Question about Ted Cruz
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9999) 5 years ago
Question: Why is it okay that Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, can run for president of the United States -- given all the questions Obama had to face about being born in Hawaii or not?

Just wondering your thoughts on the matter.
Top
+5
-2
banned
Posted by ZZZzz (-555) 5 years ago
Probably because his parents were citizens of the US.
Top
+3
-1
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9999) 5 years ago
As far as I've read, only his mother was born in the United States.

"Ted Cruz - born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father"

When, with Obama, he was born in the United States, and had an American mother who was born in Kansas.

Top
+4
-2
Posted by busyB (+624) 5 years ago
I don't think the issues we have with Ted Crus concern WHERE he was born.

The biggest issue we have is that he WAS born.
Top
+4
-4
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9888) 5 years ago


Top
+8
-4
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11731) 5 years ago
McCain wasn't born in the US, either, but in Panama. However, McCain and Cruz were white (relatively in the case of Rafael) and Republican.
Top
+3
-7
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14948) 5 years ago
I don't think the issues we have with Ted Crus concern WHERE he was born.

The biggest issue we have is that he WAS born.


EXACTLY! busy B wins the internet today.

I'm considering registering as a republican to vote for Trump simply to help keep Teddyhawk Cruz missile from getting anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania avenue.
Top
+5
-4
banned
Posted by ZZZzz (-555) 5 years ago
McCain was born on a US military base.Just like if someone was born on a military base say in Germany today it is considered to be born in the US I believe.
Top
+5
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9999) 5 years ago
Reply to ZZZzz (#363506)
That's all fine and dandy, but I'm just wondering why Cruz is allowed to run. As far as I know, Alberta, Canada is not a U.S. territory.
Top
+2
-2
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9999) 5 years ago
In looking this up further, Ted Cruz's father was born in Cuba and later became a Canadian citizen. Then Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His parents divorced in 1997. Then, in 2005, his father decided to become a U.S. citizen.

The constitution says, these are the requirements for becoming a U.S. president:

1. You must be at least 35 years old.

2. You must be a U.S. citizen for at least 14 years prior to being president.

3. You must be a natural born citizen -- which *in my mind* means you must be born on U.S. soil, but according to others it means you can be born on foreign soil (as in any country -- be it Iraq or Kenya or Syria or China or wherever) as long as both your parents are U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.

Here's the thing though.

Ted Cruz's father was not a U.S. citizen *at the time of his birth*. He was a Cuban who became a Canadian citizen, and then only 10 years ago decided to become a U.S. citizen. Ted Cruz is 44 years old.

So exactly again, how and why is Cruz able to run for president?
Top
+5
-5
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16946) 5 years ago
Reply to MilesCity.com Webmaster (#363508)
MilesCity.com Webmaster wrote:
So exactly again, how and why is Cruz able to run for president?

Because his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. I don't think BOTH of your parents need to be citizens for you to qualify for citizenship or to be considered a "natural-born" citizen.

It makes sense to me. You as a U.S. citizen may travel outside of the country for many reasons including, say, a work assignment for the U.S. government in a foreign land. Is it fair to say to these people that their children aren't considered natural-born citizens? Do you tell them they'll have to put off having children until they return to the U.S.? And if your co-parent happens to not be a U.S. citizen I'm sure you'd still want your kid to be eligible for the full benefits of U.S. citizenship.

To tell a citizen that if they happen to have a child while outside of the country then their child will be treated as a second class citizen seems un-American to me. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, ya know.
Top
+6
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9999) 5 years ago
So, you're saying, if you're a U.S. citizen, you can go have sex with anyone in whatever country, and if a kid pops out from that -- the kid is automatically a U.S. citizen?

And beyond that, eligible to run for president? That's not what I was taught in school. I was taught you had to be born here to be president. Those teachers must have lied to me.
Top
+1
-4
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16946) 5 years ago
Yup.
Top
+3
Posted by Steve M (+58) 5 years ago
Top
+2
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
Most people don't remember what they were taught about citizenship in high school. I know I didn't. But I found out the requirements in law school. One parent is enough.
Top
+4
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9999) 5 years ago
Hrm. Okay. So why was anyone ever having a discussion about Obama then, given his mother was a U.S. citizen, born in Kansas?
Top
+3
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
Cuz 'Murica. And black and everything.
Top
+2
-3
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
Oh, and Kenya and Muslim.
Top
+2
-3
Posted by Oddjob (+192) 5 years ago
Or maybe because Obama is a Marxist and an America hater who blames the U.S. for every evil in the world? Or maybe because most people know the rules as well as the Webmaster?

Why does it always have to be a racist deal with Leftists?

Perhaps the Webmasters real motive in questioning Cruz's citizenship is that he hates Hispanics?

He apparently does if I follow the lawyers reasoning.
Top
+5
-7
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9178) 5 years ago
is a Marxist and an America hater who blames the U.S. for every evil in the world

Prove it. Quotes or it's just more paranoid blather.
Top
+4
-5
Posted by Oddjob (+192) 5 years ago
Review Obama's conversation with Joe "the plumber", on redistribution of wealth then reread Das Capital.

