Wow.
You really need to go back to school and learn how to read, or you need to get to the institution because the dementia is full blown. You really are a silly little boy, aren’t you? You thought this proof of your prepubescence and illiteracy was worth posting. Honestly, if your account wasn’t 13 years old I would be sure you were only 12.

What I said is the sham investigations BY republicans are only finding Republicans who violated oaths of office, ethics rules, and who hired “whistleblowers” that are revealed to be disgraced agents that sided with criminals and who are now paid political actors, and are in fact disproving the “crimes” they are meant to “investigate”, and proving time and time again that Republicans are actually guilty of what they accused Democrats of doing.

Every accusation is an admission, and Republicans have 3 “investigations” looking into their accusations/admissions and finding Republican crimes.

Benghazi all over again. The Big Lie all over again. Republicans are so incredibly stupid they never learn from their mistakes and just keep trying the same failed tactic of making up a ridiculous charge against a political enemy then spending hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars disproving it. Already done with the Twitter investigation, now with the weaponization investigation, what’s next? Laptop investigations? Trump doesn’t want that….his has top secret classified information copied into it with a digital record of which countries he’s sent it to, and the child porn.

I’m truly sad for you that your dementia has gone full blown. It’s been a time talking with you. Best wishes for your family.

PS- looks like you might lose FOX soon. Handing confidential campaign information from Biden’s advertising contracts to Jared is both an FCC and FEC violation big enough to repeal their license, and the suits have already started over that. After the $4.3 billion they’ll lose for lying about Dominion and Smartmatic, and the admission under oath by every talking head at Fox and Murdoch that they knew the big lie was a lie all along but spreading the lie got them more money from you suckers, going off the air completely is going to hurt. Good job, crazy lying far right media, you’ve managed to lie yourself into the poor house and soon off the air.

Not just fire two, but prosecute one for obstruction and violation of her oath of office, a felony, because she hid the fact that one defendant had worked for her for years, had called her directly immediately following the shooting, and was her personal friend…and fired the outside prosecutor she had suggested because they both hid that she had hired him to advise police to drop the case, and hid the fact that his son worked in her office….he later recused himself for conflicts of interest only after the FBI became involved.

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/ex-prosecutor-charged-in-ahmaud-arbery-case-booked-at-jail

The fix was in on this case too, but the subversion was caught in time, unlike Rittenhouse who’s judge needs firing and prosecution too.

From what I read, even if you're correct about federal and state law (I'm not sure, but I hope you're wrong), most departments require officers to engage armed preps, not run, and that's why he will be fired. It's dereliction of duty. That might even negate immunity, lucky him no one was hurt to sue him personally for damages.

"There is a duty to protect and intervene. You have sworn and taken an oath of office, so you are required to do this.”
Thomas went on to say that most law enforcement agencies have a policy on cowardice in the line of duty, which could result in disciplinary action (being fired).

https://chicagocrusader.com/officer-abandons-black-woman-being-threatened-with-gun/

So...what aboutism is all you’ve got?...and you use examples of things your people did? You’ve lost your tiny little mind.

I, for one, was right here calling out the Boogaloo boys, militias, and proud boys for arsons, shootings, and bombings they committed in the name of BLM. Caught and admitted by dozens of y’all.

Stop the lies, bob. Not a single person identified is ANTIFA, they are all Trumptards like you, willing to make up any bullshit excuses to avoid responsibility for their terroristic riot and failed coup. So stupid, bold faced liar. You have no evidence, no proof, only lies and deflection, and a stupid lie that makes your ilk so stupid and weak they will follow their sworn enemies, hipster twig boys, into treasonous terrorism at the first opportunity.

Yes, planned by Trump. “Come Jan 6. It’s going to be wild.” “Gotta stop the steal. Cannot allow them to certify Biden or you’ll lose your country.” And in other speeches leading up to the Trump Coup attempt, “BLM and ANTIFA will come to your town, rape your women, and burn your homes. You’ve got to stop them. We won and they stole it from you.”

The pre-riot was planned to end minutes after the certification started to ensure the senate and VP would be there when the attack started....20 minutes walking distance or less away with instructions to walk there and stop them. Stop them or you’ve lost your country. That’s exactly what they did, in the only way possible.

