Check out topic: My secret plan to expose the harms created by vaccines
Posts for: teaman
Sep 15, 2013 09:10:27 #
(Main)
Origin of the Left & the Right
I have often wondered why it is that Conservatives are
called the "right" and Liberals are called the "left."
By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible:
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
Thus sayeth the Lord. Amen.
Can't get any simpler than that.
Spelling Lesson
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican.......I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
End of lesson. Test to follow in November, 2014
Remember, November is to be set aside as rodent
extermination month.
I have often wondered why it is that Conservatives are
called the "right" and Liberals are called the "left."
By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible:
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
Thus sayeth the Lord. Amen.
Can't get any simpler than that.
Spelling Lesson
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican.......I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
End of lesson. Test to follow in November, 2014
Remember, November is to be set aside as rodent
extermination month.
Sep 11, 2013 10:16:13 #
(Main)
Mr. Bojester, this is a start in the right direction....which of course you will ignore!
Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.
What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water last year.
"There's been a huge myth created that the rich aren't paying anything," said William McBride, the Tax Foundation's chief economist. "The rich pay a much higher rate than the poor."
These numbers may not tell the whole story though.
Related: Why America's middle class is losing ground
The tax code is getting more progressive, said Roberton Williams, a senior economist at the centrist Tax Policy Center. In 1986 there were just two tax rates -- 15% and 28%. Now there are seven income tax brackets, going from a low of 10% to a high of nearly 40%.
While taxes on investment income have declined a bit since 1986, incentives like child care and income tax credits for the poor have been greatly expanded.
But the rich are able to take advantage of tax breaks too. That's why Williams said there's a popular notion that the wealthy are somehow cheating the tax man. In fact, the Tax Policy Center found last year that there were about 4,000 households with incomes over $1 million that were not paying anything at all.
Obama's 2nd term: What to expect on taxes
Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal group, added that looking at just federal income taxes doesn't give the whole picture.
When factoring in state and local taxes, the top 10% pay just under half the tab. And when calculating tax burden as a percent of income, the tax code is even less progressive. The top 10% paid an average of 30% of their income in local, state, and federal taxes in 2011, said McIntyre. That's not much different than the 25% percent paid by the middle class.
"The system is a little progressive, but not much," McIntyre said.
Still, the wealthy are paying more taxes on a federal level simply because they are making so much more money. The top 10% of taxpayers take home 45% of the nation's income, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. Moreover, they seem to be getting richer all the time. Of course, something needs to be stated here loud and clear.....THEY EARNED IT!!
"The vast majority of income gains have gone to the people at the top," he said.
And it's this growing issue of income inequality that seems to anger people the most. Overall salaries and wages haven't even kept pace with inflation over the past few years.
NEXT:
WHO INHERITED WHAT?
The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough,...... A lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.
Budgets do not come from the White House . They come from Congress, and the party that has controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party . They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush , which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending . After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
There is no way this will be widely publicized, Unless each of us sends it on! This is your chance to make a difference...........
A LITTLE MORE:
Some bad news for the vehement anti-war set: they've lost the spending argument. A new chart reveals that in the last decade, spending on national security, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined paled in comparison to entitlement spending -- 19% to 65%, respectively.
"About 65 percent of federal expenditures over the last ten years have gone towards entitlements,"Paul Miller writes. "By comparison, about 15 percent has gone towards national defense, excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq has cost three percent, and only about one percent has gone towards the war in Afghanistan (including the cost of ongoing military operations and all reconstruction and stabilization assistance combined), according to my analysis of figures from OMB."
In other words, Miller says, "Afghanistan is the second-cheapest major war in U.S. history as a percentage of GDP, according to the Congressional Research Service."
And of course, it's worth noting that war spending is about to decline, as our efforts abroad wind down, but entitlement spending will only grow as more people retire. For all President Obama's talk of a cheaper, "leaner" military, that's clearly not the area in need of a trimming.
In closing, here is a thought for you;
I just read an article about the difference between "misinformation" and "disinformation" and it was eye-opening to say the least. What the government puts out is "misinformation" (people really don't believe it and take it with a grain of salt) and what the media puts out is "disinformation" in that their news is like "laundered money"...the stories come from the government which are usually falsehoods(dirty money), are then processed through the news agencies (laundering) and come out as truth (laundered)...and finally those "laundered" stories are a notch above "misinformation" which allows the general population to believe it as truth. Our media is taking their cues from the old Russian playbook...this is what they did in the Vietnam war and it was successful.
I would recommend you give up your walking dead zombie dummycratic attitude and become an independent seeking out the truth. But of course, you can't do that if you are dependent on the Obambulating Manure Spreader's gravy train!
Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.
What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water last year.
"There's been a huge myth created that the rich aren't paying anything," said William McBride, the Tax Foundation's chief economist. "The rich pay a much higher rate than the poor."
These numbers may not tell the whole story though.
Related: Why America's middle class is losing ground
The tax code is getting more progressive, said Roberton Williams, a senior economist at the centrist Tax Policy Center. In 1986 there were just two tax rates -- 15% and 28%. Now there are seven income tax brackets, going from a low of 10% to a high of nearly 40%.
While taxes on investment income have declined a bit since 1986, incentives like child care and income tax credits for the poor have been greatly expanded.
But the rich are able to take advantage of tax breaks too. That's why Williams said there's a popular notion that the wealthy are somehow cheating the tax man. In fact, the Tax Policy Center found last year that there were about 4,000 households with incomes over $1 million that were not paying anything at all.
Obama's 2nd term: What to expect on taxes
Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal group, added that looking at just federal income taxes doesn't give the whole picture.
When factoring in state and local taxes, the top 10% pay just under half the tab. And when calculating tax burden as a percent of income, the tax code is even less progressive. The top 10% paid an average of 30% of their income in local, state, and federal taxes in 2011, said McIntyre. That's not much different than the 25% percent paid by the middle class.
"The system is a little progressive, but not much," McIntyre said.
Still, the wealthy are paying more taxes on a federal level simply because they are making so much more money. The top 10% of taxpayers take home 45% of the nation's income, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. Moreover, they seem to be getting richer all the time. Of course, something needs to be stated here loud and clear.....THEY EARNED IT!!
"The vast majority of income gains have gone to the people at the top," he said.
And it's this growing issue of income inequality that seems to anger people the most. Overall salaries and wages haven't even kept pace with inflation over the past few years.
NEXT:
WHO INHERITED WHAT?
The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough,...... A lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.
Budgets do not come from the White House . They come from Congress, and the party that has controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party . They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush , which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending . After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
There is no way this will be widely publicized, Unless each of us sends it on! This is your chance to make a difference...........
A LITTLE MORE:
Some bad news for the vehement anti-war set: they've lost the spending argument. A new chart reveals that in the last decade, spending on national security, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined paled in comparison to entitlement spending -- 19% to 65%, respectively.
"About 65 percent of federal expenditures over the last ten years have gone towards entitlements,"Paul Miller writes. "By comparison, about 15 percent has gone towards national defense, excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq has cost three percent, and only about one percent has gone towards the war in Afghanistan (including the cost of ongoing military operations and all reconstruction and stabilization assistance combined), according to my analysis of figures from OMB."
In other words, Miller says, "Afghanistan is the second-cheapest major war in U.S. history as a percentage of GDP, according to the Congressional Research Service."
And of course, it's worth noting that war spending is about to decline, as our efforts abroad wind down, but entitlement spending will only grow as more people retire. For all President Obama's talk of a cheaper, "leaner" military, that's clearly not the area in need of a trimming.
In closing, here is a thought for you;
I just read an article about the difference between "misinformation" and "disinformation" and it was eye-opening to say the least. What the government puts out is "misinformation" (people really don't believe it and take it with a grain of salt) and what the media puts out is "disinformation" in that their news is like "laundered money"...the stories come from the government which are usually falsehoods(dirty money), are then processed through the news agencies (laundering) and come out as truth (laundered)...and finally those "laundered" stories are a notch above "misinformation" which allows the general population to believe it as truth. Our media is taking their cues from the old Russian playbook...this is what they did in the Vietnam war and it was successful.
I would recommend you give up your walking dead zombie dummycratic attitude and become an independent seeking out the truth. But of course, you can't do that if you are dependent on the Obambulating Manure Spreader's gravy train!
Sep 5, 2013 09:52:58 #
(Main)
The perverted left is now getting exactly what they want. They have no tolerance and now the "Guber"ment is eat up with perverts at every level. Christians beware, if we don't stand strong NOW, these same perverts will be burning our churches and cutting of our heads. Here is the truth about homoism, if you will accept it;
The arguments in favor of homosexuality generally, and gay marriage specifically, have really not advanced much in the last generation. Ive picked out a handful of very common ones and tried to provide succinct answers. I hope you find this helpful, in terms of providing some clarity.
1. Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality. So He must not have thought its a big deal.
Answer: Jesus also never directly addressed any of the following topics: Bestiality, necrophilia, incest, rape, child pornography, sado-masochism, or people who get turned on by being urinated on. So, should we assume the Son of God has an anything goes attitude with regard to sexuality? This is the very worst sort of argument from silence, where if a person does not address a topic, the one making the argument assumes the right to say the silence equals agreement with his own opinion.
The argument also fails to realize that Christians believe that, since Jesus is Divine, and is in fact the God of the Bible, the entire Bible is properly understood as His words, His sentiments, at every point. How many times must God say a thing is wrong, or evil, or sinful before were willing to admit that is in fact what He has said? I mean, I cant force you to believe that Jesus was correct in what He taught, but at least be honest about it. If you dont like His teachings, fine. Thats between you and God.
