow your head....I do too...I too pray for this country and our military (I was in for 21 years myself) and our leaders....I just don't pray to the same entity you do. And I'm not aware of any rudeness in NOT capitalizing my gods/goddess' names....other than the standard proper noun type of stuff.

First you wanted "a single reference" to God. It was given to you. You cried, you denied, you pouted. Now you want a specific word that you know is not there. Little girl, your tantrum is over, go to bed, this discussion is over, and you did not make your point.

First, I required a single reference to christianity or to "gods" written in the constitution. You never provided that. You cannot provide that because ti does not exist.

Failing to do that, you have taken to lashing out like a petulant child.

Before you post nonsensical claims in a public discussion board, understand the material you are preaching.

 

[nitroz]

Treaty of Tripoli, article 11.

/thread

 

[MHunterB]

Treaty of Tripoli, article 11.

/thread

QED.

Got it in one.

Nail, hammer, hit.


Or - spelling it out for those who don't understand the difference - no 'Inaugural address' can ever be construed as 'official' in terms of establishing a principle of law. The speeches by a sitting President are not given the authority of establishing a law under the Constitution.

The absolute basis of all Federal law IS the Constitution and nothing else. We cannot make treaties with other nations which violate our Constitution : they will not be considered valid and upheld by our courts.

Any military person knows that they take their oath of service to the *Constitution* and not to the President, the administration, the military itself or anything else.

Is it really THAT difficult to understand the difference between a 'legal document' and other forms of communication?



FYI - NO document which was NOT written under the Constitution could be considered an instrument of Federal law. Hence the Mayflower Compact (signed by a couple of my ancestors, incidentally!) is not part of the material under discussion.