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.


The founding fathers fraud the biggest scam since religion

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by Masterjaden

Easily manipulable people shouldn't have the ability to vote period

This is the problem, if you start discriminating about who gets to vote, then see what kind of problems ensue. Someone would have to determine all those things. The idea of fairness goes completely out the window as well. The answer is to educate people, not eliminate them as voting pools. It's just that the Marxist Community Organizers figured out how to work these people. If it weren't for the spread of Marxism by such dedicated activists, it wouldn't be as big an issue. But we have the whole dumbing down process happening in our schools, and that is part of it. People often have a hard time grasping the conspiratorial aspect of it. It just seems too crazy to believe the scope of it.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I wonder if people realize this...perhaps the right to religious expression is there in the event that atheists should be in control of the government? Would we have the right to religious expression if atheists were in charge?

You see, as it is now, atheists have a right to express their views, but from what I have seen, many atheists do not want the rest of us to express our views. They say "oh I don't care if you do", then go on to tell us how they believe we are ignorant and stupid.

Just imagine, the United States as an atheist country. Would anyone have the right to religious expression under that? Perhaps the founding fathers were really thinking about that.

Yes! You are right. The Founding Fathers were all religious people, not atheists. Many people argue they were Deists not Christians, but they were Christians. I found a wikipedia breakdown of the various Christian denominations. The only variationos in religion were Christian denomination. Even those who were Masons were also Christians. You are also right in that when the colonists came to America, many were looking for religious freedom, freedom from persecution of their religious values. Our Founding Fathers wanted to protect that right. One need only look to history to know that religious persecution has persisted through the centuries.
Today we see Sharia law creeping into traditionally Christian bulwarks. Why do atheists not care about that but Christians do? Because Christians know what will be the outcome.
I have had enough of atheists condemning Christians then turning around and defending Sharia Law.

edit on 12-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Not exactly true. I would burn those books of yours.


Both the Moderate Enlightenment and a Radical or Revolutionary Enlightenment were reactions against the authoritarianism, irrationality and obscurantism of the established churches.

Philosophes such as Voltaire depicted organized Christianity as a tool of tyrants and oppressors and as being used to defend monarchism, it was seen as hostile to the development of reason and the progress of science and incapable of verification.

An alternative religion was Deism, the philosophical belief in a deity based on reason, rather than religious revelation or dogma. It was a popular perception among the philosophes, who adopted deistic attitudes to varying degrees.

Deism greatly influenced the thought of intellectuals and Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and, especially Thomas Jefferson. The most articulate exponent was Thomas Paine, whose The Age of Reason was written in the early 1790

Enlightened Founding Fathers, especially Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington, fought for and eventually attained religious freedom for minority denominations. According to the founding fathers, America should be a country where peoples of all faiths, including Catholics, Jews and those who profess no religious belief, could live in peace and mutual benefit.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:26 PM

Originally posted by ancientsomali
reply to post by newcovenant

interesting vid

Check these other videos on Plutocracy -
A variety of sources all coming up with similar or related theories.
Rather than some mysterious shadowy government, this just puts a face on it.

This is interesting too. We seem to have some version of this, Hegemony

In the post–Cold War (1945–1991) world, the French Socialist politician Hubert Védrine described the USA as a hegemonic hyperpower, because of its unilateral military actions worldwide, especially against Iraq;

The imposition of the hegemon’s way of life — its language (as the imperial lingua franca) and bureaucracies (social, economic, educational, governing) — transforms the concrete imperialism of direct military domination into the abstract power of the status quo, indirect imperial domination.

The use of language can serve as a means of creating and applying hegemony.

Any source that disseminates information is, intentionally or not, part of hegemony in that the source can only contain a finite amount of information.

Therefore, in the selection of the information it chooses to display, the source is limiting and framing the information that the recipient gets. In this way, the source is practicing its influence over the recipient.

Examples of the societal aspect of hegemony are churches and media organizations that constantly distribute information to the public.

These influential institutions can subtly use language to frame their message and thereby valuate it, helping to further disseminate the adoption of their message.

