I kept saying this and the Libs, here, denied it.

They've all got that lib-look. I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it. Or hear it. That mosquito-like noise.
I like the Jews but these folks seem to hate das Juden. when you look at their last names you have to wonder.

Self-hating Jews love those terrorist.
 
Filthy lefty's. I hope they all get unemployment for the next 2 years.

I think more righties are collecting unemployment right now. They seem to be generally less capable.


Like the Paganism and Islamic religions, right?

Exactly.

I didn't know Judeo-Christian was a specific religion by name.

Right, you really didn't have any point at all.


Well, you are most certainly going to hell no matter what form of energy you passoff into.

No, I've got it covered. Hell is for bigots who think their religion is superior or their race is superior to their wife's.
 
They've all got that lib-look. I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it. Or hear it. That mosquito-like noise.

The buzzing cons hear is usually logic, facts, and reasoning trying to work it's way past preconceived false notions and fear mongering.

I now the con look in journalist the empty headed vacant stare they all have. Like there's nothing in there but marching orders from their masters.
 
Originally Posted by Winky
-My recommendation, assassinate the jigga-boo and be done with it.
 
Prez. Obama isn't going to this guy's church anymore, and from what I understand, he had not attended for a while. Did the reverend know Obama? Of course he did. How could he not know the members of the congregation.

You could say similar things about me given the circumstances. I went to a church (back when I was still going through the motions of being a Christian) where the priest would give homily after homily about the evils of birth control and attempting to (lamely) link it to the destruction of society, the confusion of women and their place in that society (kitchen and bedroom making more Catholic babies) and thus the slow and steady decline of America into anarchy. (I am not making this shit up!)

I finally stopped going, but it took a long time. I retained hope for quite a while that this guy would STFU or die and leave his position to someone else.

Did attending this church mean I supported the priest's views? No, it did not. I most certainly did not support any of his views.

You are trying to spin it like Wright and Obama are of casual acquaintance. They are much more than that. Obama calls him a dear friend and mentor. Obama was seeing this guy and attending his black exclusive church for 20 years.

Obama only stopped attending that church after it was brought to light as to what Wright was teaching.

Did you even watch the video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plRkc7_a4EM
 
Bullshit. The nation was founded on values that most religions since the dawn of time have espoused. They never mentioned any specific religion.

Then you have never read this:

SOURCE

may-compact.jpg


The Mayflower Compact

Mayflower Compact

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

There followed the signatures of 41 of the 102 passengers, 37 of whom were Separatists fleeing religious persecution in Europe. This compact established the first basis in the new world for written laws. Half of the colony failed to survive the first winter, but the remainder lived on and prospered.
 
Judeo-Christian values are the foundation on which this nation was created. Like it or not its a fact. There are many great Americans who do not believe in Christ but value the the moral guidance this nation is based upon.

God Bless You!
Bullshit. The nation was founded on values that most religions since the dawn of time have espoused. They never mentioned any specific religion.

Not sure what your point was anyway. Most christians haven't been emulating christ for quite a long time.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21008
 
the ideas that produced the foundation of america are rooted in the enlightenment, not in christianity. anyone who denies this is simply ignorant.
 
Judeo-Christian values are the foundation on which this nation was created. Like it or not its a fact.
<snippety snip>
That is not a fact. It is a myth propagated for the purpose of forcing Christian religious laws and dogma on the citizens of this country, even those who are not Christian.

There is no direct reference to (1) religion or (2) any deity in the U.S. Constitution.

If you wish to follow these laws, you do not need them duplicated in secular law. Follow the laws of your religion as you see fit, submitting yourself for any "punishment" for violating those laws to your religious leadership.

However, I do not choose to follow your religion or culture, nor do I submit myself for judgment to your religious leadership.

One of my favorite politicians said it best in 1802...
Thomas Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter
 
the ideas that produced the foundation of america are rooted in the enlightenment, not in christianity. anyone who denies this is simply ignorant.
Common ethics of the day, held by any common belief system, that would bring about order and peace, and stave off chaos and anarchy.
 
That is not a fact. It is a myth propagated for the purpose of forcing Christian religious laws and dogma on the citizens of this country, even those who are not Christian.

There is no direct reference to (1) religion or (2) any deity in the U.S. Constitution.

If you wish to follow these laws, you do not need them duplicated in secular law. Follow the laws of your religion as you see fit, submitting yourself for any "punishment" for violating those laws to your religious leadership.

However, I do not choose to follow your religion or culture, nor do I submit myself for judgment to your religious leadership.

One of my favorite politicians said it best in 1802...
Thomas Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter

I hope you take a look at my thread which was heavily researched. Now as for the comments I bolded...