2. Its wrong to discriminate against homosexuals.
Answer: Why, exactly? Society finds it good and helpful to discriminate against all sorts of behaviors, as well as those who endorse or indulge in them. Generally, we dont think illegal aliens should be treated the same as law-abiding citizens, for example. Thats a form of discrimination. Also, most folks look down on men who beat their wives and children. Thats another form of discrimination. Part of the problem is that discrimination is yet another word that we have seen culturally co-opted and distorted. It ought to be a neutral word that simply means our willingness to approve of some stuff and disapprove of some other stuff. What makes that either good or bad is the judgment we exercise in making those determinations. Its actually good to discriminate against drunk drivers, by forcibly removing them from behind the wheel of a vehicle. On the other hand, its bad to discriminate against people who merely look different than you do, etc. Calling evil good, and sin righteousness, is also a form of discrimination. The worst kind, in fact.
So, to make the argument that discrimination against gays is wrong, you first need to prove that gay is good. Or at least neutral. That hasnt been done, at least not to the satisfaction of this particular, military mind.
3. If homosexuals are born that way, then its wrong to tell them not to be homosexual.
Answer: The underlying assumption behind this argument is that however you were born, thats good and right.
Lets grant for a moment the completely unproven theory that gays are born that way. Lets say thats true for the sake of the argument. Now, in the rest of our lives, do we find the aforementioned principle to hold true, that however we are born is good and right? No, we dont. Many people are born with diseases. We dont celebrate those diseases. We thank God for doctors and medicine and we fight that disease with all our resources.
The same goes with birth defects. Just the other day I saw a news story about a baby born with a hole in her heart. Nobody celebrated that, or called it good. In fact, the whole story was about the amazing advances in our technology which allowed the doctors to get in there and fix it. There are, in addition, many experts who think there is a strong genetic factor in alcoholism. Not even the village idiot then decides, based on that information, that its good to destroy your liver, your life, and your familys life by indulging your drunkenness. In fact, we do the opposite, and warn the children of alcoholics that they will need to be extremely careful throughout their lives, since they may have an in-born susceptibility to it themselves.
4. Even if some people choose to be homosexual, many, or most, homosexuals did not make that choice. They may even sincerely wish they werent homosexuals.
Answer: This is similar to the Born This Way argument above. And the answer to it is also similar.
Youve been attracted to dudes like yourself for as long as you can remember?
Fine. In my own case, Ive been lazy and self-centered for as long as I can remember. I certainly never sat down and made conscious decisions to be those things. I just was. But in my twenties, I came to see that all of those things were actually destructive, not only to me, but to the people I love. By nature, I have seemed to major in those things, completely apart from any decision I made about them; but once I realized they are all bad and unfitting for a Christian, I have devoted myself to consciously fighting them. And yes, that means fighting against my own longings, my own natural desires. What I did not do is join up with other lazy ego-centrists and form a coalition to try and force the rest of society to say that my vices are actually virtues. They are not. They are a part of me, and I hate them, by Gods grace. It would be horrifying to me if they controlled my life. I have wounded too many people with them as it is. If I have to fight them my entire life (and I no doubt will) then I vow to wade into that battle with unceasing ferocity.
All of us are born broken. All of us are naturally skewed, perverted even, deviating from what is truly good.
For myself, I am so thankful that Jesus Christ was sent to save sinners, not righteous people. God names Himself in Romans 4 as the one who justifies the ungodly. The Good News is that this means I qualify! And so do you. Jesus was crucified on account of sins, and raised again on the third day. He is returning to be the judge of the eternal destinies of all people. His invitation to you is to find forgiveness, complete and perfect cleansing, through faith in His name. My personal testimony is that the experience of this grace and mercy so transcends all the politics and the gamesmanship of our day, its simply ridiculous. Whatever your political stripe, Id love to see us all be able to lay down our weapons at the foot of the Cross of Christ and be united there in peace.
The arguments in favor of homosexuality generally, and gay marriage specifically, have really not advanced much in the last generation. Ive picked out a handful of very common ones and tried to provide succinct answers. I hope you find this helpful, in terms of providing some clarity.
1. Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality. So He must not have thought its a big deal.
Answer: Jesus also never directly addressed any of the following topics: Bestiality, necrophilia, incest, rape, child pornography, sado-masochism, or people who get turned on by being urinated on. So, should we assume the Son of God has an anything goes attitude with regard to sexuality? This is the very worst sort of argument from silence, where if a person does not address a topic, the one making the argument assumes the right to say the silence equals agreement with his own opinion.
The argument also fails to realize that Christians believe that, since Jesus is Divine, and is in fact the God of the Bible, the entire Bible is properly understood as His words, His sentiments, at every point. How many times must God say a thing is wrong, or evil, or sinful before were willing to admit that is in fact what He has said? I mean, I cant force you to believe that Jesus was correct in what He taught, but at least be honest about it. If you dont like His teachings, fine. Thats between you and God.
2. Its wrong to discriminate against homosexuals.
Answer: Why, exactly? Society finds it good and helpful to discriminate against all sorts of behaviors, as well as those who endorse or indulge in them. Generally, we dont think illegal aliens should be treated the same as law-abiding citizens, for example. Thats a form of discrimination. Also, most folks look down on men who beat their wives and children. Thats another form of discrimination. Part of the problem is that discrimination is yet another word that we have seen culturally co-opted and distorted. It ought to be a neutral word that simply means our willingness to approve of some stuff and disapprove of some other stuff. What makes that either good or bad is the judgment we exercise in making those determinations. Its actually good to discriminate against drunk drivers, by forcibly removing them from behind the wheel of a vehicle. On the other hand, its bad to discriminate against people who merely look different than you do, etc. Calling evil good, and sin righteousness, is also a form of discrimination. The worst kind, in fact.
So, to make the argument that discrimination against gays is wrong, you first need to prove that gay is good. Or at least neutral. That hasnt been done, at least not to the satisfaction of this particular, military mind.
3. If homosexuals are born that way, then its wrong to tell them not to be homosexual.
Answer: The underlying assumption behind this argument is that however you were born, thats good and right.
Lets grant for a moment the completely unproven theory that gays are born that way. Lets say thats true for the sake of the argument. Now, in the rest of our lives, do we find the aforementioned principle to hold true, that however we are born is good and right? No, we dont. Many people are born with diseases. We dont celebrate those diseases. We thank God for doctors and medicine and we fight that disease with all our resources.
The same goes with birth defects. Just the other day I saw a news story about a baby born with a hole in her heart. Nobody celebrated that, or called it good. In fact, the whole story was about the amazing advances in our technology which allowed the doctors to get in there and fix it. There are, in addition, many experts who think there is a strong genetic factor in alcoholism. Not even the village idiot then decides, based on that information, that its good to destroy your liver, your life, and your familys life by indulging your drunkenness. In fact, we do the opposite, and warn the children of alcoholics that they will need to be extremely careful throughout their lives, since they may have an in-born susceptibility to it themselves.
4. Even if some people choose to be homosexual, many, or most, homosexuals did not make that choice. They may even sincerely wish they werent homosexuals.
Answer: This is similar to the Born This Way argument above. And the answer to it is also similar.
Youve been attracted to dudes like yourself for as long as you can remember?
Fine. In my own case, Ive been lazy and self-centered for as long as I can remember. I certainly never sat down and made conscious decisions to be those things. I just was. But in my twenties, I came to see that all of those things were actually destructive, not only to me, but to the people I love. By nature, I have seemed to major in those things, completely apart from any decision I made about them; but once I realized they are all bad and unfitting for a Christian, I have devoted myself to consciously fighting them. And yes, that means fighting against my own longings, my own natural desires. What I did not do is join up with other lazy ego-centrists and form a coalition to try and force the rest of society to say that my vices are actually virtues. They are not. They are a part of me, and I hate them, by Gods grace. It would be horrifying to me if they controlled my life. I have wounded too many people with them as it is. If I have to fight them my entire life (and I no doubt will) then I vow to wade into that battle with unceasing ferocity.
All of us are born broken. All of us are naturally skewed, perverted even, deviating from what is truly good.
For myself, I am so thankful that Jesus Christ was sent to save sinners, not righteous people. God names Himself in Romans 4 as the one who justifies the ungodly. The Good News is that this means I qualify! And so do you. Jesus was crucified on account of sins, and raised again on the third day. He is returning to be the judge of the eternal destinies of all people. His invitation to you is to find forgiveness, complete and perfect cleansing, through faith in His name. My personal testimony is that the experience of this grace and mercy so transcends all the politics and the gamesmanship of our day, its simply ridiculous. Whatever your political stripe, Id love to see us all be able to lay down our weapons at the foot of the Cross of Christ and be united there in peace.
Sep 4, 2013 09:22:03 #
(Main)
In the Year of Our Lord
Christianity and the Constitution
Fireman Benjamin Franklin
58 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
tion, several of the last producing
as many noes as ayes, is methinks a
melancholy proof of the imperfection
of the Human Understanding.
We indeed seem to feel our own
want of political wisdom, since we
have been running about in search
of it. We have gone back to ancient
history for models of Government,
and examined the different forms of
those Republics which having been
formed with the seeds of their own
dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed
Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their
Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it
were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able
The Constitutional Convention
In the Year of Our Lord 59
www.AmericanVision.org
to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened,
Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of
humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate
our understandings?
