F
FuzzyBunny116
Guest
Could someone give me some good resources for defending keeping the Ten Commandments on display, under God in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc?
- Status
S
system
Guest
Here is a website with a good argument of “Separation of Church and State”
noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
N
nico1089
Guest
Hi FW, Ya know, I don’t see it as a big deal. Everyone already knows the ten commandments and the pledge. So it makes some people uncomfortable–why push them for a reaction?When things are forced on people they tend to reject it all the more so. It still says “In God We Trust” on pennies! LOL!–nicolo
F
Fidei_Defensor
Guest
This post is a little long, but bear with me and read through it.
Say that if the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, then the Treaty of Paris which formally recognized American independence from Britain is null and void. The first words of said treaty are as follows:
“IN THE NAME OF THE MOST HOLY AND UNDIVIDED TRINITY”
The Constitution clearly states that “all debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be valid against the United States, as under the Confederation” (with “Confederation” referring to the form of American government under the Articles of Confederation). The Treaty of Paris, though ratified under the Articles of Confederation, is therefore still valid under the Constitution.
That being said, the Constitution also states that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”; therefore, the Treaty recognizing American independence is part of the Supreme law of the land.
According to the ideology of the liberals who deem the “under God” phrase in the Pledge unconstitutional, the Treaty of Paris should likewise be unconstitutional, and be declared null and void since said treaty was conducted “in the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity”, a clear reference to the Anglican-Catholic perception of the Christian God.
How can the Supreme Law of the Land allow such a blatant recognition of a Supreme Being, especially a Christian one? Surely this must be nullified, right? Surely we must submit to the authority of the Queen since the treaty should have never taken effect because it is unconstitutional!
Hell, the Constutution itself is dated “in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine”, an explicit reference to Jesus!
Say that if the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, then the Treaty of Paris which formally recognized American independence from Britain is null and void. The first words of said treaty are as follows:
“IN THE NAME OF THE MOST HOLY AND UNDIVIDED TRINITY”
The Constitution clearly states that “all debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be valid against the United States, as under the Confederation” (with “Confederation” referring to the form of American government under the Articles of Confederation). The Treaty of Paris, though ratified under the Articles of Confederation, is therefore still valid under the Constitution.
That being said, the Constitution also states that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”; therefore, the Treaty recognizing American independence is part of the Supreme law of the land.
According to the ideology of the liberals who deem the “under God” phrase in the Pledge unconstitutional, the Treaty of Paris should likewise be unconstitutional, and be declared null and void since said treaty was conducted “in the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity”, a clear reference to the Anglican-Catholic perception of the Christian God.
How can the Supreme Law of the Land allow such a blatant recognition of a Supreme Being, especially a Christian one? Surely this must be nullified, right? Surely we must submit to the authority of the Queen since the treaty should have never taken effect because it is unconstitutional!
Hell, the Constutution itself is dated “in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine”, an explicit reference to Jesus!
N
nico1089
Guest
To Arms! To Arms! The British are coming!!–nicolo
M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
I don’t know how much this would help but, I am going to throw it out anyhow. It is a statement from Clemens Von Metternich on Reglion in a coutry (which I agree with): “The downfall of empires always directly depends upon the spread of unbelief. For this very reason religious belief, the first of virtues, is the strongest power. It alone curbs attack and makes resistance irresistible. Religion cannot decline in a nation without causing that nation’s strength also to decline, and the fall of states does not proceed in arithmetical progression according to the law of falling bodies, but rapidly leads to destruction.”
V
volzcpa
Guest
You may find something in the articles at Thomas More Law Center.
J
johnshelby
Guest
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.
constitution…
constitution…
A
Angainor
Guest
I was wondering when someone would get around to the Constitution as a good resourse.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.
constitution…
J
JOHNYJ
Guest
The Catholic church haslearned that being the " state religion " is bad for the state & the religion . It has a habit of corrupting both!
P
puzzleannie
Guest
the 10 commandments posted in a courhouse or statehouse is an acknowledgement of history as much as religion, and to tear them down distorts history. would we eliminate all references to the Magna Carta as a document in the development of our legal system because we later rebelled against the English king?
the Pledge of Allegiance was first written by a newspaper columnist before WW2, and the words “under God” added at the urging of the K of C in the 50s. Its recitation is not an official government-sponsored or government ordered action, any more than singing the national anthem at a ball game. Protests for or against the change in wording are ridiculous.
the Pledge of Allegiance was first written by a newspaper columnist before WW2, and the words “under God” added at the urging of the K of C in the 50s. Its recitation is not an official government-sponsored or government ordered action, any more than singing the national anthem at a ball game. Protests for or against the change in wording are ridiculous.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Ben Franklin’s Plea
At the Constitutional Convention, 1787, James Madison recorded the following remarks made by Benjamin Franklin to the president of the Convention:
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – *that God governs in the affairs of men. *And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
"I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”
Mr. Sherman seconded the motion.
The motion was generally supported in principle, with several reservations, but it failed to carry when it was realized that the Convention had no funds to arrange for the carrying out of it.
At the Constitutional Convention, 1787, James Madison recorded the following remarks made by Benjamin Franklin to the president of the Convention:
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – *that God governs in the affairs of men. *And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
"I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”
Mr. Sherman seconded the motion.
The motion was generally supported in principle, with several reservations, but it failed to carry when it was realized that the Convention had no funds to arrange for the carrying out of it.
- Status