I can't believe that after 7 years of the most disgusting spectacle America has ever witnessed, you still try to defend your mistake.
Top
+4
-7
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9178) 5 years ago
Somehow, I was hoping for a little something more concrete than fireside chats with Joe the plumber.
Top
+5
-5
Posted by Oddjob (+192) 5 years ago
What the hell more do you need than my assumption that you were, at least semi-consious at some point, during the last 7 years.

Please don't tell me that's giving you more credit than you deserve...
Top
+5
-6
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9178) 5 years ago


My 401k's a LOT healthier today than it was at the end of 2008, I'll tell you that.
Top
+7
-5
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
I think the webmaster was just curious to see that there's been little hubbub about Cruz's status as opposed to Obama's and wondered about the legalities. Arguably Cruz is in a worse position than Obama was given that Cruz wasn't born on US soil whereas Obama was. But it's a moot point anyway. They're both citizens and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, let it be.
Top
+2
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1915) 5 years ago
The Webmaster was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republican party. If Rafael Cruz were a Democrat, the Republicans would be on him like rapid dogs. What MY guy can do and what YOUR guy can do are not the same. MY guy can get away with it. YOUR guy can't.
Top
+4
-6
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14948) 5 years ago
the Republicans would be on him like rapid dogs


What do dogs in Speedy Village, SD have to do with this? Maybe you meant to ask Vanna for a "b".

(Sorry you so seldom make this kind of mistake, I couldn't resist. )
Top
+2
-2
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1915) 5 years ago
Har har. Well, maybe the Repubs would sic greyhounds on him.
Top
+2
-7
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 5 years ago
Oddjob wrote:
I can't believe that after 7 years of the most disgusting spectacle America has ever witnessed, you still try to defend your mistake.


Oh, how I long for those halcyon days of 2008, when everything was right with the world. You know, during the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, when Oddjob's boy George Bush was ruining running things.

Quote from Ben Bernanke: “September and October of 2008 was the worst financial crisis in global history, including the Great Depression. Of the 13 most important financial institutions in the United States, 12 were at risk of failure within a period of a week or two.”

Ah, good times!

Then that Marxist Obama came along and procreateed everything up.

DJIA when Obama took office: 7,949
DJIA today: 17,129

Just imagine how well we'd be doing if Obama weren't a Marxist!


Oddjob - DJIA = Dow Jones Industrial Average. You're welcome.
Top
+3
-4
Posted by Oddjob (+192) 5 years ago
For the umpteenth time Bob, there is no love lost between me, the Republican Party and Geo. Bush and I'm really getting tired of telling you that. Pay attention.

10,000 DJIA points for +$200,000,000,000,000.00 in debt and unfunded liability. We shall see how that works out. Maybe you did make a few bucks on the deal, but I hope you made enough to keep your kids from pi**ing on your grave when they figure out what you did to them.

Bob - $200,000,000,000,000.00 = two hundred trillion (with a "T") dollars. You're welcome.

Amorette

Since it apparently went over your head, let me explain my post to you. I was mocking the lawyer for trotting out the time-worn, redneck racist mantra. If it was you, I wouldn't have bothered. But for her being a lawyer and all, I thought it was rather lazy and unimaginative.
Top
+5
-5
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
I didn't realize that telling the truth required imagination. I always thought that was called lying.
Top
+2
-1
Posted by Oddjob (+192) 5 years ago
Since you can't field a rational counter point, your only "argument" is..Shutup!!!!!

Raaaaaaaacist!!!!!

That doesn't take any imagination at all.

Cruz = White mother, Hispanic father. Obama = White mother, Black father. Both have had their citizenship questioned, but apparently it is only racists who would question Obamas? Is that your "truth?"
Top
+6
-6
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
I didn't tell anyone to shut up. I said that I thought questioning Cruz's or Obama's citizenship status was wrongheaded for the simple fact that they both satisfy the citizenship requirements. I don't see how that is racist. And while I do think that some of the hullabaloo over Obama had racist roots for some people, simply pointing that out does not make me racist.
Top
+7
-4
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11731) 5 years ago
While to Odd One isn't as bad the Brandied Apple, he does tend to read remarks to suit him.
Top
+6
-9
Posted by Oddjob (+192) 5 years ago
Reply to Wendy Wilson (#363575)
Wendy Wilson wrote:
I didn't tell anyone to shut up.


When you drop the race bomb, that's exactly what you are doing.

And you dropped it when you said:

"Cuz 'Murica. And black and everything."
Top
+4
-5
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
Hmmm. I wasn't aware that bringing up racism was meant to stop the conversation. In fact, I think we should have open discussions about prejudice and how it affects society, politics, and religion. We all have prejudices; it's part of the human condition. The only way to get past them is through confrontation and education, both of which requires communication.
Top
+2
-3
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 5 years ago
Oddjob wrote:
For the umpteenth time Bob, there is no love lost between me, the Republican Party and Geo. Bush and I'm really getting tired of telling you that. Pay attention.


