Attention Republicans: Let Me Prove to You That the United States is Not a Theocracy

There’s a line I’ve often used when describing how I feel the typical mind of a Republican works. It’s my belief that reality for many of these conservatives isn’t determined by what’s real, but instead by what they want to be real. And I feel that one of the easiest ways to prove this theory is by looking at their continued, and constant, push to try to force the United States into a theocracy.



In fact, most conservatives tend to believe that the United States is indeed a “Christian nation.”

They believe this based on factual evidence that supports the complete opposite of what it is that they want to be real.

Many will point to our Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase “one nation under God” as “proof” that this nation is founded upon Christian principles. The reality is, our pledge wasn’t written until the late-1800’s and its original text did not include the words “one nation under God.” They weren’t added until 1954.

Then some will point to our Declaration of Independence and the phrase “endowed by their Creator”  or “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” as proof that our Founding Fathers intended for this nation to be based on Christianity. Well, at least when they use this to support their theocratic beliefs, they’re using something from the right time period. Unfortunately, they’re also proving that they’re not aware that the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are two completely different things. The Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war. It has nothing to do with what rights are given to each and every American citizen.

The third piece of evidence the theocracy pushers often use to support their belief that this is a “Christian nation” is our nation’s motto of “In God We Trust.” Which I will admit is quite the compelling piece of evidence – until you do a simple Google search. That’s when you’re realize that “In God We Trust” didn’t first appear on our currency until 1864 and didn’t become our nation’s motto until 1956.

And let’s not forget our Constitution itself. A document that has absolutely zero mentions of “the Creator,” “God,” “Christianity,” “Jesus Christ,” the Bible,” or anything at all to do with religion outside of our First Amendment which establishes a very clear-cut precedent that our laws cannot be based on religion.


It’s like I’ve said before, the fact that any and all references to a singular religion such as Christianity were excluded from our Constitution wasn’t by accident, but by design.

After all, how could these men have been such devout, Christian followers yet not include a single reference to their religion anywhere in the Constitution if they really wanted this to be a “Christian nation”?

You mean to tell me if Republicans could rewrite our Constitution right now that they would leave out any and all mention of Christianity in that Constitution? That they would instead assume that people would “just know” that they meant for the nation to be based on Christianity.

That doesn’t even make sense.

Most modern day conservatives want the Ten Commandments placed at every government building, prayers before every daily legislative session starts and marriage to be defined by the Bible. There’s no way in hell that people who believe in such things would have written a document as detailed as our original Constitution and leave out any mention of their religion if they wanted a nation based upon it.

So it goes back to what I said about the absence of any religious language. These words weren’t omitted by accident, but by deliberate design by our Founding Fathers.

And when it comes to the right for each American to have “free exercise of religion,” we do have that right. As Americans, we can follow whatever religion we’d like. As Americans, we can be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon or whatever. And we can also practice that religion as much (or as little) as we’d like. But what we cannot do, and what our Constitution is supposed to prohibit, is for laws to be passed that force one person’s religion onto someone else. 

Which is exactly what Republicans are constantly trying to do. The moment even one American is forced to abide by a single law based upon religious principles that they do not follow, that is a clear and blatant violation of their First Amendment rights.

So, in the argument over whether or not this nation was founded to be a “Christian nation,” people like myself have our Constitution and its lack of any reference to Christianity on our side, and Republicans have – well – practically nothing. Because our rights are set by the words written in our Constitution, not the conjecture of those who wished they lived in a theocracy, but don’t.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • fifthdentist

    “We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.” — Preamble to Confederate States of America constitution

    God apparently didn’t think too highly of these cats, even if they did kiss his ass in their constitution.

    • Steve Brains

      God treated them Racist White folk like prison bitches until 1964.

      • jaxative

        Wow! Bad spelling, bad grammar and bad logic all in one. You hit the trifecta there.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        And even with his GED. But it was quite an accomplishment to have gotten it when he was only 16.

      • Steve Brains

        xxx”You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Ditto

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”azaz

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”xxx

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Wow, now what would happen if an actual card-carrying Progressive were to post here instead of a GED holder who was 16 years old when he received it. I just love how hard you try to impress.

      • Steve Brains

        a”You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Stephan Barlow, please refrain from expressing yourself in such juvenile excess. It makes counter-posters think you secretly like all the attention.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • Steve Brains

        a”You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Wow, I don’t know where to go with that.
        George Bush was and still is a raging Progressive. He’s one of yours there Steffy.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”a

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        And you personify the very best of the Progressive mentality. Good for you Sparky. You’ve achieved your goal in life.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”aa

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”aaaa

    • youcantgetridofmethateasy

      So God wins Wars? Sorry there Capt. Oblivious. God gives his son, God give his forgiveness. God gives fortitude. God saves souls. Something you work venomously to deny having.
      I pray for you.

      • Steve Brains

        xx”You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        And yet you MUST respond to each and every post I make with a child-like taunt. Oh how sad.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.” asa

      • Gary Menten

        “God gives his forgiveness” — unproven statement

        “God Gives his son.” — unproven statement

        “God gives fortitude.”– False. the statement “Belief in God sometimes prompts determination on the part of the faithful” would be more accurate. At the same time, belief in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy can also prompt determination on the part of the faithful.

        God saves souls: No evidence to support that either exists.

        And to boot… he doesn’t win wars. What is the difference between an invisible God who doesn’t win wars, is never seen, never heard, never touched never recorded in any way, and to which not a single aspect of our existence can be attributed to by scientific method and no God at all?

        None.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        It’s proven to me. Weren’t you listening?
        And as far as “doesn’t win wars”, are we still talking about our Christian God or Barak Hussein Obama?

      • Gary Menten

        1. Your definition of “proof” is obviously much less rigorous than mine.
        2. It’s “President Obama” to you, you worthless bigot.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Ah, your hatred and bigotry for us ‘Yanks’ is showing there Canuck.

      • Gary Menten

        No hatred of Americans whatsoever. I spent many a happy summer camping in the US. I still travel there when I have the time. I do have contempt for clowns like you of course, but that’s because you’re an uninformed neo-Confederate bigot, not because you’re American. You could be Polish or Chinese or German and I’d still think you’re a waste of genetic material.

  • Jeremy Noyes

    Thank God for Thomas Jefferson. You can even choose which God.

    • Steve Brains

      AMEN!!!

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Well Stephan Barlow, Jefferson was the one who started the “War on Islam”.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”zz

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Ditto, Ditto

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”aza

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”xz

  • The phrases “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” in the Declaration of Independence seem to confuse a lot of conservatives. The man who wrote it, Thomas Jefferson, was nothing like an orthodox Christian, but rather a deist who like many of the other signatories of this document did not accept revealed religion. Indeed, Jefferson and others believed that God could only be revealed through observation of the natural world. Maybe this is why he put the “laws of nature” before “nature’s God in the sentence.

    But like Allen says, the Declaration of Independence is basically a declaration of war, and has no legal meaning beyond that. It is not a blueprint for the nation or for governance. That role belongs exclusively to the Constitution. Now believe it or not, the American Court system was modeled on the United Kingdoms, which had criminal courts, civil courts and ecclesiastic courts. Except that the US left out the last of these. This was no accident. It would have been impossible to create one without forcing one religion down everybody’s throat and this religiously diverse lot was never going to accept this. This is why the Constitution also forbids a religious test for office and why freedom of religion is included in the first article of the Bill of Rights. That freedom can only properly exist where there is a solid wall between church and state.

    • marecek

      EXACTLY!!! Most arguments about the US being a secular state leave out some of the most compelling evidence in the Constitution. I don’t know how ANYONE can read the “No Religious Tests” Clause and still make a serious argument that the Constitution ordained a Christian nation. Moreover, the provisions concerning the oaths officeholders (President, etc.) must take provide the oath or affirmation option, that is the option between an religious oath (swearing before God), and an oath that does not invoke the deity. Even in 1787 they provided for that option, but in 2014, if we don’t want someone else’s religion shoved down our throats, the Reich Wing act as if we are radical atheists who are undermining the nation.

      • Steve Brains

        It’s VERY black and white. The vernacular of Colonial American English needs to be applied and NO elected official should be allowed office without passing a Constitutional TEST!!!

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Passing a test? So when Our Dear Leader swore on a Bible to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and the laws as detailed in the United States Code as well as the Code of Federal Regulations, he was lying?

