(11-01-2018 07:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 09:44 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 09:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  Liberals think we are stupid, uneducated bigoted racists. We know a large number of them are NPCs.

How do you know that you're right and they're wrong?

B/c I see a ton of signs that y'all are the NPCs.

"I know the difference between fact and opinion and you're an idiot. Fact."
-something a NPC would say

Edit: I'm not saying that I actually believe in the whole NPC thing. Just that if there was one group that doesn't listen to outside input and marches in lockstep, it doesn't look like the Democrats. I'm not actually calling anyone a NPC.

I totally disagree with you. I see Democrats marching in lockstep no matter how ridiculous the actions of their leaders. I see talking points used to stereotype anyone who doesn't agree with you. I see an incredible hostility towards conservatives and Republicans. I see media losing any semblance of professionalism, repeatedly embarrassing themselves. And the Democrats seemingly oblivious. I see very good religious people marching in obscene pink hats and think that somehow makes President Trump look bad instead of themselves.

I see you keep repeating MSM talking points that Republicans march in lockstep when Republican leaders have repeatedly criticized President Trump. While a few on here like his tweeting, you frequently see criticism on here of his tweets. With my friends when talk turns to politics, its almost inevitable that the comment, "I just wish he wouldn't tweet so much" comes up. There is a majority here criticizing his using an EO on birthright immigration. How many Democrats criticized their actions regarding Avennati and the circus surrounding Kavanaugh? Why aren't Democrats demanding that Ellison step down as chair of the DNC?

I really admire your tenacity in trying to battle this guy with evidence in refuting his commentary, but you should understand that it is an effort in futility. He reminds me of that statue of the three monkeys as far as the Democrats are concerned - Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil, or with the reverse of those things being the case regarding Republicans and Trump. In addition to that, when someone presents sound evidence and reasoning that he can't reasonably dispute, he simply labels that to be opinion (which is in reality just his opinion), and gently shifts the topic to keep an ongoing argument going.

(10-31-2018 06:51 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 06:31 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Now you are coming off as a pompous ass. I'm beginning to think you are UCF08

Can't win either way, man. If I don't cite evidence, it's fake news. If I do, there's something wrong with me.

Well hell, you've got yourself covered either way huh? How convenient.

(10-31-2018 07:21 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 07:13 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  They've both called him things at least as bad if not worse. Do you conveniently ignore that or is this your first rodeo?

(10-31-2018 07:13 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Stating the truth is never a bad thing so what's your point? Is it that you don't like the truth?

I'm not sure what the proper etiquette is here. Both of these questions have been addressed in the thread. I don't want to ignore your questions, but reposting answers doesn't seem right either.

They weren't addressed by me until now. I didn't realize this was an exclusive thread just for you. See, I don't hang out here all day waiting on someone to post a response so when I enter a new (to me) thread I have to read the entire thing and as I'm reading if something stands out I need to respond for my own clarification. I see you've done much the same thing as there are numerous responses to questions or statements from others by you all uninterrupted by the responses of others so...

(10-31-2018 02:41 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:38 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  Wow, thank you for demonstrating what it looks like to be a normal American whose identity is inexplicably linked to a politician.

You're able to both support & criticize leaders, even to people that disagree with you.

This is important. It's one thing to discuss among your own "team" that you don't like this or that, but when you refuse to do that with others who may side with the "other team" more often than not, it just encourages the divide, IMO.

Wait, I've rarely seen you entertain both sides of an issue here. You are usually firmly ensconced on the left, IMO.

(10-31-2018 02:47 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  CNN host: 'The biggest terror threat in this country is white men'

Is that CNN host a friend or foe of the people? discuss.

It depends on the context, but calling people terror threats has not been super helpful recently.

So in your opinion there is a context within which him marginalizing an entire demographic is appropriate. By that logic it should be OK for me to state that black men are the most significant internal threat we face in this country, correct? I mean we have statistics that support that, right? Within the context of criminality and the preponderances of crimes committed by that demographic you know...

(10-31-2018 03:07 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  Trump is rude, crude and socially unacceptable, but he is right to call out the fake news. The hateful liars in the media have been treated with unjustified respect for too long. They need to be called out for the partisan hacks they are. And yes, the game they are playing is very dangerous to this country.

No one is saying that the news organizations in America aren't ridiculously partisan. And no one is saying that the divide in America isn't getting dangerous.

And Trump is allowed to defend himself. All the better if he cites accurate facts and statistics that show how the media is distorting him.

But him only saying fake news without any evidence, or making up easily disprovable facts and statistics, or trying to fight fire with fire by ratcheting up the rhetoric, none of these things are helpful.