So, who have you been voting for, then? Lyndon LaRouche quit running for President around 2004, if memory serves.

I guess you'll have to keep being sick and tired, pal.


Oddjob wrote:
10,000 DJIA points for +$200,000,000,000,000.00 in debt and unfunded liability. We shall see how that works out.


Oh, it will work out fine. The 9,180 point gain in the DJIA is worth $425,384,123,666,852.35 to the economy. THAT'S OVER $425 TRILLION!!

Since my made-up number is bigger than your made-up number, I'm sure everything will work out just fine.

The cumulative Federal deficit since the beginning of the republic is only $18 trillion, genius.



I almost forgot, you're the same brain wizard who didn't know how the CPI worked.

http://www.milescity.com/...iew/354119
Top
+3
-4
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Canadians are cooler than Kenyans, A.
Top
+2
-5
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Did you folks know that the first act by the United States constitution was an immigration bill. This immigration bill strictly limited non European Christians from coming to America. Our forebears certainly intended for different Christian sects to migrate here, as long as their members were of European origin.

It is funny when liberals and feminist say we are a nation of immigrants from everywhere with no common ideal. It wasn't supposed to be so, we just experience the "dirty wars" mission creep

The law says we have been invaded.
Top
+3
-7
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14948) 5 years ago
Spouting crap from David Barton and the Wallbulders only leads to a place that you don't really want to go, Brandy. Let's stop while you're ahead.

My office in the pueblo where I work is near a Catholic Church built in 1699. White European's are the take-it-by-force immigrants and invaders.

[Edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (12/20/2015 8:42:37 AM)]
Top
+2
-4
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
Reply to Brandy Allen (#363590)
Brandy Allen wrote:
Did you folks know that the first act by the United States constitution was an immigration bill. This immigration bill strictly limited non European Christians from coming to America. Our forebears certainly intended for different Christian sects to migrate here, as long as their members were of European origin.


Do you mean the first act of Congress? The Constitution is a document and can't enact legislation. Could you cite some authority for your statement, please?
Top
+5
-3
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16946) 5 years ago
Reply to Wendy Wilson (#363593)
Top
+2
-2
Posted by Oddjob (+192) 5 years ago
Reply to Wendy Wilson (#363586)
Wendy Wilson wrote:
Hmmm. I wasn't aware that bringing up racism was meant to stop the conversation. In fact, I think we should have open discussions about prejudice and how it affects society, politics, and religion. We all have prejudices; it's part of the human condition. The only way to get past them is through confrontation and education, both of which requires communication.


A beautiful example of how Libs just don't get it.

You are not "bringing up racism". You are labeling people as racists.

When the first words out of your mouth are: "You don't like Obama because he's Black", the conversation is over. Your assumption is the person is a racist, so don't expect to have a meaningful conversation with someone who's only options are to walk away, knock you on your ass or waste their time trying to convince a moran that they are not a racist. You have ended the alleged "conversation you want to have", so save us the moralistic platitudes about wanting to "communicate".
Top
+4
-6
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
Ok, oddjob, I get it. My initial response was glib and meant to be humorous and it was too heavy-handed. I admit that. I really don't think that all Obama detractors are racist, although I do think some are. When you hear enough interviews were the man on the street refers to Obama as a Kenyan Muslim, it becomes pretty clear how he forms his opinions of people. But the webmaster did bring up an interesting point. Why all the focus on Obama's citizen status but little on Cruz's, especially since Cruz's is less clear (at least to the layman)? What's your take on that?
Top
+6
-4
Posted by Oddjob (+192) 5 years ago
Frankly, my take is there is sure as hell enough dangerous and evil s**t in the world to worry about than whether or not Obama, McCain or Cruz meet citizenship "requirements".

Obama's mess is self-inflicted. Political candidates are always fair game for overwhelming scrutiny. By his concerted efforts to conceal much of his background, he has invited all the speculation and accusations. In the last 7 years he has done little to assure anybody differently and has lied so much, nobody but a complete fool believes a word he says.

McCain and Cruz don't have quite the same pile of evidence as documented liars, but McCain comes pretty close. Cruz hasn't been around long enough yet..
Top
+4
-6
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
I guess my video reference didn't post, this should put my previous postit in context.

Top
+1
-3
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
I think I got the link correct. This video speaks at length about the trump and his endorsements, or the lack there of.
Top
-4
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#363598)
Oddjob wrote:
Frankly, my take is there is sure as hell enough dangerous and evil s**t in the world to worry about than whether or not Obama, McCain or Cruz meet citizenship "requirements.