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        You have such a way with words. You should write your own byline here on ‘Forward Progressives’.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Nice defense there Rabbi. I must really have your goat. Lets see how long you can ‘keep it up’.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”a

      • Jim Bean

        You really get yourself into a lot of shit, don’t you?

      • Steve Brains

        Quack!

      • Steve Brains

        BARRRRRF!

      • Steve Brains

        I DO answer you….

      • Steve Brains

        My boots are dry AND they smell nice. But then again, I have running water AN inddor plumbing so I don’t have to tromp across a goat pen to take a dump in a bucket like you do Jum.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”azzzz

      • MorganLvr

        So are you. You radicals cannot force your version of Christianity on others. Do your thing and leave others to their beliefs. Who do you think you are to attempt such a thing anyway? MYOB already!

      • Steve Brains

        Then WHY are you wasting so much SPACE TOO?

      • Steve Brains

        Who are you to [pervert the teaching of Christ and sell it as you own brand of “The One True Religion?”

      • Steve Brains

        I am a Buddist. I worship THC and grow killer altars to the magnificence of peace. I have a 6′ Sativa with 16 COLAS on it and It’s going upside down on Thanksgiving.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Wow, does all that take up the rest of your time awake when you’re not posting here as either ‘Stephan Barlow’ or ‘Steve Brains’? So you’re a Pot Head who’s politics actually center around YOU getting high? NORML much?

      • Steve Brains

        Wha tmakesy outh inkI amnota kid’sco mputerp rogramforh isscie ncepro ject?

      • Andy Kinnard

        He can swear on a different book if chosen (and this HAS been done).

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Which book would that be? Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’? Mein Kampf? Communist Manifesto?

      • Andy Kinnard

        Pretty much whatever book you like. Get over it.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        So when you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; and you don’t, only the laws of Man come to bear? So violating your own moral code has no actual penalties beyond you feeling bad for yourself (or not?)?

      • Andy Kinnard

        I’m not the existential fitness of your straw man, dystopian fantasy, but, yes, there would surely be a secular option for atheists. It’seems probably already happened. Get over it.

      • Gary Menten

        It is equally lawfully acceptable to “solemnly affirm” as opposed to swear. Go to the books before posting here.

      • Gary Menten

        It can be be on a copy of Sports Illustrated if he wants to. The swimsuit issue even. There is no constitutional requirement whatsoever for him / her to use a holy book.

      • MorganLvr

        The President is a Christian. If he were not, he wouldn’t have been forced to use those particular words. We just have never elected a non-Christian.

      • DavidHarley

        How many of the first five or six Presidents were clearly Christians, as opposed to sporadic churchgoers?

      • Gary Menten

        He’s not forced to use them regardless of his beliefs. However, in a country where 82% of the population claim or pretend that prayer is an important part of their daily lives, someone who doesn’t profess to believe in God has no chance of winning the presidency. This is the real religious test, which though not de jure, is nonetheless de facto.

      • Gary Menten

        There is no constitutional requirement for them to swear an oath on the bible or even use the words “so help me God,” which are not a part of the oath according to the Constitution. They could swear the oath a copy of Sports Illustrated if they wanted to. It would be just as legal.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        So you shoving your very real Religion of Atheism down my throat doesn’t count? What about your Religion of the All-Powerful federal Gov’t? You OK with that one violating my 1st Amendment Right?

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”cx

      • Andy Kinnard

        No, you are free to practice whatever religion you like. Nothing is being shoved down your throat.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Can I be disapproving of the Sin of Homosexuality? The Sin of Abortion? No, I can’t. Your religion prevents me from referencing my religion in refusing to facilitate the acquest of my business’ Wedding Cake? My ability to preach against the Sin of Homosexuality from the Pulpit of my church in Austin?
        You’re doing a awful lot of shoving. And what’s with the wilful destruction of my Religious ‘Marriage’ and it’s meaning? You can legislate Compliance but you can never legislate acceptance.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Yes, you can. You just can’t force other people to live by your belief system (or abide it in any way). Religious freedom ends at the tips of your nose. When you have a public, for profit business, you’re not practicing religion, and you have to serve everyone equally; that’she the law. If you want to preach disdain from the pulpit, that’s fine. Equal marriage rights don’t impinge on your Church’Street practices or the meaning of its screens (e.g., weddings). It just affects the rules of civil marriage.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Wow, the tip of my nose but when Sandra Fluke DEMANDS that I and all religious institutions and affiliated entities fully pay for her Condoms and Contra-conception products, you use the courts to force it down my throat? And you are just fine with the Lesbian Mayor of Austin Texas demanding Pastor’s Sermons in an illegal search for what she calls is hate speech? I don’t remember any proper Christian demanding that YOU cough the dough to support their Food Pantry or Soup Kitchen.
        And before you come back at me on ‘Tax Exempt’ Status, I’m all for the revocation of absolutely all ‘Tax Exempt’ statuses of all entities, including Obama’s Pac, Hillary’s Pac, Tides Foundation, Bill Gates’ PAC, the American Red Cross, UniCEF, AARP, the United Nations, World Health Organization, World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club and every private and public sector Union. But that will never happen because then your Progressive Agenda would have no control over any of them.
        Sorry Charlie.

      • Andy Kinnard

        You’re just devolving into arguments about wedge issues and using faux (or hysterical) outrage to promote it.

      • Steve Brains

        he has nothing to say., No points to make and nothing BUT arguments to waste your time with.

        Iggy it an move on.

      • Steve Brains

        NOpe. Since she NEVER demanded you pay for any thing, only DEMANDED her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNBDER THE LAW be PROTECTED from religion interfering in the LAW.

      • DavidHarley

        “Sandra Fluke DEMANDS that I and all religious institutions and affiliated entities fully pay for her Condoms and Contra-conception products, you use the courts to force it down my throat?”

        The insurance policies of Georgetown University Law School were her issue. She made the point that they excluded provision of expensive hormone pills to women who had a medical need. I don’t know that your throat was involved.

        “And you are just fine with the Lesbian Mayor of Austin Texas demanding Pastor’s Sermons in an illegal search for what she calls is hate speech?”

        It was not she but the city’s lawyers who wanted the transcripts, because they were fighting a case in which the pastors were participants.

        ” I don’t remember any proper Christian demanding that YOU cough the dough to support their Food Pantry or Soup Kitchen.”

        In 2010, Catholic Charities had revenues of $4.7 billion, $2.9 billion of which came from the US government. Only about $140 million came from
        donations from diocesan churches.

        There is no shortage of “proper” Christians who believe that charity is insufficient to provide for the needs of the sick, children, disabled, elderly, and poor in our society.

      • Gary Menten

        You need to stop getting your facts from Rush Limbaugh.

      • Gary Menten

        Well stated, but in this case, you might as well be administering medicine to the dead.

      • Steve Brains

        NOpe, anyone BUT you.

      • DavidHarley

        “Can I be disapproving of the Sin of Homosexuality?
        “The Sin of Abortion?”

        No shortage of preachers denouncing both, from the pulpit or otherwise.

        “And what’s with the wilful destruction of my Religious ‘Marriage’ and it’s meaning”

        Nobody is trying to take away the right of you or your church to take whatever stance on the matter. I do not expect the Roman Catholic Church to celebrate single-sex marriages in my lifetime.

        Do you object to people being married in a secular ceremony by a county clerk? Perhaps they have been divorced, or belong to different religions, or have no religious beliefs. Does that affect your “Religious Marriage”?

        Being married in the US confers a very long list of secular rights, related to a wide of range of things, such as tax, inheritance, pensions, insurance, and so on. Should your “Religious Marriage” beliefs exclude others from being entitled to secular benefits?

      • Gary Menten

        Well stated.

      • Citizen

        re·li·gion
        rəˈlijən/
        noun
        the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

        Atheism is not a religion. It is the explicit rejection thereof.

