Thread: America betrays its founding fathers

America betrays its founding fathers.

the first amendment of American constitution clearly states that the amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.


but today america is mostly evangelical christian country with a party (republican) which is almost christian fundamentalist party.this is an establishment of religion.

in this case mentioned above, america violates its own constitution thus america betrays its founding fathers.

today practitioner of religion other than christianity i.e. atheism, wicca etc. are harassed in numerous ways. this is impeding the free exercise of religion.

in this case mentioned above, america violates its own constitution thus america betrays its founding fathers.

in america , acts like SOPA, patriot which abridges the freedom of speech, are passed.

in this case mentioned above, america violates its own constitution thus america betrays its founding fathers.

in america the press policy is censorship which infringes the freedom of the press. this censorship often caused distorted news.

in this case mentioned above, america violates its own constitution thus america betrays its founding fathers.

when police attacks peaceful demonstrators outside college or govt. office protesting peacefully against govt. policy, they violate the right to peaceably assemble .


in this case mentioned above, america violates its own constitution thus america betrays its founding fathers.


what do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution

First of all, America is not a "mostly evangelical christian country with a party (republican) which is almost christian fundamentalist party." Where did you get an idea like that? Second, if it were a mostly evangelical christian fundamentalist country that would in no way be an establishment of a religion. Establishment of religion means having an official state religion, such as those in many Muslim countries.

The right to peaceably assemble does not include the right to take over a park and camp in it, incurring thousands of dollars in damage.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches.



so, first amendment did not prevent state govt. from establishing official churches. church is the symbol of christianity. so america has an established state religion called christianity.now lets imagine, if every state has its official church then couldn't we conclude that America itself will have an established religion though not officially but unofficially.

thus America betrays its founding fathers.

secondly:All current State constitutions do mention a Creator . why? why they mention a creator? there should not be any official mention of a creator if 1st amendment is honestly followed.the idea of a creator is also borrowed from christianity.so america has an established state religion called christianity.

thus America betrays its founding fathers.

source:State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

moreover The constitutions of eight states (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) also contain clauses that prohibit atheists from holding public office.

why the state constitutions have such a clause at all? these are big symbol of christianity being the official state religion.

thus america betrays its founding fathers.

source:State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The simple answer to why those States still have such clauses, is the legislations of those States have been too cowardly to remove them because of their Christian populations, despite knowing they would quickly be ordered to remove them if ever taken to court.

Until the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, it was perfectly legal for those states to have AND enforce that provision --- That was about "four score and 7 years" after the founding fathers. To be fair, Hamilton, J Q Adams. and a few others had it in their minds already but it was not well defined in the original Constitution. Supreme Court Justice John Marshal moved had moved us towards federalism in a few key decision, as well as demonstrating the full power of the courts as a equal to the executive and legislative branched (something that came as a surprise to many).

The long and short of it is what your think the founders intended actually didn't happen until nearly 80 years after the American Revolution. As brilliant as they were, our founders left a great deal of things for the nation to figure out later.

Originally Posted by xxx200

moreover The constitutions of eight states (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) also contain clauses that prohibit atheists from holding public office.

why the state constitutions have such a clause at all? these are big symbol of christianity being the official state religion.

thus america betrays its founding fathers.

source:State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why are you concerned about something that the courts have ruled unenforceable? What is you interest in the laws of the US, anyway? How about if we dissect the laws of your country?

Originally Posted by harold

Establishment of religion means having an official state religion, such as those in many Muslim countries.

No. It means governmental power or resources used to support a religion or specifically religious agenda - "establish" by any means, not merely official adoption.

Originally Posted by Harold

The right to peaceably assemble does not include the right to take over a park and camp in it, incurring thousands of dollars in damage.

Yes it does.

As soon as you start destroying property than it's no longer peaceable and by definition no longer a protected right.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by Harold

The right to peaceably assemble does not include the right to take over a park and camp in it, incurring thousands of dollars in damage.

Yes it does.

Do I have a right to camp in your back yard?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

As soon as you start destroying property than it's no longer peaceable

They damaged lawns, didn't they?

Come on, bizzaro lawyer is not what Americans are respected for. You guys have been so much larger.



Okay, this is my business:
xxx200, if you want to see betrayal read the US Constitution's "Supremacy Clause". This is where, in the same keystone sentence it declares itself ("This Constitution") to be "the supreme law of the land", international treaties are named as equally supreme law of the land. So treaties were supposed to be honoured with the same diligence as the Constitution itself. Is this how the modern USA operates?

The U.S. betrayed its founding fathers when blacks and women got the vote.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The U.S. betrayed its founding fathers when blacks and women got the vote.

Incorrect. The founding fathers provided an amendment process. Presumably, they expected it to be used. The betrayers are those who want to change the constitution without amending it, such as the creeping socialist legislation that has been passed over the years.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The U.S. betrayed its founding fathers when blacks and women got the vote.

