Author Topic: Interesting American History  (Read 885 times)

Offline DipStick

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
      • http://www.theblueknights.com
Interesting American History
« on: November 27, 2005, 09:37:37 AM »
Forsaken Roots
 
Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of The Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.

It is the same congress that formed the American Bible Society. Immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of this nation.  

Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give me death." But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted. Here is what he said: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."


These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.

Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."  

Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his well- worn Bible: "I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also."


Consider these words from George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796:

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."  

Was George Washington a Christian? Consider these words from his personal prayer book: "Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb and purge my heart by the Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thy son, Jesus Christ."


Consider these words by John Adams, our second president, who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society.

In an address to military leaders he said, "We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."


How about our first   Court Justice, John Jay?

He stated that when we select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select Christians. "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."


John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, was the sixth U.S. President.

He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role. On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."


Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."


In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The congressof the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."
 

William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation."


Listen to these words of Mr. McGuffey: "The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."


Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first.
 

Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures:

"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3)."


For over 100 years, more than 50% of all Harvard graduates were pastors!


It is clear from history that the Bible and the Christian faith, were foundational in our educational and judicial system. However in 1947, there was a radical change of direction in the Supreme Court.


Here is the prayer that was banished:

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country. Amen."


  In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading was outlawed as unconstitutional in the public school system. The court offered this justification: "If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children."


Bible reading was now unconstitutional , though the Bible was quoted 94 percent of the time by those who wrote our constitution and shaped our Nation and its system of education and justice and government.


In 1965, the Courts denied as unconstitutional the rights of a student in the public school cafeteria to bow his head and pray audibly for his food.


In 1980, Stone vs. Graham outlawed the Ten Commandments in our public schools.


The Supreme Court said this: "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and observed them, this is not a permissible objective."

Is it not a permissible objective to allow our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments?


James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this: "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."


Today we are asking God to bless America. But how can He bless a Nation that has departed so far from Him?
 

Most of what you read in this article has been erased from our textbooks. Revisionists have rewritten history to remove the truth about our country's Christian roots. I , Mary Jones, encourage all who read and agree with the words herein, share it with others, so that the truth of our nation's history may be told.

Mary Jones

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
Interesting American History
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2005, 10:22:20 AM »
Theocracy or Democracy?

The seperation of church and state is a corner stone of this republic.

Where should our kids get their religious indoctrination and education? Public School or Church?
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Interesting American History
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2005, 10:41:15 AM »
I do not believe that the government should form a religion... I do believe that it is perfectly fine to mention god tho.  Just not to say everyone has to be of a certain religion..  Athiests can consider themselves god if they like.  "In god we trust" could mean to them (or anyone)anything they wanted.

I also believe that the government should not use extorted money to form a school system and then not allow parents to spend that money on any school they choose.

to many.. the school system is a government religion/indoctrination monopoly.

lazs

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Interesting American History
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2005, 10:41:33 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hangtime
Theocracy or Democracy?

The seperation of church and state is a corner stone of this republic.

Where should our kids get their religious indoctrination and education? Public School or Church?


It does not exist
There is NO seperation of church and state in the consitution ANYWHERE.

That claim that there is,is a myth
And not just a little myth either as its closer to an outright lie then anything resembling the truth.

And its not even close to the intent of the clause you are wrongly attemting to refer to
If that were its original intent as I am not particularly religeous I would support it because that was what the original intent was. But it is in fact not its original intent or anything even closely resembling it.

ITs original intent was to not have one official "Church of the United States" that is what was meant when they wrote "Congress shall pass no law respecting and establishment of religeon"

Hang you are so far off base on this one you might as well be in another galaxy.
By far the overwhelming weight of evidence is against you.
Its not even close.
I suggest you re read your history
« Last Edit: November 27, 2005, 10:50:37 AM by DREDIOCK »
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Interesting American History
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2005, 10:50:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
I do not believe that the government should form a religion


And that is exactly what is ment in the first ammendment.

"Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Dago

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5324
Interesting American History
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2005, 10:54:51 AM »
You might notice they did not require anyone to be a Christian, instead guaranteed religious tolerance and the right of choice.  Lets honor their wisdom and dont try to pretend that they really kind of wanted everyone to go to their church.
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Interesting American History
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2005, 11:04:28 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dago
You might notice they did not require anyone to be a Christian, instead guaranteed religious tolerance and the right of choice.  Lets honor their wisdom and dont try to pretend that they really kind of wanted everyone to go to their church.