      • The funny part is this. In 1774, the Quebec Act gave
        Catholics in Canada rights they didn’t have in England or as yet, the United
        States, and revolutionary firebrands in America were terrified the British parliament
        might extend them into America. This wasamong the causes of the Revolutionary War. But after the revolution was over and it came time to draw up a constitution, no mention was made of Protestants and Catholics and everyone got the same rights. So what changed in the end? It’s really very simple. It is one thing to rattle a saber and call for independence, quite another to build and govern a country. The founding fathers
        were a religiously diverse lot, and though many may have been anti-Catholic they had the mental clarity to realize one thing at least; that any government that had the ability to deny Catholics rights or bar them from public office could find a way to do the same with say, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers or other religious groups. To do so of course would have required the establishment of a single church as being the official church of state, above all the others, and there was no way this diverse lot were going to agree to this: none whatsoever. So they settled on a separation of church and state, both out of necessity and perhaps out of true enlightenment.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        What’s with the reference to the Jefferson’s Baptist Church letter? You know better. I know you do.
        Your statement here is a spot-on assessment:
        “a single church as being the official church of state, above all the others,” with state of course being that which would receive federal quantifying. Which of course brings us back to the 1st Amendment.
        But the acknowledgement of God verbalized by those Authors (including the agnostic Jefferson) from which all ‘Natural Rights’ come from is what caused the inclusion and recognition of God in those oh so important documents. But this is semantics at this point.
        You must see the very real destructive force bearing down on Christian faith in America. War on Marriage, War on Faith, War on God are all real and even with a cursory read on almost any thread here on ‘Forward Progressives’, it’s an actual Battle Cry. Why is that?

      • Jim Bean

        Excellent. The Left want to dismiss ‘one nation under God’, ‘in God we Trust,’ because they emerged after the ink was dry on the constitution but they want everyone to accept that gay marriage and abortion – ‘constitutional rights’ that also came (much longer) after the ink was dry – was exactly what the signers intended.

      • None of those phrases were part of the Constitution.

      • Jim Bean

        True. But no one perceived them as inappropriate until a few super-humans like you came along.

      • Andy Kinnard

        …which first happened as early as the first debates over using those phrases. If they had been part and parcel of our founders’ intent, they would have been included in the founding document (like the terms that layout the foundation of equal treatment for groups you’d apparently deny civil right [via the tyranny of the majority to which y’all so frequently object]).

      • MorganLvr

        Oh yes we did! Everyone is free to practice their OWN beliefs. But you do NOT get to force your beliefs on others who do not share them. Period.

      • I had nothing to do with it. I swear…I live in Canada. Nice try though.

      • jamie

        Jim, you seem to be intimidated and experiencing feelings of inferiority when face with someone who has a higher level of intelligence and critical thinking skills than you

      • regressive white trash reli

        actually jimbo just goes MUTE— to prove what U say is 100% accurate

      • Dennis Harris

        I beg to differ. The question of separation of church and state came up during the time of Jesus. In an effort to “trap” the “anointed one,” certain factions of the church (let’s call them Conservatives) asked Jesus whether it was “godly” for them to pay tribute (taxes) to the Roman gov’t. I’m sure you remember his response: “Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s… and to God, that which is God’s.” Case closed.

        To dig a bit deeper, this had more to do with whether or not the people had to support a gov’t that persecuted them, where their money would be spent on the “welfare” of the general populace… or give a tithe to the Christian church. Jesus clearly reaffirmed that “what God commanded” was separate, and in addition to, what was required for “local” governments.

        This principle should still stand. Your religious life (if you are a believer) is… and always HAS been… separate from your civil duties.

        To make this more (or less) clear: The people were asking him if their “money” came from God or from their labors, and WHO had a right to it. It had the image of Caesar on it… not that of God, or some religious “phrase.” He clearly showed that he did NOT believe that the “coin” of the realm was of any importance to God, and that since it came from the gov’t… it was not the measure of one’s dedication or “offering” to God. They had “money” in Moses’ time… yet… their offerings to god were not burnt coins, but burnt calves/goats.

        Do you KNOW why those phrases were added to our money some 150+ years after our founding? It was to show the difference between us and the Communists. Which is kinda funny when you think about it. Though I am no “fan” of communism… it is quite clear to me that Jesus taught more “in terms of” a communal society than a capitalistic one.

        Which brings us full circle back to the subject of this “article.”

      • regressive white trash reli

        not super—
        ……just into EQUALITY for all americans
        *****************************************************
        ,,,,,,,,,,,unlike the views of white trash regressive religious scumbags who hate everyone else

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Listen, we understand that you’re losing privilege and don’t like it.

        WE DON’T CARE…deal with it.

      • Jim Bean

        Thus, you’ll understand my apathy towards you and accept it graciously.

      • Andy Kinnard

        The civil rights principles underlying equal marriage rights (and all fights for equal treatment) ARE in the original ink. The God phrases, not so much.

      • Jim Bean

        If you’d approached the original signers and asked, “Does this mean homosexuals should be allowed to marry each other(?)” they would all have looked at you like you as if you had three heads.

      • Andy Kinnard

        There response would likely be whatever they thought about inter-racial marriage too. Are you going to reverse the Loving decision based on a hypothetical founders position on inter-racial marriage?

      • regressive white trash reli

        seems jimbo didn’t reply-as your post was correct and jimbo hates facts

      • DavidHarley

        They had no problem with the execution of thieves and sodomites. They had no problem with moderate wifebeating and the complete control of a married woman’s property by her husband. Many had no problem with the total ownership of slaves.

        We do not have to believe in progress to recognize that their views are not our views. The meaning of the provisions in the Bill of Rights has changed.

      • Gary Menten

        If you have asked them should should we abolish slavery and give the freed men the right to vote, they would have given you exactly the same look. If you had suggested that women should also have the right to vote, they would have given you that same look again. If you had suggested that one day, a Catholic or a black man could become president….that look again. Welcome to the 21st C.

      • regressive white trash reli

        and what would they say about allowing blacks and women “equal rights” such as not being slaves and voting and marrying other ethnicities?
        eh jimbo??? jimbo???

      • CON_servatives

        Are you that old?

      • Jim Bean

        Almost. I feel confident that, if the signers had intended to endorse homosexual marriage it would not have taken 236 years for the first one to take place.

      • CON_servatives

        And I fee confident they would have outlawed corporations…. but who cares about FEELINGS

      • Jim Bean

        Corporations already existed back then. Not many, but enough that the drafters understood the concept. (Examples)

        Union Wharf Co. in New Haven

        The New York Co.

        The Free Society of Traders.

      • CON_servatives

        What you listed is not even close to what they are today. Sorry they just aren’t. They should have also prevented the representatives from taking any money from them as well. Corporations are not people. End of story unless you are nuts like half the CONS. The framers didn’t want to exclude people they were trying to include people, especially persecuted people like themselves. And tell me how any poll that says the country is made up of this or that demographic proves anything about if this country was founded as a Christian nation. It doesn’t prove anything other than a percentage of population.

      • CON_servatives

        How long did it take for women to vote? Time doesn’t make things correct. If you are wrong 100 times you can still get it tight at try 101….

      • Jim Bean

        I agree.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Hmmm, might have something to do with fundy xtians being willing to lynch those who opposed them? MMmmm???

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        And they would have said the same thing about ending slavery or giving women property rights and voting rights.

        Your point?

      • QuiGon

        >> “The Left want to dismiss ‘one nation under God’, ‘in God we Trust,’
        because they emerged after the ink was dry on the constitution”

        VERY dry. 160 years dry.

      • regressive white trash reli

        notice how jimbo did NOT reply 2 those facts???
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,vintage jim bean

      • MorganLvr

        Read the Constitution and the Baptist Church letter for yourself.

      • Steve Brains

        ??? Which Baptist church letter? The Constitution I know inside out.

      • DavidHarley

        ‘one nation under God’, ‘in God we Trust,’

        Neither refers to Christianity, let alone any particular set of Christian beliefs.

        The position of the Religious Right, misled by David Barton, is that the Founders wanted to create a Christian Nation, not that there has never been any subsequent presence of religious sentiment in the country. John Winthrop had that aim, but Jefferson and his colleagues did not, even though some of them were believers and others thought religion a useful social control.

      • Guest

        The last time I looked, the nation was under the Constitution, not some undefined deity that no-one has ever seen or can prove exists.

      • Gary Menten

        God the last time I checked, has no constitutional role; none, zip, nada. Nor can he/she/it even be demonstrated to exist. You might as well say “One nation under an in invisible, intangible being that no-one has ever seen, photographed, recorded, or can prove exists. Does that make sense?

      • Jim Bean

        The concept that we might possibly not be the most supreme creature in all of the universes makes sense to me. The concept that we ARE doesn’t work for me because it presumes all the information is on the table.