Totally agree.
Top
+6
-2
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9178) 5 years ago
By his concerted efforts to conceal much of his background


What, in the sweet jimminy jesus, are you talking about here? Could you provide some sort of citation or proof of a 'concerted effort'? Or is this another "watch his interview with joe the plumber and then cross-reference that against this other book and it will be obvious" situation?
Top
+8
-5
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11731) 5 years ago
Conceal what? I can tell you all sorts of things about Obama. With a quick internet search, I can even find photos with his grandma. What was concealed? The essay he wrote in sixth grade?
Top
+6
-6
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
And Bob L It looks like odd job has a great understanding of CPI. He said!

"Maybe I'd believe the numbers if they included the unimportant things like food, fuel and utilities".

And yes Wendy I meant congress, Thank you pointing that out, and I am no racist. I have met Nazis in my life, And I isn't one o dem. However, I think if people chose to live around people with similar traits or beliefs, they have that right. Why cant Jews live around Jews and Christians live around Christians, etc... especially if it leads to peaceful co-existence?

[Edited by Brandy Allen (12/21/2015 12:55:10 PM)]
Top
+3
-7
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1915) 5 years ago
The problem arises when the Jew says no Christians can live next door or vice versa. That is called discrimination and it is illegal and immoral. And stupid. You'll never get a really good potato latke recipe if you never live next door to a Jew.
Top
+3
-3
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
True , European Jews can cook it up.

At least the polish ones can.

So you are saying the problem arises when Christians or Jews or whom ever says the other cant live by them. Why again is that a problem? We have had zoning laws in effect for years. And how about moving Scott Price next to you? Bet you would change your mind if it effected you a little more.

Liberals say it is a problem, however it is a method that humanity has used for thousands of years, and it has gotten us this far. This method has even aloud humanity to progress to the point of outer space.

Free will and individual choice seems like the tried and true model to me. Forced integration through refugee crisis or busing programs is merely an assault on a way of life.

Why would a democrat want a republican living beside them. And why would a republican want to live their. People can seek communities, neighbors, friends, churches etc.. how ever they want, and based upon whatever principles they want.

That's why tree huggers don't live beside loggers, a matter of principle. If they did want to live beside them, it could be called an aggressive act. Putting yourself around someone with fore knowledge of a potential conflict "aggression".

And aggressors must expect a defensive line to emerge from somewhere. It is apparent that the liberal progressives expect that defensive line to come from patriots that are defending the constitution.

The NWO has done a poor job of isolating the white Nazi they seek, the swath is too big, as it includes 85% of European men and women. Rethink the plan to not "accidentally" include yourself "brown shirt".

[Edited by Brandy Allen (12/21/2015 7:21:13 PM)]
Top
+3
-7
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11731) 5 years ago
You are bigoted beyond bigotry.
Top
+7
-5
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
You know what they say when you have to resort to name calling.
Come on lighten up amoretti, You can not make the world conform to your ideas, your not Hitler or Mau. Stop taking different cultures and beliefs as offensive, at least to the point that you must call them names.

Practice some of that tolerance for the traditional values that the European Christian stand for. You are real quick to stand u for a Muslim, even though your an atheist. You just hate the white man that much, I pity you and will say a prayer to heal your pain.
Top
+3
-6
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
Living in isolation with only like-minded people can only result in narrow mindedness. Discussing issues with someone who has a different viewpoint forces you to really think about the reasons for your own position. Being challenged is good for you. The more polarized we become the harder it is to come to consensus on important issues.
Top
+5
-1
Posted by Joe Whalen (+623) 5 years ago
This is neither Europe nor a Christian nation. We are Americans, immigrants to this continent, some by choice and many by force, from all over the planet, including those tens of millions of Asian descendants who preceded our arrival by nearly fifteen centuries. We're a plurality of ethnicities, cultures, languages, stories, belief systems, songs, skills, experiences and expressions. We're the promise of freedom, the engine of reason and science, the most powerful nation on Earth, and the flowering of the highest ideals of mankind.

Someone once tried to sell the world on his "European Christian" values vision before attempting to impose it upon us by force not long ago. It didn't end well for him and his kind. You haven't forgotten that chapter in history, have you "Brandy" Allen?
Top
+4
-3
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Joe the first congressional act proves you wrong. European Christians came to this land at went to war with its inhabitants "indians", and won the right to call this nation their own.

This was and is a Christian country, no matter how many atheist this site produces.

If this wasn't set up as a Christian country, why did congress only support different Christian denominations rather than different religions migrating to the new lands?


Liberals just want obedience to government, and see God as there competition and obstacle!

NEVER!!

Wendy, living amongst people with ones same religious or social beliefs is a great move from the perspective of self reliance and individual sustainability.

And diversity is great, a community needs people from all walks, plumbers, electricians, engineers etc. A well rounded nation can better provide for its people.

[Edited by Brandy Allen (12/22/2015 7:20:50 AM)]

[Edited by Brandy Allen (12/22/2015 7:51:04 AM)]
Top
+2
-6
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Our liberal progressives showing more tolerance to different beliefs and cultures.

Trumps spoke last night in Michigan.