Wow. A in E is as offensive as ever, I see.

It is offensive, but make the blunt point that many of the things XXX200 (sounds like an eliptical machine name) takes for granted and assumes were the intent of the funding fathers, were in fact developed generations later long after the founders were dead.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

It is offensive, but make the blunt point that many of the things XXX200 (sounds like an eliptical machine name) takes for granted and assumes were the intent of the funding fathers, were in fact developed generations later long after the founders were dead.

and what are those things Mr. lynx_fox (sounds like code name of CIA agent) ? can you give some example?

Originally Posted by Pong

Okay, this is my business:
xxx200, if you want to see betrayal read the US Constitution's "Supremacy Clause". This is where, in the same keystone sentence it declares itself ("This Constitution") to be "the supreme law of the land", international treaties are named as equally supreme law of the land. So treaties were supposed to be honoured with the same diligence as the Constitution itself. Is this how the modern USA operates?

yes i agree. most of the law of US are unconstitutional. America is betraying its founding fathers.

Originally Posted by xxx200

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

It is offensive, but make the blunt point that many of the things XXX200 (sounds like an eliptical machine name) takes for granted and assumes were the intent of the funding fathers, were in fact developed generations later long after the founders were dead.

and what are those things Mr. lynx_fox (sounds like code name of CIA agent) ? can you give some example?

The biggest is the assumption that the Federal US constitution applied to the States, when in fact NON of the US Constitutional bill of rights were viewed as restrictions on the States to regulate their own affairs and establish their own rights until after the Civil War.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The U.S. betrayed its founding fathers when blacks and women got the vote.

Wow. A in E is as offensive as ever, I see.

Offensive? I'm not saying Blacks and Women should not have the vote. I'm saying the Founding Fathers said they should not have the vote. Blacks and women were not even people under the law of the Founding Fathers .. thus, that they now have the vote and are actually people is a betrayal to everything the founding fathers believed in. Please note that there were no "Founding Mothers."

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

I'm saying the Founding Fathers said they should not have the vote.

I am not particularly familiar with the American constitution, but does it actually say that?

p.s. my apologies for misinterpreting you.

I am not particularly familiar with the American constitution, but does it actually say that?

Not explicitly but Article 1, section : "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons "

The long and short of it is it established that the states made the rules, that population, and hence voting, only applied to the house of representatives--not to the Senate or President (which it still doesn't), only to free persons (a minority of blacks) and by 3/5 of others (most blacks) except the Native Americans who got no representation at all. States would come up with a variety of systems, many copied the British model of only white male landowners for a decade or two, others would have provisions for those who fought in the Revolution, elected representatives would also have different rules applied such as only Christian etc.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The U.S. betrayed its founding fathers when blacks and women got the vote.

Wow. A in E is as offensive as ever, I see.

Offensive? I'm not saying Blacks and Women should not have the vote. I'm saying the Founding Fathers said they should not have the vote. Blacks and women were not even people under the law of the Founding Fathers .. thus, that they now have the vote and are actually people is a betrayal to everything the founding fathers believed in. Please note that there were no "Founding Mothers."

How fashionable of you to sneer at these men and their eighteenth century values. They practically invented the very concept of personal liberty that you take for granted today. You are not a patch on the ass of any one of them.

Originally Posted by xxx200

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

It is offensive, but make the blunt point that many of the things XXX200 (sounds like an eliptical machine name) takes for granted and assumes were the intent of the funding fathers, were in fact developed generations later long after the founders were dead.

and what are those things Mr. lynx_fox (sounds like code name of CIA agent) ? can you give some example?

Read the amendments to the Constitution. The process was defined in the original document, which allows amemdments following a rigorous and difficult process. Tht's why there are so few.

I saw this man on freespeechtv, he was in a public area, with a firemans style mega-phone. He was reciting the 1st amendment threw the megaphone, (word for word), and he was arrested.

( He was arrested for publicly saying the 1st amendment, when the 1st amendment says, he has the right to do this. )

Where was it? Where's a link to the video? Was it in a hospital zone? Why was he doing it? Was it in the US? Was it on private property?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The U.S. betrayed its founding fathers when blacks and women got the vote.

Wow. A in E is as offensive as ever, I see.

Offensive? I'm not saying Blacks and Women should not have the vote. I'm saying the Founding Fathers said they should not have the vote. Blacks and women were not even people under the law of the Founding Fathers .. thus, that they now have the vote and are actually people is a betrayal to everything the founding fathers believed in. Please note that there were no "Founding Mothers."

How fashionable of you to sneer at these men and their eighteenth century values. They practically invented the very concept of personal liberty that you take for granted today. You are not a patch on the ass of any one of them.