      • Gary Menten

        1. Nowhere do I say that humans are the most supreme creature in the universe. It’s very immensity and mathematical probability suggest a virtual certainty that their is life beyond our planet and that other intelligent civilizations exist. There is no reason to think that some of these may not be more far advanced than us in technology, intelligence, ability. There may even be a civilization that has learned how to bridge the gap between the stars and this would certainly make them superior to us. Advanced technology however, does not a god make.

        2. Nowhere do I say that God does not exist. To be able to prove this, one would have to be know more than I do. But what is the difference between an invisible and incorporeal God that no-one can see, photograph, hear, touch or record and to which nothing can be positively attributed and no God at all?

        3. No scientist in his right mind would pretend that all of the information is on the table. But every scientific discovery we make, everything we understand a bit better today than we did yesterday unravels a little more of the mystery of the universe and every time we do, the role of God in the universe seems to get smaller and smaller. God of scripture is but a god of the gaps. He gets smaller all the time.

        4. To allocate a role in law to an entity whose very existence is unproven and and no more than conjecture based not on scientific knowledge, but rather on the lack of scientific knowledge added to revelation makes even less sense then it would to pray to the law of gravity or the speed of light.

      • Jim Bean

        I’m agnostic. I do see, however, how a belief in a final judgment by some non-human entity would be more beneficial to mankind than man made ‘morals’ which are really nothing more than self serving rules that can be broken without hurting your conscience as long as you don’t get caught by some other human.

      • Gary Menten

        Fine, but there is no evidence for that non-human entity, or that final judgment. Further, there seem to be an abundance of adherents to religion, who purport to believe in God and yet who do (very) bad things, get caught by humans then publicly blame it all on the notion that all humans including themselves are sinners, and then either sincerely or not claim to seek forgiveness.

        Allowing priests to absolve one of sin guarantees you will have sins in abundance.

      • Jim Bean

        I agree with everything you said. Those people however, are really atheists with nagging doubts. The true believers (few as they may be) don’t do that crap.

      • Steve Brains

        VERY FEW!!! Like FEWER than Medal of honor EARNERS. Like FEWER than Honest Republicans. Well, maybe not.

      • Gary Menten

        Atheist with doubts is not the term I would use. By definition, an atheist has no doubts.
        The term I would use is “Charlatan.” Some may even be self-hating charlatans who go to lengths to cover up their true selves. Think of how many virulent, gay-bashing “conservatives” have been caught buggering young men in airport restrooms and such. I am not fit to gauge the sincerity of their religious beliefs since I cannot say with any certainty that these hypocrites don’t actually believe that they will be forgiven for what they have done; I am only fit to express my contempt for their hypocrisy.

        A Catholic priest explained this to me once. I found his explanation a bit odd, given the history of that particular church, but theologically interesting.

        “God,” he said, “is not a bean counter. Many people think that when you die, God will put all the good things you did in one pile and put all the bad things you did in another, and if the good pile is bigger than the bad pile, you get into heaven. This is wrong. When you are being judged by God, the good things mean nothing. It is only the bad things he will consider. The only way to redemption is through humility and sincere repentance.”

        Anyway…whether you accept this idea or not, there do seem to be an awful lot of people that have the notion that God is a bean counter and that if you’ve done enough good, you can still squeeze through the pearly gates even if you’ve bilked your flock of millions or buggered congressional pages in your office. So I’d rather not comment on the sincerity of anyone’s faith and limit myself to showing disdain for their hypocrisy.

      • Jim Bean

        I know where you are coming from. I am an agnostic and married to a Catholic woman who divorced her first husband to marry me. She can’t take communion in the church because she hasn’t divorced me to demonstrate her repentance. Fortunately, I will likely die before she does and that point, she will be eligible for communion.

        She has siblings who are divorced and shacked up but not married to their current mates and the church bestows full privileges upon them because they haven’t remarried. Boggles the mind.

      • Gary Menten

        That does seem a tad unfair, doesn’t it?

      • Jim Bean

        I’d prefer the word ‘absurd.’

      • Gary Menten

        If you are looking to find rationality in organized religion, you will be looking a long time.

      • Dennis Harris

        I may be wrong here, but I’m not sure you have that exactly right. I WAS married to (now divorced from) a Catholic woman. It was her first marriage… and was performed in and thus sanctified by the Catholic church. I created a situation whereby SHE had to divorce me. She later remarried a Catholic man, yet STILL could not receive communion or other privileges of the Church. In fact… I’m pretty sure they had to have a civil wedding. She eventually petitioned the Church to have our marriage “annulled” so that her new marriage would be sanctified. We were already divorced (so that didn’t cut it.) Since I was not Catholic… she was allowed to say the marriage never HAPPENED… and thus regained her catholic “rights.”

        Your situation may be different, but… I’m pretty sure the Catholic church follows Biblical teachings that a woman can BE divorced (by her mate)… but cannot be the one who divorces her mate.

      • Jim Bean

        But my (current catholic wife) caused her own divorce from her husband and I (non-Catholic) caused my own divorce and neither of us were willing to blame our former spouses for the failure of the marriages. No annulments forthcoming under those circumstances.

      • Steve Brains

        They dun beeen bapitatized!! they is SAVED! They said tha majik wurds 1nce. “I accept jesus as My lord and Savior”

        Now they can sin aLL THEY WANT and NEVER have t worry cause they is SAVED!!!!!

        So WHY so they hate gays so much if they can “Sin at will” with absolute certainty of forgiveness?

      • Steve Brains

        I am the manifestation of God’s WILL in this space, and moment in time.

      • Jim Bean

        You are the manifestation of cumulative brain cell damage resulting from chronic marijuana abuse.

      • Dennis Harris

        I’d like to jump in here (a bit late) and begin by commending both you and Mr. Menten for your civilized discussion. That being said…

        I question your viewpoint that believing in a form of god and final judgement is MORE beneficial. It may very well be that it IS beneficial for the majority of mankind, as they are a weak minded lot (and I often share that opinion.) However… one need only look to the chaos in the Middle East to see that such belief and devotion is not superior to the “man made” morals (or laws) of our Constitution.

        It is quite possible for civilized men to agree to laws that punish certain “crimes,” and lead to harmonious existence, without invoking the fear of damnation as a sentence to be imposed in the hereafter.

      • Jim Bean

        I was thinking within the confines of Christianity. Islam is an altogether different beast. Man made laws are fine but they have no impact where there is no law applicable. For example, when a greedy CEO gets rid of all his older workers because they’ve been there the longest and per person, are getting the biggest paychecks. That is something a true believing Christian (and there are damned few of them) would not do.

      • Dennis Harris

        I have enjoyed reading your thoughts on religion and probably share most of them. So, if I may, I’d like to add a few comments for your amusement.

        To your #1: I often consider the immensity of the universe and can only come to one conclusion. If we ARE the only civilized beings in all of it… isn’t that an awesome thought? And, if we are NOT… isn’t that an equally awesome thought? Unfortunately, neither option affords me enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God… or the “theory” of evolution.

        Your #2: The only difference might be Faith and Truth. Here… I tend to agree with Mr. Bean that much of mankind as we exist today may not be capable of coexistence and emotional stability without the former… and (as Nicholson said in “A Few Good Men,”) may not be capable of dealing with the latter… regardless of which is reality.

        #3: I like to say the same thing in this way: The ancient Greeks and Romans (and others less noted,) had a God for every unknown occurrence in nature: wind, rain, thunder, lightning, the harvest, the seas, etc. As we learned more about our planet and our universe, we dispelled the beliefs in each of those gods… save one… that of the hereafter. The ONE thing we cannot (yet) understand, is what happens to us after death. Hence… the ONE remaining God. If we ever find a way (and we are getting close) to “knowing” that unknowable… might we then finally bury that belief? Or, possibly… prove his existence.

        #4: (Not totally related except as a question of jurisprudence) The Christian God (and that of every other religion I’m aware of…) claims that God is both “all knowing” and “all loving.” So… he HAD to know, when he created the angel Lucifer (one to whom he gave great favor,) that he would someday rebel and be cast from Heaven and eventually take more than half His “creation” to a torturous place of eternal damnation in a lake of fire. Sound like a “father’s love” to you?

        It may be impossible to disprove the existence of God through the “scientific method.” And, like Mr. Bean… I’m not sure it is in our best interest to do so. But, I cannot find a reason to elevate faith over logic, and there is no logical way for ME (at least) to prove his existence. And if God didn’t create my “logical mind,” who did?