In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain,
when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer
in this room for the Divine Protection.Our prayers,
Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.
All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have
observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence
in our favor. To that kind providence we owe
this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the
means of establishing our future national felicity. And
have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we
imagine that we no longer need His assistance. I have
lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more
convincing proofs I see of this truththat God governs
in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the
ground without his notice [Matt. 10:29], 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 they labor in vain that build it [Ps. 127:1]
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 Governments 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
60 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
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.
The motion was immediately seconded by Roger Sherman. Alexander
Hamilton and several others expressed their apprehensions that however
proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention,
it might at this late day . . . bring
on it some disagreeable [strong criticisms]
[that would] lead the public to believe
that the embarrassments and dissensions
within the Convention, had suggested this
measure. Other objected to the argument
by stating that the past omission of a duty
could not justify a further omissionthat
the rejection of such a proposition would
expose the Convention to more unpleasant
[strong criticisms] than the adoption of it.
. . . Another had argued that there were no
funds to bring a clergyman. In a word, the convention neither began nor
did it pause to take part in a time of prayer.
The Constitution is a document developed by a mixed multitude
of beliefs. There were disagreements about the Preamble. Patrick Henry
contended that it should begin with We the States rather than We
the People, since the national government was a creation of the states
and not the people generally. Henry had reservations about the Constitution.
When invited to attend, he told Madison that he smelt a rat.
While there are remnants of Christian principles in the Constitution,
there are some glaring omissions that are haunting us today.
Alexander Hamilton
In the Year of Our Lord 61
www.AmericanVision.org
No Mention of God
A story has been told about a chance meeting between a minister
and Alexander Hamilton after the Philadelphia Convention had adjourned.
1 The minister asked Hamilton why the Constitution has no
recognition of God or the Christian religion. Hamilton is reported
to have said, we forgot it.2 Many now ask how is it possible that
men from states whose constitutions were not shy about acknowledging
God could leave out any mention of Him in the Federal Constitution?
Certainly biblical principles of limited and representative
government, a sound monetary policy, the establishment of justice,
the maintenance of liberty, and the preservation of peace are biblical
principles that ripple through the document.3 But is the Constitution
without any mention of God or the Christian religion?
A Political Document
As we have seen, the state constitutions were explicitly Christian in
their design. The Federal Constitution as a creation of the states did not
nullify the states rights to govern their religious affairs. The absence of
direct references to God and the Christian
religion in the Constitution, as compared
to the state constitutions, is due in part
from an understanding that it was drafted
for a very limited civil objective. Since
the thirteen colonies/states had their own
constitutions, governors, and representatives,
the newly created national government
would only do what the several
states could not do individually. Powers
not delegated to the national government
remained with the states. Church historian
Philip Schaff offers the following defense for the absence of references
to Providence, the Creator, nature and natures God, and the
Philip Schaff
62 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
Supreme Being in terms of the documents political purpose:
The absence of the names of God and Christ, in a purely
political and legal document, no more proves denial
or irreverence than the absence of those names in a
mathematical treatise, or the statutes of a bank or railroad
corporation. The title Holiness does not make
the Pope of Rome any holier than he is. . . . The book
of Esther and the Song of Solomon are undoubtedly
productions of devout worshippers of Jehovah; and yet
the name of God does not occur once in them.4
The argument is that theology did not draw the delegates to Philadelphia
in 1787. These issues had already been settled at the state level.
Instead, the delegates came to debate and construct the best form of
civil government at the national level.
A Campaign to Dechristianize a Nation
There were two revolutions at the end of the eighteenth century, two
new constitutions drafted, and two different reactions to the Christian
religion. France was caught up in revolutionary fever in 1791, not
with a foreign power but with itself. The French revolutionaries were
self-conscious about their efforts to turn France into a secular state,
devoid of even a remnant of religion. Throughout the nation a cam-
A depiction of the dechristianization
of the
French Republic with
Reason and Philosophy as
moral absolutes.
In the Year of Our Lord 63
www.AmericanVision.org
paign to dechristianize France spread like wildfire.5 The dechristianization
of the French Republic meant the crowning of a substitute
civil religion. The leaders of the Paris Commune demanded that the
former metropolitan church of Notre Dame be reconsecrated as a
Temple of Reason. On November 10, 1793, a civic festival was held
in the new temple, its façade bearing the words To Philosophy. In
Paris, the goddess Reason was personified by an actress, Demoiselle
Candeille, carried shoulder‑high into the cathedral by men dressed
in Roman costumes.6 The Commune ordered that all churches be
closed and converted into poor houses and schools. Church bells
were melted down and used to cast cannons.7
Blatant infidelity precipitated that storm of pitiless
fury. The National Assembly passed a resolution deliberately
declaring There is no God; vacated the throne
of Deity by simple resolution, abolished the Sabbath,
unfrocked her ministers of religion, turned temples of
spiritual worship into places of secular business, and
enthroned a vile woman as the Goddess of Reason.8
The French Revolution replaced the God of Revelation with the Goddess
of Reason, with disastrous results. Blood literally flowed in the
streets as day after day enemies of the republic met their death
under the sharp blade of Madam Guillotine. France, in its terrific
Blatant infidelity precipitated
that storm of
pitiless fury. The National
Assembly passed a resolution
deliberately declaring
There is no God.
64 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
revolution, saw the violent culmination of theoretical and practical
infidelity.9
The French calendar was also changed to reflect the new anti-
Christian spirit of the revolution. The Convention voted on 5 October
1793 to abolish the Christian calendar and introduce a republican
calendar.10 The new calendar divided
the day into ten hours each with one
hundred minutes which was further
sub-divided into one hundred seconds.
The founding of the Republic on
September 22, 1792, was the beginning
of the new era and a new Year
One. Instead of the birth of Jesus
Christ being the focal point of history,
the founding day of the new French
Republic would define how time
would be kept. While the year still had
twelve months, all were made thirty
days long with the remaining days
scattered throughout the year and celebrated
as festival days. The seven-day
week was replaced with a week of ten
days with the result that Sunday as a
day of rest and Christian worship was
eliminated.11
The French Republic went beyond
a new calendar by changing place names that had reference to a
Christian past. In addition, children were named after republican
heroes such as Brutus and Cato, and observance of the new Revolutionary
calendar, which abolished Sunday and Christian Feast days,
was enforced.12
While we moderns have not gone as far as the French Revolutionaries,
some tinkering has been done with the way dates are des-
Trying to keep track of the
French Revolutionary calendar.
In the Year of Our Lord 65
www.AmericanVision.org
ignated. Most academic works no longer use B.C. (Before Christ) and
A.D. (anno domini, in the year of our Lord) but have adopted B.C.E.
(Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) in a self-conscious
effort to distance the study of history from the person and work of
Jesus Christ.
Christian Continuity
When compared to what the French did, the United States Constitution
establishes continuity with the nations Christian past by linking
it with the Christian calendar. Article 1, section 7 of our Constitution
exempts Sunday as a day to be counted within which the president
may veto legislation. If the framers had wanted to strip every vestige
of religion from the Constitution, why include a reference to an obvious
religious observance? Sunday observance remained under constitutional
protection at the federal and state levels for some time in
the United States. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer observed,
the recognition of Sunday as a day of worship and rest is a day peculiar
to [the Christian] faith, and known to no other.13
The Constitution itself states that the drafting took place in the
year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
While this might seem insignificant to some, but when compared to
what the French did in creating a new Year One, it takes on special
meaning. The constitutional framers could have taken the direction
of the French Revolutionaries and created a new order of the ages
based on a new calendar if they had wanted to make a complete break
with the Christian past. They did not.
The Articles of Confederation include the phrase it hath pleased
the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures
. . . to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles
of Confederation and perpetual Union. Like the Constitution the Articles
close with Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania
the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven
Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the indepen66
The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
dence of America.
The several states continued to follow the Christian calendar
where Jesus was placed at the center of history.
When John Hancock was Governor of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts he
issued A Proclamation for a Day of Public
Thanksgiving in 1791:
In consideration of the many undeserved
Blessings conferred upon us
by GOD, the Father of all Mercies; it
becomes us not only in our private and usual devotion,
to express our obligations to Him, as well as our dependence
upon Him; but also specially to set a part a Day
to be employed for this great and important Purpose.
. . . And above all, not only to continue to
us the enjoyment of our civil Rights and
Liberties; but the great and most important
Blessing, the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
And together with our cordial acknowledgments,
I do earnestly recommend,
that we may join the penitent confession
of our Sins, and implore the further continuance
of the Divine Protection, and
Blessings of Heaven upon this People;
especially that He would be graciously pleased to direct,
and prosper the Administration of the Federal
Government, and of this, and the other States in the
Unionto afford Him further Smiles on our Agriculture
and Fisheries, Commerce and ManufacturesTo
prosper our University and all Seminaries of Learning
To bless the virtuously struggling for the Rights
John Hancock
In the Year of Our Lord 67
www.AmericanVision.org
of Menso that universal
Happiness may be Allies of
the United States, and to afford
his Almighty Aid to all
People, who are established
in the World; that all may
bow to the Scepter of our
LORD JESUS CHRIST, and
the whole Earth be filled
with his Glory.14
Above Hancocks signature,
we find the following: Given at the
Council-Chamber, in Boston, the
fifth Day of October, in the Year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven
Hundred and Ninety-One, and in the sixteenth Year of the Independence
of the United States of America. In the Year of Our Lord continued
to be used, even through Jeffersons administration. In 1807,
Jefferson singed a federal passport that allowed the ship Hershel to
proceed on its Journey to London and dated the letter September 24,
1807 in the year of our Lord Christ (see page 68). Notice the addition
of Christ. There is no misunderstanding that in the Year of Our
Lord is a reference to Jesus Christ and no one else.
