It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Removal of Unconstitutional Items

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2003 @ 12:18 PM
I can throw in some religious convictions of Thomas Paine. I trust all you scholars who feel legitimate in discussing U.S. constitutionality know who he is? Hmm?

""Thomas Paine, like many of his fellow Founders, saw the hand of God in raising of a Standard of Liberty in the United States and unlike the spineless crew of politicians and educators who take to the pen and the pulpit today, he wasn't afraid to reveal this matter of faith in public.

Like everything else socialist, today's schools and history books deny at every turn the religious nature of America's Founding Fathers and the inspiration these great men felt for the cause of liberty.
Sadly, many of us have come to accept as fact the fallacy that the Founders and our precious liberties are products of the European Enlightenment (a secular movement).

Yet at every turn, the real record, the hidden record, tells a different story a story of men of faith, men driven not simply by their intellects, but by their hearts, not just by political principle, but by deeply held religious conviction."

posted on Sep, 19 2003 @ 04:42 PM
Was it religious conviction or spiritual conviction? There is a tremendous difference.

posted on Sep, 19 2003 @ 09:19 PM
Again, I'll ask you, what did dear ol' Ben say, MMAW?

No, the one God is not the same god for all of us, or else he is a very disturbed, split-personality loose cannon that doesn't know his own thoughts, wants or desires. That is a load of garbage that cannot be swallowed by rational thinking.

Are you recently out of college? It happens, they suck your ability to think out of your head and replace it with new-age, OWO brainwashing. Resist the taught laziness, exercise that noodle and it will grow stronger. Do not let them win.

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 04:26 AM
TC that points to the fact that Jefferson was a politician.

In the reality of adressing links the question is not if you can find a link which offers and oposing view, but one which refutes what another states in detail.

The function of this link is to do just that.

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 07:55 AM
What, Toltec? You are saying that the link offered by you refutes the opposing view, as in makes the case against the other side to where it is clearly evident that the opposing view is incorrect?

Rewording what the link's mission is makes no difference. The link may refute the opposing view if one hasn't sufficient knowledge to know the facts of history in context. Same goes for websites that are favorable to the truth of history. Throwing up several quotes, a few court cases...that doesn't give you proper background on the topic, and if you are an American, the topic should be important enough to study. The government has been hijacked, the nation is being subverted and most are to ignorant to know from what direction the enemy is coming.

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 01:58 PM
To an extent I can agree with your last sentence Thomas and would add the attack is from all

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 09:04 PM
...Actually, the attacks are coming from the banking industries...We have the Federal Reserve, the "scrip" that they've passed off as "real money" and the fact that they've used the leverage from their scrip to gain posession of goods & services that actually *have* some real value to back them up...At the same time, producing a valueless debt upon the whole country, including the corporations, the government & the public as a whole.

There have been some indications that these "banking industries" get their primary influence from England & Switzerland...

posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 07:26 AM
No, I'm not recently out of college. I am a 50 year old veteran. I notice since your avatar has a man in fatigues that you are a vet also?

You keep avoiding my question because you realize what the answer is. A common tactic for one who has been defeated.

I'll say it again because apparently some have a hard time comprehending. The generic word GOD the one and only God was used because the term is so generic and all encompassing for all religions.

It matters not what some of our great founding fathers had in there personal writings. I'm sure most were good Christian men. The difference between then and now is that the founding fathers realized that religious persecution was a bad thing, and also that not everyone had the same religious thoughts. They were tolerant of this which is more than I can say for CERTAIN segments of our society today.

posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 09:05 PM
50 years old? Gee, I was trying to give you a reason for being ignorant, but you took away that cover and concealment.

You have not defeated me, you are incorrect, and if you really care to know the truth, you'll get off your dusty can and read. You have eleven years on me, so I know you remember those old things called "books" and probably remember how to operate them.

If you really want to see my writing on the topic, you can find some in old threads here.
I'm sorry, you never answered my question about what old timer said what in reference to Judeo-Chrisitanity. That one alone will shoot your assertion in the foot. Do enough research and you'll find out that when you shot yourself in the foot, you could have come perilously close to your dental work.

Yes, vet. Yes, dog handler, among other jobs. No, that is not me, I was not a Jarhead. I wanted to be patriotic, butI did not want to be suicidal!

posted on Sep, 24 2003 @ 11:38 AM
Again you have ignored my question with one of the typical political answers. Ever think of running for office? You would make a good one with avoidance of direct question.

However, glad to see you are a vet, and not one of those "neo" that like to wear fatigues, but haven't a real clue about the military.

posted on Sep, 24 2003 @ 06:24 PM
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Enjoy the RUSH of the man's actual writings.

Authority is an illusion in the mind of govenors - Lao Tse

posted on Sep, 24 2003 @ 07:37 PM
Good evening,
Doom,I want to commend you on your knowledge of Tom.I would like to know where you read your information.I do however want to make one thing clear to those who are reading these post, is that Thomas Jefferson had a personal problem deep inside of his own mind and heart when it came to the issue of the Bible.He disliked and could not accept many of the teachings in the New Testament that He wrote his own version of it.

posted on Sep, 27 2003 @ 03:31 AM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

theres 3 sites, all say the same thing for the 1st amendment, and NOT IN ONE! DID I SEE THE "..seperation of church and state..." Don't believe me? quit listening to your commie teacher and READ THE CONSTITUTION!

Now, it says;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

--Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion.


#1: So, only Congress CAN NOT .
(kinda lame, but thats a strict constitutionalist view.)
and stupid because of...

Article I

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

#2: Now everyone will agree, religion is a belief or ideals. What makes a Catholic different then an Athesist? If the

Athesistic ideals are...
"...An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now -- here on earth -- for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. ..." (the quote is below the IMMEDIATE RELEASE part.)

Thus; there can be NO LAW RESPECTING OR EVEN DISRESPECTING any religion.

#3: This ones alot simplier and more logical.(AKA READ THIS ONE!) If you will remember American History class, (before it was "corrected" by the politically correct police.)

A major reason that numerous people from England came to America was to avoid religious prosecution; i.e. The Church of England.
If you will remember with me, England had a NATIONAL RELIGION at the time, the Church of England.

This section of the 1st amendment was put in there to solely prevent such a happening in this founding Republic, (yes, a Republic, the USA is a REPUBLIC.)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."


Thanks for your time, hope you were enlightened,


<< 1   >>

log in