The fact is Trump was planning this in October when he repeated “the only way I can lose is if they cheat and steal the election”. He never stopped telling his morons they were cheated and their country is lost if they don’t use extreme methods to overturn a certified election, and on the 6th told them if they don’t stop the certification, it’s over, they lose the country and freedom and become slaves to BLM and ANTIFA. The only possible way to stop it was by force, months too late to stop it by voting, which many of those fucktards didn’t do anyway because Trump convinced them it was rigged so why bother.

Impeachment will fail because Republicans put party and one person above the country, constitution, democracy, truth, and reason, not because Trump didn’t incite a riot, not because he didn’t ignore his duty to stop the riot he instigated.

Trump has divided more Americans than any group or person in history, getting your ilk to turn on the media in favor of pure baseless propaganda is only one part of Trump’s plan to divide America....his most successful plan. This is straight out of the dictators handbook.

When will you learn that the liar who tried a violent coup is not a patriot anymore than the magamorons who attacked the country on the 6th at his direction and with his blessing?

Can you explain why it took him >4 hours to tell his followers to stop the attack and leave...but not until he knew the targets had been evacuated? Can you explain why, as he watched his mob hunting elected officials on live TV, he tweeted that Pence was a traitor? Can you explain why, if they weren’t there at his direction, they all said they were? Can you explain why, if they weren’t following his directions, they did leave immediately when he told them to? Can you explain why, as he watched the capitol and police overrun and violently attacked for hours, he never called the national guard or other backup in? (That alone is a gross dereliction of duty even if you convince yourself he has no culpability for creating the vote fraud lie, ramping it up for months enraging his base, and holding a stop the steal rally on the day of certification minutes away from congress ending by sending the seething armed group there with his promise to March with them to stop the certification....that alone is a violation of his oath of office, that alone is impeachable.)

Edit: Can you explain why Trump refused to pay respects to the officer his Magaterrorists murdered trying to save Trump’s job?

🤦‍♂️

Jesus Christ, Bob, you have lost your mind.
The delusion is strong with this one.
CLINTON worked with Russia to rig an election FOR TRUMP? You're the first person I've heard claim they helped her....because that's just bat shit insanity and contrary to 100% of our intelligence agencies assessments.

What treason? I'll stick to just this weeks current ongoing treason, not doing a thing to safeguard our next election from known Russian interference, contrary to his oath of office and treasonous.

What happened to Trump only gets praise from his own Twitter? Dropped that insanity like red hot steel, didn't ya?

What do you want to be 2nd 3rd? 30th?



Trump gave a great speech. Uniting America.

Full Oath of office and Inaugural Speech:

Further down on the Onion...

Here is a step-by-step guide to how U.S. Supreme Court justices are selected:

Step 1: Supreme Court vacancy opens after a sitting justice dies, retires, or is promoted to the Galactic Circuit
Step 2: President wistfully crosses out own name from list of potential candidates
Step 3: Official presidential nominee slowly lowered by rope into Senate Judiciary Committee pit
Step 4: Nominee charged one-time $30 background check fee
Step 5: Candidate asked whether they see themselves in exact same place 35 years from now
Step 6: Judiciary Committee members ask nominee whether they capable of writing a dissent that could be described as “blistering”
Step 7: Candidate attests they have no opinion whatsoever on issue of abortion, don’t know what it is, and frankly have never heard such a word uttered before
Step 8: Senate takes nominee out to drinks to see how they act in casual, informal setting
Step 9: Nominee stands as their predecessor’s robe is draped over them to see if government can save a few bucks on not ordering a new one
Step 10: Following months of direct questioning, witness testimony, and poring over the nominee’s qualifications and judicial history, the Senate votes on whether they like the president or not
Step 11: If confirmed, justice takes oath of office and is assigned a bench buddy to help them through their first few opinions
Step 12: If candidate not confirmed, process repeats indefinitely until other party holds White House or country is awash in the hot, crimson blood of neighbor killing neighbor, whichever comes first

I'm boring? It took you the equivalent of a book to answer a few simple questions. Did I as for a lecture on the oath of office? No. Did I ask for a lecture on the forth estate? No.

You used one as an excuse the other as a reason but nether answered the questions.

Finely after all the dogma I get an answer. A piss poor answer but its better than you rehashing the same thing for a forth time.