      • Gary Menten

        #1. It seems to me highly improbable that we would be the only place in the universe where intelligent life exists, though if it were discovered that we are, then that would indeed be fascinating.

        #2. As evidence by the cowardly attacks that occurred in France today, belief in god is no guarantee of emotional stability or the ability to coexist with others either. It’s time we stop blaming faith or lack thereof for these things and start blaming them on human shortcomings.

        #3. “The ONE thing we cannot (yet) understand, is what happens to us after death. Hence… the ONE remaining God. If we ever find a way (and we are getting close) to “knowing” that unknowable… might we then finally bury that belief? Or, possibly… prove his existence.”

        We can understand what happens after death. We stop breathing, our heart stops pumping, brain activity ceases our cells die and we decompose. That’s what the evidence demonstrates. Any idea that our conscience in some way lives on is pure conjecture with no scientific evidence to support it. I know of no way to disprove the notion of life after death, but there is not need of this since there is also no way to prove it. This is unlikely ever to change.

        #4 Your logical mind is the product of billions of years of evolution, and probably also the people and experiences in life that helped your or taught you to think critically.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Jim, you’re offering a false choice: It is not necessary to deny the existence of a higher being in order to reject that being’s intrusion into our self-governance (which is exactly the Constitution’s position on all this).

      • Jim Bean

        I never offered any choice. Besides, the choice has already been irrevocably made, barring a loud voice emanating from the heavens. But to my point, it is proved by the fact that you can no longer trust anyone unless they are in range of a surveillance camera or microphone.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Then it’should an even lower form of fallacy, the red herring, otherwise known as unrelated BS.

      • Jim Bean

        Buzz words tossed into a salad as a substitute for anything of substance to respond with.

      • regressive white trash reli

        most of us recognize we probably are NOT the highest order of life in the vast universe
        ======================================
        its the low IQ lemming white trash regressive religious SCUM who try2tell us THEIR piss-ant “god” is the ONLY existing concept of ‘god’
        **********************************************************
        ” jesus ” is GOD???
        ………laughable and sad at the same time

      • jamie

        Sorry to que you into the reality of the universe, but EVERYTHING changes.

      • CON_servatives

        Dismiss? No, it is just not a viable basis for an argument that our country is “Christian Nation,” that’s all this article is about. You are not reading and comprehending. You are reading and freaking out.

      • Jim Bean

        Between 75 and 85 percent of Americans identify as Christians, depending on the poll.

      • CON_servatives

        That proves, nothing

      • Jim Bean

        Why doesn’t it?

      • CON_servatives

        I didn’t? Polls do not matter when we are talking Constitution….You are answering a different question…. What percentage of Americans are Christian………… Keep digging

      • Jim Bean

        Then why did he bring it up?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Nope…because it never had a place in government according to the Constitution in the first place.

        It was railroaded through by fear of the Soviet Union and those ‘godless communists’.

        In case you missed something, our enemies now are religious to a fundamentalist extent…so that’s an even better reason to take it out of US secular government life.

      • Nonsense.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        ‘Nonsense’ that you know better?
        So the Branch Dividians’ were not a federally recognized 7th day Advent branch Church?
        and Janet didn’t burn the children in the bus alive?
        Did you read the gov’t report? The images of the children’s bodies were graphically detailed.

      • Mary

        Christians are destroying their own faith by being hateful, intolerant and aggressively trying to push into places where religion does not belong.

      • Ann Carmack

        so right.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        We only want it for you. Are you worth saving?

      • Dennis Harris

        If I am… that is up to God and the Church to perform. It has no place in our civil gov’t. If given the choice… I’d rather NOT be saved at the end of your Crusader’s sword.

      • regressive white trash reli

        or the end of some white trash regressive legislators pen and illegally crafted bogus legislation

      • regressive white trash reli

        we don’t want your VOODOO/ superstition,,,,,,,if U want 2 believe in some dried out dead jewish guy is “god” ( that’s loony) then fine,,,believe it– don’t attempt 2 legislate YOUR loser VOODOO in MY country—–
        ……………if we want to learn about YOUR ‘religion’…….we can find U–

      • Eddie Higgins

        There is no god .

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        I won’t say there’s no dawgs…but I have yet to see convincing evidence of any, for all that the god-botherers keep shouting about it.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
      • fifthdentist

        Wanting more people to get married does not “war on marriage” make.
        If there is a “war on marriage” then it is being waged by Christians because half of all heterosexual marriages are terminated. Oddly, the more fundamentalist Christians have the highest rates of infidelity and divorce, and atheists/agnostics have among the lowest rates.
        If Christians were serious about defending marriage, they would focus just as much attention on divorce as they do on gay marriage. Actually more. The LTGB population is a tiny fraction of the U.S., and not even all of them would get married if — when, rather, that becomes an option nationwide, while there are tens of millions of people who are married now that we know are going to get divorced at some point down the road.
        And Jesus himself said that any man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery, just as the woman does. Yet Jesus is not quoted as saying anything about gay people or gay marriage.
        I think there’s something about a beam and a moat and eyes in your Bible. I’m certain of it, in fact.
        I know people from my high school days who got knocked up or knocked up someone and got married as a teenager because of that. Practically all of them have been divorced and remarried, and some are actually in their third marriages. Yet they are among the most vocal people I know in opposition to gay marriage.
        If there is a war on marriage, it’s all of the people who are getting divorced who are waging it.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Failed counterpoint. And were you a faithful Christian in the past,,,,? What did you do wrong?

      • regressive white trash reli

        correct counterpoint,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        allowing equality in America is NOT a “war on religion”
        ………………….the white trash regressives are waging a war on equality for ALL americans
        ========================================
        unless; im wrong?? I was taught that AMERICA was all about equality–
        did I err here??/

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        I actually *read* your big book of lies, hatred, and misogyny, and decided that there was no evidence it was either true or good, and found that it was actually HARMFUL.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        FD, been a while since I’ve seen ya! Good to see your post, I enjoy reading your stuff.

      • Ann Carmack

        none of these wars exist! except in your momd

      • Ann Carmack

        mind

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        was funnier the first time…made me think of ‘mom’

      • Gary Menten

        You write pure fantasy, as usual.

        1.There is no destructive force bearing down on Christianity in America nor any war on religion. The facts just say otherwise. Your comments make absolute nonsense when spoken about a country in which 82% of people claim prayer is an important part of their daily lives and in which only about 2% of the people claim to be outright atheists. The only way there could be a war on Christianity in America is if it were being waged by Christians on both sides.

        There is no-one who has any problem with Christians (or any other group) openly believing whatever they want to, including that the Bible is the living word of God and completely inerrant if this is what they choose. We have no problem whatsoever with people standing on street corners pounding the bible and trying to recruit others to their beliefs. There is only a problem when a religious group–and in America it is almost always a Christian religious group– that tries to use government, be it through law, the public school system or what have you to promote said religious beliefs among the public or tries to pass off religion as science in the science classroom. When you do either, you will have a problem.

        2. There is no war on marriage. That is just more of the homophobic bullshit spread by religious bigots. Marriage, as far as government is concerned is a civil status with legal obligations on both parties. Nothing more. Have you ever wondered why people can get married in a church but have to go to court to get divorced? That’s because of the above and because when a clergyman performs a religious wedding, he is also acting on behalf of the state to to see that legal niceties involving the wedding contract are properly filled out. In short, as far as the state is concerned, he is working for them irregardless of his religious function.

        Since the state cannot force any religious organization to perform same sex marriages or even recognize them, though a number of mainstream religious groups now do allow it, your claims of a war against marriage fall into the category of ridiculous. Your church does not have to accept same sex marriage by it’s members and government is cool with that. That is a matter only for those are part of that religion to decide.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        And yet the wholesale murders of 56 million unborn babies is not enough to convince you. What is wrong in your soul?

      • Gary Menten

        Murder? Abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is legal in the US. It is therefore not murder. If you disagree with the Supreme Court, that’s just your tough luck. If you do not believe in abortion owing to your religious beliefs, it is up to you and only you to see that you follow the rules of your beliefs. I am not bound by them. Therefore this is not evidence of Christianity under assault, as any TRUE Christian, by your definition, would never have an abortion.

        Abortion is legal a great many places outside the US, including the US incidentally. So banning abortions in the US does nothing more than to disadvantage the poor who can’t afford to travel to some place where it is. This is exactly what wealthy people used to do before Roe v. Wade.

