Theocracy alert: Christian conservatives plot to rewrite U.S. Constitution

[dinar_stud]

Theocracy alert: Christian conservatives plot to rewrite U.S. Constitution

 

 

 

Using an obscure concept called the Convention of the States, Christian conservatives are hoping to rewrite the U.S. Constitution, obliterate the separation of church and state, and turn the U.S.A. into a theocracy.

 

 

 

 

A Feb. 12 report issued by Americans United details the religious right’s plan to “rewrite the U.S. Constitution to make it more to their liking.” The report indicates the plan is gaining momentum in the Bible Belt, and is supported by a coalition of conservative Christians determined to undermine the secular values upon which this nation was founded.

 

 

 

One way to amend or change the U.S. Constitution is if two-thirds of the states apply for a constitutional convention. Article 5 of the Constitution says a “convention of the states” requires “application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states.” This means a minimum of 34 states would be required to petition Congress to set a date and venue for a Convention of the States.

 

 

 

Each state would send delegates to the convention and have one vote. Amendments could pass by a simple majority and would then have to be ratified by the legislatures of at least 38 states.

 

 

 

Raw Story reports the Convention of the States movement is gaining momentum. The Georgia Senate voted 37-16 last week to set aside the Constitution written by the Founding Fathers and start over again, and lawmakers in eight other states – Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota — are deliberating similar proposals.

 

 

 

Supporters of a Convention of the States claim they want to “call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,” and, “impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government.”

 

 

 

However, Americans United warns that the Convention of the States campaign is “actually about undermining church-state separation, stopping same-sex marriage, ending legal abortion and furthering other far-right obsessions.”

 

 

PS: Let the Tealiban regime begin.

[dantach]

You are a compleet idiot.

[dinar_stud]

You are a compleet idiot.

 

 

Am I supposed to be insulted by your remark???  

 

 

Instead of trying to insult me, you should educate yourself.  We the USA are not a christian nation. We never have been.

Here let me help you on your way to education:

 

 

 

The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion

Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.

 

 

 

Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.

 

 

The U.S. Constitution

 

 

The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

 

 

 

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

 

 

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. [bold caps, mine]

 

 

 

 

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

 

 

 

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.

 

 

 

Although many secular and atheist groups today support and fight for the wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

 

 

The Declaration of Independence

 

 

Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)

 

 

 

However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.

 

 

 

Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.

 

 

 

Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all have the natural ability of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are instituted among men."

 

 

 

The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness.

 

 

 

Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

 

 

The Treaty of Tripoli

 

 

 

 

e most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

 

 

 

"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 tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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." [bold text, mine]

 

 

Click here to see the actual article 11 of the Treaty

 

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

 

 

 

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.") [bold text, mine]

 

 

 

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.

 

 

 

Common Law

 

 

According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."

 

 

 

Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.

 

 

 

But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

 

 

 

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

 

 

In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "ancien scripture", in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:

 

 

 

"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."     Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."      

The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines." Also prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial.

Edited February 13, 2014 by dinar_stud

[Jaxinjersey]

What a bunch of nonsense!   Obscure?!!   It's IN THE CONSTITUTION!

 

As I wrote in response to Francie26's thread today:

 

Good for you Fran!  I heard Mark Levin talking about this last night on his radio show.  These "remedies" are already written in our Constitution and have existed from 1787, with George Mason as the initial proponent... and unanimously ratified.   Mark consistently brings attention to this, as well as others in his book "The Liberty Ammendements".

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/172320-convention-of-states/#ixzz2tFQFnKOl

 

Furthermore, this false concept/narrative of "Separation of Church and State" has been perpetuated by progressives forever.  There is no such such thing... it's just a catchy phrase.  The natural result of the First Amendment is the separation "from the government" by citizens exercising their religious freedom!  Unfortunately, it has become commonly "understood" that that means religion must have no part in a person's political life... and more commonly, in the politics of the collective as a whole... the government.

 

It is no way stated in The Constitution/Bill of Rights that there must be a separation of religion and government.  Quite the opposite... if one wants religion in his lifestyle (including politically)... he has that right.

[dinar_stud]

What a bunch of nonsense!   Obscure?!!   It's IN THE CONSTITUTION!

 

As I wrote in response to Francie26's thread today:

 

Good for you Fran!  I heard Mark Levin talking about this last night on his radio show.  These "remedies" are already written in our Constitution and have existed from 1787, with George Mason as the initial proponent... and unanimously ratified.   Mark consistently brings attention to this, as well as others in his book "The Liberty Ammendements".