Religious Discord
and States Rights
One theory to explain why the Constitution addresses religion only in
an indirect way is that there were different Christian sects represented
at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia: Congregationalist,
Episcopalian, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, Quaker, Lutheran,
Roman Catholic, and Methodist.15 James Madison tells us there was
discord of religious opinions within the convention, which undoubtedly
kept theological controversy off the floor.16 Some maintain that
68 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
the proliferation of religious opinions among the delegates steered
the convention away from including specific religious language in the
Constitution.
A variation of Madisons explanation is that the representatives
wanted to guard the states from federal intrusion, preserving the authority
of the states to establish their own religious parameters. Since
the religious issue was already settled at the state level, there was no
need for the federal government to meddle in an area in which the
national government would have no jurisdiction. The prohibition of a
religious test in Article VI, section 3 as a qualification to any office or
public trust under the United States applied only to national office
holders: congressmen, senators, the president, and Supreme Court
Justices. States were free to apply their own test and oath, which they
In the Year of Our Lord 69
www.AmericanVision.org
did. Schaff maintained that the articles inclusion secured the freedom
and independence of the State from ecclesiastical domination
and interference.17
The First Amendment as well as
the no religious test provision are
expressly made to apply to the general
government alone. They do not
apply to the States. It may have been
the intent in framing the Constitution
to assign the matter of religion to the
domain of the States, rather than to accomplish
an elimination of all religious
character from our civil institutions.18
In his Commentary on the Constitution
of the United States, Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story (17791845) wrote, Thus, the whole power over
the subject of religion was left exclusively to the State governments, to
be acted on according to their own sense of justice, and the State Constitutions.
19
Storys Commentary clearly shows that the First Amendment was
designed to prohibit the federal establishment of a national Church or
the official preference of a particular Christian sect over all others. The
First Amendment, according to Story, was not designed to disestablish
the Christian religion at the state level but only to insure that no single
Christian sect (denomination) would be established in terms of constitutional
preference:
Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution,
and of the . . . [First Amendment], the general,
if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that
Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the
State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible
with the private rights of conscience, and the
Justice Joseph Story
70 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all
religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold
all in utter indifference, would have created universal
disapprobation, if not universal indignation.20
While the national government received new powers as a result of the
ratification of the Constitution, denying the states jurisdiction over
religious issues was not one of them. The Tenth Amendment supports
this view: The powers, not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States, respectively, or to the people. In the Circuit Court of Tennessee,
August 1, 1891, the Court said, As a matter of fact they (the
founders of our government) left the States the most absolute power
on the subject, any of them might, if they chose, establish a creed and
a church and maintain them.21
Christianity Assumed
Another argument put forth to explain the
Constitutions lack of explicit religious language
is that the Christian premises of the
American Constitution and the peoples
reliance on the Christian deity were assumed
by the framers, and thus explicit
reference was unnecessary. The Bible,
argued Robert Baird, the trailblazing
student of religion in America, does not
begin with an argument to prove the exis-
The powers, not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
In the Year of Our Lord 71
www.AmericanVision.org
tence of God, but assumes the fact, as one [of] the truth[s] of which
it needs no attempt to establish.22 Having said this, even Baird had to
acknowledge his regret at the absence of something more explicit on
the subject. . . . Sure I am that, had the excellent men who framed the
Constitution foreseen the inferences that have been drawn from the
omission, they would have recognized, in a proper formula, the existence
of God, and the truth and the importance of the Christian religion.
23 The belief was that Christianity was so much a corner stone of
American thought and law that there was no need to make it an official
constitutional declaration. Cornelison expressed the prevailing Protestant
view of the time that the government of these United States was
necessarily, rightfully, and lawfully Christian.24
The National Reform Association
In 1861, a small Presbyterian denomination known as the Covenanters,
founded in 1809 in Western Pennsylvania, created a petition that
pointed out that the Constitution made
no reference to Jesus Christ and the law
of God. The petition received initial
support from Senator Charles Sumner,
and in 1862 two Covenanter ministers
presented the document to President
Lincoln. Lincoln was noncommittal. . .
.25 The Covenanters saw a causal relationship
between the sin of slavery and
other national sins and the outbreak of
the Civil War. At a February 1863 conference
held in Xenia, Ohio, representatives
from eleven Protestant denominations
from seven northern states were in attendance. On the second
day of the conference John Alexander, a local attorney, delivered a paper
on the topic Religion in the Nation. . . . As a means of regaining
Gods favor, Alexander proposed the following:
Senator Charles Sumner
72 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
We regard the neglect of God and His law, by omitting
all acknowledgment of them in our Constitution,
as the crowning, original sin of the nation, and slavery
as one of its natural outgrowths. Therefore, the most
important step remains to yet to be takento amend
the Constitution so as to acknowledge God and the
authority of His law; and the object of this paper is to
suggest to this Convention the propriety of considering
this subject, and of preparing such an amendment to
the Constitution as they may think proper to propose in
accordance with its provisions.26
A similar convention was being held in Sparta, Illinois, that same
month and came to a similar conclusion. Representatives from both
conventions met in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, the following January to
organize the Christian Amendment Movement, soon to be called the
National Reform Association.
The Association elected
John Alexander its first president,
and in 1864 set out to
obtain an amendment to the
United States Constitution
to acknowledge Gods divine
authority and, in doing so,
establish a Christian basis
for popular government in
America. The proposed revised
Preamble read as follows
(the additional wording
is in brackets and italicized):
We, the People of the
United States [recog
In the Year of Our Lord 73
www.AmericanVision.org
nizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine
Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as
the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Savior
and Lord of all], in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.
Little progress was made in getting the proposed emendation
before Congress for a vote. A motion to discharge the Judiciary
committee from any further consideration
passed. Even so, efforts to get
the Amendment passed continued,
but they were continually stalled.
One reason suggested for the lack of
action was that some Congressmen
were concerned about possible Free
Exercise of religion implications that
might arise with regards to a Christian
Amendment to the Constitution.27 In
addition, the National Free Religious
Association was founded in 1867 and
presided over by Octavius Frothingham
(18221895) to oppose the Christian
Amendment efforts. Frothingham was pastor of the North
Unitarian Church of Salem, Massachusetts. He was a radical Unitarian
and an outspoken anti-supernaturalist.
Radical changes were taking place in Ohio public schools. In an
attempt to get students from parochial (Roman Catholic) schools to
attend public schools, a group of school board members had two
resolutions prohibiting religious instruction and reading of religious
books, including the Holy Bible, in the common schools.28 Many Ro-
Octavius Frothingham
74 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
man Catholic schools were started because the public schools were
thought to be too Protestant.
Conclusion
If the majority of the constitutional framers could get a glimpse of
America today, would they have rethought their decision only to make
passing reference to the lordship of Jesus Christ in the body of the
Constitution? Would they have been more specific in their mention
of God and the need for the nations reliance on Him in light of the
secularizing spirit that seems
to have America in its grip?
We will never know. But when
all the testimony is in, it is an
undeniable fact that Christianity
served as the foundation for
the political edifice we know
as America. In 1983 Congress
declared 1983 to be the Year
of the Bible. In his official pronouncement
Ronald Reagan
stated the following:
Of the many influences
that have shaped the
United States of America
into a distinctive
Nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental
and enduring than the Bible.
Deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and
New Testaments of the Bible inspired many of the
early settlers of our country, providing them with the
strength, character, convictions, and faith necessary to
withstand great hardship and danger in this new and
In the Year of Our Lord 75
www.AmericanVision.org
rugged land. These shared beliefs helped forge a sense
of common purpose among the widely dispersed colonies
a sense of community which laid the foundation
for the spirit of nationhood that was to develop in later
decades.
The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis
for the Founding Fathers abiding belief in the inalienable
rights of the individual, rights which they found
implicit in the Bibles teachings of the inherent worth
and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man
patterned the convictions of those who framed the
English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as
well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution.
For centuries the Bibles emphasis on compassion
and love for our neighbor has inspired institutional
and governmental expressions of benevolent outreach
such as private charity, the establishment of schools
and hospitals, and the abolition of slavery.29
NOTES
1. No one knows for sure the identity of the questioner or whether the encounter
actually took place. Benjamin F. Morris identifies him as the Rev. Dr. Miller, a distinguished
professor at Princeton College (The Christian Life and Character of
the Civil Institutions of the United States [Powder Springs, GA: American Vision,
(1864) 2006], 248). Isaac A. Cornelison identifies him as Rev. Dr. John Rogers, a
chaplain of the War of Independence and Presbyterian minister (The Relation of
Religion to Civil Government in the United States of America: A State without a
Church, but Not Without a Religion [New York: G.P Putnams Sons, 1895], 204).
2. George Duffield, Jr., The God of Our Fathers, An Historical Sermon, Preached
in the Coates Street Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, on Fast Day, January
4, 1861 (Philadelphia, PA: T.B. Pugh, 1861), 15. See Morris, Christian Life and
Character, 248. Further references can be found in Daniel L. Dreisbach, God
76 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
and the Constitution: Reflections on Selected Nineteenth Century Commentaries
on References to the Deity and the Christian Religion in the States Constitution,
22, note 77. This paper is unpublished.
