Search Results
7/26/2025, 10:45:19 PM
>>17874466
>but you don't have to do this to express your hatred of trannies anon,
I'm pointing out that there is a kabal of people who want to subvert America and our true historical values. The Constitution is based on Biblical values, and the same Holy Bible has informed our legal system for centuries. The concept of the separation of church and state comes from the Biblical value that no one should be converted at swordpoint. It's the woke who want to brainwash everyone and accuse dissidents of thought crimes today.
Church of the Holy Trinity v United States (1892)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/
This unanimous court ruling reads:
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?"
United States v Macintosh (1931)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/605/
The majority decision reads:
"We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 143 U. S. 470-471), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God."
"In God we trust" - The only motto of the United States of America (made official in 1956, and used on currency since 1864)
US Constitution
Article 7, Attestation Clause
"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."
>but you don't have to do this to express your hatred of trannies anon,
I'm pointing out that there is a kabal of people who want to subvert America and our true historical values. The Constitution is based on Biblical values, and the same Holy Bible has informed our legal system for centuries. The concept of the separation of church and state comes from the Biblical value that no one should be converted at swordpoint. It's the woke who want to brainwash everyone and accuse dissidents of thought crimes today.
Church of the Holy Trinity v United States (1892)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/
This unanimous court ruling reads:
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?"
United States v Macintosh (1931)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/605/
The majority decision reads:
"We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 143 U. S. 470-471), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God."
"In God we trust" - The only motto of the United States of America (made official in 1956, and used on currency since 1864)
US Constitution
Article 7, Attestation Clause
"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."
7/23/2025, 12:07:45 AM
>>17863675
>Do you think Jesus supports Abraham Lincoln abolishing slavery?
Well, we can deduce that the Lord supports the United States since He brought us this far despite all of the threats we've faced so far. And the United States has historically always held Christian, biblical-based values.
For instance, the Portsmouth Compact said the following:
>The 7th day of the first month, 1638. We whose names are underwritten do here solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as he shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of his given us in his holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby.
The Declaration of Independence meanwhile says:
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
And the U.S. Constitution:
>Article 7
>Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.
The First Amendment to the Constitution also supports the Biblical concept that conversion by swordpoint is unchristian. Thus, it says in the First Amendment:
>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.
The Bible also tells us that the true bondage, which all men suffer from, is sin. We should seek the freedom of Christ first (John 8:34-36, Romans 6:20-22, Romans 8:21). Ending temporal enslavement is also good if it can be done lawfully. See the book of Philemon.
>Do you think Jesus supports Abraham Lincoln abolishing slavery?
Well, we can deduce that the Lord supports the United States since He brought us this far despite all of the threats we've faced so far. And the United States has historically always held Christian, biblical-based values.
For instance, the Portsmouth Compact said the following:
>The 7th day of the first month, 1638. We whose names are underwritten do here solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as he shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of his given us in his holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby.
The Declaration of Independence meanwhile says:
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
And the U.S. Constitution:
>Article 7
>Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.
The First Amendment to the Constitution also supports the Biblical concept that conversion by swordpoint is unchristian. Thus, it says in the First Amendment:
>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.
The Bible also tells us that the true bondage, which all men suffer from, is sin. We should seek the freedom of Christ first (John 8:34-36, Romans 6:20-22, Romans 8:21). Ending temporal enslavement is also good if it can be done lawfully. See the book of Philemon.
7/7/2025, 9:40:00 PM
>>17822902
>The founding fathers outright said America is not a Christian nation multiple times
That's not what is written in the actual legal documents. America has always been implicitly Christian, and the idea of freedom of conscience is a Biblical value.
The Supreme Court explicitly affirms that America is a Christian nation. This is far more relevant. See the following two SCOTUS decisions:
Church of the Holy Trinity v United States (1892)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/
This unanimous court ruling reads:
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?"
United States v Macintosh (1931)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/605/
The prevailing majority decision reads:
"We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 143 U. S. 470-471), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God."
The origin of the Establishment clause in the First Amendment, which establishes freedom of religion has its origins in the Rhode Island colonial charter. John Clarke petitioned for that charter in the following way in 1663:
"That they might be permitted to hold forth a lively experiment that a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be maintained, with a full liberty in religious concernments; and that true piety, rightly grounded upon gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligation to true loyalty."