How ingnorant you, Harold, are of history of the human race. U.S. style liberty has been around for 5,000 years at least, beginning with the Persian empire which abolished slavery in the founding nation and the conquerred nations.
However, that 'liberty' is and was based on the death of tens of millions, hundreds of millions of human beings .. Empire, Harold, is achieved through murder. My liberty is based on the Word of God which says to love your enemies, so I am set free (God willing) from the cycle of murder, death, "freedom of those conquerred and enslaved" and mass murder of the next least defensible empire. Freedom is not a national thing, it is a personal thing.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How fashionable of you to sneer at these men and their eighteenth century values. They practically invented the very concept of personal liberty that you take for granted today.

Didn't they steal it from the French?

Who later gave them the statue of La Liberté éclairant le monde as a reminder...

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

As soon as you start destroying property than it's no longer peaceable and by definition no longer a protected right.

In Dr. Strangelove, Mandrake is stopped by a U.S. serviceman from raiding a vending machine in order to get coins to make a telephone call to prevent global nuclear annihilation, "That's private property." It is a matter of priorities.

Nothing wrong with destroying BRITISH property, heheheh...they have no Constitution and no bloody rights even at home, let alone over here.

Besides, it is public property and as much theirs as anyone else's, so the "back yard" analogy is no good, Harold.

Maybe we should have a designated area for protests, paved, out of the way, maybe with barbed wire around it to, ummm, PROTECT the protesters, you know, someplace they could stay as long as they want- or longer...

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How fashionable of you to sneer at these men and their eighteenth century values. They practically invented the very concept of personal liberty that you take for granted today.

Didn't they steal it from the French?

Who later gave them the statue of La Liberté éclairant le monde as a reminder...

Oui Mon Ami .. the smiling lady of decapitation.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

How ingnorant you, Harold, are of history of the human race. U.S. style liberty has been around for 5,000 years at least, beginning with the Persian empire which abolished slavery in the founding nation and the conquerred nations.

It says here Slavery in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slavery was formally abolished in Persia in 1929.

Arthur Angler:

Besides, it is public property and as much theirs as anyone else's, so the "back yard" analogy is no good, Harold.

What back yard analogy?

Strange:

Didn't they steal it from the French?

They got most of the Bill of Rights from the English. But the point is, it's ridiculous to hold them to today's standards, like women's suffrage, which did not exist anywhere at the time.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by Harold

The right to peaceably assemble does not include the right to take over a park and camp in it, incurring thousands of dollars in damage.

Yes it does.

Do I have a right to camp in your back yard?

That one. Looks like you forgot it. And I have forgotten WHERE the ENGLISH Bill of Rights is, could you direct me to it, Harold, there's a good fellow. Is it perchance, another UNWRITTEN document?

Clever fellows, the English, making unwritten documents which carry the full weight of law- how DO they do it?

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by Harold

The right to peaceably assemble does not include the right to take over a park and camp in it, incurring thousands of dollars in damage.

Yes it does.

Do I have a right to camp in your back yard?

That one. Looks like you forgot it.

Have you ever seen a no camping sign on public property? I have. I guess left wing protestors don't have to worry about things like that. They're left-wingers, so they're special, right?

And I have forgotten WHERE the ENGLISH Bill of Rights is, could you direct me to it, Harold, there's a good fellow. Is it perchance, another UNWRITTEN document?

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the earliest documents used in drafting the American Bill of Rights was the English Bill of Rights of 1689, one of the fundamental documents of English constitutional law.

Clever fellows, the English, making unwritten documents which carry the full weight of law- how DO they do it?

[QUOTE=Harold14370;312072]

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

How ingnorant you, Harold, are of history of the human race. U.S. style liberty has been around for 5,000 years at least, beginning with the Persian empire which abolished slavery in the founding nation and the conquerred nations.

It says here Slavery in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slavery was formally abolished in Persia in 1929.

Harold, I apologize for using the word "ignorant," in describing your knowledge fo history, not because the word is incorrect linguistically, but because of its more common demeaning useage. I'm very sorry for not curbing my coarser side.


Iran is not Persia, although it seems the name Persia originates with the Greek. The nation of Iran is an invention of western powers following WW1, in order to destabilize the oil wealth of that area. I cannot find use of the name Iran in ancient history.

For maps of the Persian Empire I spoke of .. persia - Bing Images

An interesting thing in Persian laws was that a woman could not be married against her will .. so it seems the idea that women in the east are forced to marry is a modern thing, if it really exists.

A brief overview of Persia .. http://www.crystalinks.com/persia.html

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Iran is not Persia. For maps of the Persian Empire I spoke up .. persia - Bing Images

Huh? You must be talking political- historical context. It certainly is Persia from a geographical and cultural perspective.

[QUOTE=Aristarchus in Exile;312203]

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

How ingnorant you, Harold, are of history of the human race. U.S. style liberty has been around for 5,000 years at least, beginning with the Persian empire which abolished slavery in the founding nation and the conquerred nations.

