Atheist here. I’m in partial agreement. The problem as I see it is that these people worship the state; like a mother or father from their childhood that clothed and fed them and kept a roof over their head.
“Worship the state.” Think about that for a moment and tell me what you think.
Reminds me of this quote, "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."🐸
Douglas Adams
Oh, you want to make an argument from authority. (and we know the Supreme Court are humans that make mistakes)
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically Article 11, states that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Ratified unanimously by the Senate and signed by President John Adams, this clause was intended to assure Tripoli that the U.S. was not a "Christian nation" seeking holy war, but rather a secular entity with no inherent enmity toward Muslim laws or religion.
The Tripoli objection gets waved around like it is the silver bullet that finally toppled the wicked theocrats hiding under George Washington’s powdered wig. But the argument collapses the moment you actually read history instead of bumper stickers.
First, yes, courts are made of fallible men. Nobody disputes that. You're so fallible that you're rejecting your creator while at the same time trying to take objective moral positions and appealing to absolute truth, laws of logic, and the principle of induction.... which is an impossibility from your secular worldview, you have to borrow from mine.
The question is not whether judges can err. The question is whether the overwhelming testimony of America’s founding, laws, institutions, and public declarations reflects a Christian moral and legal framework. It plainly does.
The Constitution did not descend from the Enlightenment like Athena popping out of Zeus’s forehead wearing a powdered wig and carrying John Locke under one arm. The Enlightenment itself was downstream from centuries of Christian assumptions about natural law, human dignity, covenant, morality, liberty under God, and the sinfulness of man requiring divided powers. You do not get the American system from Voltaire alone. Voltaire would have happily handed you an enlightened despot with cleaner handwriting.
The founders regularly appealed to:
“Nature and Nature’s God”
Divine Providence
The Creator endowing rights
Biblical morality as the basis for republican government
Even John Adams himself said:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
And where did they think that moral framework came from? Yoga retreats and French salons? No. Christianity.
Now to the Treaty of Tripoli.
Article 11 is constantly ripped out of context and treated like America’s secular Nicene Creed. But the historical reality is far less dramatic.
The treaty was diplomatic reassurance aimed at a Muslim state during the Barbary conflicts. The United States was saying: “We are not a confessional European power coming to launch another Crusade against Islam.”
That is all.
It was not a philosophical declaration that Christianity had no role in America’s legal order, culture, or moral foundation. It was a foreign policy statement intended to calm tensions with Tripoli. Saying America was not founded “in any sense” on Christianity was not a metaphysical treatise. It was diplomacy. Nations often speak carefully in treaties to avoid unnecessary conflict. If your neighbor owns twelve pit bulls, you do not introduce yourself by discussing your Second Amendment collection.
More importantly, Article 11 itself has textual controversy around it. Scholars have noted the Arabic version of the treaty apparently lacked that clause entirely, suggesting it may have been inserted or poorly translated in the English rendering. That alone should make people cautious about treating it like Mount Sinai engraved in marble. Treaty of Tripoli
Then compare that one diplomatic sentence with the mountain of contrary evidence:
Colonial charters explicitly Christian
State constitutions referencing Christianity
Public funding for churches in some states after ratification
Congressional chaplains
Presidential proclamations of prayer and thanksgiving
Oaths invoking God
Sabbath laws
Biblical assumptions in common law
And then, of course, you have Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States where the Supreme Court summarized the historic reality by saying:
“This is a Christian nation.”
Notice carefully: they were not declaring a papal state or national denomination. They were recognizing the undeniable historical and cultural foundation of the nation.
America was never founded as a theocracy. But neither was it founded as a naked secular machine floating in ideological outer space. It was a constitutional republic built largely upon the general equity of biblical law filtered through Protestant political thought and English common law.
The founders understood something modern secularists often miss: liberty requires virtue, and virtue requires moral foundations. Remove the Christian roots and eventually the tree topples over. Which, frankly, explains a great deal about the modern West looking like a Roomba trapped under a recliner.
You are just matter floating through space acted upon by time and chance signifying nothing. Your ancestors were fish. You can't claim anything is true or false. You can't claim anything is ultimately right or wrong. Nothing matters. You're an atheist. Be consistent with your stupid and morally bankrupt worldview.
I'm agnostic-ish but I agree. Leftism is Satanic filth if Satan exists. There's no credible explanation for genuinely believing that the best system is giving away all you possess to the State for them to make everything turn to shit, other than demonic possession of one's brain.
I fundamentally believe that we cannot co-exist with Left thinking going forward. They need to be segregated and contained. They are insanely and murderously psychopathic and they need to be bred out.
I disagree. The fundamental premise of all these -isms is that man is just an animal like all the rest. From that premise it follows that killing, eating, using or enslaving other men is okay as long as the victims are from other tribes, i.e. brute tribalism. There is no morality in the animal kingdom. Is it wrong for the tiger to eat the antelope? The concept does not apply which explains a lot of commie, marxist and socialist behavior and beliefs.
What distinguishes man from other animals is the capacity to reason and consistency implies that All Men (not just you) have the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Atheist here. I’m in partial agreement. The problem as I see it is that these people worship the state; like a mother or father from their childhood that clothed and fed them and kept a roof over their head.