- The appeal of John Clarke to Charles II for the charter of Rhode Island (1663)
>The founding fathers outright said America is not a Christian nation multiple times
That's not what is written in the actual legal documents. America has always been implicitly Christian, and the idea of freedom of conscience is a Biblical value.
The Supreme Court explicitly affirms that America is a Christian nation. This is far more relevant. See the following two SCOTUS decisions:
Church of the Holy Trinity v United States (1892)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/
This unanimous court ruling reads:
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?"
United States v Macintosh (1931)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/605/
The prevailing majority decision reads:
"We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 143 U. S. 470-471), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God."
The origin of the Establishment clause in the First Amendment, which establishes freedom of religion has its origins in the Rhode Island colonial charter. John Clarke petitioned for that charter in the following way in 1663:
"That they might be permitted to hold forth a lively experiment that a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be maintained, with a full liberty in religious concernments; and that true piety, rightly grounded upon gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligation to true loyalty."
- The appeal of John Clarke to Charles II for the charter of Rhode Island (1663)
6/25/2025, 1:23:00 AM
>>17788711
>Is he right?
He and other anarchists have the right to that opinion, but it doesn't necessarily mean their opinions are right or correct.
>Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is.
I would disagree with this by re-affirming that its actual content really matters. Whether or not I'm following the actual content of the Constitution, allows me to successfully establish that I'm demonstrably following it and you are not, and that puts me in a distinctive position of being the one who is following the Law of the Land, as set down by God's providence. Then it only becomes a matter of understanding who is actually following it or not based on what it says.
One of its great purposes is to serve as a fixed landmark that accurately reflects our values as an actual people that historically exist.
>the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize.
In some cases this may be true, because the government is subordinate to the Constitution. But it will not be successful to argue this point by declaring the entire Constitution to actually be of no importance. Rather, one should show where the difference between reality and the Constitution actually is.
>But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.
This dilemma is rejected because the Constitution has often corrected the government. You don't flip the table over because the real situation isn't perfect on day one. That's the nirvana fallacy.
>Is he right?
He and other anarchists have the right to that opinion, but it doesn't necessarily mean their opinions are right or correct.
>Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is.
I would disagree with this by re-affirming that its actual content really matters. Whether or not I'm following the actual content of the Constitution, allows me to successfully establish that I'm demonstrably following it and you are not, and that puts me in a distinctive position of being the one who is following the Law of the Land, as set down by God's providence. Then it only becomes a matter of understanding who is actually following it or not based on what it says.
One of its great purposes is to serve as a fixed landmark that accurately reflects our values as an actual people that historically exist.
>the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize.
In some cases this may be true, because the government is subordinate to the Constitution. But it will not be successful to argue this point by declaring the entire Constitution to actually be of no importance. Rather, one should show where the difference between reality and the Constitution actually is.
>But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.
This dilemma is rejected because the Constitution has often corrected the government. You don't flip the table over because the real situation isn't perfect on day one. That's the nirvana fallacy.
6/23/2025, 4:57:40 AM
>>17784559
>Johnny Evangelical advocating for the abolishment of freedom of religion does.
The freedom of religion, also called the freedom of conscience, was established in Rhode Island by Baptists who were kicked out of Plymouth. They were kicked out of the puritan colonies because they upset the official state church.
However, in 1663 they were able to get a charter from Charles II that granted them this right, which later became the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights.
So therefore, it is not people who believe in evangelizing the Gospel that traditionally or currently advocate abolishment of the freedom of religion, they are the ones who originally upheld it.
By contrast, doctrinaire atheist regimes have historically been very much in favor of indoctrination and brainwashing their populace and steamrolling over any pretense of a freedom of religion.
>Johnny Evangelical advocating for the abolishment of freedom of religion does.
The freedom of religion, also called the freedom of conscience, was established in Rhode Island by Baptists who were kicked out of Plymouth. They were kicked out of the puritan colonies because they upset the official state church.
However, in 1663 they were able to get a charter from Charles II that granted them this right, which later became the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights.
So therefore, it is not people who believe in evangelizing the Gospel that traditionally or currently advocate abolishment of the freedom of religion, they are the ones who originally upheld it.
By contrast, doctrinaire atheist regimes have historically been very much in favor of indoctrination and brainwashing their populace and steamrolling over any pretense of a freedom of religion.
Page 1