3. Gary DeMar, God and Government: A Biblical and Historical Study (Powder
Springs, GA: American Vision, 1990), 141167 and Archie P. Jones, Christian
Principles in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (Marlborough, NH: Plymouth
Rock Foundation, 1994).
4. Philip Schaff, Church and State in the United States or The American Idea
of Religious Liberty And Its Practical Effects (New York: Charles Scribners
Sons, 1889), 40.
5. Walter Grab, The French Revolution: The Beginning of Modern Democracy (London:
Bracken Books, 1989), 165.
6. Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (1976) in The Complete Works
of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, 5 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Books, 1984), 5:149.
7. Grab, The French Revolution, 166.
8. Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth; or, The Influence
of Christianity in making This Nation (Nashville, TN: Publishing House
Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), 25.
9. Jesse T. Peck, The History of the Great Republic Considered from a Christian
Stand-Point (New York: Broughton and Wyman, 1868), 321.
10. Grab, The French Revolution, 165. Also see Marking Time: Different Ways
to Count the Changing Seasons, Did You Know? New Insight into the World
that is Full of Astonishing Stories and Astounding Facts (London: Readers
Digest, 1990), 267.
11. Grab, The French Revolution, 165.
12. Richard Cobb, gen. ed., Voices of the French Revolution (Topsfield, MA: Salem
House Publishers, 1988), 202. Also see Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of
the French Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989), 771-80.
13. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia, PA: 1905), 26.
14. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=18294
15. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: The Dramatic Story of the Men Who founded
Our Country (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, [1982] 1988).
In the Year of Our Lord 77
www.AmericanVision.org
16. R. Kemp Morton, God in the Constitution (Nashville, TN: Cokesbury Press,
1933), 71.
17. Schaff, Church and State in the United States, 21.
18. Cornelison, Relation of Religion to Civil Government in the United States of
America, 94.
19. Joseph Story, Commentary on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA:
Hilliard, Gray, and Co., 1833), 702703. Story served as a justice of the United
States Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845.
20. Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (Lake
Bluff, IL: Regnery Gateway, [1859] 1986), 316.
21. The Federal Reporter, 46:912. Quoted in Cornelison, Relation of Religion to Civil
Government in the United States of America, 95.
22. Dreisbach, God and the Constitution, 28.
23. Robert Baird, Religion in America; or, an Account of the Origin, Progress, Relation
to the State, and Present Condition of the Evangelical churches in the United
States. With Notices of the Unevangelical Denominations (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1844), 119. Quoted in Dreisbach, God and the Constitution, 29.
24. Cornelison, The Relation of Religion to Civil Government in the United States of
America, 341.
25. Steven Keith Green, The National Reform Association and the Religious
Amendments to the Constitution, 18641876. An unpublished Masters thesis.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1987), 14.
26. Green, The National Reform Association and the Religious Amendments to the
Constitution, 18641876, 12.
27. http://candst.tripod.com/nra.htm
28. The Rhetoric and Reality of the Christian Nation Maxim In American
Law:18101920, by Steven Keith Green, An unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, (1997), 292.
29. Public Law No. 97-280, 96 Stat. 1211 (October 4, 1982): http://www.reagan.utexas.
edu/archives/speeches/1983/20383b.htm
Christianity and the Constitution
Fireman Benjamin Franklin
58 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
tion, several of the last producing
as many noes as ayes, is methinks a
melancholy proof of the imperfection
of the Human Understanding.
We indeed seem to feel our own
want of political wisdom, since we
have been running about in search
of it. We have gone back to ancient
history for models of Government,
and examined the different forms of
those Republics which having been
formed with the seeds of their own
dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed
Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their
Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it
were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able
The Constitutional Convention
In the Year of Our Lord 59
www.AmericanVision.org
to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened,
Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of
humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate
our understandings?
In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain,
when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer
in this room for the Divine Protection.Our prayers,
Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.
All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have
observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence
in our favor. To that kind providence we owe
this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the
means of establishing our future national felicity. And
have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we
imagine that we no longer need His assistance. I have
lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more
convincing proofs I see of this truththat God governs
in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the
ground without his notice [Matt. 10:29], 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 they labor in vain that build it [Ps. 127:1]
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 Governments 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
60 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
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.
The motion was immediately seconded by Roger Sherman. Alexander
Hamilton and several others expressed their apprehensions that however
proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention,
it might at this late day . . . bring
on it some disagreeable [strong criticisms]
[that would] lead the public to believe
that the embarrassments and dissensions
within the Convention, had suggested this
measure. Other objected to the argument
by stating that the past omission of a duty
could not justify a further omissionthat
the rejection of such a proposition would
expose the Convention to more unpleasant
[strong criticisms] than the adoption of it.
. . . Another had argued that there were no
funds to bring a clergyman. In a word, the convention neither began nor
did it pause to take part in a time of prayer.
The Constitution is a document developed by a mixed multitude
of beliefs. There were disagreements about the Preamble. Patrick Henry
contended that it should begin with We the States rather than We
the People, since the national government was a creation of the states
and not the people generally. Henry had reservations about the Constitution.
When invited to attend, he told Madison that he smelt a rat.
While there are remnants of Christian principles in the Constitution,
there are some glaring omissions that are haunting us today.
Alexander Hamilton
In the Year of Our Lord 61
www.AmericanVision.org
No Mention of God
A story has been told about a chance meeting between a minister
and Alexander Hamilton after the Philadelphia Convention had adjourned.
1 The minister asked Hamilton why the Constitution has no
recognition of God or the Christian religion. Hamilton is reported
to have said, we forgot it.2 Many now ask how is it possible that
men from states whose constitutions were not shy about acknowledging
God could leave out any mention of Him in the Federal Constitution?
Certainly biblical principles of limited and representative
government, a sound monetary policy, the establishment of justice,
the maintenance of liberty, and the preservation of peace are biblical
principles that ripple through the document.3 But is the Constitution
without any mention of God or the Christian religion?
A Political Document
As we have seen, the state constitutions were explicitly Christian in
their design. The Federal Constitution as a creation of the states did not
nullify the states rights to govern their religious affairs. The absence of
direct references to God and the Christian
religion in the Constitution, as compared
to the state constitutions, is due in part
from an understanding that it was drafted
for a very limited civil objective. Since
the thirteen colonies/states had their own
constitutions, governors, and representatives,
the newly created national government
would only do what the several
states could not do individually. Powers
not delegated to the national government
remained with the states. Church historian
Philip Schaff offers the following defense for the absence of references
to Providence, the Creator, nature and natures God, and the
Philip Schaff
62 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
Supreme Being in terms of the documents political purpose:
The absence of the names of God and Christ, in a purely
political and legal document, no more proves denial
or irreverence than the absence of those names in a
mathematical treatise, or the statutes of a bank or railroad
corporation. The title Holiness does not make
the Pope of Rome any holier than he is. . . . The book
of Esther and the Song of Solomon are undoubtedly
productions of devout worshippers of Jehovah; and yet
the name of God does not occur once in them.4
The argument is that theology did not draw the delegates to Philadelphia
in 1787. These issues had already been settled at the state level.
Instead, the delegates came to debate and construct the best form of
civil government at the national level.
A Campaign to Dechristianize a Nation
There were two revolutions at the end of the eighteenth century, two
new constitutions drafted, and two different reactions to the Christian
religion. France was caught up in revolutionary fever in 1791, not
with a foreign power but with itself. The French revolutionaries were
self-conscious about their efforts to turn France into a secular state,
devoid of even a remnant of religion. Throughout the nation a cam-
A depiction of the dechristianization
of the
French Republic with
Reason and Philosophy as
moral absolutes.
In the Year of Our Lord 63
www.AmericanVision.org
paign to dechristianize France spread like wildfire.5 The dechristianization
of the French Republic meant the crowning of a substitute
civil religion. The leaders of the Paris Commune demanded that the
former metropolitan church of Notre Dame be reconsecrated as a
Temple of Reason. On November 10, 1793, a civic festival was held
in the new temple, its façade bearing the words To Philosophy. In
Paris, the goddess Reason was personified by an actress, Demoiselle
Candeille, carried shoulder‑high into the cathedral by men dressed
in Roman costumes.6 The Commune ordered that all churches be
closed and converted into poor houses and schools. Church bells
were melted down and used to cast cannons.7
Blatant infidelity precipitated that storm of pitiless
fury. The National Assembly passed a resolution deliberately
declaring There is no God; vacated the throne
of Deity by simple resolution, abolished the Sabbath,
unfrocked her ministers of religion, turned temples of
spiritual worship into places of secular business, and
enthroned a vile woman as the Goddess of Reason.8
The French Revolution replaced the God of Revelation with the Goddess
of Reason, with disastrous results. Blood literally flowed in the
streets as day after day enemies of the republic met their death
under the sharp blade of Madam Guillotine. France, in its terrific
Blatant infidelity precipitated
that storm of
pitiless fury. The National
Assembly passed a resolution
deliberately declaring
There is no God.
64 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
revolution, saw the violent culmination of theoretical and practical
infidelity.9
The French calendar was also changed to reflect the new anti-
Christian spirit of the revolution. The Convention voted on 5 October
1793 to abolish the Christian calendar and introduce a republican
calendar.10 The new calendar divided
the day into ten hours each with one
hundred minutes which was further
sub-divided into one hundred seconds.