So Lets look at what you provided.

First Article.
Shit.. An article repeating the same dogma again for a forth time.....

Second Article.
FINELY! Examples! was that so hard? Really?
and it shows. Nothing that was not already known. (My Opinion)

"A Pentagon spokesman told the New York Times this week that under its procedure, when reports of Iraqi abuse were received the US military "notifies the responsible government of Iraq agency or ministry for investigation and follow-up".

If you know a better way?


So what did his leaks really do?

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Martin Nehring, a classification expert who submitted written testimony, said that upon reviewing the information Manning released, he discovered that it included techniques for neutralizing improvised explosives, names of enemy targets, names of criminal suspects and troop movements, according to The Guardian.

Navy Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Thomas Hoskins also reviewed the documents and found potentially damaging information, including codewords, tactics and techniques for responding to roadside bombings, weapon capabilities, and assistance the U.S. military had received in tracking down suspects from foreign nationals, The Guardian reported.

These are just some of the reasons I consider him a traitor. This put people at risk.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/bradley-manning-wikileaks-trial-prosecution


He should of just released documentation on what he thought were the crimes or corruption. Not all of it and defiantly not that information.

I take it you are not familiar with the Oath of Office for the US government?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

So when the government breaks it's oath, breaks faith to the people and demands of it's soldiers, those men and women who are ready to pay the ultimate price, that they commit atrocious crimes, what worth is there honouring your oath to them?

More importantly, Nuremberg proved that "just following orders" ie. adhering to your oath as a soldier, was not a defense. In the recent debacle in the Australian Defense Force, the chief of armies has explicitly said that people who received the illicit emails and deleted them rather than reporting would also be held responsible because they didn't blow the whistle...

You can waffle on about honour and adhering to ones oath, but the truth is you're advocating the path of the coward. Stay quiet, don't speak out, be a good little lap dog to the establishment. Allow evil to happen because you don't have the cojones to do anything about it. Take cold comfort in the fact that you "honoured" your oath.

I have to admit, I don't understand why we have an inauguration for a 2nd term president. IMO, inaugurations only make sense when the presidency changes.

but then again, we shouldn't be having our presidents swearing on a bible, especially when we have an establishment clause. A simple oath of office is all that's necessary.

“95% of the congressmen and Republican senators have sworn a written oath to someone called Grover Norquist and an organization called American For Tax Reform; that they will under no circumstances, and for no reason, raise taxes of any kind on anyone. And therefore they have taken an oath to an outside organization which is not supported by the U.S. Constitution – which gives Congress the right to levy taxes, to do the work of the people through the government –but this is a non governmental organization, not elected by anybody and supported by big money people who are making money by not having to pay taxes"

“And these people have signed a sworn oath that contradicts their oath of office. And therefore, in fact, they do have mental reservations, and they do have purpose of evasion and they are not sincerely taking their oath of office. And if they persist in that, and if they are held to that by this outside person who is not a member of the government, then they are, in fact, breaking their oath of office and they are not serving what they swore to serve the American people.”

“…they must, as a single body, reject their oath to Grover Norquist, renounce that oath in order to retake their oath of office; sincerely, without mental reservation, and without purpose of evasion; which is what they must do to be reinstated in our good graces, the people of the United States, of whom they are the employee.”

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be condescending. What they call American history today sanitizes the role of Christianity, to the point that the youth is completely unaware of this nations deeply rooted Christian heritage. The seculization of this country is a recent phenomena. Look at these state constitutions:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority 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. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV 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.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III 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 sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It wasn't just a social phenomena. Christianity has shaped our nation at the roots. Consider the Mayflower Compact, the first governing document of the Plymoth Colony:

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor 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 our selves together into a civil body politic, 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 hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620."

Consider that the "Old Deluder Satan Act", enacted so that Americans would learn scripture and not be deceived by Satan, is the first enactment of public education in this country.

When you say the say our government was influenced by Deism, and not Christianity, you have a long way to go to prove that. At least 50 of the framers were Christians, out of 55.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Every single president has taken his oath on the bible and referred to God in his inaugural address.

The supreme court, after an exaustive 10 year study, declared in 1892 in the Holy Trinity decison "This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.".

The supreme court opens every session with "God save the United States of America.