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/172320-convention-of-states/#ixzz2tFQFnKOl

 

Furthermore, this false concept/narrative of "Separation of Church and State" has been perpetuated by progressives forever.  There is no such such thing... it's just a catchy phrase.  The natural result of the First Amendment is the separation "from the government" by citizens exercising their religious freedom!  Unfortunately, it has become commonly "understood" that that means religion must have no part in a person's political life... and more commonly, in the politics of the collective as a whole... the government.

 

 

 

You are the first person that I know that has put Thoma jefferson in the progressive movement. The words "separation of church and state" came from a letter from him to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut in 1802.  

[mrbadwrench]

The Constitutional convention is what the states are calling for . (You can only amend the Constitution not fundamentally change it) Some of the subjects to be discussed are term limits for congress and the supreme court , and getting rid of the 27th amendment (That's when senators became an elected official instead of being appointed by state governors , to give state governments representation in the federal government.) Any new amendments must be ratified by 3/5's(32) of the of the state legislatures . So no it not going to change our country in any major way. I think you should concentrate on what's going on with the current administration , like changing a law or choosing what part of a law to enforce through executive order and regulation , that should worry you more than a Constitutional convention.

[dinar_stud]

Tell me when  and why did "In God we trust" appear in US currency??  And when  and why did they add " Under God" in the pledge of alliegence????

 

 

I can and give you the dates and why but it would give further proof that we are and never have been a christian nation.

[Jaxinjersey]

You are the first person that I know that has put Thoma jefferson in the progressive movement. The words "separation of church and state" came from a letter from him to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut in 1802.  

You are correct, but Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the perversion of the "concept", that's my point!  The catchy phrase has been misconstrued as "the law"... it is not.  That's the reality of it. 

[dinar_stud]

Convention of the States: Wrong on History, Nullification

 

 

Sometimes it seems that many of the “scholars” tying their names and reputations to the Convention of the States (COS) movement seem to make misstatements that call into question their credibility.

 

 

 

For example, the following bit of “history” is recounted on the COS FAQ page:

 

 

 

This claim that Congress gets to choose the delegates also goes against common sense. Just because one party "calls" a convention, doesn't it mean it gets to choose the delegates for the other parties. Think about it. Virginia called the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Did it get to choose the delegates for Massachusetts? Of course not. Massachusetts did. Each state chooses its own delegates; it doesn't matter who calls the convention. This is Agency law 101 and basic common sense.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let’s look closely at the details of this paragraph.

 

 

 

First, who called the Philadelphia Convention of 1787? Virginia, as the COS claims? No! The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called by the Continental Congress on February 21, 1787.

 

 

 

Not only did Virginia not call the Philadelphia Convention, but the report from the Continental Congress calling for states to send delegates to it highlights the role played by New York, not the Old Dominion.

 

 

 

So, on their website, rather than ignore a bit of history that doesn’t fit their purposes, the COS misrepresents the historical record, perhaps hoping people would not take the time to research the subject for themselves.

 

 

 

Such a revision may seem minor, but if an Article V convention was such a good idea, one as safe and supported by history as the COS scholars say, why would they need to fiddle with the historical record at all?

 

 

 

Furthermore, does it seem wise or safe to trust the care of something as potentially powerful as a constitutional convention to a group whose leadership can’t get right such basic facts of American history, particularly the history of the Constitution Convention itself?

 

 

 

Next, despite its citation of principles of “Agency law 101,” the COS movement’s attitude toward nullification ignores basic tenets of the law of agency that would have been taught in that fictional class.

 

 

 

The law of agency applies when one party gives another party legal authority to act on the first party’s behalf. The first party is called the principal and the second party is called the agent. The principal may grant the agent as much or as little authority as suits his purpose. That is to say, by simply giving an agent certain powers, that agent is not authorized to act outside of that defined sphere of authority. 

 

 

 

Upon its ratification, the states, as principals, gave limited power to the central government to act as their agent in certain matters of common concern: defense, taxation, interstate commerce, etc.

 

 

 

The authority of the agent — in this case the federal government — is derived from the agreement that created the principal/agent relationship. Whether the agent is lawfully acting on behalf of the principal is a question of fact. The agent may legally bind the principal only insofar as its actions lie within the contractual boundaries of its power. Should the agent exceed the scope of its authority, not only is the principal not held accountable for those acts, but the breaching agent is legally liable to the principal (and any affected third parties who acted in reliance on the agent’s authority) for that breach.