The founding of the Republic on
September 22, 1792, was the beginning
of the new era and a new Year
One. Instead of the birth of Jesus
Christ being the focal point of history,
the founding day of the new French
Republic would define how time
would be kept. While the year still had
twelve months, all were made thirty
days long with the remaining days
scattered throughout the year and celebrated
as festival days. The seven-day
week was replaced with a week of ten
days with the result that Sunday as a
day of rest and Christian worship was
eliminated.11
The French Republic went beyond
a new calendar by changing place names that had reference to a
Christian past. In addition, children were named after republican
heroes such as Brutus and Cato, and observance of the new Revolutionary
calendar, which abolished Sunday and Christian Feast days,
was enforced.12
While we moderns have not gone as far as the French Revolutionaries,
some tinkering has been done with the way dates are des-
Trying to keep track of the
French Revolutionary calendar.
In the Year of Our Lord 65
www.AmericanVision.org
ignated. Most academic works no longer use B.C. (Before Christ) and
A.D. (anno domini, in the year of our Lord) but have adopted B.C.E.
(Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) in a self-conscious
effort to distance the study of history from the person and work of
Jesus Christ.
Christian Continuity
When compared to what the French did, the United States Constitution
establishes continuity with the nations Christian past by linking
it with the Christian calendar. Article 1, section 7 of our Constitution
exempts Sunday as a day to be counted within which the president
may veto legislation. If the framers had wanted to strip every vestige
of religion from the Constitution, why include a reference to an obvious
religious observance? Sunday observance remained under constitutional
protection at the federal and state levels for some time in
the United States. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer observed,
the recognition of Sunday as a day of worship and rest is a day peculiar
to [the Christian] faith, and known to no other.13
The Constitution itself states that the drafting took place in the
year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
While this might seem insignificant to some, but when compared to
what the French did in creating a new Year One, it takes on special
meaning. The constitutional framers could have taken the direction
of the French Revolutionaries and created a new order of the ages
based on a new calendar if they had wanted to make a complete break
with the Christian past. They did not.
The Articles of Confederation include the phrase it hath pleased
the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures
. . . to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles
of Confederation and perpetual Union. Like the Constitution the Articles
close with Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania
the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven
Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the indepen66
The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
dence of America.
The several states continued to follow the Christian calendar
where Jesus was placed at the center of history.
When John Hancock was Governor of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts he
issued A Proclamation for a Day of Public
Thanksgiving in 1791:
In consideration of the many undeserved
Blessings conferred upon us
by GOD, the Father of all Mercies; it
becomes us not only in our private and usual devotion,
to express our obligations to Him, as well as our dependence
upon Him; but also specially to set a part a Day
to be employed for this great and important Purpose.
. . . And above all, not only to continue to
us the enjoyment of our civil Rights and
Liberties; but the great and most important
Blessing, the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
And together with our cordial acknowledgments,
I do earnestly recommend,
that we may join the penitent confession
of our Sins, and implore the further continuance
of the Divine Protection, and
Blessings of Heaven upon this People;
especially that He would be graciously pleased to direct,
and prosper the Administration of the Federal
Government, and of this, and the other States in the
Unionto afford Him further Smiles on our Agriculture
and Fisheries, Commerce and ManufacturesTo
prosper our University and all Seminaries of Learning
To bless the virtuously struggling for the Rights
John Hancock
In the Year of Our Lord 67
www.AmericanVision.org
of Menso that universal
Happiness may be Allies of
the United States, and to afford
his Almighty Aid to all
People, who are established
in the World; that all may
bow to the Scepter of our
LORD JESUS CHRIST, and
the whole Earth be filled
with his Glory.14
Above Hancocks signature,
we find the following: Given at the
Council-Chamber, in Boston, the
fifth Day of October, in the Year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven
Hundred and Ninety-One, and in the sixteenth Year of the Independence
of the United States of America. In the Year of Our Lord continued
to be used, even through Jeffersons administration. In 1807,
Jefferson singed a federal passport that allowed the ship Hershel to
proceed on its Journey to London and dated the letter September 24,
1807 in the year of our Lord Christ (see page 68). Notice the addition
of Christ. There is no misunderstanding that in the Year of Our
Lord is a reference to Jesus Christ and no one else.
Religious Discord
and States Rights
One theory to explain why the Constitution addresses religion only in
an indirect way is that there were different Christian sects represented
at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia: Congregationalist,
Episcopalian, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, Quaker, Lutheran,
Roman Catholic, and Methodist.15 James Madison tells us there was
discord of religious opinions within the convention, which undoubtedly
kept theological controversy off the floor.16 Some maintain that
68 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
the proliferation of religious opinions among the delegates steered
the convention away from including specific religious language in the
Constitution.
A variation of Madisons explanation is that the representatives
wanted to guard the states from federal intrusion, preserving the authority
of the states to establish their own religious parameters. Since
the religious issue was already settled at the state level, there was no
need for the federal government to meddle in an area in which the
national government would have no jurisdiction. The prohibition of a
religious test in Article VI, section 3 as a qualification to any office or
public trust under the United States applied only to national office
holders: congressmen, senators, the president, and Supreme Court
Justices. States were free to apply their own test and oath, which they
In the Year of Our Lord 69
www.AmericanVision.org
did. Schaff maintained that the articles inclusion secured the freedom
and independence of the State from ecclesiastical domination
and interference.17
The First Amendment as well as
the no religious test provision are
expressly made to apply to the general
government alone. They do not
apply to the States. It may have been
the intent in framing the Constitution
to assign the matter of religion to the
domain of the States, rather than to accomplish
an elimination of all religious
character from our civil institutions.18
In his Commentary on the Constitution
of the United States, Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story (17791845) wrote, Thus, the whole power over
the subject of religion was left exclusively to the State governments, to
be acted on according to their own sense of justice, and the State Constitutions.
19
Storys Commentary clearly shows that the First Amendment was
designed to prohibit the federal establishment of a national Church or
the official preference of a particular Christian sect over all others. The
First Amendment, according to Story, was not designed to disestablish
the Christian religion at the state level but only to insure that no single
Christian sect (denomination) would be established in terms of constitutional
preference:
Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution,
and of the . . . [First Amendment], the general,
if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that
Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the
State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible
with the private rights of conscience, and the
Justice Joseph Story
70 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all
religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold
all in utter indifference, would have created universal
disapprobation, if not universal indignation.20
While the national government received new powers as a result of the
ratification of the Constitution, denying the states jurisdiction over
religious issues was not one of them. The Tenth Amendment supports
this view: The powers, not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States, respectively, or to the people. In the Circuit Court of Tennessee,
August 1, 1891, the Court said, As a matter of fact they (the
founders of our government) left the States the most absolute power
on the subject, any of them might, if they chose, establish a creed and
a church and maintain them.21
Christianity Assumed
Another argument put forth to explain the
Constitutions lack of explicit religious language
is that the Christian premises of the
American Constitution and the peoples
reliance on the Christian deity were assumed
by the framers, and thus explicit
reference was unnecessary. The Bible,
argued Robert Baird, the trailblazing
student of religion in America, does not
begin with an argument to prove the exis-
The powers, not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
In the Year of Our Lord 71
www.AmericanVision.org
tence of God, but assumes the fact, as one [of] the truth[s] of which
it needs no attempt to establish.22 Having said this, even Baird had to
acknowledge his regret at the absence of something more explicit on
the subject. . . . Sure I am that, had the excellent men who framed the
Constitution foreseen the inferences that have been drawn from the
omission, they would have recognized, in a proper formula, the existence
of God, and the truth and the importance of the Christian religion.
23 The belief was that Christianity was so much a corner stone of
American thought and law that there was no need to make it an official
constitutional declaration. Cornelison expressed the prevailing Protestant
view of the time that the government of these United States was
necessarily, rightfully, and lawfully Christian.24
The National Reform Association
In 1861, a small Presbyterian denomination known as the Covenanters,
founded in 1809 in Western Pennsylvania, created a petition that
pointed out that the Constitution made
no reference to Jesus Christ and the law
of God. The petition received initial
support from Senator Charles Sumner,
and in 1862 two Covenanter ministers
presented the document to President
Lincoln. Lincoln was noncommittal. . .
.25 The Covenanters saw a causal relationship
between the sin of slavery and
other national sins and the outbreak of
the Civil War. At a February 1863 conference
held in Xenia, Ohio, representatives
from eleven Protestant denominations
from seven northern states were in attendance. On the second
day of the conference John Alexander, a local attorney, delivered a paper
on the topic Religion in the Nation. . . . As a means of regaining
Gods favor, Alexander proposed the following:
Senator Charles Sumner
72 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
We regard the neglect of God and His law, by omitting
all acknowledgment of them in our Constitution,
as the crowning, original sin of the nation, and slavery
as one of its natural outgrowths. Therefore, the most
important step remains to yet to be takento amend
the Constitution so as to acknowledge God and the
authority of His law; and the object of this paper is to
suggest to this Convention the propriety of considering
this subject, and of preparing such an amendment to
the Constitution as they may think proper to propose in
accordance with its provisions.26
A similar convention was being held in Sparta, Illinois, that same
month and came to a similar conclusion. Representatives from both
conventions met in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, the following January to
organize the Christian Amendment Movement, soon to be called the
National Reform Association.
The Association elected
John Alexander its first president,
and in 1864 set out to
obtain an amendment to the
United States Constitution
to acknowledge Gods divine
authority and, in doing so,
establish a Christian basis
for popular government in
America. The proposed revised
Preamble read as follows
(the additional wording
is in brackets and italicized):
We, the People of the
United States [recog
In the Year of Our Lord 73
www.AmericanVision.org
nizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine
Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as
the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Savior
and Lord of all], in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.
