On March 6, 1789, President John Adams called for a national day of fasting and prayer for the country could "*call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgression, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience. . ."*
A few other quotes which demonstrate Adams’ thoughts about Jesus are below. On April 18, 1775, a British soldier ordered him, John Hancock, and others to “disperse in the name of George the Sovereign King of England. Adams responded to him: *“We recognize no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus!”* In an October 13, 1789 address to the military, he said: *"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."* In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated June 28, 1813, Adams said: “*The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.*” –*John Adams; June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.* *"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." **Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9* *=====* *"I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States."* *Alexander Hamilton, 1802 To John Baynard* ===== *"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? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." **Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.* *=====* "*While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.*" --*The Writings of George Washington, pp. 342-3* *=====* *The plan of education proposed is anti-Christian, and therefore repugnant to the law....The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith -- the Bible...There is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality...* *Both in the Old and New Testaments [religious instruction's] importance is recognized. In the Old it is said, 'Thou shalt diligently teach them to thy children,' and the New, 'Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not...' No fault can be found with Girard for wishing a marble college to bear his name forever, but it is not valuable unless it has a fragrance of Christianity about it.* The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. *Vidal v. Girard's Executors*, 43 U.S. 126,132 (1844). *Christianity...is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public...It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of...Deism, or any other form of infidelity.* *Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country...Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics...* *And we cannot overlook the blessings, which such [lay] men by their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay must, impart to their youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the [school] -- its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated?...* *Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?* *It is also said, and truly, **that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania... **Id.* (Emphasis Added) *(By Justice Storey) Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 43 U.S. 126,132-133 (1844). * ====== *That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. **Zorach v. Clauson*, (1952) ========= *“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.* *No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.The commission to Christopher Columbus...[recited] that 'it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered...'The first colonial grant made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584...and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony provided that they 'be not against the true Christian faith...'The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606...commenced the grant in these words: '...in propagating of Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness...'Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony...in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: 'Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith...a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia...'The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-1639, commence with this declaration: 'And well knowing where a people are gathered together, the Word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union...there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God...to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess...of the said Gospel [which] is now practiced amongst us.'In the Charter of Privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: '...No people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of...their religious profession and worship...'Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words:'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...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions...And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth...because of a general recognition of this truth [that we are a Christian nation], the question has seldom been presented to the courts...There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people.While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. the Commonwealth, it was decided that, Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law...not Christianity with an established church...but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.And in The People v. Ruggles, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said: 'The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice...We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].'And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, this court observed: 'It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law...'If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all will, 'In the name of God, amen', the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe.These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation...we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality.Religion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind.” **Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,* (1892) *Issued by President George Washington, at the request of Congress, on October 3, 1789* *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 and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”* *Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.* *And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.* *Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.* George Washington On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:50 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > wrote: > No amount of revisionist history is going to change what we are as a Nation > --- > back at you. > > Benjamin Franklin > > Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to > rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His > Autobiography revels his skepticism, “My parents had given me betimes > religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in > the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of > age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I > found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of > Revelation itself. > > “. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that > they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; > for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared > to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through > Deist.” > > In an essay on “Toleration,” Franklin wrote: > > “If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in > Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been > persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians > thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one > another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution > in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it > wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here > [England] and in New England.” > > Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him: > > “It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin’s general good character > and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and > also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers” (Priestley’s > Autobiography) > > Thomas Paine > > This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early > Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote > in his famous The Age of Reason: > > “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the > Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any > church that I know of. My own mind is my church. “ > > “Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more > derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to > reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called > Christianity. “ > The U.S. Constitution > > The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself > upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it– the United > States Constitution. > > If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would > seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their > Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in > the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, > or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they > both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment’s says, “Congress shall > make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .” and in Article > VI, Section 3, “. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a > qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” > > Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the > Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802: > > “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.” > > Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation > between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the > Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say “freedom > of religion,” yet the First Amendment implies both. > > As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the > Virginia Act for Religious Freedom: > > “Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan > of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting > “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus > Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the > great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle > of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, > the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” > > James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and > State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held > similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 > July 1822: > > “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past > one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater > purity, the less they are mixed together.” > > Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church > and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at > the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and > towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced > from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity. > The Declaration of Independence > > Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually > present the Declaration as “proof.” The reason appears obvious: the > document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not > describe Christianity’s God. It describes “the Laws of Nature and of > Nature’s God.” This nature’s view of God agrees with deist philosophy but > any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail > for this reason alone. > [image: Article XI from the Treaty of Tripoli] > <http://www.earlyamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/titleXI.jpg> > > Article XI from the Treaty of Tripoli > > Article XI from the Treaty of Tripoli > > More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the land > as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at announcing > their separation from Great Britain and listed the various grievances with > the “thirteen united States of America.” The grievances against Great > Britain no longer hold, and we have more than thirteen states. Today, the > Declaration represents an important historical document about rebellious > intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our > independent government. Although the Declaration may have influential > power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets, and judges may mention > it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. Our presidents, > judges and policemen must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but > never to the Declaration of Independence. > > Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it aimed > at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious monarchy. > It observed that all men “are created equal” meaning that we all come > inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. > That “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” The > Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity, nor does > it imply anything about a Christian foundation. > Treaty of Tripoli > > Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government > divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not > require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an > unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few > foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. 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 United States 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: > [image: Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul General of Algiers] > <http://www.earlyamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/barlow.jpg> > > Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul General of Algiers > > Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul General of Algiers > Copyright National Portait Gallery Smithsonian Institution/Art Resource NY > > “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.” > > 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. Barlow, along > with his associate, Captain Richard O’Brien, et al, translated and modified > the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added > 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 that our government > did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of > Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according > to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2). > > Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only > lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly > represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the > U.S. government. > Common Law > [image: Signers of the Treaty of Tripoli] > <http://www.earlyamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/treatyback.jpg> > > Signers of the Treaty of Tripoli > > Signers of the Treaty of Tripoli > > 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. > Christian Sources > > Virtually all the evidence that attempts to connect a foundation of > Christianity upon the government rests mainly on quotes and opinions from a > few of the colonial statesmen who had professed a belief in Christianity. > Sometimes the quotes come from their youth before their introduction to > Enlightenment ideas or simply from personal beliefs. But statements of > beliefs, by themselves, say nothing about Christianity as the source of the > U.S. government. > > There did occur, however, some who wished a connection between church and > State. Patrick Henry, for example, proposed a tax to help sustain “some > form of Christian worship” for the state of Virginia. But Jefferson and > other statesmen did not agree. In 1779, Jefferson introduced a bill for the > Statute for Religious Freedom which became Virginia law. Jefferson designed > this law to completely separate religion from government. None of Henry’s > Christian views ever got introduced into Virginia’s or U.S. Government law. > > Unfortunately, later developments in our government have clouded early > history. The original Pledge of Allegiance, authored by Francis Bellamy in > 1892 did not contain the words “under God.” Not until June 1954 did those > words appear in the Allegiance. The United States currency never had “In > God We Trust” printed on money until after the Civil War. Many Christians > who visit historical monuments and see the word “God” inscribed in stone, > automatically impart their own personal God of Christianity, without > understanding the Framers Deist context. > > In the Supreme Court’s 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, Justice > David Brewer wrote that “this is a Christian nation.” Many Christians use > this as evidence. However, Brewer wrote this in dicta, as a personal > opinion only and does not serve as a legal pronouncement. Later Brewer felt > obliged to explain himself: “But in what sense can [the United States] be > called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the > established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support > it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘Congress > shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting > the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all > its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all > religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess > other religions, and many reject all.” > Conclusion > > The Framers derived an independent government out of Enlightenment > thinking against the grievances caused by Great Britain. Our Founders paid > little heed to political beliefs about Christianity. The 1st Amendment > stands as the bulkhead against an establishment of religion and at the same > time insures the free expression of any belief. The Treaty of Tripoli, an > instrument of the Constitution, clearly stated our non-Christian > foundation. We inherited common law from Great Britain which derived from > pre-Christian Saxons rather than from Biblical scripture. > > Today we have powerful Christian organizations who work to spread > historical myths about early America and attempt to bring a Christian > theocracy to the government. If this ever happens, then indeed, we will > have ignored the lessons from history. Fortunately, most liberal Christians > today agree with the principles of separation of church and State, just as > they did in early America. > > “They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country > mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm > that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the > clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point” > > -Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835 > > On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 10:43:18 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >> >> Sadly, (for you) the facts are; well....The