 

 

 

Under the law of agency, the principal may revoke the agent’s authority at will. It would be unreasonable to oblige the principals to honor promises of an agent acting outside the boundaries of its authority as set out in the document that created the agency in the first place.

 

 

 

Imagine the chaos that would be created if principals were legally bound by the acts of an agent that “went rogue” and acted prejudicially to the interests of the principals from whom he derived any power in the first place. It is a fundamental tenet of the law of agency that the agent may lawfully act only for the benefit of the principal.

 

 

 

Inexplicably, this is the position taken by COS when they argue that the states may not nullify unconstitutional federal acts and refuse to be bound by an agent that repeatedly exceeds its authority. Not only does this agent (the federal government) habitually breach the agency contract, but it does so in a manner that irreparably harms the principal (the states).

 

 

 

Finally, let's use an analogy to put a finer point on the agency angle specifically and the need to alter the Constitution generally.

 

 

 

Imagine that a person agrees with a contractor to build a house. The two parties meet and sign off on a contract for the building of the house which includes a blueprint of the home. The contractor begins work, but after a while decides to start building wings on the house that weren’t provided for in the contract and the blueprint and starts running up enormous debts to build these extra-contractual additions.

 

 

 

When the future homeowner visits the building site, what should his reaction be? Should he decide that he should go back to the contract and change parts of it, adding provisions reiterating the general contractor’s restrictions and responsibilities?

 

 

 

Would a contractor with such obvious disregard for contractual limits on his power be likely to suddenly begin being bound by the new restrictions? Not likely.

 

 

 

This is exactly what the COS people are promising, though. They state that even though the federal government “is spending this country into the ground,” the best way to stop this abuse of power is to add new restrictions to those already included in the original contract (the Constitution) that forbid this type of overreach. 

 

 

 

Those of us opposing an Article V convention, however, believe that the best way to stop the federal government’s constant disregard of constitutional limits on its power is for states (the principals) to enforce those limits. 

 

 

 

We realize that the federal government will treat any new amendment restricting its authority the same way they treat those already in the contract.

[gymrat76541]

Yeah and the extremist from every corner of crazyland want to do the exact same thing. They all have the same chance - slim to none!

[dinar_stud]

You are correct, but Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the perversion of the "concept", that's my point!  The catchy phrase has been misconstrued as "the law"... it is not.  That's the reality of it. 

 

 

He was the first to expalin it as we know now. The facvt that the far right ignores because it debunks their notion of  "we are a christian nation". you should read up in the history of that letter.

 

Another fact that proves we are not a christian nation comes from The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

 

 

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.

 

Edited February 14, 2014 by dinar_stud

[Jaxinjersey]

Tell me when  and why did "In God we trust" appear in US currency??  And when  and why did they add " Under God" in the pledge of alliegence????

 

 

I can and give you the dates and why but it would give further proof that we are and never have been a christian nation.

I agree with you Stud!   But we are free to be one, one person at a time!   See the difference?

[mrbadwrench]

Our country was founded on Christian values and the Bill of rights was written so there would be no established religion. "Under God" was added under president Eisenhower in 52 to stick a thumb in the eye of the Soviets.

[dinar_stud]

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

 

 

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

 

 

Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion, though it was not actually deleted in his draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon Jefferson's knowledge that his letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, he deleted the block, he says in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.

 

 

 

This letter is also presented online at Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson's spelling and punctuation.

Our country was founded on Christian values and the Bill of rights was written so there would be no established religion. "Under God" was added under president Eisenhower in 52 to stick a thumb in the eye of the Soviets.

 

 

Our nation was not founded on "christian values either. It was founded a secular nation. Our laws have been based on English Common law that has been in resistance since before Christians arrived to what today is the UK.

Edited February 14, 2014 by dinar_stud

[Jaxinjersey]

He was the first to expalin it as we know now. The facvt that the far right ignores because it debunks their notion of  "we are a christian nation". you should read up in the history of that letter.

 

Another fact that proves we are not a christian nation comes from The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

Hmmm... you seem to be missing my message.  I don't think the Right, or the Far Right have any motive in their interpretation of the Constitution.  It's a common deflection to inject such an argument to distort the First Amendment.  

 

My discussion has nothing to do with whether we are a Christian nation, or not.  My point is simply that the government cannot compel me NOT to perceive MY nation as Christian, if that's where my values are. 

 

Thomas Jefferson was the first to explain it "as you, and others" want to interpret it!   It is not simply, "as WE (all) now know it", as you say.  Many understood it clearly as it was written so many years before... and still do now.