        There is no evidence of the existence of a soul either. Come back when you have scientific evidence to substantiate your statements.

      • regressive white trash reli

        you are spinning away from topic; as all small dicked loser white trash regressive religious scum invariably do
        ======================================
        when confronted with FACTS,,,,,,,,,,,
        regressive scum spins away to a different topic
        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, we heathens have no soul… we ascribe to the reality of BEING

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Parasites, not ‘babies’…deal with it.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Being honest, there is a destructive force bearing down on xtianity…but that force is freedom.

        If freedom will destroy a thing, then that thing needs destroying if it won’t adapt.

      • Gary Menten

        If you made that statement about Europe where everyone was once under the tyrannical grip of the Church of Rome for centuries and where it is collective memory to live without separation of church and state, I would agree. In America however, the exact opposite has happened whereby religious groups have equated religious freedom with the notion they have an absolute right to behave however their religion or their preacher tell them and successfully conned their congregation into believing that the country was founded on Christian principles.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Nope. There’s just a war on xtian *privilege* that xtianity didn’t earn and doesn’t deserve.

        If you don’t like it, find yourself a theocracy. DON’T try to build one here. Bad news, though…all the theocracies in existence right now are Muslim.

        Also, if you’re considering the letter to the Danbury Baptists (I was born there…YAY!), that’s where Jefferson clearly states that religion has no place in government.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Wow, what venomous seething rage resides within you. What is it about me that makes you what to separate my head from my neck with a dull knife? How can you have a reasonable dialogue when you’re blood is boiling inside you like that?
        Do you own any firearms? Do you have access to a nearby Elementary School? are you a loner? Do you wear a Trench Coat and listen to Marylyn Manson? Do you see NSA Agents hiding in your bushes?

      • MorganLvr

        We strongly object to having someone else’s religion forced on us. Especially since it’s a blatant violation of one of the most important principles included in our Constitution.

        How about your taking a look at just a small sample of the hate the right-wingers heap on US? We are only defending our Constitutional rights which are currently under heavy attack by rabid false “Christians”.”

      • jamie

        Your comment about Marilyn Manson cause me to direct you to a song by Todd Snider titled “the ballad of the kingsmen” you should have a listen (and pay attention to the words of the entire song)

      • DavidHarley

        The affirmation was introduced to prevent the federal government from excluding Deists, Baptists and Quakers, as some of the states did. Of all the Presidents, I think only Franklin Pierce has affirmed. It would surely create a furore if a President were to do that today.

        Although there was not yet complete toleration in Britain, the English Parliament had introduced the right to affirm in 1695.

      • We Hate Vine

        The Reich Wing? If you look at history, you will see clearly that the Nazi Party hated Christianity….

        So it’s appalling to compare abortion to slavery, but conservatives are Nazis?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        There was apparently a pretty big fight over ‘or affirmation’ at the time. The god-bothers fought like hell to exclude that two word phrase.

    • Steve Brains

      But the language is both poignant and poetically just. It is simple, direct and too much is read/INSERTED in between the lines.

      The opposite is true with the Constitution itself. The wording, in it’s vernacular of the era is SIMPLE, but the 2A holes and SCOTUS parse the reality out of it and INVENT law that DEFIES the Constitution.

      WHERE in the Constitution does it give ANYONE the right to decide a spiritual matter for another. It is expressly forbidden for the STATE to organize a religion. But the 10th Amendment has been so abused by despots, dictators, charlatans of god and con men. “Well, it’s not SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution, so it MUST BE the STATE’s unethical RIGHT to dictate morals to the citizens the 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th PROTECT.

      Which is how you have FetusFiends manipulating words to get around ROE v WADE, inflict a specific religion in public on citizens against their will and DENY them the inalienable (at least in America) RIGHT TO VOTE by throwing impediments down for the less fortunate to hurdle to make a choice.

      The result is a minority victory mismanaging the Congress and corrupting the Constitution by ignoring the main clauses in the phrases.

      2A – “A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of the free state…” a preamble to bearing and keeping arms…

      4A – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects…
      Against unreasonable searches and seizures SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED (EVER!!!!!) …
      and no warrants shall issue but upon PROBABLE cause (NOT POSSIBLE cause or suspected cause)
      supported by an OATH or affirmation,
      AND PARTICULARLY describing the place to be searched and the persons and the things to be seized.”

      Very simple and to the point. Warrantless searches, stop and frisk, profiling, secret courts and “national security secrecy” are ALL NOT specifically listed here.

      5A – States that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…” Which means that you can’t be held in jail without a grand jury FIRST indicting you!!! but that is not how the LAW works.

      ALL of the McCain Amendment 1032 to the NDAA is unconstitutional and should NEVER HAVE BEEN FLOORED FOR A VOTE in Congress. McCain committed TREASON by violating his oath to PROTECT the Constitution from himself!!

      I could write pages on each and win a pulitzer, but it’s late and the Mrs. is clamoring for her dose of brains…

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        “WHERE in the Constitution does it give ANYONE the right to decide a spiritual matter for another. It is expressly forbidden for the STATE to organize a religion.” ????????
        —————————————————-
        Steffy, are you serious? Massachusetts had it’s own STATE religion until 1900 and it was not a violation of the Bill of Rights. Were you paying attention in ‘American History’ class or were you too busy rewriting that history?

      • Steve Brains

        z”You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Nice job defending your ethos there Mr. Stephen Barlow.
        If you’re the best they have to throw at me, my job here will be easy.

      • Steve Brains

        it’s called a boycott.

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        So manning Rape Pits at an OWS Bomb Throwing Event is basically your only Skill-Set?

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”aa

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”aaaaa

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.” asaa

      • Steve Brains

        What “State” religion was that?

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Oh how Historically inept are you. It makes me so very hopeful, when you post your genetic deficiencies so graphically. that your genome will end shortly.

      • Steve Brains

        No truth. “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Not even close there Skippy.

      • Steve Brains

        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!z

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Oh a new retort. Very well thought out. Good job there Stephen.

      • Steve Brains

        fffffft

      • Steve Brains

        Quack!!

      • Steve Brains

        :))

      • Steve Brains

        zx

      • Steve Brains

        wdb us

      • Steve Brains

        Quack! 1

      • Steve Brains

        :))???

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”zaaaa

      • politicalsanity

        The Federal Constitution was written specifically because of the abuses incurred under the Massachusetts Colony; Rhode Island was founded as a sanctuary for those fleeing the abuses of that theocratic government. Yes, the States had the individual right to choose their religion, but the Federal Government protected the rights of those who were not of that particular religion.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        So you think the Incorporation Doctrine gives federal authority over religion? Was the murder by fire of the men, women & children in Waco a just and legal action of the federal gov’t?

      • politicalsanity

        The Constitution deals with Federal matters– the phrase “The State” in this context means the Federal government, not the individual State (like Massachusetts.) Just clarifying.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Not clarifying for me. Remember, I’m the one who types it ‘These United States”

      • Andy Kinnard

        Massachusetts disestablishment (of the state Church) was 1833; it was always in conflict with the Constitution.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        While an established church prefers one denomination over others, this privilege does not threaten the general principle of religious liberty. And, while the Massachusetts Constitution protects Christian sects equally, it does not condone persecutions of other faiths. Following the lead of other states in 1776, Massachusetts would further expand religious liberty and disestablish its church in 1833, the last state to do so. But at no time was it in violate of federally enumerated ‘civil rights’.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Massachusetts was an outlier…the exception that proves the rule, and doesn’t override that one of the precupstate for rebellion was to escape the tyranny of state religion. Accept the fact that freedom of religion translates to no state sponsored relgion.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Dude, you’re making it up as you go along. “escape the tyranny”? Seriously? You’re not arguing that the Incorporation Doctrine overrules any and all State Rights, you’re arguing that the enumerated powers of the Constitution overwhelms the “Rights” of each and every state. So if you were right, a Pennsylvanian can carry their sidearm in and through Massachusetts, and any and all licenses issued by the State of Massachusetts, including a same sex civil union that is recognized by Massachusetts as a ‘Marriage’ is valid and has the full faith & credit in Tennessee.
        Sorry, but you failed.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I’m sorry you’re butthurt over 100 of Supreme Court precedent, but, them’s the breaks.

    • Steve Brains

      Funny how RABBINICAL COURTS are acceptable and the Catholics get to try their pedophile priests in private. but a Muslin is a CRIMINAL TERRORIST… without a court, evidence or even specific charges.