It says here Slavery in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slavery was formally abolished in Persia in 1929.

Harold, I apologize for using the word "ignorant," in describing your knowledge fo history, not because the word is incorrect linguistically, but because of its more common demeaning useage. I'm very sorry for not curbing my coarser side.


Iran is not Persia. For maps of the Persian Empire I spoke up .. persia - Bing Images

The thing is, slavery may have been abolished in the Persian Empire, but by the time of the American founding fathers, it was back again (all the way up to 1929). So, I think they did do their part to bring about a new vision of personal liberty, without which you would not be free to spout off like you do.

[QUOTE=Harold14370;312206]

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

How ingnorant you, Harold, are of history of the human race. U.S. style liberty has been around for 5,000 years at least, beginning with the Persian empire which abolished slavery in the founding nation and the conquerred nations.

It says here Slavery in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slavery was formally abolished in Persia in 1929.

Harold, I apologize for using the word "ignorant," in describing your knowledge fo history, not because the word is incorrect linguistically, but because of its more common demeaning useage. I'm very sorry for not curbing my coarser side.


Iran is not Persia. For maps of the Persian Empire I spoke up .. persia - Bing Images

The thing is, slavery may have been abolished in the Persian Empire, but by the time of the American founding fathers, it was back again (all the way up to 1929). So, I think they did do their part to bring about a new vision of personal liberty, without which you would not be free to spout off like you do.

By 1929 the region of the world we call Iran and Iraq were long subjugated by western powers.

George Washington was a founding father, I believe. He owned slaves. He refused to recognize the Hatian revolutionary (slaves) government which defeated the French and achieved independance as the U.S. had from Britain. Here is some more recent history of U.S. intervention in what was once the most prosperous per-capital nation in the western hemisphere, a nation governed for and by blacks who were once slaves. "In January 1914, British, German and US forces entered Haiti, ostensibly to protect their citizens from civil unrest."

As far as personal liberty and freedom of speech in the U.S. goes, "Remember Kent State."

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Iran is not Persia. For maps of the Persian Empire I spoke up .. persia - Bing Images

Huh? You must be talking political- historical context. It certainly is Persia from a geographical and cultural perspective.

According to history the name Persia appears to have been a Greek invention, and I can't determine where the name Iran came from, certainly not any historical account I have read, at least not until after WW1.

The nations Iran and Iraq were set up by the west after WW1 to make war with each other so Britain, Europe and the U.S. could more easily steal the crude oil and natural gas.

It was considered Persia until quite recently. Iran? According the site: Iran and Persia - Are They the Same? it's a derivative word from Aryan. Pretty interesting considering how that word was applied during the last century.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

By 1929 the region of the world we call Iran and Iraq were long subjugated by western powers.

Right, and if not subjugated by western powers, the slave trade would no doubt have gone on well past 1929.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

According to history the name Persia appears to have been a Greek invention, and I can't determine where the name Iran came from, certainly not any historical account I have read, at least not until after WW1.

From the page Lynx_Fox linked to (just in case people can't be bothered to read the whole thing - although it is quite interesting)

We find the first use of the name Eran as a name for the Aryan nation in the rock inscriptions of the Persian Sassanian kings (who ruled from 226 to 651 [AD]).
...
In 1935 [AD], Reza Shah asked those countries with whom Iran had diplomatic relations, to stop using the name Persia and formally refer to the country as Iran.

Which suggests that the use of "Iran" is more a matter of diplomacy and good manners than any sort of conspiracy theory.

[nb: changed the date style in the quotes to avoid upsetting AinE's sensibilities ]

Originally Posted by Strange

[nb: changed the date style in the quotes to avoid upsetting AinE's sensibilities ]

Hey .. I never ever said I was sensible, Strange.

But strange how history exactly confirms the biblical account of the confusion and spread of languages .. sure wish I could find that link again showing how language spread east and west from the 'Iranian' plateau.. It seems the Greek name Persia might be more accurate than the name Iran .. "...Calling themselves the Parsa after their original Aryan tribal name Parsua..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire

It's also interesting that Iran has a large population of Orthodox Jews who insist that the state of Israel is a counterfeit, and that it was the Persian empire which freed the Jews from slavery in Babylon. "It is noted in Western history as the antagonist foe of the Greek city states^[4] during the Greco-Persian Wars, for emancipation of slaves including the Jewish people from their Babylonian captivity," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_o...oration#Return


Iran has been a Muslim state only in relatively very recent history.

History is meaningless, however, in the new religion of mass murder for the sake of crude oil and natural gas acquisition.

Iran has been a Muslim state only in relatively very recent history.

I'd hardly call 1400 years, "very recent history," it was one of the first areas taken over by Islam--it started the very next year after Mohammad died.