During the speech leftist troll “Satan” repeatedly threatened to murder the Republican frontrunner

The Left are terrorist, or they would not be atheist. The weather underground is apparently alive and well.
Top
+3
-5
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1915) 5 years ago
You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you, oh, brandied one? Is that a plane?
Top
+5
-4
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
So belief in a constitutional republic and freedom of choice are now Fantasy world, a Amoretti

Joe there are many documentaries out there about who landed in America first, Vikings, Orientals, etc., I don't think it matters. The ones being targeted are the ones I am speaking about. The European men that came here and modernized the lands and put in place a governing body, and assumed responsibility for its inhabitants.

Are we to take everything away from the descendants of these men "our racist fore fathers", only to give it in reparations to the descendants of the people that the land was taken from?

If that is the end result and aspiration of the liberal party, it will never succeed. Plus it is racist!
Top
+3
-5
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Here ye go Joe

Top
-4
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14948) 5 years ago
Umm the founding fathers were deist, not Christian.
Top
+3
-2
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
All of them, every one?
Come on Bob, lets not tell it how we wanted it.

However we have gotten a bit far from the topic in this thread. So ill take a crack at it.

It seems like Obama moved to India for a couple of years. India does not, or did not at the time, recognize dual citizenship rights.

This forced a young Obama to have to renounce his American citizenship to attend the over-seas schooling "possibly financed by Kissinger or Soros". Once you have renounced your citizenship of America, I believe the birthers are claiming that you are disqualified from running for President.

In this aspect Trump looks like a plant, because he doesn't seem to claim the same reason for illegitimacy of our president.

To my knowledge Cruz hasn't renounced his citizenship.

[Edited by Brandy Allen (12/22/2015 2:28:12 PM)]
Top
+1
-2
Posted by Joe R. Whalen (+218) 5 years ago
Dan, aka "Brandy", if you can point me to any religious test for federal offices or any mention of Jesus Christ or Christianity in the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers or the Bill of Rights, I will immediately apologize for my oversight and withdraw my comment.

Meanwhile, I'll refrain from any uncomfortable mention of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Top
+2
-4
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Semantics

Joe the Atheist

If the mess hall isn't in the book, it don't exist. Is that really your stance.

Look at the daily lives of our fore fathers and founders, that says multitudes, and most worshipped regularly. The men that created the rule of law in this nation, the rules every liberal seeks to overturn, since they are inherently racist, were Christian.

George Washington is one of the most popular founding fathers that fought tooth and nail to get this country up and going, and here is a little except about him.

His personal letters and public speeches sometimes referred to "Providence." He was a member of several churches which he attended, and served as an Anglican vestryman and warden for more than fifteen years when Virginia had an established church.

I don't think he went to madrasa's or synagogues or atheist worship tower thingy's, "what do yall use?". But I digress. Disputing most of our founding fathers blatant Christian lifestyles is crazy and can easily one by one be disproved.
Top
+4
-3
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1915) 5 years ago
Seriously, man, where do you get this stuff? It is so weird. And so very not true. Inforwars? Maybe? Or do you just hallucinate it up.

Top
+3
-5
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17230) 5 years ago
George Washington? He was a Mason! He wrote letters referring to the Great Architect of the Universe! He probably was a member of the Illuminati!
Top
+5
-2
Posted by Oddjob (+192) 5 years ago
Reply to Bridgier (#363605)
Bridgier wrote:
By his concerted efforts to conceal much of his background


What, in the sweet jimminy jesus, are you talking about here? Could you provide some sort of citation or proof of a 'concerted effort'? Or is this another "watch his interview with joe the plumber and then cross-reference that against this other book and it will be obvious" situation?


Google it. I'm out of here.
Top
+5
-2
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2692) 5 years ago
Brandied apple needs to read up on the Treaty of Tripoli

https://en.wikipedia.org/...of_Tripoli
Top
+2
-1
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16946) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#363700)
FACTCHECK.ORG Obama’s ‘Sealed’ Records

Q: Are Obama’s early records “sealed”?

A: No. Many records that presidential candidates don’t ordinarily release do remain confidential, but they are not “sealed” by a court. The 16 claims in a widely distributed graphic are mostly false or distorted.
Top
+3
-4
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11731) 5 years ago
Now, David. Facts are meaningless in this discussion. It is the fantasy that counts! THE PLANE! THE PLANE!!!!!
Top
+2
-4
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Facts? The Washington Post says Obama moved to Indonesia in 1967, as does his autobiography.

Obama admits to living abroad and attending a school in Indonesia, that's not conspiracy, that's his autobiography.
So THE PLANE!!! THE PLANE!!! back to ya, there amoretti.

[Edited by Brandy Allen (12/22/2015 8:11:05 PM)]
Top
+3
-4
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
Mr. allen stated: It seems like Obama moved to India for a couple of years. India does not, or did not at the time, recognize dual citizenship rights.

This forced a young Obama to have to renounce his American citizenship to attend the over-seas schooling "possibly financed by Kissinger or Soros". Once you have renounced your citizenship of America, I believe the birthers are claiming that you are disqualified from running for President.