This phenomenon of language influencing thought within a society is an important tie to the idea of cultural hegemony.

edit on 12-9-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

"The people who own the country ought to govern it"
John Jay - President of the Continental Congress

The role of the State is to "protect the minority of the opulent - against the majority"
James Madison - Statesman and 4th President of the US

edit on 12-9-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by poet1b

Unfortunately, much of our government is being currently controlled by those corporate powers. With mass media it is so easy to manipulate the majority of the population, and to be frank, the majority of the population are a bunch of idiots. We need citizenship tests. For their time, the founding fathers weren't far off in requiring citizens to be white male land owners. They had the most education, the most stake and were the ones bright enough and involved enough to not be easily manipulated.

Everyone wants a voice, but unfortunately, everyone isn't smart enough or aware enough to have a voice. So many people who vote in this country don't even know how the country operates or is supposed to operate. They are manipulated sheep and slaves to the corporate government and either side doesn't matter.

Hell, most of our elected officials are just as oblivious and stupid.

When a Representative thinks that an island may capsize if too many people are on one side of it, he is incompetent to serve in that position, I am sorry, but that is the truth.

It isn't racial discrimination or sex discrimination to require people to be smart enough and aware enough to be a citizen and to enjoy the rights of a citizen. It is jusb-------------------------------------------------being smart, and not wanting our government to be too easily manipulated.

If people want to have that right, they will do what is necessary to achieve the awareness to have that right.

Our striving for fairness to all regardless of knowledge or ability is ridiculous, give equal opportunity and equal requirements for all and it won't matter.


so all the autistic kids, anyone with developmental disabilities, anyone who loses mental computing power, should not be allowed to be an american citizen? THANK GOD, that isnt the way it is, no matter what you say, it is discriminatory. you said they had the right idea by only making white land owners citizens, I GUARENTEE if you were not a white man your tone would be completely different. and by the way, WE DO HAVE TESTS to become a citizen, actual questions about the history of america, functions and branches of the government, questions on laws, etc.

everyone has a voice and everyone has a right to use that voice, its only a matter of how loud they want to be. those that want to be heard make themselves heard. it sounds to me like your saying, if i disagree with someone, or someones opinion doesnt fit into my intellectual views or sound smart enough, then we should suppress it and keep it quite, if you dont fully understand every fascet of government then you have no right to vote. sorry,- but that is bull#, and is a really warped and "wealthy" view. if this were to actually happen, then we would really be in the toilet government wise, then we would really be ruled by elitists, and the entire social fabric of america would be ripped apart. it would cause a huge division in the country.

and yes it is far too much to ask that someone be on the same intellectual level as you if they want basic human rights granted to us americans. and if your worried about manipulating the government, take away the right for most of us to vote, take away our right to hold our govenment accountable, put only the very smartest in office, and you will start to see some real manipulation going on.

i find it strange that your last line is:
"Our striving for fairness to all regardless of knowledge or ability is ridiculous, give equal opportunity and equal requirements for all and it won't matter. " when you spent the entire post saying how "stupid" people dont deserve equal rights and opportunities as those with a stronger intellect.

god forbid you get into a car accident one day and damage your mind, god forbid your child have a developmental disability, hope and pray that nothing goes wrong for you, thus stripping you of your rights to speak and vote and other protections.

in your world we would still be throwing deformed babies off cliffs for looking a bit strange.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:24 PM
reply to post by newcovenant

Yes, where they all could live in peace. I already said the Founding Fathers were considered Deists and some were Masons, but that does not mean they abandoned their Christian faith. Atheists are always trying to make them out to be non-religious persons. Historians say that Washington attended church regularly. Do not try to imply that being Deist means they are not religious or believed in Christianity. Those who were Masons would have had an expanded knowledge of Christian symbolism and an esoteric knowledge. IN fact, they probably had a better understanding of true doctrine than many people today. I have seen some friction coming from Masons here about Christians, but I think that is due to historical differences between them and the Orthodox Church. Perhaps some of the original meaning of that is lost through the years. Incidentally, I have a Theosophical background and know of some of the esoteric things Masons would be studying.
Book burning? Didn't all you libs say it was Sarah Palin who did that? Wow caught you in your own hypocrisy. Why don't you also pick up a history book on the Crusades while you are scurrying around trying to lecture people. You want to think that the Founding Fathers were somehow not religiously inclined, yet their pageants are full of rituals and symbols. What do you think is the history of the Cathars? The Knights Templars? They were Secret Societies. The Rosicrucians.
The Illuminati infiltrated the Masonic lodges and have perverted some of it. The Illuminati are Satanists, not atheists. Satanists believe in God but hate Him.

I really believe that ultimately atheists have a foundation of hatred of God and all things Godly, not a foundation of love of science. Scientists can also be religious and vice versa.