Exactly what is intended at the writing
So there could be no, official "national church of the united states"
As there was a "Church of England"
As that was one thing they were trying to escape
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Interesting American History
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2005, 11:16:33 AM »
Kind of silly really. I bet a large number were slave owners too. Luckily we don't do everything they modeled for us.

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Interesting American History
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2005, 11:38:01 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kind of silly really. I bet a large number were slave owners too. Luckily we don't do everything they modeled for us.


"At the time of the founding of the American nation, a preponderant number of the leading figures in the revolutionary struggle against Britain, opposed black chattel slavery. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson, to name the most prominent, all organized to end a practice and policy they knew to be inconsistent with, and in fact, subversive of the principles upon which that Revolution had been based. Among this group, Benjamin Franklin was the most outspoken and active in his opposition to the practice of African slavery. In addition to countless public and private expressions of his opposition to human slavery, Benjamin Franklin founded the Pennsylvania Abolition Society in 1789. The following parody written by Franklin against those who argued in opposition to the Pennsylvania Abolition Society's memorial to the First Congress, to end slavery in America was published in the March 25, 1790 edition of the Federal Gazette.


To the Editor of the `Federal Gazette.'
MARCH 23, 1790.

SIR,-- Reading last night in your excellent paper the speech of Mr. Jackson in Congress against their meddling with the affair of slavery, or attempting to mend the condition of slaves, it put me in mind of a similar one, made about one hundred years since, by Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim, a member of the Divan of Algiers, which may be seen in Martin's Account of his Consulship, anno 1687. It was against granting the petition of the sect called Erika, or Purists, who prayed for the abolition of piracy and slavery as being unjust. Mr. Jackson does not quote it: perhaps he has not seen it. If, therefore, some of its reasonings are to be found in his eloquent speech, it may only show that men's interests and intellects operate, and are operated on, with surprising similarity in all countries and climates, whenever they are under similar circumstances. The African's speech, as translated, is as follows:--

``Allah Bismillah, &c. God is great, and Mahomet is his Prophet.

``Have these Erika considered the consequences of granting their petition? If we cease our cruises against the Christians, how shall we be furnished with the commodities their countries produce, and which are so necessary for us? If we forbear to make slaves of their people, who, in this hot climate, are to cultivate our lands? Who are to perform the common labors of our city, and in our families? Must we not then be our own slaves? And is there not more compassion and more favor due to us as Mussulmen than to these Christian dogs? We have now above fifty thousand slaves in and near Algiers. This number, if not kept up by fresh supplies, will soon diminish, and be gradually annihilated. If we, then, cease taking and plundering the infidel ships, making slaves of the seamen and passengers, our lands will become of no value for want of cultivation; the rents of houses in the city will sink one-half; and the revenue of government, arising from its share of prizes, be totally destroyed. And for what? To gratify the whims of a whimsical sect, who would have us not only forbear making more slaves, but even manumit those we have.

``But who is to indemnify their masters for the loss? Will the State do it? Is our treasury sufficient? Will the Erika do it? Can they do it? Or would they, to do what they think justice to the slaves, do a greater injustice to the owners? And, if we set our slaves free, what is to be done with them? Few of them will return to their countries; they know too well the greater hardships they must there be subject to; they will not embrace our holy religion; they will not adopt our manners; our people will not pollute themselves by intermarrying with them. Must we maintain them as beggars in our streets, or suffer our properties to be the prey of their pillage? For men accustomed to slavery will not work for a livelihood when not compelled. And what is there so pitiable in their present condition? Were they not slaves in their own countries?

``Are not Spain, Portugal, France, and the Italian States, governed by despots, who hold all their subjects in slavery, without exception? Even England treats its sailors as slaves: for they are, whenever the government pleases, seized, and confined in ships of war; condemned not only to work, but to fight, for small wages, or a mere subsistence, not better than our slaves are allowed by us. Is their condition, then, made worse by their falling into our hands? No: they have only exchanged one slavery for another, and I may say, a better; for here they are brought into a land where the sun of Islam gives forth its light, and shines in full splendor; and they have an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the true doctrine, and thereby saving their immortal souls. Those who remain at home have not that happiness. Sending the slaves home, then, would be sending them out of light into darkness.