First, it's Indonesia. Second, he didn't qualify for Indonesian citizenship under the laws current at the time. Third, even if it could be argued that he had dual citizenship, the Indonesian law banning dual citizenship did not apply to those under 18 years of age, which he was.

But so what, right?
Top
+5
-2
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11731) 5 years ago
THE PLANE!!!! THE PLANE!!!!!

Buy a globe sometime and then learn to read. India and Indonesian are NOT the same place and one may attend school without becoming a citizen in either place. Living somewhere and being a citizen somewhere are NOT the same thing. You think an anti-immigration bigot like you would KNOW that.

[Edited by Amorette Allison (12/22/2015 9:03:07 PM)]
Top
+4
-4
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14948) 5 years ago
This pretty throughly debunks the notion that we were founded as a christian nation.

by Jim Walker

A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, “No more than 10 percent– probably less– of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.”

The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, “Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom.” Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.[Treaty of Tripoli]Treaty of Tripoli
 
The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, “the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety.”

George Washington

Much of the myth of Washington’s alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, “Life of Washington.” The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington’s own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.

Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington’s initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.

To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man “ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.”

After Washington’s death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington’s religion replied, “Sir, Washington was a Deist.”

Thomas Jefferson

Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, “Question with boldness even the existence of a god.”

Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, “You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”[John Adams]John Adams

John Adams

Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: “I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination.”

In his, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

“. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

James Madison

Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”

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.[Article XI from the Treaty of Tripoli]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:[Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul General of Algiers]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[Signers of the Treaty of Tripoli]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

Bibliography

Borden, Morton, “Jews, Turks, and Infidels,” The University of North Carolina Press, 1984

Boston, Robert, “Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church & State, “Prometheus Books, 1993

Boston, F. Andrews, et al, “The Writings of George Washington,” (12 Vols.), Charleston, S.C., 1833-37

Fitzpatrick, John C., ed., “The Diaries of George Washington, 1748-1799,” Houghton Mifflin Company: Published for the Mount Vernon Ladies Association of the Union, 1925

Gay, Kathlyn, “Church and State,”The Millbrook Press,” 1992

Handy, Robert, T., “A History of the Churches in U.S. and Canada,” New York: Oxford University Press, 1977

Hayes, Judith, “All those Christian Presidents,” [The American Rationalist, March/April 1997]

Kock, Adrienne, ed., “The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society,” New York: George Braziller, 1965

Mapp, Jr, Alf J., “Thomas Jefferson,” Madison Books, 1987

Middlekauff, Robert, “The Glorious Cause,” Oxford University Press, 1982

Miller, Hunter, ed., “Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America,” Vol. 2, Documents 1-40: 1776-1818, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1931

Peterson, Merrill D., “Thomas Jefferson Writings,” The Library of America, 1984

Remsburg, John E., “Six Historic Americans,” The Truth Seeker Company, New York

Robinson, John J., “Born in Blood,” M. Evans & Company, New York, 1989

Roche, O.I.A., ed, “The Jefferson Bible: with the Annotated Commentaries on Religion of Thomas Jefferson,” Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1964

Seldes, George, ed., “The Great Quotations,” Pocket Books, New York, 1967

Sweet, William W., “Revivalism in America, its origin, growth and decline,” C. Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1944

Woodress, James, “A Yankee’s Odyssey, the Life of Joel Barlow,” J. P. Lippincott Co., 1958

Encyclopedia sources:

Common law: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 6, “William Benton, Publisher, 1969

Declaration of Independence: MicroSoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia, MicroSoft Corp., Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.

In God We Trust: MicroSoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia, MicroSoft Corp., Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.

Pledge of Allegiance: Academic American Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, Grolier Incorporated, Danbury, Conn., 1988

Special thanks to Ed Buckner, Robert Boston, Selena Brewington and Lion G. Miles, for help in providing me with source materials.


http://www.earlyamerica.c...overnment/
Top
+1
-2
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers # of Founding Fathers


Episcopalian/Anglican 88
Presbyterian 30
Congregationalist 27
Quaker 7
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6
Lutheran 5
Catholic 3
Huguenot 3
Unitarian 3
Methodist 2
Calvinist 1

TOTAL 204

So 204 of our most prominent founders were Christians and lived a Christian lifestyle in the public view for all to see. For you atheist to lie about this is religious intolerance. Amoretti, Richard, Joe, and Wendy you are atheist liars.




Name of Signer

State

Religious Affiliation

Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
William Floyd New York Presbyterian
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian


All Christians of different Christian denominations, as I said.

And Richard all your citations and essays prove, is that these Christian founders believed in separation of church and state to a specific degree. That boiling point " specific degree" has been meet with the acceptance of atheist and immoral religions like scientology or Satanist etc..

[Edited by Brandy Allen (12/23/2015 8:16:16 AM)]
Top
-4
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1915) 5 years ago
No where in the Constitution is there a religion or lack thereof specified. There is no "boiling point." You need to stop making stuff up. Yes, most of the founders belonged to the predominant overall religion i.e.Christianity but that doesn't mean they wanted a state religion.