This article takes into account the thinking of the 18th century

During the colonial period, there was a lot of gray area among believers. Issues of theology and eschatology were more carefully categorized and picked over by the educated classes in the 1700's than they are today. Yet at the same time, Enlightenment thinking allowed for liberal interpretations of religious doctrine. Most of the new emerging denominations were still considered Christian as long as one followed the teachings of Christ.

Since there was no national church in America, the 18th century religious culture operated regionally and locally. Individual religious beliefs also seemed to be going through a creative transformation, especially during the Great Awakening of 1730-50 (scholars do not always agree on an end date). What few people today seem to realize is that real definitions of orthodoxy don't easily apply to the American generations of people born during the 18th century. Protestantism had not matured to its current state, and the Age of Enlightenment was introducing new theological concepts based on reason over scripture. Individuals and Institutions were both in an active state of process.

It was possible to be "Deistic" in principle and still be "church-Protestant". George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have been claimed him as both Deist and Anglican at different times by historians, but this open attitude is largely a reflection of the liberal ideas marking Enlightenment thinking. A perfect religious "package" was not demanded of public officials. Generally, though, there is a faith-based and even dogmatic structure dividing the DeistUnitarians and all other groups such as Anglicans, Puritans, and Roman Catholics. John Adams is the only one of the first five presidents that appears to be a professed Unitarian in the classic sense and whose writings fully support that claim. Other Founding Fathers can be harder to read and have a tendency to blend beliefs.

Deism - Deism has no church and no official organization, hence, it is not considered a religion. It is more a reason-based view of religion in general. Deism is sometimes referred to as a religious philosophy or a religious outlook. In general, Deism did not see Christ as the Son of God, did not believe in the Trinity, had no strong belief in miracles, and had no belief in atonement or resurrection. The Bible was not considered “sacred text” among most Deists, although most Deists were (like Franklin) Christian-friendly.

Deism could fall into certain subcategories of Deist-Christian (i.e. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson) and Deist non-Christian (i.e. Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen). Deist-Christians generally believed the Bible provided good lessons to live by and they attended church regularly. Deist non-Christians generally felt that Christianity was largely an impediment to growth and they did not attend church regularly.

edit on 12-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by primoaurelius

We do have tests, but they are very basic. I do not think it is truly adequate in the long run, and further study should be encouraged. Liberals really ought to be more concerned with civics lessons than they are exposing the youth to Islamic culture and trips to mosques.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by newcovenant

fought for and eventually attained religious freedom for minority denominations

What do you think is a minority denomination? Do you think that means various types of Christianity including Episcopalian and Calvinism, Protestantism, Unitarianism, etc? Or do you interpret that to mean Islam, or perhaps Hinduism? Confucianism? I think they had reasonable tolerance for completely different religions, but I doubt they actively promoted them.

It was James Madison who said, "We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government… according to the Ten Commandments of God."

A wide-eyed and youthful James Madison, travelling in Culpeper County in Virginia, came upon a jail that housed half a dozen Baptist preachers, held simply for publishing their religious views. Madison bristled with indignation at the "diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution." Writing to his friend William Bradford, he ended with a lament: "So I leave you to pity me and pray for Liberty and Conscience to revive among us."

Madison's lifelong zeal for religious freedom began in May 1776 when state lawmakers wrote a new constitution for the newly independent Commonwealth of Virginia. The document contained a Declaration of Rights with a clause on religious liberty, penned by George Mason. The original clause declared that "all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience...."
Madison didn't like it. He objected to Mason's use of the word "toleration" because it implied that the exercise of faith was a gift from government, not an inalienable right. Madison's substitute--"all men are entitled to the full and free exercise" of religion--essentially won the day. This put Madison far ahead of John Locke, who generally mustered no more than grudging toleration for religious belief.
edit on 12-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

You don't know what "liberal" means do you?

It is self governance, free of the monarchy or of royal protocols and rules.

The American Revolution was the result of a series of social, political, and intellectual transformations in early American society and government, collectively referred to as the American Enlightenment.

Americans rejected the oligarchies common in aristocratic Europe at the time, championing instead the development of republicanism based on the Enlightenment understanding of liberalism.

Liberal democracy

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic, such as the United States

Many fundamental issues of national governance were settled with the ratification of the United States Constitution... It guaranteed many "natural rights" that were influential in justifying the revolution, and attempted to balance a strong national government with relatively broad personal liberties.