``I repeat the question, What is to be done with them? I have heard it suggested that they may be planted in the wilderness, where there is plenty of land for them to subsist on, and where they may flourish as a free State; but they are, I doubt, too little disposed to labor without compulsion, as well as too ignorant to establish a good government, and the wild Arabs would soon molest and destroy or again enslave them. While serving us, we take care to provide them with every thing, and they are treated with humanity. The laborers in their own country are, as I am well informed, worse fed, lodged, and clothed.

``The condition of most of them is, therefore, already mended, and requires no further improvement. Here their lives are in safety. They are not liable to be impressed for soldiers, and forced to cut one another's Christian throats, as in the wars of their own countries. If some of the religious mad bigots, who now tease us with their silly petitions, have, in a fit of blind zeal, freed their slaves, it was not generosity, it was not humanity, that moved them to the action: it was from the conscious burden of a load of sins, and a hope, from the supposed merits of so good a work, to be excused from damnation.

``How grossly are they mistaken to suppose slavery to be disallowed by the Alcoran! Are not the two precepts, to quote no more, `Masters, treat your slaves with kindness; slaves, serve your masters with cheerfulness and fidelity,' clear proofs to the contrary? Nor can the plundering of infidels be in that sacred book forbidden, since it is well known from it that God has given the world, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of right as fast as they conquer it. Let us, then, hear no more of this detestable proposition,--the manumission of Christian slaves; the adoption of which would, by depreciating our lands and houses, and thereby depriving so many good citizens of their properties, create universal discontent, and provoke insurrections, to the endangering of government, and producing general confusion. I have, therefore, no doubt but this wise council will prefer the comfort and happiness of a whole nation of true believers to the whim of a few Erika, and dismiss their petition.'

``The result was, as Martin tells us, that the Divan came to this resolution: `The doctrine that plundering and enslaving Christians is unjust, is, at best, problematical; but that it is the interest of this State to continue the practice, is clear; therefore let the petition be rejected.'

``And it was rejected accordingly.''

``And since like motives are apt to produce in the minds of men like opinions and resolutions, that the petitions to the Parliament of England for abolishing the slave-trade, to say nothing of other Legislatures, and the debates upon them, will have a similar conclusion? I am, sir, your constant reader and humble servant,

HISTORICUS''
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Interesting American History
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2005, 11:38:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kind of silly really. I bet a large number were slave owners too. Luckily we don't do everything they modeled for us.


Alexander Hamilton and John Jay
Return to Contents
Others of the original founders of the nation, like Washington, Hamilton and Jay all worked and organized to rid the newly formed nation of the evil institution. In 1786, just prior to the constitutional convention in 1787, Hamilton and others signed a petition to the New York state legislature urging an end to the slave trade, which he identified as ``a commerce so repugnant to humanity, and so inconsistent with the liberality and justice which should distinguish a free and enlightened people.'' This petition was widely circulated in the press and otherwise. Hamilton, along with John Jay, its first President, was instrumental in organizing the ``New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves and Protecting Such of Them as Have been or may be liberated.'' Hamilton served as its second President, succeeding John Jay. He held this position, throughout the whole of his term as secretary of the treasury, and up until his death in 1804.

He also, along with Washington, and Gen. Nathaniel Greene, considered the active, and ongoing effort to organize black regiments into the Continental Army, as a key step in bringing about emancipation. Hamilton wrote the following, in support of a project of Gen. Washington, Col. John Laurens, and Gen. Nathaneal Greene for recruiting South Carolina blacks to serve in the Continental Army, in a letter in March of 1779, to John Jay, then President of Congress. (Washington, Greene and Col. David Humphreys had already successfully done the same with several regiments of blacks from northern states).


I foresee that this project will have to combat much opposition from the prejudice and self-interest. The contempt we have been taught to entertain for the blacks, makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor experience; and an unwillingness to part with property of so valuable a kind, furnish a thousand arguments to show the impracticibility, or pernicious tendency, of a scheme which requires such sacrifices. But it should be considered, that if we do not make use of them in this way, the enemy probably will; and that the best way to counteract the temptations they will hold out, will be to offer them ourselves. An essential part of the plan is to give them their freedom with their swords. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and, I believe, will have a good influence upon those who remain, by opening a door to their emancipation. This circumstance, I confess, has no small weight in inducing me to wish the success of the project; for the dictates of humanity, and true policy, equally interest me in favor of this unfortunate class of men....