 

And please, keeping this respectful and civil... refrain from the "suggestions" that I "get better educated".  Thanks in advance. 

[Sentinel7]

God & Federalist Papers

 

FEDERALIST PAPERS

EXAMPLES OF FAITH-BASED EXPRESSIONS

|||

Founding Fathers Have Provided Significant Examples of Faith-Based Beliefs in Essays Arguing for Ratification of the Constitution.

It can be convincingly be argued that our US Constitution would not have been ratified had not the Federalist Papers convinced our country's founding fathers that it was in the interest of the thirteen individual states and of the United States, as a united whole, to do so.

Three of the founding fathers wrote jointly under the pen name of Plubius; Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay published a series of 85 essays, beginning immediately after the Constitutional Convention of September, 1787. And by the following spring their effort had succeded, the Constitution had been ratified.

In light of the affront taken by a minority of law-makers, judges, and citizens to the inclusion of "One Nation under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, a reading of the Federalist Papers can help dispel the fiction that our founding fathers envisioned a "fire-wall" between governance and theist or deist principles.

Knowing something of the factious temperment of people and the nature of people to divide with animosity over both frivolous and profound issues, our founding fathers did not shy away from initiating legislative measures in the Constitution that would work to minimize the power of any group or person, no matter their power, or numbers, or wealth.

Our founding fathers recognized that factions are elemental to the running of a government and they sought ways to minimize political and religious tyranny, but in writing the Federalist Papers they certainly expressed the country's clear connection with moral values and God.

Let us consider some of the ways in which the authors of the Federalist Papers display faith-based beliefs:

Essay 20, Topic 21, urges Americans to let their praise of gratitude for auspicious amity distinguising political counsels rise to heaven.

Essay 37, Topic 14, tells us that any person of pious reflection must perceive that in drafting the Constitution there is to be found in it a finger of that Almighty hand that has so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.

Essay 43, Topic 30, asserts that nothing is more repugnant than intolerance in political parties, stressing the importance of moderation the essay concludes that one cannot avoid a belief that the great principle of self-preservation is a transcendent law of both nature and God...

Essay 1, Topic 4, concludes that in politics, as in religion, it's absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecutions.

Essay 2, Topic 4, refers to God in three separate instances, referring to the country they wrote that God blessed it with a variety of soils, watered with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. In other instance the author makes note with equal pleasure that God gave this one connected country to one united people. And in a third instance wrote that it appears like this inheritance was designed by God for a band of breathern united by the strongest ties.

Essay 31, Topic 2, informs us that theorems may conflict with common sense. Mathematicians agree on the infinite divisibility of matter, the infinite divisibility of a finite thing, but that this is no more compreshensible to common sense than religious mysteries that non-believers have worked so hard to debunk.

Essay 37, Topic 10, addresses how difficult it is to express ideas and words clearly, without ambiguity. The task of clear writing is lameted, for when the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated.

Essay 44, Topic 24, sets forward the idea that there must be safeguards against the misuse of religion, in that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Essay 51, lets us know that in a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.

Essay 57, Topic 6, briefly elaborates that no qualification of wealth, birth, religious faith, or civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people.

The importance of the Federalist Papers in helping lay the foundation of the United States cannot be overestimated.

On one hand the authors expressed their faith-based beliefs but on the other hand they forged ahead in making certain that religion would not be permitted to divide the people or to otherwise tyrannize any individual or group.

However, by their very example in writing the Federalist Papers, its authors showed that while government may not make any law respecting an establishment of religion, expressions of faith-based beliefs are natural and wholesome whether in government or among the populace, the only criteria in government being to steadfastly remain within the expressed bounds of both the letter and spirit of the second amendment law.

 

                  

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

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

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Samuel Adams Quote – Let Us Become A Virtuous People Samuel Adams Quote – Be Worthy Of God’s Protection Thomas Jefferson Quote – The God Who Gave Us Life Gave Us Liberty George Washington Quote, Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in thy holy word John Adams, Let the pulpit resound with the doctrines and sentiments of religious liberty Alexander Hamilton, Natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator James Otis, All men have a natural right to be free There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the Law of Nature and the grant of God Almighty, who has given to all men a natural right to be free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so, if they please. Benjamin Franklin, What is Serving God, It’s Doing Good to Man Benjamin Franklin, On Bearing Fruit, Letter to Joseph Huey (6 June 1753)

The worship of God is a duty; the hearing and reading of sermons may be useful; but if men rest in hearing and praying, as too many do, it is as if a tree should value itself on being watered and putting forth leaves, though it never produced any fruit.