“Worship the state.” Think about that for a moment and tell me what you think.
I'm an a-atheist. I don't believe in atheists.
The supreme Court actually ruled / recognized that America is a Christian nation in the case "Holy Trinity v United States“ in 1892.
The Supreme Court like more Astrophysicists know that If humans are in charge , then God help the Universe.
Of course that is also the best evidence for Aliens...Humans CAN'T be the highest life form or again "God help the Universe."
Reminds me of this quote, "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."🐸 Douglas Adams
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." --W.C.
Oh, you want to make an argument from authority. (and we know the Supreme Court are humans that make mistakes)
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically Article 11, states that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Ratified unanimously by the Senate and signed by President John Adams, this clause was intended to assure Tripoli that the U.S. was not a "Christian nation" seeking holy war, but rather a secular entity with no inherent enmity toward Muslim laws or religion.
Really?
The Tripoli objection gets waved around like it is the silver bullet that finally toppled the wicked theocrats hiding under George Washington’s powdered wig. But the argument collapses the moment you actually read history instead of bumper stickers.
First, yes, courts are made of fallible men. Nobody disputes that. You're so fallible that you're rejecting your creator while at the same time trying to take objective moral positions and appealing to absolute truth, laws of logic, and the principle of induction.... which is an impossibility from your secular worldview, you have to borrow from mine.
The question is not whether judges can err. The question is whether the overwhelming testimony of America’s founding, laws, institutions, and public declarations reflects a Christian moral and legal framework. It plainly does.
The Constitution did not descend from the Enlightenment like Athena popping out of Zeus’s forehead wearing a powdered wig and carrying John Locke under one arm. The Enlightenment itself was downstream from centuries of Christian assumptions about natural law, human dignity, covenant, morality, liberty under God, and the sinfulness of man requiring divided powers. You do not get the American system from Voltaire alone. Voltaire would have happily handed you an enlightened despot with cleaner handwriting.
The founders regularly appealed to:
“Nature and Nature’s God”
Divine Providence
The Creator endowing rights
Biblical morality as the basis for republican government
Even John Adams himself said:
And where did they think that moral framework came from? Yoga retreats and French salons? No. Christianity.
Now to the Treaty of Tripoli.
Article 11 is constantly ripped out of context and treated like America’s secular Nicene Creed. But the historical reality is far less dramatic.
The treaty was diplomatic reassurance aimed at a Muslim state during the Barbary conflicts. The United States was saying: “We are not a confessional European power coming to launch another Crusade against Islam.”
That is all.
It was not a philosophical declaration that Christianity had no role in America’s legal order, culture, or moral foundation. It was a foreign policy statement intended to calm tensions with Tripoli. Saying America was not founded “in any sense” on Christianity was not a metaphysical treatise. It was diplomacy. Nations often speak carefully in treaties to avoid unnecessary conflict. If your neighbor owns twelve pit bulls, you do not introduce yourself by discussing your Second Amendment collection.
More importantly, Article 11 itself has textual controversy around it. Scholars have noted the Arabic version of the treaty apparently lacked that clause entirely, suggesting it may have been inserted or poorly translated in the English rendering. That alone should make people cautious about treating it like Mount Sinai engraved in marble. Treaty of Tripoli
Then compare that one diplomatic sentence with the mountain of contrary evidence:
Colonial charters explicitly Christian
State constitutions referencing Christianity
Public funding for churches in some states after ratification
Congressional chaplains
Presidential proclamations of prayer and thanksgiving
Oaths invoking God
Sabbath laws
Biblical assumptions in common law
And then, of course, you have Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States where the Supreme Court summarized the historic reality by saying:
Notice carefully: they were not declaring a papal state or national denomination. They were recognizing the undeniable historical and cultural foundation of the nation.
America was never founded as a theocracy. But neither was it founded as a naked secular machine floating in ideological outer space. It was a constitutional republic built largely upon the general equity of biblical law filtered through Protestant political thought and English common law.
The founders understood something modern secularists often miss: liberty requires virtue, and virtue requires moral foundations. Remove the Christian roots and eventually the tree topples over. Which, frankly, explains a great deal about the modern West looking like a Roomba trapped under a recliner.
You are just matter floating through space acted upon by time and chance signifying nothing. Your ancestors were fish. You can't claim anything is true or false. You can't claim anything is ultimately right or wrong. Nothing matters. You're an atheist. Be consistent with your stupid and morally bankrupt worldview.
I'm agnostic-ish but I agree. Leftism is Satanic filth if Satan exists. There's no credible explanation for genuinely believing that the best system is giving away all you possess to the State for them to make everything turn to shit, other than demonic possession of one's brain.
I fundamentally believe that we cannot co-exist with Left thinking going forward. They need to be segregated and contained. They are insanely and murderously psychopathic and they need to be bred out.
I disagree. The fundamental premise of all these -isms is that man is just an animal like all the rest. From that premise it follows that killing, eating, using or enslaving other men is okay as long as the victims are from other tribes, i.e. brute tribalism. There is no morality in the animal kingdom. Is it wrong for the tiger to eat the antelope? The concept does not apply which explains a lot of commie, marxist and socialist behavior and beliefs.
What distinguishes man from other animals is the capacity to reason and consistency implies that All Men (not just you) have the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.