As for language spreading and warfare, it was central to culture conflicts between Asia, Arabia and India as well as being a huge crossing point for trade, cultural ideas & religion. All that kept it in almost constant conflict. Unfortunately oil is one more example at the end of a long list.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Iran has been a Muslim state only in relatively very recent history.

I'd hardly call 1400 years, "very recent history," it was one of the first areas taken over by Islam--it started the very next year after Mohammad died.

As for language spreading and warfare, it was central to culture conflicts between Asia, Arabia and India as well as being a huge crossing point for trade, cultural ideas & religion. All that kept it in almost constant conflict. Unfortunately oil is one more example at the end of a long list.

The origin of language in the eastern world appears to have begun on the Iranian plateau, long before national conflict. Even in that earliest history there were to slightly different languages, one went west, the other east, and of course both broke into uncountable languages.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The origin of language in the eastern world appears to have begun on the Iranian plateau

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but there is a lot of indirect evidence that language dates back at least 2 millions years to an origin in Africa.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The origin of language in the eastern world appears to have begun on the Iranian plateau

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but there is a lot of indirect evidence that language dates back at least 2 millions years to an origin in Africa.

I meant in the area of Europe, India, China. Yes .. history gets murkey .. even turkeys have their language (I purposely misspelled murkey for the purpose of the turkeys.) It's interesting that language appears to be written into DNA .. with medical examples of people suffering brain damage awaking to an ability to speak a totally unlearned language.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

It's interesting that language appears to be written into DNA

It is generally thought that the language ability "piggy backs" on more general patter-handling and memory functions.

.. with medical examples of people suffering brain damage awaking to an ability to speak a totally unlearned language.

There is no evidence of that. You may be thinking of "foreign accent syndrome".

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

It's interesting that language appears to be written into DNA

It is generally thought that the language ability "piggy backs" on more general patter-handling and memory functions.

.. with medical examples of people suffering brain damage awaking to an ability to speak a totally unlearned language.

There is no evidence of that. You may be thinking of "foreign accent syndrome".

There have been a few stories in the newspapers .. the last one fairly recent, a woman in Florida. Not just accents .. entire languages.

Doubtful. Or badly misinterpreted. A fews ago, I had an experience with my dad that might be similar. He had a heart attack and it was touch and go for a few days. During the first day at ER he'd only response in French his childhood language, even though he'd learned and been using English for 50+ years.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

There have been a few stories in the newspapers .. the last one fairly recent, a woman in Florida. Not just accents .. entire languages.

Obviously just bad reporting, then.

Yeah, using newpaper articles as scientific sources. Have you ever read what's said in the media, then looked at the scientific papers that it's based on? They are not usually even from the same planet, since most "reporters" don't know the first thing about science, and just want to write a quick hype article in 3 minutes or less so they can "post" it first.

Meteor, Strange and Lynx: if newspaper and other popular media reports are so inaccurate why do you seemingly base your entire understanding of the New Testament and Christian religion on them?

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Meteor, Strange and Lynx: if newspaper and other popular media reports are so inaccurate why do you seemingly base your entire understanding of the New Testament and Christian religion on them?

Huh?
Most of my early impressions come from church and reading the bible as a teenager and growing realization that most of it was rubbish mythology as I learned science. Later from reading what our founding fathers had to say from a purely rational point of view. As an adult from comparing them to various other religions as my word travels put me in other cultures living with Europeans, Iraqi and working in SE Asia. And I've read a tremendous amount of more secular writings from people like Pliny the Elder, Spinoza, Bruno, Voltaire, Averroes--and more contemporary philosophers. Most media the US is pro-Christian in a big way anyhow, often so biased we don't even notice it against the back drop of our culture, anymore than an Kuwaiti notices he can't say hello with mentioning Allah.

Not sure what your question (or my answer) has to do with the thread exactly.

My opinion is that america is violating its own constitution, realistically speaking not only like in the example above but in many ways american people don't even realize, there is a handful of rich people in United States that basically orchestrate almost every aspect of people lives, to reach their own personal goals of money and power. I don't understand why American politicians go around world "trying to fix other countries problems" when life in US gets worse by day, why would they spend people's money on war, when they can use to help their own people? Good life in US is long gone, just because of that kind of politician thinking, NOT opinions of ordinary people.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Meteor, Strange and Lynx: if newspaper and other popular media reports are so inaccurate why do you seemingly base your entire understanding of the New Testament and Christian religion on them?

Huh?
Most of my early impressions come from church and reading the bible as a teenager and growing realization that most of it was rubbish mythology as I learned science. Later from reading what our founding fathers had to say from a purely rational point of view. As an adult from comparing them to various other religions as my word travels put me in other cultures living with Europeans, Iraqi and working in SE Asia. And I've read a tremendous amount of more secular writings from people like Pliny the Elder, Spinoza, Bruno, Voltaire, Averroes--and more contemporary philosophers. Most media the US is pro-Christian in a big way anyhow, often so biased we don't even notice it against the back drop of our culture, anymore than an Kuwaiti notices he can't say hello with mentioning Allah.