Facts. No amount of >> revisionist history is going to change what we are as a Nation, no matter >> how hard you try, and until you can find a majority of Moonbats to >> subscribe to your Anti-American rhetoric, again, sadly for you, *"It >> Is~~The Way That It Is"*..... >> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:28 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> And obviously, you don't like it. Learn to love it, because it's here >>> to stay..... >>> --- >>> your insistence on making the USA a xian nation proves you to be >>> something other than American. >>> the founding fathers made it clear that America is a secular nation. >>> they knew how fucking stupid and ignorant that religious myth believers >>> can be. >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 10:22:54 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >>>> >>>> And obviously, you don't like it. Learn to love it, because it's here >>>> to stay..... >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:00 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Christian/Judeo law is the law of the land, whether you like it or >>>>> not..... >>>>> --- >>>>> complete bs. >>>>> >>>>> Why not let the Constitution speak for itself? If the FF's had wanted >>>>> a country specifically based on "Judeo-Christian values"', why wouldn't >>>>> they have gone ahead and written the Constitution to reflect that? As it >>>>> is, they wrote the foundational document for our nation so that the only >>>>> mention of religion was a negative, ie the government may not get into the >>>>> religion business. >>>>> If they had wanted a Judeo-Christian nation, wouldn't they have >>>>> mentioned Jesus or Abraham somewhere in our founding documents? >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 9:22:24 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Christian/Judeo law is the law of the land, whether you like it or >>>>>> not..... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:41 PM, plainolamerican < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> our courts will override sharia law just like it does judaic law. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 3:28:10 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.cbn.com/tv/embedplayer.aspx?bcid=1509282970001 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 3:42 PM, plainolamerican < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A top Jewish immigration group -- an organization >>>>>>>>> <http://www.hias.org/history> "Founded in 1881 originally to >>>>>>>>> assist Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe" -- is >>>>>>>>> fighting to >>>>>>>>> bring Syrian refugees to America. The group is called HIAS, which once >>>>>>>>> meant Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. >>>>>>>>> [image: syria] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mark Hetfield, the president and CEO of HIAS, emailed supporters >>>>>>>>> last week to thank them for their generosity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "We are leading the American Jewish response to the Syrian refugee >>>>>>>>> crisis. We are on the ground in Europe and, more importantly, >>>>>>>>> demanding >>>>>>>>> that our own government and others around the world take bold action >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> ensure that Syrian refugees can rebuild their lives in safety and >>>>>>>>> freedom," >>>>>>>>> Hetfield boasted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On its website, the Jewish group is calling for the United States >>>>>>>>> to bring in 100,000 Syrian refugees. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Stories and photos documenting the unspeakably tragic plight of >>>>>>>>> Syrian refugees have shocked the world. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "We cannot stand by idly and watch the largest humanitarian crisis >>>>>>>>> of our generation unfold. Our country and the American Jewish >>>>>>>>> community >>>>>>>>> must step in now to provide protection and aid for Syrian refugees," >>>>>>>>> Hias >>>>>>>>> writes on its website. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Secretary of State Kerry recently announced that the United >>>>>>>>> States will take in 15,000 refugees above our normal refugee >>>>>>>>> resettlement >>>>>>>>> operations (85,000 in total in Fiscal Year 2016, 100,000 in 2017). >>>>>>>>> This is >>>>>>>>> a symbolic gesture—not a response to a crisis. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 9:44:39 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> creeping posted: "This is an obvious move, but we predict it is >>>>>>>>>> temporary at best. Governor Snyder, a Republican, is the >>>>>>>>>> self-proclaimed >>>>>>>>>> "most pro-immigration governor in the country." His state boasts the >>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>> American city ever taken over by Muslims and he fully support" >>>>>>>>>> Respond >>>>>>>>>> to this post by replying above this line >>>>>>>>>> New post on *Creeping Sharia* >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/author/creeping/> Michigan: >>>>>>>>>> Governor suspends Syrian refugee resettlement…for now >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/michigan-governor-suspends-syrian-refugee-resettlement-for-now/> >>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>> creeping <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/author/creeping/> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is an obvious move, but we predict it is temporary at best. >>>>>>>>>> Governor Snyder, a Republican, is the self-proclaimed "most >>>>>>>>>> pro-immigration >>>>>>>>>> governor in the country." His state boasts the first American city >>>>>>>>>> ever >>>>>>>>>> taken over by Muslims and he fully supports that even boasting about >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> growing Muslim enclave called Banglatown. Furthermore, he's relying >>>>>>>>>> on DHS >>>>>>>>>> […] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Read more of this post >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/michigan-governor-suspends-syrian-refugee-resettlement-for-now/> >>>>>>>>>> *creeping <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/author/creeping/>* >>>>>>>>>> | November 16, 2015 at 10:15 AM | Tags: Creeping Sharia >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/creeping-sharia/>, >>>>>>>>>> islam <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/islam/>, law >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/law/>, Legal >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/legal/>, Life >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/life/>, Media >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/media/>, Muslim >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/muslim/>, News >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/news/>, Politics >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/politics/>, Random >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/random/>, Religion >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/religion/>, Sharia >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/sharia/>, terrorism >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/terrorism/>, travel >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/tag/travel/> | Categories: >>>>>>>>>> Creeping >>>>>>>>>> Sharia >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/category/creeping-sharia/>, >>>>>>>>>> Immigration >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/category/immigration/>, >>>>>>>>>> Legal <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/category/legal/>, >>>>>>>>>> Media <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/category/media/>, >>>>>>>>>> Michigan >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/category/michigan/>, News >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/category/news/>, Politics >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/category/politics/>, >>>>>>>>>> Religion >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/category/religion/>, Sharia >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/category/creeping-sharia/sharia/> >>>>>>>>>> | URL: http://wp.me/pbU4v-kNL >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Comment >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/michigan-governor-suspends-syrian-refugee-resettlement-for-now/#respond> >>>>>>>>>> See all comments >>>>>>>>>> <https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/michigan-governor-suspends-syrian-refugee-resettlement-for-now/#comments> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe >>>>>>>>>> <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=9a7ed2eca0a37fc8484230edc68d3f28&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com&b=adu95MiXp3V.KyyC%25xrsz%3FGYq17gF.Oyu9%263W8%25RGLPkw9CtI1> >>>>>>>>>> to no longer receive posts from Creeping Sharia. >>>>>>>>>> Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions >>>>>>>>>> <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=9a7ed2eca0a37fc8484230edc68d3f28&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com>. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/michigan-governor-suspends-syrian-refugee-resettlement-for-now/ >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>>>>>> For options & help see >>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>> >>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