Other of the founders uttered similar, if not stronger, sentiments. John Jay wrote in 1780:

An excellent law might be made out of the Pennsylvania one for the gradual abolition of slavery. Till America comes into this measure, her prayers to Heaven for liberty will be impious. This is a strong expression, but it is just. Were I in your Legislature, I would prepare a bill for the purpose with great care; and I would never cease moving it till it became a law, or I ceased to be a member. I believe God governs the world; and I believe it to be a maxim in his as in our court, that those who ask for equity ought to do it.

Jay would write again in 1785, on the eve of the effort to create the Constitional form of government ultimately adopted:

It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honor of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.

A year later, Jay would draft a memorial to the New York Legislature on the abolition of slavery, signed by Jay, Alexander Hamilton, Robert Livingstone, among others, addressing the issue of slavery, which opened with the following declaration:

Your memorialists, being deeply affected by the situation of those who, although free by the laws of God, are held in slavery by the laws of this State, view with pain and regret the additional miseries which these people experience from the practice of exporting them, like cattle, to the West Indies and the Southern States.
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Interesting American History
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2005, 11:40:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kind of silly really. I bet a large number were slave owners too. Luckily we don't do everything they modeled for us.


The Virginians

Thomas Jefferson (despite his own ambigious position on the question), along with Franklin, and George Washington, consistently in his public writings, pointedly defined the views on slavery of the majority of those who fought to establish a nation grounded in true republicanism in North America.

In 1774, Jefferson was selected to draft the instructions for the Virginia delegation to the first Continential Congress, and which were later printed under the title ``A Summary View of the Rights of British America.'' Interestingly, the ``Summary'' is very similar to the section addressing the issue of slavery that was in the initial draft of the Declaration of Independence written two years later.


For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his Majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those Colonies, where it was, unhappily, introduced in their infant state. But, previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesties negative; thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few British corsairs to the lasting interests of the American States, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice.

George Mason, also from Virginia, who would initially oppose the Constitution's adoption and refuse to sign the document at the end of the convention in Philadelphia in 1787, at least until an agreement to include the Bill of Rights was reached, also reflected this viewpoint. In fact, South Carolinians and Georgians who supported the maintenance of the institution of slavery viewed Virginia's opposition as a greater threat than opposition from ``northern states'' on this issue. In the following, taken from the debates at the Constitutional Convention in August of 1787, Mason delivered what was one of the strongest attacks on the institution, as reported here in the notes of James Madison.

This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. The British Government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns, not importing alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it did by the Tories.
He mentioned the dangerous insurrrections of the slaves in Greece and Sicily, and the instructions given by Cromwell to the commissioners sent to Virginia,-- to arm the servants and slaves, in case other means of obtaining submission should fail. Maryland and Virginia, he said, had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be in vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands; and will fill that country with slaves, if they can be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. He lamented that some of our Eastern brethren had, from lust of gain, embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to the States being in possession of the right to import, this was the case with many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it essential, in every point of view, that the General Government should have the power to prevent the increase of slavery.
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Interesting American History
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2005, 11:44:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kind of silly really. I bet a large number were slave owners too. Luckily we don't do everything they modeled for us.


They didnt guarantee slavery in the constitution either.

your talking apples and oranges
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
Interesting American History
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2005, 11:51:41 AM »
"Kind of silly really."

Long after we are all gone, thousands of years from now people will still argue over their beliefs about some god(s) or another.   It's probable that today's religions will be looked upon as backwards as we today see the pagan religions of the Greeks or Norsemen.


J_A_B

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Interesting American History
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2005, 12:00:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by J_A_B
"Kind of silly really."

Long after we are all gone, thousands of years from now people will still argue over their beliefs about some god(s) or another.   It's probable that today's religions will be looked upon as backwards as we today see the pagan religions of the Greeks or Norsemen.

J_A_B


You may have a point. the Greeks and Romans viewed the Jewish religeon as being "primative":)
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Interesting American History
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2005, 12:26:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
They didnt guarantee slavery in the constitution either.

your talking apples and oranges



Nor does it guarantee special acknowledgment of a christian church. It does recognize slavery however, article 1 section 2. (those 3/5ths of a person they are talking about are slaves).