Not sure what your question (or my answer) has to do with the thread exactly.

The 'Founding Fathers' professed to be founding a nation based on biblical truth.

Lynx, you honestly have my sympathies, because I'm sure your teenage years were as confused and traumatic as are almost all teenagers including myself, very often because of hypocritical practices of the so-called churches. However, now that you are grown I suggest you re-read the King James version, not skipping parts which you have forgotten exist, as Dayton Turner points out that you ignore texts regarding slaves and marrying of daughters. I came to my own knowledge of the bible after an adult search for Truth, at the age of 30, at a time when I still believed in Truth, not connecting Truth with God or any religion, except that I thought perhaps a man named Jesus had existed, and that, as Napoleon Bonaparte said, "He was a man unlike any other."

Originally Posted by slavenenco

My opinion is that america is violating its own constitution, realistically speaking not only like in the example above but in many ways american people don't even realize, there is a handful of rich people in United States that basically orchestrate almost every aspect of people lives, to reach their own personal goals of money and power. I don't understand why American politicians go around world "trying to fix other countries problems" when life in US gets worse by day, why would they spend people's money on war, when they can use to help their own people? Good life in US is long gone, just because of that kind of politician thinking, NOT opinions of ordinary people.

In today's empires, under whatsoever flag flown, "We the People" are the monster .. each one individualy supporting the empire in order to further his or her own personal goals of empire. Except for scarce individuals Hippies converted to mass consumerism even as they burned their weed-based empire. Just yesterday I bought my daughter and grandaughter and myself three donuts, cost $6.00. I made a point of saying it would be the last time I bought a $2.00 donut .. and except for my statement my 9 year old grandaughter would have grown up thinking $2 was a fair price for a donut. What does she know about money until she has to enslave herself to a master who pays her peanuts in order to support her lust for $2 donuts?

Regardless of the intent of the founding fathers, Lincoln, FDR, etc., we can and must interrogate ourselves continually- "What does a truly good government do and how can we improve the performance of the current model accordingly?" This is the question all such worthy individuals strove to address originally, is it not?

Today we have additional questions posed by technology, e.g. modern challenges to privacy and freedom of the press in the era of the Internet.

Should a father consider beating her or selling his daughter to another man to show dignity as god thought ok? Don't bother to answer... most father's love their daughters. Probably best to keep the other thread out of here.

The 'Founding Fathers' professed to be founding a nation based on biblical truth.

Some did for sure, none strongly enough to decline signing the first international treaty which declared we weren't a Christian nation. Many others weren't conventional Christians by a long shot. There was probably a greater range of beliefs among the founding fathers than there is in today's representatives.

--
Lincoln, FDR--- they weren't founding fathers. Lincoln's Christianity is pretty questionable as well--something that constantly got him into political trouble in Illinois.

Today we have additional questions posed by technology, e.g. modern challenges to privacy and freedom of the press in the era of the Internet.

(nods)

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by slavenenco

My opinion is that america is violating its own constitution, realistically speaking not only like in the example above but in many ways american people don't even realize, there is a handful of rich people in United States that basically orchestrate almost every aspect of people lives, to reach their own personal goals of money and power. I don't understand why American politicians go around world "trying to fix other countries problems" when life in US gets worse by day, why would they spend people's money on war, when they can use to help their own people? Good life in US is long gone, just because of that kind of politician thinking, NOT opinions of ordinary people.

In today's empires, under whatsoever flag flown, "We the People" are the monster .. each one individualy supporting the empire in order to further his or her own personal goals of empire. Except for scarce individuals Hippies converted to mass consumerism even as they burned their weed-based empire. Just yesterday I bought my daughter and grandaughter and myself three donuts, cost $6.00. I made a point of saying it would be the last time I bought a $2.00 donut .. and except for my statement my 9 year old grandaughter would have grown up thinking $2 was a fair price for a donut. What does she know about money until she has to enslave herself to a master who pays her peanuts in order to support her lust for $2 donuts?

Peanuts are healthier than donuts, but are "We the people" truly responsible for inflation? No. Neither is the Federal government, and the oversight of that government regarding the total amount of money in circulation and other actions of the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM is negligible.

Under Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution the right to coin Money and regulate the Value thereof is delegated to the Congress, and no mention is made of the FEDERAL RESERVE. Perhaps if Congress took such responsibility seriously inflation would be a lesser menace. Most constituents would favor maintaining the purchasing power of their wages, certainly.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Should a father consider beating her or selling his daughter to another man to show dignity as god thought ok? Don't bother to answer... most father's love their daughters. Probably best to keep the other thread out of here.

The 'Founding Fathers' professed to be founding a nation based on biblical truth.