The American shift to liberal republicanism, and the gradually increasing democracy,caused an upheaval of traditional social hierarchy and gave birth to the ethic that has formed a core of political values in the United States

I also do not understand your reference to Sarah Palin.

Book burning? Didn't all you libs say it was Sarah Palin who did that? Wow caught you in your own hypocrisy.

Wow. You caught nothing and must be confusing me with someone else! Finding your ideas a little unbalanced.
It appears you are lumping everyone who finds fault with your argument into a certain camp with a certain set of attributes. People are unique... you know? When you start demonizing people based on their thoughts, giving them bigoted labels and making assumptions about things you can not possibly know.... you are doing what the Nazi's did. Manufacturing demons out of human beings, human beings who are good people raising families and just trying to make the best they can for themselves and their kids. You are making an enemy out of your neighbor and saying you are better than they are by virtue of your LABEL as versus the LABEL you have put on them. And they would not listen to different points of view but tried to manipulate opinion and end freedom of speech with the book burning. It represents the same thing burning witches did (although there is one past time I would love to rekindle)

Scurrying around trying to lecture people? I am contributing information to the thread and never made anything personal about anyone. You are the one who comes in calling names and making broad stroke assumptions about people and what they think.

edit on 12-9-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by newcovenant

Are you referring to Classical liberalism of our Founding Father's time or the distorted view of liberalism today that masquerades as liberty but contains elements of Statism and Totalitarian collectivism? I have yet to see liberals in this decade appreciating the value of religious persons. Totally not the liberals of yesterday.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:49 PM
Deism defined is here

In the United States, deism still considered God to be the Supreme power whereas to Voltaire, it meant anti-Christian. If were are to believe that the founding fathers followed a non-religion religion of a God-no God, then let's look at their own inauguration speeches.

In George Washington's first inaugural speech, he calls God The Almighty One and Great Author who has an Invisible Hand. In Christianity, are those terms that are capitalized in that manner, it always refers to the Judeo-Christian God.

If in deism, God does not interact with His creation, then Washington cannot be a deist because a Great Author with an Invisible Hand does indeed interact.

Thomas Jefferson called God that Infinite Power that rules destinies of the universe. Again, in deism if God does not interact with his creation, then Thomas Jefferson could not have been a deist.Again James Madison said Almighty Being.

You may call them deists or Freemasons or whatever you want but their own speeches refer to the God they believed in and everyone who has studied theology knows that when a name is applied to God it is always capitalized. You might say it could apply to Islam, but Thomas Jefferson was calling for religious freedom, or freedom to express your own religion. He was not against religion, otherwise he would not have reference God in his speeches. People are not taught about the Barbary Coast wars, in which Thomas Jefferson went to London to negotiate the ransom of Americans held captive. The USS Enterprise captured the Barbary ship Tripoli and the Marine Hymn has the line "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli". Jefferson was not Muslim, he only wanted to ensure Muslims had the right to religious expression here. And they do.

Thomas Jefferson also said "I tremble for my country when I realize that God is just".

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by newcovenant

bigoted labels, nazis, stereotypes, demonizing people, blah blah blah

My ideas unbalance? You are the one telling me to burn books because they don't fit your stereotype of the Founding Fathers as some secularists who wanted to separate church and state to make life comfortable for atheists. That is soooo not the case. It is liberals of this past few decades who have imposed that idea. You also do not understand the zeal with which communists over the last century have actively tried to remove religion altogether. It is only the last few decades the atheists have worked very hard at removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses.

edit on 12-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:25 PM
yep the people sure like to think they own the country

the problem with that is people think they own other people and everything they have and do.

which amounts to mob rule which is why the founders in their infinite wisdom founded this country

as a republic and not as the peoples republic where government is the master and we are the slave

and to use a term that probably will upset people theres nothing liberal about that or mob rule.

theres also nothing liberal about government knows best and you dont know jack.

liberalism is the greatest scam that has ever been pepetuated on the citzenry of this country

you know all those people who go around calling religion a scam.

edit on 12-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by Ghillie007

The Republic ended in 1860 when the Great Ape lincoln ended constitutional protections...and never gave them back

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by WarminIndy

Thanks for your definition links. I found this to be of interest to the discussion

In the sphere of morality, Deists conceive of God as the supreme authority of the moral world. Many Deists say that just as God provided the laws governing the physical universe, God also set in place the moral order. In this way, he serves as the judge of all moral beings within the cosmos, but he does not necessarily become involved in the enforcement of the law. Instead, humans are punished and rewarded as a function of their own observance of the natural moral laws. Consequently, Deism places emphasis on the requirement of a virtuous life amidst the freedom of human choices. Disobedience to God's laws will naturally result in negative consequences for the moral being, thus God's personal intervention is not required. It is human reason that replaces a personal relationship with God, since "salvation" in the Deist philosophy is assured for those who live a moral life based upon knowledge of the laws created by God, including what constitutes good and what constitutes evil.