One more time: THERE IS NO STATE RELIGION IN UNITED STATES.

Now you can go back to watching for Da Plane.
Top
+4
-2
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14948) 5 years ago
All Christians of different Christian denominations, as I said.

And Richard all your citations and essays prove, is that these Christian founders believed in separation of church and state to a specific degree. That boiling point " specific degree" has been meet with the acceptance of atheist and immoral religions like scientology or Satanist etc..


Just because you can provide a list of the signers the Declaration of Independence and their religious affilation actually says exactly nothing about the documents on which the laws of this country is based. The laws of this country are NOT based on the Declaration of independence. The Declaration is nothing more than the rationale for going to war against England. It doesn't mean they actually practiced their theology. Deist's deny the Christian doctrine of the trinity are by definition explicitly not christian.  And separation of church and state means that their denominational or theological perspective was NOT a factor in the formation of the constitution. We are not a christian nation. Our laws are actually rooted in Roman thinking, not christian.
Top
+2
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Richard you said this.

[This pretty throughly debunks the notion that we were founded as a christian nation.]

I proved the founding fathers were Christians that believed in separation of church and state to a specific degree as I claimed.

You are now changing the bar in mid debate. Now these religious ties must be bound to documents to prove the founders of our nation were deeply rooted in the Christian culture?

Lets stand in a circle here!

I am done with this thread, since you people are redefining history as you see it, not as it was.
Top
+2
-3
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14948) 5 years ago
No, you are changing what you originally claimed which was that because you understand the founders were christian, it follows that this is a christian nation. Your first notion is suspcious at best and your second is simply not true.

[Edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (12/23/2015 9:27:41 AM)]
Top
+3
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
No I am not changing anything, and the fact that church and state are separate proves its Christian roots. Joe did attempt to get proof of their faith being involved in laws and docs, but I don't accept that, because it is misleading to the topic.

Since a Muslim would be bound to set up a theocracy such as a sharia, as would most other religions. Christianity does not require a theocracy, it fosters free thinking and self governance. Paying homage to god for the chance to live freely as individuals "as opposed to the collective" according to his word.
Top
+1
-2
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14948) 5 years ago
and the fact that church and state are separate proves its Christian roots.


Actually, it means just the opposite, Brandy.

"The purpose of the separation of church and state is to forever keep from our shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Euope in blood for centuries".

-James Madison
Top
+3
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17230) 5 years ago
Christians. Muslims. Yawn.

Time to bring back a real religion.

http://www.theguardian.co...1000-years
Top
+2
-1
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
You know what they say Richard?

" The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots from time to time"

Liberties are GOD given.
Governments give privileges

We have different trees in our yards, and you don't like my tree. I however have no opinion of your tree, as long as it is in your yard.
However if your branches ever extend across my fence, or your seedlings start sprouting on my side, expect acts of protectionism from my tree. And please be truthful about it, don't call my tree a hate monger or racist, call him a protectionist whom likes the homeostatic appeal of his current yard.
Top
+1
-5
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1915) 5 years ago
You are a racist, oh Brandied One, you have made that clear by many, many statements, including your desire to live in a rightwing, so-called Christian, white supremacist enclave. We don't assume these things about you. We read them in what you write.

The tree analogy is fine except you do send your leaves into my yard all the time and bitch and moan if I complain. I do not want to live by your superstitious beliefs yet you seem to think I am trying to do that to you. WRONG. I have no superstitious beliefs so I can't make you live by them.

Just give up, brandy old boy. You care never going to convince well-educated, well-informed, progressives that your racist lies are the way to go.

One more time. Jesus, if he existed, was not white. Obama does exist and he is a US citizen. The United States of American does NOT have a state religion, no matter how much you close your eyes and pretend. And you are about as racist and narrow-minded an idiot as I have ever met.

Done.

Happy Holidays and Seasons Greetings!
Top
+4
-4
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Amoretti, I have seen your anti white Christian and European Jewish doctrine on this site many times. You are the racist plain and simple. I would rather live beside these two lovely ladies in this video than on the same block with your atheist beliefs. Are you still mad about my calling you out for justifying abortions and massive Islamic refugees in our country. You lady are an anti-Semite, anti- Christian atheist, so own it like you mean it. The Zio-christian relationship can't be broken. We will not parish, and you cant stand it, sore loser.

However, if you could please copy and paste my words that you claim I said, about the white supreme enclave thing. I do not nor have I ever claimed anyone to be supreme in a racial aspect. So cite your words now, you cant! I never said that and you are a liar and misleader.

And just so you know, when an atheist claims a religion to be a superstition, they show lack of intellect, and help said religions gain strength and numbers. Especially if they "progressives" are supporting the invasion of one religion by the another religion, as with the progressives supporting massive immigration from Islamic nations to Christian nations.