Little progress was made in getting the proposed emendation
before Congress for a vote. A motion to discharge the Judiciary
committee from any further consideration
passed. Even so, efforts to get
the Amendment passed continued,
but they were continually stalled.
One reason suggested for the lack of
action was that some Congressmen
were concerned about possible Free
Exercise of religion implications that
might arise with regards to a Christian
Amendment to the Constitution.27 In
addition, the National Free Religious
Association was founded in 1867 and
presided over by Octavius Frothingham
(18221895) to oppose the Christian
Amendment efforts. Frothingham was pastor of the North
Unitarian Church of Salem, Massachusetts. He was a radical Unitarian
and an outspoken anti-supernaturalist.
Radical changes were taking place in Ohio public schools. In an
attempt to get students from parochial (Roman Catholic) schools to
attend public schools, a group of school board members had two
resolutions prohibiting religious instruction and reading of religious
books, including the Holy Bible, in the common schools.28 Many Ro-
Octavius Frothingham
74 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
man Catholic schools were started because the public schools were
thought to be too Protestant.
Conclusion
If the majority of the constitutional framers could get a glimpse of
America today, would they have rethought their decision only to make
passing reference to the lordship of Jesus Christ in the body of the
Constitution? Would they have been more specific in their mention
of God and the need for the nations reliance on Him in light of the
secularizing spirit that seems
to have America in its grip?
We will never know. But when
all the testimony is in, it is an
undeniable fact that Christianity
served as the foundation for
the political edifice we know
as America. In 1983 Congress
declared 1983 to be the Year
of the Bible. In his official pronouncement
Ronald Reagan
stated the following:
Of the many influences
that have shaped the
United States of America
into a distinctive
Nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental
and enduring than the Bible.
Deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and
New Testaments of the Bible inspired many of the
early settlers of our country, providing them with the
strength, character, convictions, and faith necessary to
withstand great hardship and danger in this new and
In the Year of Our Lord 75
www.AmericanVision.org
rugged land. These shared beliefs helped forge a sense
of common purpose among the widely dispersed colonies
a sense of community which laid the foundation
for the spirit of nationhood that was to develop in later
decades.
The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis
for the Founding Fathers abiding belief in the inalienable
rights of the individual, rights which they found
implicit in the Bibles teachings of the inherent worth
and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man
patterned the convictions of those who framed the
English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as
well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution.
For centuries the Bibles emphasis on compassion
and love for our neighbor has inspired institutional
and governmental expressions of benevolent outreach
such as private charity, the establishment of schools
and hospitals, and the abolition of slavery.29
NOTES
1. No one knows for sure the identity of the questioner or whether the encounter
actually took place. Benjamin F. Morris identifies him as the Rev. Dr. Miller, a distinguished
professor at Princeton College (The Christian Life and Character of
the Civil Institutions of the United States [Powder Springs, GA: American Vision,
(1864) 2006], 248). Isaac A. Cornelison identifies him as Rev. Dr. John Rogers, a
chaplain of the War of Independence and Presbyterian minister (The Relation of
Religion to Civil Government in the United States of America: A State without a
Church, but Not Without a Religion [New York: G.P Putnams Sons, 1895], 204).
2. George Duffield, Jr., The God of Our Fathers, An Historical Sermon, Preached
in the Coates Street Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, on Fast Day, January
4, 1861 (Philadelphia, PA: T.B. Pugh, 1861), 15. See Morris, Christian Life and
Character, 248. Further references can be found in Daniel L. Dreisbach, God
76 The Case for Americas Christian Heritage
www.AmericanVision.org
and the Constitution: Reflections on Selected Nineteenth Century Commentaries
on References to the Deity and the Christian Religion in the States Constitution,
22, note 77. This paper is unpublished.
3. Gary DeMar, God and Government: A Biblical and Historical Study (Powder
Springs, GA: American Vision, 1990), 141167 and Archie P. Jones, Christian
Principles in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (Marlborough, NH: Plymouth
Rock Foundation, 1994).
4. Philip Schaff, Church and State in the United States or The American Idea
of Religious Liberty And Its Practical Effects (New York: Charles Scribners
Sons, 1889), 40.
5. Walter Grab, The French Revolution: The Beginning of Modern Democracy (London:
Bracken Books, 1989), 165.
6. Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (1976) in The Complete Works
of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, 5 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Books, 1984), 5:149.
7. Grab, The French Revolution, 166.
8. Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth; or, The Influence
of Christianity in making This Nation (Nashville, TN: Publishing House
Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), 25.
9. Jesse T. Peck, The History of the Great Republic Considered from a Christian
Stand-Point (New York: Broughton and Wyman, 1868), 321.
10. Grab, The French Revolution, 165. Also see Marking Time: Different Ways
to Count the Changing Seasons, Did You Know? New Insight into the World
that is Full of Astonishing Stories and Astounding Facts (London: Readers
Digest, 1990), 267.
11. Grab, The French Revolution, 165.
12. Richard Cobb, gen. ed., Voices of the French Revolution (Topsfield, MA: Salem
House Publishers, 1988), 202. Also see Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of
the French Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989), 771-80.
13. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia, PA: 1905), 26.
14. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=18294
15. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: The Dramatic Story of the Men Who founded
Our Country (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, [1982] 1988).
In the Year of Our Lord 77
www.AmericanVision.org
16. R. Kemp Morton, God in the Constitution (Nashville, TN: Cokesbury Press,
1933), 71.
17. Schaff, Church and State in the United States, 21.
18. Cornelison, Relation of Religion to Civil Government in the United States of
America, 94.
19. Joseph Story, Commentary on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA:
Hilliard, Gray, and Co., 1833), 702703. Story served as a justice of the United
States Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845.
20. Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (Lake
Bluff, IL: Regnery Gateway, [1859] 1986), 316.
21. The Federal Reporter, 46:912. Quoted in Cornelison, Relation of Religion to Civil
Government in the United States of America, 95.
22. Dreisbach, God and the Constitution, 28.
23. Robert Baird, Religion in America; or, an Account of the Origin, Progress, Relation
to the State, and Present Condition of the Evangelical churches in the United
States. With Notices of the Unevangelical Denominations (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1844), 119. Quoted in Dreisbach, God and the Constitution, 29.
24. Cornelison, The Relation of Religion to Civil Government in the United States of
America, 341.
25. Steven Keith Green, The National Reform Association and the Religious
Amendments to the Constitution, 18641876. An unpublished Masters thesis.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1987), 14.
26. Green, The National Reform Association and the Religious Amendments to the
Constitution, 18641876, 12.
27. http://candst.tripod.com/nra.htm
28. The Rhetoric and Reality of the Christian Nation Maxim In American
Law:18101920, by Steven Keith Green, An unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, (1997), 292.
29. Public Law No. 97-280, 96 Stat. 1211 (October 4, 1982): http://www.reagan.utexas.
edu/archives/speeches/1983/20383b.htm
Sep 3, 2013 09:20:31 #
(Main)
I thank it is impeachment, yes impeachment is the right thing. No, No, not for the shoe on the desk! Did you not notice his right hand? It is in the shape of a gun. Now, if kids are being expelled from school for this, then the Obambulating Manure Spreader should be expelled from office.
Of course, no one should expect much from a Chicago Thug!!
Of course, no one should expect much from a Chicago Thug!!
Sep 1, 2013 09:33:09 #
(Main)
No Invitation to speak!!! If I were in his position, I would have refused also.
436930 65.Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) would have agreed to speak at the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and Martin Luther King Jr.s I Have a Dream speech Wednesday had he been asked to do so, his office confirmed to TheBlaze.
Sen. Tim Scott speaks to supporters during an event where South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley announced her candidacy for a second term at the Bi-Lo Center Monday, Aug. 26, 2013, in Greenville, S.C. (AP)
But the sole communication that the only black United States senator received was a mass emailed blind form letter apparently sent to all members of Congress on Aug. 8, Scott spokesman Greg Blair told TheBlaze Friday
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/30/republican-tim-scott-would-have-agreed-to-speak-at-mlk-anniversary-but-all-the-lone-black-u-s-senator-got-was-a-mass-emailed-invitation-to-attend/
436930 65.Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) would have agreed to speak at the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and Martin Luther King Jr.s I Have a Dream speech Wednesday had he been asked to do so, his office confirmed to TheBlaze.
Sen. Tim Scott speaks to supporters during an event where South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley announced her candidacy for a second term at the Bi-Lo Center Monday, Aug. 26, 2013, in Greenville, S.C. (AP)
But the sole communication that the only black United States senator received was a mass emailed blind form letter apparently sent to all members of Congress on Aug. 8, Scott spokesman Greg Blair told TheBlaze Friday
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/30/republican-tim-scott-would-have-agreed-to-speak-at-mlk-anniversary-but-all-the-lone-black-u-s-senator-got-was-a-mass-emailed-invitation-to-attend/
Aug 29, 2013 09:12:10 #
(Main)
I think you may be a little confused. The "Beast" as refered to in this scripture is Satan and his minions. Big difference between Beast and animals. But you are right about no animals in Heaven because they have no Soul. God did not breathe life into animals "only" Adam. Only humans have souls and only souls will pass to the next life.