Some did for sure, none strongly enough to decline signing the first international treaty which declared we weren't a Christian nation. Many others weren't conventional Christians by a long shot. There was probably a greater range of beliefs among the founding fathers than there is in today's representatives.

--
Lincoln, FDR--- they weren't founding fathers. Lincoln's Christianity is pretty questionable as well--something that constantly got him into political trouble in Illinois.

Today we have additional questions posed by technology, e.g. modern challenges to privacy and freedom of the press in the era of the Internet.

(nods)

No, Lincoln and FDR were representatives of the same tradition in later eras and hence mentioned separately- and you mean "fathers", plural not possessive.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The 'Founding Fathers' professed to be founding a nation based on biblical truth.

Some did for sure, none strongly enough to decline signing the first international treaty which declared we weren't a Christian nation. Many others weren't conventional Christians by a long shot. There was probably a greater range of beliefs among the founding fathers than there is in today's representatives.

I only said the 'Founding Fathers' professed certain things, I did not say they believed them.

[QUOTE=Arthur Angler
Peanuts are healthier than donuts, but are "We the people" truly responsible for inflation? No. Neither is the Federal government, and the oversight of that government regarding the total amount of money in circulation and other actions of the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM is negligible.

Under Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution the right to coin Money and regulate the Value thereof is delegated to the Congress, and no mention is made of the FEDERAL RESERVE. Perhaps if Congress took such responsibility seriously inflation would be a lesser menace. Most constituents would favor maintaining the purchasing power of their wages, certainly.[/QUOTE]

The $2 donut is not the product of inflation, as there are donuts selling for less than $1. The $2 donut is the result of inflated expectation, living like millionaires on a blue collar wage .. etc. In other words, tummy lust, diabetes resulting (?)

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by slavenenco

My opinion is that america is violating its own constitution, realistically speaking not only like in the example above but in many ways american people don't even realize, there is a handful of rich people in United States that basically orchestrate almost every aspect of people lives, to reach their own personal goals of money and power. I don't understand why American politicians go around world "trying to fix other countries problems" when life in US gets worse by day, why would they spend people's money on war, when they can use to help their own people? Good life in US is long gone, just because of that kind of politician thinking, NOT opinions of ordinary people.

In today's empires, under whatsoever flag flown, "We the People" are the monster .. each one individualy supporting the empire in order to further his or her own personal goals of empire. Except for scarce individuals Hippies converted to mass consumerism even as they burned their weed-based empire. Just yesterday I bought my daughter and grandaughter and myself three donuts, cost $6.00. I made a point of saying it would be the last time I bought a $2.00 donut .. and except for my statement my 9 year old grandaughter would have grown up thinking $2 was a fair price for a donut. What does she know about money until she has to enslave herself to a master who pays her peanuts in order to support her lust for $2 donuts?

I agree with you, and what I witnessed is that people are victims of a mechanism and propaganda that runs US, its hard to live in that king of environment "free minded", they constantly tell u get this credit card, buy this insurance, chew this gum, buy this car... So you live this so called good life that hangs by thread, and that thread is your job, you lose it and u lose your car, house and everything u put your hard work into. When that happens there is no one to bail you out, but when banks are messed up they give them massive amounts of money. So where is the most important element in all that "The People"???

No, Lincoln and FDR were representatives of the same tradition in later eras and hence mentioned separately- and you mean "fathers", plural not possessive.

Lincoln to some degree, and only so far as he agree with some of them and chose to decide by force of will federalism versus anti-federalism(state's rights) opinions-- FDR took federalism to a whole new level, quite far from many of our founding fathers. Neither were by any definition founding fathers though anymore than Obama is even when he agrees with some of them.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Meteor, Strange and Lynx: if newspaper and other popular media reports are so inaccurate why do you seemingly base your entire understanding of the New Testament and Christian religion on them?

I don't. I've read the bible "stories" from cover to cover (granted, it was a while ago).

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The 'Founding Fathers' professed to be founding a nation based on biblical truth.

No they didn't. The expicitly stated that this not a theocracy. Have you ever read the Constitution?

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The 'Founding Fathers' professed to be founding a nation based on biblical truth.

No they didn't. The expicitly stated that this not a theocracy. Have you ever read the Constitution?

As a Canadian I have to admit I have not been interested enough to read the constitution, but I have not been able to escape the brainwashing. However, the Oath of Allegiance is explicit in mention of God:
The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an expression of loyalty to the federal flag and the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Christian Socialist Francis Bellamy (1855-1931) in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942.^[1] The Pledge has been modified four times since its composition, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954.
Congressional sessions open with the recital of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, and meetings held by many private organizations. It is also commonly recited in school at the beginning of every school day, although the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that students cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge, or punished for not doing so.
According to the United States Flag Code, the Pledge of Allegiance reads:^[2]
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Meteor, Strange and Lynx: if newspaper and other popular media reports are so inaccurate why do you seemingly base your entire understanding of the New Testament and Christian religion on them?