Following this line of thought, one can easily say this reflects the law of karma as the natural law by which the Creator adjusts "the watch" and gives His creation the discipline for going out of the way.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:00 PM
reply to post by primoaurelius

it is discriminatory. you said they had the right idea by only making white land owners citizens,

Actually, as it is today, INS CAN discriminate based on lack of moral character. They can also discriminate against anyone involved in any communist organization for up to 5 years prior to the applcation. They can go through your tax returns and deny you for any number of reasons. They can deny you if you committed a felony, or even a misdemeanor. Citizenship is not automatic just because we think our govt is fair.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

I agree but I also blame the system and the people who are in charge of it. The 2-headed 1-party system has made it almost impossible to elect an independent or anyone who is not incredibly well financed or anyone who does not carry the establishment flag.

Thats why we need to support Ron Paul IMHO.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:24 PM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

You are the one telling me to burn books because they don't fit your stereotype

I am telling you to burn them because they are grossly unreliable - you never have accurate facts and your poly sci instructor was apparently mad.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:36 PM

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

You are the one telling me to burn books because they don't fit your stereotype

I am telling you to burn them because they are grossly unreliable - you never have accurate facts and your poly sci instructor was apparently mad.

when did I say I was Poly Sci? Im Network and Communications Mgmt with a minor in Business mgmt( my accounting Prof suggested I might change my major to Business with a concentration in accounting-but thats another story-and he also understood my viewpoint when I said that we needed to fix our trade deficit with China, and he seemed to think my facts were all accurate)

Now which books was I supposed to burn? I quoted wikipedia for the religious denominations of the Founding Fathers. I already said they were Deist but that does not mean they were not also Christian.
LIberals accused Sarah Palin of recommending banning books on witchcraft, which was an error in fact. Liberals preferred method of censorship is revisionist history and ridicule.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I was a film studies major with a minor in History. It is true that there has been a lot of revisionist history going on lately. I can tell you when a movie is mere propaganda and when it is factual. Some people think film is actual truth of what is going on, but it is not. Films are made from some guy sitting in front of his computer and a big imagination.

I will say this, the biggest revisions are not coming from filmmakers, but individuals not in academia, but the activists themselves. Those are the ones who make up lies about politicians and make people believe it. For instance, I was listening to NPR one time when a man named David Weigel was being interviewed. He said that the Tea Party was full of racists. A year later, this same David Weigel recanted his position and said the truth was that the Tea Party was no more racist than any other political group. The fact is, that he and his friends only found one person at a Tea Party event that was racist while the other members of the Tea Party faced the racist person and made him leave. But the lie stuck. David Weigel never apologized for that though.

One of the biggest lies was that there were no black people at all in the Tea Party, that has also been proven untrue. But the lie stuck.

The truth is, when it comes to history, the activists will revise it. People believe actors but actors are merely talking heads. Sean Penn is one example. He made statements about moving to Cuba. I don't see him living there yet. And you want to know why? Because here is where he is allowed to say the ridiculous things, there he is not allowed. The truth about Communist Russia is that it tried its best to do away with religion but in its attempt it failed. The state said it was atheist. People were denied the right to religious expression and the citizens were encouraged by the state to report their neighbors for any activity they were taught that was subversive, and that included religion.

Even though there were people who were religious, there was still a state mandated anti-religion campaign enforced by Nikita Khruschev. Here is his quote "Should theologians explain the Universe even from the scientific [materialistic] point of view but in the name of religion and even God Himself... we shall not stop our fight against religion [because] religion will never cease to be a reactionary social force, an opiate for the people...’ (Evgraf Duluman, Kiriushko and Yarotsky, Nauchnoteknicheskaia revolutsiia...)

Sounds to me like what is happening today is a lot of parroting.

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in