Aug 28, 2013 17:46:13 #
(Main)
Hope this will help you!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9123
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/21/voter-fraud-voter-id/1647913/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/21/voter-fraud-voter-id/1647913/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/21/voter-fraud-voter-id/1647913/
http://politic365.com/2012/10/21/republicans-tied-to-voter-fraud/
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9643
http://links.services.disqus.com/api/click?format=go&key=cfdfcf52dffd0a702a61bad27507376d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fthetruthwins.com%2Farchives%2Fare-operatives-from-both-parties-systematically-committing-election-fraud&subId=1964555&v=1&libid=50a901fb-dc68-4a2b-b679-7d17e24759c3&out=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com%2F2012%2F10%2Fcolin_small_virginia_gop_voter_registration_fraud.php&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fcharter.net%2Fsearch%2Findex.php%3Fcontext%3Dhomepage%26tab%3DWeb%26q%3Dwhich%2520political%2520party%2520does%2520most%2520voter%2520fraud%26page%3D3&title=Are%20Operatives%20From%20Both%20Parties%20Systematically%20Committing%20Election%20Fraud%3F&txt=from%20TPM%E2%80%99s%20Ryan%20Reilly&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_137772629970315
http://links.services.disqus.com/api/click?format=go&key=cfdfcf52dffd0a702a61bad27507376d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fthetruthwins.com%2Farchives%2Fare-operatives-from-both-parties-systematically-committing-election-fraud&subId=1964555&v=1&libid=50a901fb-dc68-4a2b-b679-7d17e24759c3&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shtfplan.com%2Fheadline-news%2Fcaught-on-tape-obama-campaign-staffers-say-its-okay-to-vote-twice_10102012&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fcharter.net%2Fsearch%2Findex.php%3Fcontext%3Dhomepage%26tab%3DWeb%26q%3Dwhich%2520political%2520party%2520does%2520most%2520voter%2520fraud%26page%3D3&title=Are%20Operatives%20From%20Both%20Parties%20Systematically%20Committing%20Election%20Fraud%3F&txt=by%20Mac%20Slavo&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_137772633275017
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9123
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/21/voter-fraud-voter-id/1647913/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/21/voter-fraud-voter-id/1647913/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/21/voter-fraud-voter-id/1647913/
http://politic365.com/2012/10/21/republicans-tied-to-voter-fraud/
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9643
http://links.services.disqus.com/api/click?format=go&key=cfdfcf52dffd0a702a61bad27507376d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fthetruthwins.com%2Farchives%2Fare-operatives-from-both-parties-systematically-committing-election-fraud&subId=1964555&v=1&libid=50a901fb-dc68-4a2b-b679-7d17e24759c3&out=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com%2F2012%2F10%2Fcolin_small_virginia_gop_voter_registration_fraud.php&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fcharter.net%2Fsearch%2Findex.php%3Fcontext%3Dhomepage%26tab%3DWeb%26q%3Dwhich%2520political%2520party%2520does%2520most%2520voter%2520fraud%26page%3D3&title=Are%20Operatives%20From%20Both%20Parties%20Systematically%20Committing%20Election%20Fraud%3F&txt=from%20TPM%E2%80%99s%20Ryan%20Reilly&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_137772629970315
http://links.services.disqus.com/api/click?format=go&key=cfdfcf52dffd0a702a61bad27507376d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fthetruthwins.com%2Farchives%2Fare-operatives-from-both-parties-systematically-committing-election-fraud&subId=1964555&v=1&libid=50a901fb-dc68-4a2b-b679-7d17e24759c3&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shtfplan.com%2Fheadline-news%2Fcaught-on-tape-obama-campaign-staffers-say-its-okay-to-vote-twice_10102012&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fcharter.net%2Fsearch%2Findex.php%3Fcontext%3Dhomepage%26tab%3DWeb%26q%3Dwhich%2520political%2520party%2520does%2520most%2520voter%2520fraud%26page%3D3&title=Are%20Operatives%20From%20Both%20Parties%20Systematically%20Committing%20Election%20Fraud%3F&txt=by%20Mac%20Slavo&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_137772633275017
Aug 28, 2013 10:06:26 #
(Main)
Supporters of Obama and Romney have both been charged with breaking the rules before. We all remember the ACORN voting scandals from the 2008 election, and what Romney operatives did to Ron Paul in the state of Maine during primary season was absolutely criminal. Anyone that believes that there are not operatives on both sides that would be willing to do whatever it takes to win an election is simply being delusional. Politics in America has become a very dirty game in this day and age, and the truth is that an increasing number of activists on both sides truly believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to trying to win an election.
The integrity of our elections is of paramount importance. After all, if our right to vote is taken away, what other way do we have to change things? Unless you are rich enough to bribe politicians, voting is the only voice we have.
Sadly, the integrity of our elections has been called into question for many years. We all remember what happened back in 2000. If another presidential election ends in similar fashion it could shake our system to the core.
A study that was released back in February 2012 by the Pew Center on the States found some very disturbing things. The following are a few of the statistics from their report
-Nationally, one out of every eight voter registrations is inaccurate.
-Approximately 2.8 million Americans are registered in two or more states.
-Somewhere around 1.8 million registered voters are dead.
Those are some very disturbing numbers. But the truth is that our system of voter registration is very vulnerable to fraud.
Folks, I am 70 years old and have been an independent for over 50 years. I believe that people, mostly, attach themselves to the Dummycrats or Repub-A-Flubs simply believing their choice will personally benefit them instead of voting for what is best for our Nation. Right now, even if you don't accept it, our Nation is on the wrong track financially, morally, and environmentally. So I encourage you to stop bashing either party, become an independent voter with our Nations best interest at heart. You will never find a politician that believes exactly the way you do, but if you study each candidate, especially in National elections, you will be able to make the best choice for our Nation.....which is absolutely the bottom line.
The integrity of our elections is of paramount importance. After all, if our right to vote is taken away, what other way do we have to change things? Unless you are rich enough to bribe politicians, voting is the only voice we have.
Sadly, the integrity of our elections has been called into question for many years. We all remember what happened back in 2000. If another presidential election ends in similar fashion it could shake our system to the core.
A study that was released back in February 2012 by the Pew Center on the States found some very disturbing things. The following are a few of the statistics from their report
-Nationally, one out of every eight voter registrations is inaccurate.
-Approximately 2.8 million Americans are registered in two or more states.
-Somewhere around 1.8 million registered voters are dead.
Those are some very disturbing numbers. But the truth is that our system of voter registration is very vulnerable to fraud.
Folks, I am 70 years old and have been an independent for over 50 years. I believe that people, mostly, attach themselves to the Dummycrats or Repub-A-Flubs simply believing their choice will personally benefit them instead of voting for what is best for our Nation. Right now, even if you don't accept it, our Nation is on the wrong track financially, morally, and environmentally. So I encourage you to stop bashing either party, become an independent voter with our Nations best interest at heart. You will never find a politician that believes exactly the way you do, but if you study each candidate, especially in National elections, you will be able to make the best choice for our Nation.....which is absolutely the bottom line.
Aug 26, 2013 12:30:58 #
(Main)
It is not about the NRA...period. It is about protecting the Constitution. What is it about, "WILL NOT INFRINGE", that you do not understand. A "GUN" has NEVER been the problem. Brain dead(mostly dummycrats) idiots and mentally sick are the problem. We have got to stop this pet, pampering, and appeasing the thuggish minded youth gang types and start seriously kicking some butt. You have a RIGHT to own a firearm but you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL unless justified. When a unprovoked drug using thug like Trayvon Martin gets killed over HIS stupid actions, everybody wants to cry for him. Where the hell was the intervention before he was shot. One of the greatest jokes in this country is drug prevention. We will NEVER stop drug use....and do you know why? It is because we will not come down hard on the USER and ABUSER. Start kicking some serious butt and forcing these stupid users to take responsibility for their actions, and things will change. We have a perverted left mambie pambie cry baby approach to how we deal with idiots. How about a new law, "IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO BE A BRAIN DEAD IDIOT". If we had such a law, maybe all of us would spend a little time in jail....good therapy if you ask me. Another point while I am ranting. We need to get away from so much psycho babble stupidity which has been used to help idiots escape responsibility for their actions. Bottom line, people have been killing each other for thousands of years before guns were ever invented.....most murders, in fact, are with knifes. But, you know what automobiles kill more than just about anything.....why don't we get rid of them. This argument is just as stupid as the gun control crap.....in fact it is all about control(guns are only the tool). The perverted left will never be happy until the "guber"ment is residing permanently up all our asses!
Aug 17, 2013 09:40:35 #
(Main)
I agree with what you say but our inability to win wars started the very first time a perverted liberal was given any power at any level of "guber"ment. Now, and for years, our Nation, at the "guber"ment level, has/is under control of the perverted left. Today, they have complete control. They hate our Constitution and want our country to be more like the total socialistic perverted Europe. These idiots have NO moral direction! It is all about, "if it feels good just do it". Nothing is against the law unless your caught and then if they are caught, it is someone else's fault. Their desire is for at least 90% of all tax money be spent on social programs and to hell with defense of our Nation. Of course, the number one responsibility of the federal "guber"ment is to protect this country from all our enemies both foreign and domestic(THIS IS IN THE CONSTITUTION, SOCIAL PROGRAMS ARE NOT). What you have expressed will make our military worse, I know for I am a Vet, but I would remind you that we have not won a war since WW2!!!
Aug 15, 2013 09:28:11 #
(Main)
Friend, it is not about procuring ID's but about the perverted liberal dummycrats ability to steal elections. They want the scum, illegals, prisioners, and criminals of the country to wander into a voting booth and pull the dummycratic lever without out being question, at all, about qualifying. Every qualified person in the USA is entitled to ONE
Check out topic: What happened to Fauci's 'smoking gun' emails?