      One other thing, ENFORCEMENT of the LAW that gives tax exempt status to ONLY 100% religious organizations would doom 7/10 churches in America. And most likely pay half the debt.

      • Dave Girvin

        He needs to change his last name…

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        A Muslim see’s your neck as a knife resting place. They also see Mrs. Barlow as a sex slave and dispensable. And they see your teenaged son as a ‘dancing boy’. But don’t let those facts stand in the way of your argument.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”..

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Sad that you have failed in defending your ideology. I was expecting more from the likes of you.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”azzz

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”zaa

      • No, a muslin is a piece of cloth. Rabbinical courts have no legal power in the US any more than the Catholic church can prevent Catholics from obtaining a divorce in the civil courts. They might block someone from getting a “religious” divorce and getting remarried within that religion, yes, but this has no effect on a person’s legal civil status. I’m not sure what your point is.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        You’re correcting the uncorrectable.

      • Steve Brains

        Thank you for admitting I am right more often than you breathe.

      • Steve Brains

        You need to live in NYC for a day!

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        I do, Manhattan.

      • Steve Brains

        No you don’t. your corrupt souless REDzombie corpse wouldn’t even get a cab ride to the Morgue on the Island. Your kind of racist stink would keep your single cell brains on the sidewalk.

      • Steve Brains

        GO to new York and New Jersey

      • Steve Brains

        You need to be in Ny or Nj or Chicago. A Rabbinical divorce gets rubber stamped and autopsies are not performed so RELIGION can trump criminal investigations before Sundown.

    • youcantgetridofmethateasy

      “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” Nope, it doesn’t confuse me. I got it the very first time I read it so long ago. BTW, Thomas Jefferson was not devout nor was he counting himself a Christian. Yet YOU feel it’s your right to paint him as the most evil man in American History?
      Are you really that clueless or are you just trolling for an argument?
      If the later is the case, I’m your Huckleberry.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”asx

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Seems I’ve attracted quite a following despite your lunatic ranting’s.

      • Steve Brains

        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        I don’t know how to respond. You are the King of Discourse.

      • Steve Brains

        fft

      • Steve Brains

        Quack!

      • Steve Brains

        🙂

      • Steve Brains

        FINALLY. I don’t care if it’s a dick, a sock or a jar of vaseline… just keep it in your mouth and enjoy being put in your place!

      • Steve Brains

        sas

      • Steve Brains

        Quack! z

      • Steve Brains

        :))??

    • youcantgetridofmethateasy

      It was a ‘Declaration’ of independence from the King and England. It was King George that interpreted the document as a ‘Declaration’ of war.
      ‘Natural Law’ – does not a mother bear hold a ‘right’ to defend it’s cubs?
      ‘Natural Law’ – does not a Mocking Bird have a ‘right’ to sing it’s song?
      ‘Natural Law’ – does not a citizen have a ‘right’ to be secure in their person and their possessions?
      ‘Natural Law’ – does not a citizen have the ‘right’ to face his accuser?
      ‘Natural Law’ – does not a citizen have the ‘right’ to speak their mind?
      Do I need to continue or have you caught up yet?

      • Steve Brains

        Nope, There ARE no natural laws.

      • Gary Menten

        Good point. If there really were natural laws (other than in the scientific meaning of the term), there would be no need for a Bill of Rights.

      • Steve Brains

        BINGO!!! And Homosexuality would be the RULE not the exception.

        A) who would give better head, a starving gay dude or a trophy wife?
        B) WHY would a dingle man risk being TRAPPED by a pregnant sporthump when skilled and eager ORAL CONTRACEPTION is available?
        C) WHY would any sane man give up HALF or MORE of his life’s earning just for being a NORMAL MALE?

        BEing gay costs NOTHING and you get to CHOOSE to spend your money on yourself, not FORCED to waste it on diapers and condoms for a shotgun marriage wife.

      • Gary Menten

        I don’t think that their would be more or less homosexuals because of the existence or non-existence of natural law any more than discriminating against gay people in law or religion will somehow stop them from being gay.

      • Steve Brains

        That’s most likely true but, like with drugs being ILLEGAL, villifying gay people may keep someone from being them self, or denying themselves an opportunity.

  • Renee McCartin

    Thank you thank you thank you . .I am so freaking sick of hearing it’s a christian country,

    • AAAmerican

      It is a predominately Christian country regardless of the amount of weekly church attendance. Suck it up.

      • Steve Brains

        Christian POPULATION… I’ll agree to that.
        But most Christians do NOT follow Christ.
        if the DID, the would not WAR against their Muslim Brothers.
        MOST of the Koran CAME from the prophet Jesus!!!
        Ask Muhammad when you see him on the Right hand of ALLAH!.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Islam is a Cult, not a religion. But why are you defending Jihadists there Rabbi Barlow? You want your neck cut, you women subjugated and abused, your children raped and killed? Why you so Pro-ISIS?

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”aaa

      • AAAmerican

        Wow, you must have one of those really expensive tin foil hats. I missed the part of AMERICAN history where Americans attacked Muslims other than in retaliation for Muslim attacks. Denigrating Africans – I think we all know that was wrong and we’ve done a lot to make up for it. Denigrating women – a left-wing myth. Being Christ-like – yes, impossible for humans but many try – many don’t. Otherwise, your grammar is so f’ed up I don’t know what you’re saying.

      • Steve Brains

        77% of male pay is NOT denigration in the workplace? That’s 1/4 million dollars in a lifetime for a high school grad.

        Men in Congress DEMAND INTRUSIVE and MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY INTERNAL ULTRA SOUNDS, forcing women to hear a heartbeat, or subject them to special classes to EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS is NOT denigrating women?

        How many arrows have been shot through YOUR head?

      • AAAmerican

        If an employer is paying a similarly situated woman doing the same job with the same experience 77% of her male counterpart, then that employer is in violation of Title VII and should be prosecuted. The law is on the books to grant equal pay for equal work. Unfortunatley many employers do not follow that law, including the Obama White House with its staff. The war on women is a left-wing myth intended to garner votes. The Republicans voted against a new law on this subject because there already is a law intended to guarantee equal pay. If employers like the White House followed existing law, new laws would not be needed.
        I don’t think the law forcing the ultrsound ever actually got passed but I could be wrong. I would not agree with that law.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Yet the Progressives gleefully expound that percentage number but never quantify it’s actual tabulation.

      • Steve Brains

        NONSENSE!

        DISTRICT ATTORNEYs get shafted if they have a vagina!

      • Steve Brains

        FUCK!!!!! It’s OHHH KAY!!!!! The “ultrasound law” LOST BY ONE VOTE!!!

        SHOVING a DEVICE up a woman’s CUN*!!!!!! WITHOUT her consent????
        STRAPPING her to a table, Mechanically RAPING HER, FORCING sonic torture (in the form of ultrasound)… Bible beating her.. DESPITE HER RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE that is CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed by LAW….

        Triple ASSHOLE, Un american
        is more accurate.

        LET ME regulate your GUNS (murder tools, killing toys, death machines…) as intensely as you CONFISCATE Constitutional RIGHTS of MOTHERS

        LET ME, FORCE you,………. A mandate for gay experiences in J High.

        Let ME FORCE YOU… into MY church BECAUSE I have MORE money than your CHurch!

    • youcantgetridofmethateasy

      Then change the channel. There are others you know.

      • Renee McCartin

        yeah, I should change it from the fantasy channel where the christian zealots think this was founded for them, not for religious freedom

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Maybe you should just turn off the television and Internet. Go outside and smell the Fall Air. And maybe you’ll realize that I have no actual affect on your day to day. So why you be all haten’?

  • AAAmerican

    Oh well, Forward Progressives will surely edit out things they don’t want to her – like FACTS

    • youcantgetridofmethateasy

      Moderators here cut posts that they don’t like???? Where’s the tolerance??

      • Steve Brains

        They cut what is offensive or disingenuous.

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Funny, if ‘Disingenuous was a disqualifier, you wouldn’t be here.
        Ditto.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”aazz

  • FD Brian

    Mentioning God has nothing to with Christianity. Many religions have a God, if the founders wanted a Christian nation they would have directly mentioned Jesus Christ, you know the one who Christians believe died for our sins and rose from the dead, you know the one thing that differentiates Christianity from all other religions.