 

                                       No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

 

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

 

 

...vaya con Dios.

[Tripphood]

Please dinar stud. Were you dropped on your head as a child? Is your DNA strand polluted? You are ridiculous. Do you live in the United States of America?

[Markinsa]

Dinar_Stud, I see that Castro has you thoroughly indoctrinated.    Here's a 16 page document that refutes your and Obama's claim that America is no longer a Christian Nation.  Among those 16 pages is 4 pages of source references to support the opposing view.  So which revisionist history do you trust?  The side that doesn't provide references for their facts or the one that does? 

 

Jesus Loves You!

 

 

Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian

[Muleslayer]

Aaaaaahhahahahahahaha

One half of beves and butt head speaks again!

[mrbadwrench]

You are going to use English common law for your argument , you've obviously never heard of The Church of England , you know the established Christian state religion of the UK . US law is based somewhat on British common law but basic things , like "thou shall not kill" , steal , or bear false witness (that's lie) comes from the Judeo Christian faith , so yes you can say our laws reflect on the predominate religion of our Nation.  You also need to read the Declaration of Independence pay close attention to " God given rights".

[tkeaton]

Sorry Stud - some facts to refute your drivel:

 

The first English Bible printed in the United States was commissioned by Congress. The first mega-church in the United States was the worship services of the United States Congress in the Capitol building. Notes from many members of Congress mention how well the services were attended—on some Sundays even the speaker's platform was used to place chairs for the services. Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the "wall of separation" statement.

[George Hayduke]

Run away... run away! More Christian phobia... don't look at them... don't let them touch you... don't engage in balanced argumentation... and what ever you do, don't ask one to pray for you... you might end up SAY-YEVED... No sir-ee, ya wouldn't want that now would ya?

 

My uncle Ramos once told a bunch of overly educated citified boys that it's all right to come down here in this neck of the woods as ignorant as a butt hole and the locals won't mind one bit and will even share their sweet tea and hot buttered corn bread.  Just don't go and spoil the day by fart'n in public.

 

It tends to bring the Bible out in 'em.

[Nelg]

I didn't read all the "to-ing and fro-ing" of this thread.  Therefore what I am about to say may be offensive to some of you, while others may disagree and think that I am against the government, the church, and the constitution.  It really doesn't matter.

I will not make this a long dissertation, so you shouldn't get bogged down.

 

1.  The kingdom of God, the body of Christ, the church is far above any government on earth and is ruled by the King of kings, Jesus Christ.  His authority are rule is all that a person needs for their rule of law.  Human governments are tolerated as ordained of God for this present world.

2.  The Christian should always follow the rule of God before all other laws of mankind. The body of Christ will always be a Kingdom within kingdoms.  We live under the direction of God while obeying the laws of the land in which we live. Christians can and do live in multiple human governments all over the world.  Should they work to change the government of their land?  Should they seek to change laws and make Christianity the ruling law?  NO!!!  Christianity changes the heart and brings one person at a time into compliance with the teachings of Christ.  That is done through conversion and not "overthrowing" the government.  

3.  To mingle the laws of man, in this case the Constitution, with the Law of God would reduce the influence and teaching of the Word of God to the dictates of mankind.  That is, mankind would try to change the Word of God (which some individuals think must happen) at the whims and impulses and desires of human mind.

4.  The Law of God is a law that is written on the heart of Christians.  Legislation and written laws of the Bible have little meaning without the power of God's Spirit within the heart.  The Spirit of Christ WITH the Bible become the force that changes the heart and actions of the individual to obedience of God and His direction; something the Constitution can NEVER do and is not meant to do.

5.  Christians do not need to build a "theocracy" or make the Constitution into a document that forms a theocratic government, we already have one and have no need for another.  Those who would seek to do so are theologically in error and need to restudy the teachings of Scripture. 

6.  Summation:  There is only one Kingdom for the saints of God and that is the body of Christ, the church.  We have one King, Jesus Christ and have one constitution, the Bible.  Anything else is an inferior and ever changing attempt by man to bring order to human society.  

[doctor robbins]

A theocracy is a church run government.  That would only be accomplished by a revolution to establish a new government like what happened in Iran.  How can you interpret a group of people following the process of the constitution to amend the constitution a revolution or an attempt to create a theocracy?  There have been 27 amendments in the history of the constitution, and none of them produced a new form of government.  I doubt that this movement will accomplish much, but they are certainly within their rights to attempt to enact change.  A slight overreaction if you ask me.