[Edited by Brandy Allen (12/23/2015 1:25:35 PM)]

[Edited by Brandy Allen (12/23/2015 1:31:12 PM)]
Top
+2
-5
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Here you go amoretti, this is a Jewish guy that completely destroys your "White privilege" racist perspective. Even he claims progressives are inherently anti-Semitic and anti-Christian.

I believe they "progressives" just lack discipline, and need a lifestyle tailored to fit their justifications.

Top
+2
-4
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
And Wendy, your wrong about needing to be over 18 to renounce citizenship in India during Obama's tenure there. Here is a 2 min quickie to explain Obamas birther issues. However I must say that I do not care, and would vote for Obama a third term over everyone but trump.

Top
+1
-6
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14948) 5 years ago
 

Dear Thor, please break my keyboard into tiny pieces so I don't continue to respond to this CRAP!!!


And just so you know, when an atheist claims a religion to be a superstition, they show lack of intellect, and help said religions gain strength and numbers. Especially if they "progressives" are supporting the invasion of one religion by the another religion, as with the progressives supporting massive immigration from Islamic nations to Christian nations.


The point of helping rufugees is NOT helping Islamic nations to invade christian nations (if such a thing exsits). The point is THAT"S WHAT DECENT HUMAN BEINGS DO TO HELP THEIR FELLOW HUMANS. It isn't about religion.

[Edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (12/23/2015 3:31:39 PM)]
Top
+3
-2
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
If the point were not to invade, then they would be in a refugee camp right across their border in Saudi Arabia.

Our generals, "the ones Obama let go" shared information with Germany and Russia about Obama blatantly arming jihadist even after the generals told him their are no moderates in the region.

Then George Soros paid these jihadist, to go through several countries until they reached Germany as a place to set up refugee camps. Saudi Arabia has a three million man refugee camp not even a few hundred miles from Syria, if it weren't a targeted invasion, they would be there.
Top
+2
-3
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 5 years ago
Reply to Brandy Allen (#363759)
Brandy Allen wrote:
And Wendy, your wrong about needing to be over 18 to renounce citizenship in India during Obama's tenure there. Here is a 2 min quickie to explain Obamas birther issues. However I must say that I do not care, and would vote for Obama a third term over everyone but trump.


You need a geography lesson, sir. In any event I was looking at the actual citizenship laws whic are fairly clear. And since Obama was not born in Indonesia or come from parents with Indonesian citizenship, there was no citizenship issue. Just living somewhere does not confer citizenship status.
Top
+2
-3
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
Wendy, you are not taking into consideration that India was at war the year "1967" Obama moved there, so the immigration statues was not as usual. He did have a documentation problem, and had to renounce his citizenship to attend school there. War time does bring about changes, especially to immigration rights and travel from abroad.
Top
+2
-3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9178) 5 years ago
India != Indonesia.
Top
+5
-1
founder
supporter
Posted by Tucker Bolton (+3674) 5 years ago
The Merry Minuet

The Kingston Trio

They're rioting in Africa
They're starving in Spain
There's hurricanes in Florida and Texas needs rain
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans
The Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs
South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don't like anybody very much
But we can be tranquil and thankful
And proud for man's been endowed
With a mushroom shaped cloud
And we know for certain that
Some lovely day someone will set the spark off
And we will all be blown away
They're rioting in Africa
There's strife in Iran
What nature doesn't do to us will be done by our fellow man.

Richard, I thoroughly enjoyed your dissertation. This thread only goes to make me believe that discourse is dead. There are lines drawn in the sand and walls built everywhere you turn. What I have learned from this overly long and repetitious intercourse is, I have never been happier to be a socialist and an atheist. I don't need to talk down to Brandy to know that I am smarter and more compassionate than he and or she is. Richard, Joe and Amorette, it is good to hear from you.
Larry, I still wish you would drop the censorship on language.
Top
+3
-2
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2412) 5 years ago
I'll call it quits on this, just so your four or 5 know we disagree.
Top
+7
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16946) 5 years ago
I always give "Brandy" a thumbs up when he offers to stop posting.
Top
+4
-1
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9888) 5 years ago
The definition of Natural Born and eligibility to be elected POTUS has long since been sorted out.

ARTICLE II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, “Presidential Eligibility,” speaks to the matter, though it doesn’t definitively define “natural born.”
http://www.heritage.org/c...ligibility

But that definition was nailed down with the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.
http://www.indiana.edu/~k...n1790.html

This is a pretty good discussion of the issue.

“Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement”
Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service
CRS Report for Congress, Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
November 14, 2011
PDF here
http://www.fas.org/sgp/cr...R42097.pdf
Top
+1
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9888) 5 years ago
Martin Van Buren (b. 12/5/1782) 8th POTUS, was the first President born after the Declaration was proclaimed.

William Henry Harrison, 9th POTUS, was born in 1773.

The military phase of the War of Independence War ended in 1783, the formal treaty ending the war wasn’t signed until 1795.

Going by the 1776 date, eight Presidents of the United States were born subjects of the King. Birthers during the early years of the Republic sure had their work cut out for them ; -)
Top
+1