The reasoning behind the checks and balances is because man has a fallen nature and cannot be trusted with absolute power:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

James Madison

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

Do you not realize that this very letter you are citing, which TJ wrote to the Danbury Baptist association from France, is the entire foundation of the claim of "seperation of church and state"? Those words do not appear in the constitution or anywhere else. It was only a series of court rulings starting in 1947 which interpreted the establishment clause through this particular letter that led to "seperation of church and state" as we know it today. However, this interpretation, in light of the evidence I presented you in the previously reply, is obviously false. The "wall of seperation" that Jefferson is referring to does not mean what you and the liberal courts think it means. If it did, again..why would Jefferson attend church in the house of representitives? Why would he gives federal funds to Christian missionaries? Why would he be okay with teaching the bible in public schools? None of that makes any sense in light of the interpretation that is espoused today. Consider these quotes from William Rehnquist, former chief justice of the supreme court:

"But the greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the framers.”

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

There are plenty of founders who believed that Christianity was central to our identity as a nation. Why do you think it says in the declaration of independence:

"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."

It says our rights come from God and not from men. Why do the founders say things like this:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

John Hancock

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

Samuel Adams

Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

James Madison

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

George Washington

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.
I think the misunderstanding is entirely on your side of the debate. Atheists are basically trying to rewrite history and say this nation was intended to be secular, when all evidence points the other direction.

i sincerely esteem the constitution a system which, without the finger of god, never could have been agreed upon by such a diversity of interests

Alexander Hamilton

Atheists are trying to remove God from every sphere of public life, even suing to remove the word God from logos or remove nativity scenes from public property. That was never the intention of the founders. Many of them were openly religious and felt free to use the government and government funding towards furthering Christianity.

It would be akin to you inviting me to stay at your house, and then I inform you that I am going to completely redecorate it without your permission. I also tell you that you have to stay in your room at all times so I don't have to see you. This is why Christians have a problem with this narrative. This nation has always been predominantly Christian. Our many liberties come directly from biblical principles.

americans combine the notions of christians and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't

We all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. I think anyone is capable of being moral, at least to a point. We're all equal in Gods eyes, and that is the way it should be in this country. I am not interested in establishing a theocracy; that could only work if Jesus returned. This whole idea though of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous. It's ingrained on our monuments, written on the walls of all three branches of government, stamped on our money, and is deeply rooted in all aspects of our history and culture. You cannot seperate the two. We've already seen the shocking moral decline that America has gone through in its departure from biblical morality. This is evidence that if you try to rip out the foundation, the whole thing will crumble.

>> ^LukinStone:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority 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. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV 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.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;
wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

That's just a few of them. Religious test doesn't mean what you think it means. No response to anything else in my post?


>> ^jonny:
>> ^shinyblurry:
many states wouldn't allow non-christians to be elected to public office.
Had to stop reading right there.
Article 6, paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

@rottenseed

However, if you read the "context" (since you dummies love to pull the
context card out), the question he is answering is:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful
for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

So pretty much the ONLY mention of a man and a woman is an exclusive
mention of not getting a divorce

Obviously it isn't the only mention, since Jesus is quoting the Old Testament. There are other verses which refer to marriage, but even if it were the only one, it doesn't change the fact that God has defined marriage to be between a man and woman and has condemned homosexual relations and fornication. One mention or 100, the truth of it is absolute.

All of this is for naught, however, since the first amendment to the
constitution, states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty amazing, huh? How not only does the constitution (apparently
written and signed by "Christians") doesn't mention any "god"
whatsoever, but they make sure in an amendment, that the government
does not support any single religion. This means that, sin or not, the
government has no business enforcing any law on the basis of religion.

game. set. match.

Your declaration of victory is premature. What the founders meant by "religion" is any particular Christian denomination. They did not want any to be preferred or adopted as the national religion. Fisher Ames, who wrote the language of the first ammendment, said this:

“...we have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education....We've become accustomed of late to putting little books in the hands of children containing fables with moral lessons. We are spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principle text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man made book.”