    • youcantgetridofmethateasy

      “Have a God”? An atheist such as yourself can do nothing but defend their lack of faith. Sorry there Madalyn Murray O’Hair, but even with Thomas Jefferson’s own aversion to referencing God in this country’s founding documents, he still signed them and affirmed that God would be a big part of the defense of a citizen’s ‘Natural Rights’. Even he know it was the ‘right thing to do’.

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”xxxxx

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        But you’re wasting time in responding with your silly School Girl slap-downs. Good for you Steffy.

      • Steve Brains

        aa”You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • FD Brian

        first off, I’m a Christian, second, you should probably reread my original post.

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Not when you post a line like this you’re not:

        “Jesus Christ, you know the one who Christians believe died”
        When you third person your monologue, you distance yourself from him. If as you purport, you represent yourself as a christian, you would understand why I spell it with a lower case “c”.
        But I digress, care to explain ‘Natural Rights’ and why God is the one who bestowed such ‘rights’ upon us?

      • FD Brian

        I think you’re crazy, I will now end replying back to you.

  • AAAmerican

    Man this is a website FULL of Sickos

    • youcantgetridofmethateasy

      LOL

  • BkDodge42

    Congratulations Allen, at least this time you mentioned that the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two different things unlike in one of your previous blog entries on this same topic. But you’re projecting your ignorance from the past on others by claiming that others did not know the difference. I don’t believe that the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war since the Revolutionary War had been fighting starting around 1775, before the Declaration of Independence was issued. To get a fuller understanding of the beliefs that the founding fathers had when they established this country, you could look at the debates that were involved when the Declaration of Independence was written, when the Articles of Confederacy and when the US Constitution was written.

    • youcantgetridofmethateasy

      Nice. Although King George did read said Declaration as our invite to send troops and Hessians to seek out and murder the decenters and signers.

      • Steve Brains

        xxxxx”You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        and yet the post remains unchallenged.

      • Steve Brains

        aaa”You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • BkDodge42

        Whom were the Americans fighting since April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord? Remember the “shot heard ’round the world”? I believe that troops were already in the United States. If King George did see the Declaration of Independence as a invite to send troops, how was it that there was fighting before the signing of the Declaration of Independence?

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        Skirmishes with local Militia Units. Did you not read that in your ‘Public School’ American History class?
        Was the Boston Tea Party an act of war, or a simple Tax Revolt?

      • Gary Menten

        If Lexington and Concord were “just skirmishes,” then surely the shots were not heard “around the world.” No-one would give a damn.

        The purpose of the militias and of the kings troops are supposed to be one and the same; the protection of the colony. If these bodies are fighting one another instead of fighting together on the same side, then something has gone very wrong. That would be tantamount to the National Guard fighting with the regular army today. I think it likely that something like that would make world news.

  • Jim Curran

    The basic premise that ‘republicans think…’ Is highly flawed. A polarized argument gets people reading and commenting (guilty). Come back to the middle and stop grouping

    • youcantgetridofmethateasy

      Tribalism occurs just before the first shots are fired.

      • Steve Brains

        The RED are a tribe! “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”

      • youcantgetridofmethateasy

        What’s with your RED slap? Do you seriously believe you take the high road when you post that?

      • Steve Brains

        “You are a Toxic Waste of time.”aaz

  • Steve Brains

    HEY!! BLOG MONITORS!!! WOULDN’T it be EASIER to just BAN his IP ADDY, instead fo delete all the hate speech and epithet throwing?
    GEtting rid of him is VERY easy if you BLOCK his IP Address.

    • youcantgetridofmethateasy

      Wow, that’s some display of Tolerance you’re showing there. So if I were standing in front of you, would you murder me because of my beliefs being different from yours? Would you snuff my life because I question your Political Ideology? Are you so very sure that you’re right and I’m wrong? And does that sentence me to death? Is that really what you’re all about Mr. Barlow?

      • Steve Brains

        fffFFFt

      • Steve Brains

        Quack! a

      • Steve Brains

        :))?

      • Steve Brains

        I have no tolerance or you. You were a pest as a mosquito and you are vermin now.

  • Heathen5701

    The very first commandment rules out the Constitution was written for Christians. “…shall have no gods before me.” is directly opposite of the first amendment’s decree of not interfering with religious worship.

  • Jim Bean

    “. . . . .outside of our First Amendment which establishes a very clear-cut precedent that our laws cannot be based on religion.”

    That would mean we can’t have laws against murder or stealing because Christianity was very clearly against these things long before the Constitution came along. Right?

    • QuiGon

      …uh, yeah. I guess I’ll point out the obvious: NOT basing laws on a religion DOESN’T mean (obviously) they won’t coincide. (Stealing is against Sharia Law. Does that mean passing a law against stealing is “basing” that law on Islam? No.)

    • Gary Menten

      Baloney. There are perfectly valid secular reasons to have laws against murder or theft.

  • Steve Brains

    The “QUOTE UN QUOTE”
    Patriot Act VOIDED
    The Constitution.

    A DECADE of spooking our phone calls and emails…

    THEY know every millimeter of your pecker and KNOW how many milliliters fo joy junk you feed your BGF!
    AND how many time you did her.

  • DavidHarley

    In the near non-existence of atheism as a viable stance in the 18th century, the deism of some of the Founders was as irreligious as one could get. Some of them went through the forms of religion without piety but as a social observance, as George Washington did at his Anglican parish church.

    The First Amendment sprang from the fear on the part of some Founders that the federal government would adopt as the national religion the denomination of one of the particular states. As one can see from the early state constitutions, the state legislators had very specific views about what religious views were acceptable in an officeholder. And they differed.

    The whole point of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists was to assure them that the federal government would not persecute and exclude them as the Connecticut Congregationalists had done. The General Baptists had always avoided participation in state power, since their origin during the English Civil Wars, and had suffered in several of the American colonies, despite the imposition of the Act of Toleration (1689).

  • Jeff Clauser

    A little update to the currency comment….”in God we trust” appeared only on coinage in 1864. It wasn’t until 1957 that it first appeared on paper, dollar bills to be precise.

  • Harry

    No, America is not a Christian theocracy. Our nation’s Founding Fathers, in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution, founded our nation to be a secular republic.

    Our Founding Fathers wanted the U.S.A. to be a secular nation and government, so that every American can be free to either choose which religion he or wants to practice, or even choose to not worship any Gods, and also be free to choose to have no religion whatsoever. This even includes the right to be that most hated of all people in America, an atheist!

    It was because there was not separation of church and state, that the Separatists(who are mostly called “The Pilgrims”) and William Penn, and his Quakers, had to leave England.

    Atheists are often wrongfully accused of being communists. But ironically, the repression against freedom of religion that happened in the former Soviet Union, is an excellent example as to why we must always have a complete separation of church and state. Saudi Arabia and Iran of today are also excellent examples as to why the United States of America must always be the secular republic our Founding Fathers intended.

  • schwarherz

    So…you know that Mormons are a type of Christian right?

  • XaurreauX Pont DeLac

    Secularism is for grownups. Dominionists are not interested in religious freedom; they want the power to impose their religion on everyone else.

  • Gary Causer

    Hmmm….All I know is none of the Republicans care what you think. Maybe, you need to practice mind reading a little harder….

    Molon labe

  • Gary Causer

    From what we can tell the founders professed many different religious beliefs and for saw that we would degenerate into a theocracy because most people of their day were fanatics and would be at each others throats trying to establish the Kingdom of One version of God or another….

    Judging from what we have today these guys were psychics!

    Molon labe

  • John Smith

    These arguments always leave me with a sense of anxiety, because they are passive. It’s almost like one is disregarding the very real movement in America right now to be taken over by thr religous right. Your not gonna make them go away by quoting facts. I find their actions nothing more than treason. They are, in essence, calling for a revolution. In my opinion, the real problem is money.
    These mega churches are acting as lobbyists to support candidates that are willing to commit treason against our government through subversion of our constitution. As far as I can tell, nothing is being done to actually solve the issue, other than talk. This will lead to their winning in the end, because their convictions are followed by actions.

  • We Hate Vine

    This is utter lunacy! You believe that basing any law on moral principles which may derive themselves from religion is unconstitutional? What about “thou shall not murder” “thou shall not steal”. Like it or not, the only reason moral standards exist is because of “religion”.

  • Jay Btr

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” ….. The Treaty of Tripoli