1. There is actually a direct reference, val. I, however, deliberately left it out of my thread. Article VII: "in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven".

2. Jefferson's letter is addressed in my thread.
 
Then you have never read this:

SOURCE

Here Jim, read this: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/amr/amerc.htm

It comments on the Mayflower Compact and also has some straight forward language like this:

"Further incidental evidence of the founders' own views is the statement from a treaty with the Islamic nation of Tripoli in 1797. This treaty was negotiated under Washington, ratified by the Senate, and signed by President John Adams. The telling part is a description of religion in America:

"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 Musselmen [i.e., Muslims] ..., 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"
 
1. There is actually a direct reference, val. I, however, deliberately left it out of my thread. Article VII: "in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven".

That is specifying a date by a given calendar. Certainly can't be construed to be a foundation of government on religion. That would be a gigantic stretch.
 
That is specifying a date by a given calendar. Certainly can't be construed to be a foundation of government on religion. That would be a gigantic stretch.

Perhaps but it does acknowledge Christ.

By the way, the Treaty of Tripoli is also addressed in my thread.
 
Perhaps but it does acknowledge Christ.

It's a phrase Goth. Means absolutely nothing except for the date it indicates.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg10c.htm

By the way, the Treaty of Tripoli is also addressed in my thread.

Hmmnn you quoted someone with a lack of reasoning trying very hard to make excuses for the very clear "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion".

"Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation."

Oh sure, if you say so.

"Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries"

Nope.

The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.


What kind of religious involvement in our government would you like to see exactly Goth?
 
It's a phrase Goth. Means absolutely nothing except for the date it indicates.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg10c.htm

It is a phrase of a deposit of faith of the time. Just like how we have people now referring to points in history in the secular sense as Before Common Era and Common Era since Christianity is not common as it once was. Sure, "Sunday" is a name left over from a day to worship the sun, however, "in the year of our Lord" was not left over at the time it was written on the Constitution.

Hmmnn you quoted someone with a lack of reasoning trying very hard to make excuses for the very clear "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion".

"Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation."

Oh sure, if you say so.

"Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries"

Nope.

The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.


What kind of religious involvement in our government would you like to see exactly Goth?

The phrase is taken out of context. There is no period after "religion". Also, you have omitted a great chunk of the argument the author presented. I will quote it here:

Treaty of Tripoli

David Barton - 01/2000

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document. The following is an excerpt from David Barton's book Original Intent:

To determine whether the "Founding Fathers" were generally atheists, agnostics, and deists, one must first define those terms. An "atheist" is one who professes to believe that there is no God; 1 an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible; 2 and a "deist" is one who believes in an impersonal God who is no longer involved with mankind. (In other words, a "deist" embraces the "clockmaker theory" 3 that there was a God who made the universe and wound it up like a clock; however, it now runs of its own volition; the clockmaker is gone and therefore does not respond to man.) Today the terms "atheist," "agnostic," and "deist" have been used together so often that their meanings have almost become synonymous. In fact, many dictionaries list these words as synonym. 4

Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious. 5 One of the quotes they set forth is the following:

The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. GEORGE WASHINGTON​

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington's supposed statement. Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source. That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. 6 The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, 7 thus constituting America's first official war as an established independent nation.

Throughout this long conflict, the four Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen 8 in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of Muslims from Granada 9). In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. 10 (Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships 11 to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates" – a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.)

The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" 12 with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. 13 However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli, 14 a "gift" frigate to Algiers, 15 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, 16 etc. 17). The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. 18 Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:

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 [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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. 19​

This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.

Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," 20 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 21 and by John Adams as "rational." 22 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:

The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it. 23​

Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:

Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land! 24​

Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:

The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. 25​

Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 26​

Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.

Additionally, the writings of General William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict, provide even more irrefutable testimony of how the conflict was viewed at that time. Eaton was first appointed by President John Adams as "Consul to Tunis," and President Thomas Jefferson later advanced him to the position of "U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States," authorizing him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton's official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America.

For example, when writing to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Eaton apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:

Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims'] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful. 27​

Eaton later complained that after Jefferson had approved his plan for military action, he sent him the obsolete warship "Hero." Eaton reported the impression of America made upon the Tunis Muslims when they saw the old warship and its few cannons:

[T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians. 28​

In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:

He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation." 29​

When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State, Eaton informed him:

It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that "The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well." 30​

And when General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:

April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking! 31

May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy's forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don't he come and take it? 32​

Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict:

The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli 33​

The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people. (Chapter 16 of Original Intent will provide numerous additional current examples of historical revisionism.)

Source
 
Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy exposed.
Judeo-Christin Nation shown.

Truths = Much liberal denial and butt-hurt in this thread.

In God We Trust -- Commies not so much!
 
Back
Top