The man who wrote the first amendment obviously thought it was constitutional to teach the bible as our principle text in public schools, yet today they say that even having one in the classroom violates the 1st amendment. I wonder who actually knows more about the 1st amendment or what its purpose was. Obviously it wasnt meant to prevent government support of Christianity or the bible as our principle means of education. "Imagine that"

Two years after Jefferson wrote the letter that people use to justify a separation of church and state, he ordered as a presidential act the extention of using federal lands "“for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity”. He ordered that act extended two more times before he left office. Yet today they say that we can't have a nativity scene on government property. Are you starting to see how painfully out of context your imagined secularist interpretation is? There wasn't any such thing as secularism then, because everyone was Christian and believed in God. Why do you think the US capitol building was converted to a church every sunday? Why was the first supreme court opened with a 4 hour prayer and communion service?

What you are also unaware of is that the state constitutions at the time not only mentioned God and Christianity, many of them forbid anybody but Christians taking office:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority 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. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV 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.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;
wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III 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 sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

Starting to get the picture? How about this treaty?

Continental Congress (1783), ratified a peace treaty with Great Britain at the close of the Revolutionary War. The treaty began:

In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence
to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith… and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences… [p.149]


Why did George Washington announce this when they finished the constitution?:

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

The evidence is insurrmountable and overwhelming that this country was founded on Christian principles. To deny it is to ignore everything that is true about our history.

Part of your writing is about what happened and the rest is about what you believe. Are the rich universally callous a-holes who care nothing about their employees? Some are like that, others ain't. Capitalism is like a military tank; it's better to be riding in the turret than getting caught under the treads.

Historically there appears to be more misery when taxocrats run the show than repubs. Why, what's stopping His Earness from announcing he loves socialism and implementing a carbon copy of the European model (have you see Greece lately)?

Not that I have much stake in defending them, but the wealthy pay the most taxes in America, despite the cheaters, that's fact. The bottom 50% don't even pay income tax but suck up plenty of "free" goodies.

There's a moral basis for making others pay a fair share of taxes, but not the lion's share.



>> ^RFlagg:

Let me tell you about "Employers". My former employer, just prior to the Presidential election sent out a memo saying that if Obama won the election and put his tax plan into effect he would have to fire 300 some people. Obama of course won, and even before Obama took the oath of office, they fired on the order of 380 people and told the rest that we wouldn't get a raise that year because the cost of living went down so much. He then went out and bought a private jet and another mansion in Glenmoor (a high end gated Arnold Palmer designed golf community) to add to the one he already had there (the second largest in Glenmoor) and his place on Miami Beach among others. A new year for the companies health care plan rolls around and the rates were supposed to go up 22% (the same amount as last year, but this is not mentioned the memo) but they held the line at only a 5% increase (again just like last year but not mentioned in the memo); the very next sentience of the memo about the health care cost increase goes to say how the company disagrees with Obama's costly health care plan as if it had anything to do with the insurance rate increases that year (one should note it is deceptive stuff like that which they put in their marketing which is why they can't do business in FL, PA, CA and a few others). Then when the Ohio governorship is up for election he sends another memo out talking how under Ted Strickland the company lost 380+ jobs and that we should vote for John Kasich. John Kasich wins and the owner fires 230+ people and once again no raises for anyone. 600+ people out of work but guess who still has his private jet. And it isn't like he is a rare case. Aside from the memos of voter intimidation he is typical of the rich and what they think of their employees. He has been given huge tax credits and incentives from the state, county and cities, but he still hasn't hired many people, and as a matter of fact fired over 600 people (far exceeding those hired by several hundred still) and pocketed the savings so he could get a jet. So don't believe or spread the lie that if we give the rich tax breaks or more money it will eventually help the working class. 30 years of trickle down economics has proven that doesn't happen. Of course you Republicans won't let facts stand in the way of robing the working class to support the rich, and using the media to tell them it is for their own good... sadly too many of the American public is too brain dead to realize they are being coned.
People like that guy is who the Republicans are all about rather blatantly, at least the Democrats pretend to care about the working class even if they don't have the balls to stand up to the Republicans or the rich. Some of the more caring Democrats have a plan that would balance the budget 10 to 20 years faster than the Republican plan, all without cuts to essential services to the working poor. If the Republicans really wanted to balance the budget as they say, and cut spending as they say, then they would go with the People's Budget, but since that cuts into Republican funded things like Tarp and cuts the military budget and raises taxes on the upper 2% they won't have it. Of course Obama and the majority of the Democrats are too chicken to support it themselves...