I don't. I've read the bible "stories" from cover to cover (granted, it was a while ago).

You know, Meteor, all these posts flash my mind so quickly I have forgotten exactly what your opinions of the bible are. However, I recommend you return to reading it, beginning at the the Gospel of John, reading through the New Testament, then read through it a couple more times, and only then return to the Old Testament. Remember, though God changes not, we are now living under the New Testament.

As a Canadian I have to admit I have not been interested enough to read the constitution, but I have not been able to escape the brainwashing. However, the Oath of Allegiance is explicit in mention of God:

Perhaps you should read the US Constitution including the parts that have been added and changed over the years; they are short documents. The pledge, where it has received weak support from the Supreme court, has often only done so, not because it suggest the god of the bible, or Christ specifically, but because "god" is a broad term that it could be applied to Spinoza's god, Allah or even the "creator" as Jefferson might have thought along with several other who also rejected the Divinity of Jesus.

Now that the communist scare is long over, it's probably just a matter of time before the US Motto and "under god," are judged Unconstitutional--swearing oaths to god have never been required, as I personally know from taking numerous oaths in the military without using the meaningless phrase (to me).

When I recite the peldge, I do not say the "Under God" phrase, and I also do not pledge to the flag, but rather the Constitution. I do it quietly enough to not offend those who do spew the whole thing.

"I pledge allegience to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The U.S. is not my concern except for its corruption, and it is being and will be judged by God. I am relieved to know through this forum that the U.S. was not set up as a Christian nation. To have fallen so far would have been horrendous, but to have been born evil and continuing evil is understandable. The Dominion of Canada was frounded on biblical Word, many of the founding "men" being Scottish Christians, with Scotland credited by some in history instrumental in saving the bible intact. Canadian government departments are "Ministries" and heads of departments "Ministers." I have hope that Canada is and will be one of the sheep nations separated from the goats at Christ's return, but other than that nations seem relatively unimportant in God's plan ("all nations are vanity" as saith the Old Testament) but with all nations and governments setup and empowered by God (even Hitler's government did God's purpose in judgement on the Jews to fullfill biblical prophecy.) Canada's Prime Minister considers himself a devout Christian yet orders our armed forces to commit murder of Muslims through war, same as the U.S. and Europe .. for economic Babylon, and also it seems to fullfill prophecy regarding Israel and Israel's enemies. Yet as Hitler's nation was not rewarded for being the instrument of destruction along with the nations God used to punish Israel before it, Babylon, Syria, Persia, Egypt, all of the nations are accountable for their destructions. God's judgements and destruction of the world nations and empires through disasters natural and made made have only just begun. The tornadoes in the U.S. are one example only, the destruction of the U.S. economy is another. Will we see the destruction of the U.S. military empire this summer? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

As a Canadian I have to admit I have not been interested enough to read the constitution, but I have not been able to escape the brainwashing. However, the Oath of Allegiance is explicit in mention of God:

Perhaps you should read the US Constitution including the parts that have been added and changed over the years; they are short documents. The pledge, where it has received weak support from the Supreme court, has often only done so, not because it suggest the god of the bible, or Christ specifically, but because "god" is a broad term that it could be applied to Spinoza's god, Allah or even the "creator" as Jefferson might have thought along with several other who also rejected the Divinity of Jesus.

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Deuteronomy 6:3-5 (in Context) Deuteronomy 6 (Whole Chapter)

Originally Posted by aristarchus

The Dominion of Canada was frounded on biblical Word, many of the founding "men" being Scottish Christians, with Scotland credited by some in history instrumental in saving the bible intact.

You seem to have confused Scotland and Ireland concerning the Bible - not an error the Irish would make.

And they were founding men - no "quotes" necessary.

The Dominion of Canada was founded as an Anglican British colonial operation, taken from the similarly inspired Catholic French by force, for the purpose of commercial exploitation and aggrandizement of worldly power, riches, and glory.

The use of Biblical language and claims of justification by the will of God etc, is characteristic of such commercial exploitation, and common to this day among the wealthy industrialists of the US as well as Canada. The treatment of the residents of Canada by the Christian religious colonials, French and British, Catholic and Protestant, was and is a source of scandal and shame.

The Dominion of Canada was founded by men born and raised in Canada, much much later than the Hudson Bay charter.

The Scots were originally an Irish clan who fled to what became Scotland, taking the bible with them.

I agree with you that one of the beasts of Babylon is a Lamb with horns, a commercial-military enterprise pretending to be Godlike.

The aboriginal inhabitants of North America generally tried to overcome and destroy their traditional aboriginal enemies by alliance with the Europeans .. tribe with tribe siding either with British or French depending on who they thought would win the war. A clear example of this is the mass murder of the Newfoundland Beothuks by the Nova Scotia MicMacs, the MicMacs armed with French guns.