And so liberals and independents are looking at conservatives saying, "You still love everything he does?" and it seems like all conservatives can say back is, "You got owned, brah!"

Wait, isn't that exactly what you said earlier?

"Liberal: I think the coverage is fair, but we can disagree.
/thread"

Meh, too much to cover in the rest of this thread without posting 242 consecutive responses.

(10-31-2018 03:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 11:25 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 05:31 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  the donks (not having a platform outside of socialism) are clueless how to argue against (other than name calling and digging for dirt in water)....

What is a "donk"? You know that Democrats have a progressive social agenda, right? That was a big part of Trump's rise. Would you characterize this sentence as humorously ironic? I would.

(10-31-2018 05:31 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  the orange beast is easily what this country needed to reinsert some semblance of sanity in the 'washtub'....

Is this the consensus of the board? That Trump has reinserted sanity?

(10-31-2018 05:31 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  this has been quite a ride watching the collapse of the donks and RINOs as they have been exposed like none other in previous years.....

They collapsed?

I'm not going to engage your 'soup sandwich' rhetoric...

I'll just kick back and watch you make of fool of yourself.....

I'll join you, pass me something. 2 fingers of of some Blanton's Straight From The Barrel will do but I'd settle for some Jim Beam Single Barrel. Or maybe I'll try some of that leafy stuff, it's been a while. This guy is all over the place.

(10-31-2018 02:47 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  CNN host: 'The biggest terror threat in this country is white men'

Is that CNN host a friend or foe of the people? discuss.

It depends on the context, but calling people terror threats has not been super helpful recently.

Quite sad that in my own country, I am looked upon by many on the left as a terror threat just based on the color of my skin. How can any decent democrat who wants fairness, stand by and justify the racist elements in their party?

(10-31-2018 03:27 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 03:11 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  This is the kind of stuff that is unhelpful.

I'm long past trying to be part of some bi-partisan solution because you can’t solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created the problem.

How many times do you have to see it happen to understand that no, this isn’t how we used to do things but yes, what Trump is doing at the expense of liberals is working?

For a second I thought this was a response from someone else and I thought to myself, finally, a meaningful response from a liberal. But I knew better and rechecked the poster.

A bi-partisan solution involves the left getting everything they want while the right bends over and takes it in the rear. Same as it ever was.

(10-31-2018 03:37 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 03:27 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I'm long past trying to be part of some bi-partisan solution because you can’t solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created the problem.

How many times do you have to see it happen to understand that no, this isn’t how we used to do things but yes, what Trump is doing at the expense of liberals is working?

How would you define working?

From my perspective, Democrats are really happy with the pace of what Trump has been doing, they've been unhappy with how he's influenced cultural values, increased the partisanship, affected our world standing, and run agencies poorly.

But they're really happy that another conservative wasn't there. Could you imagine how much any of the other guys in the field could have accomplished with a Republican House & Senate?

(10-31-2018 03:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I'm not going to engage your 'soup sandwich' rhetoric...

I'll just kick back and watch you make of fool of yourself.....

Cool...

Oh please, democrats are NOT happy with ANYTHING he's done. Stop either kidding yourself or lying. I'm not sure which you are engaging in.

(11-01-2018 10:32 AM)hburg Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:47 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  CNN host: 'The biggest terror threat in this country is white men'

Is that CNN host a friend or foe of the people? discuss.

It depends on the context, but calling people terror threats has not been super helpful recently.

Quite sad that in my own country, I am looked upon by many on the left as a terror threat just based on the color of my skin. How can any decent democrat who wants fairness, stand by and justify the racist elements in their party?

That very statement and question makes you a racist!

(11-01-2018 03:40 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 01:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  But I must confess given the tenor of this thread I found your bringing religion into it to be off topic. And your consistent changing of the parameters of the discussion to be indicative of trolling. However I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If you wish to take umbrage with Trumps tweets so be it that's fair game. But turning the thread into a sidestepped theological discussion is dissembling.

If you desire to discuss the religious aspects pertaining to why churches suffer defections then start a thread about it.

So stay on topic.

The question of the thread to me has always been: are these Trump tweets worth supporting?

I believe the answer is no, even for conservatives, but the reasons would be different for Christian versus non-Christian conservatives. For Christians, they are not worth supporting because of how cheering Trump's victories and inaudibly mumbling about his faults harms their true goal, which is to win souls.

For the non-Christian, it's about what's best for the conservative agenda and the country as a whole. I feel like both are relevant to the main topic of the thread.

But if there are serious concerns about me being a troll or some banned poster trying to return, I'm happy to step out of the discussion. I've typically been more of a lurker than a poster anyways.

1. I know you are not a returned banned poster unless you've changed IP's. So I consider that a non issue.

2. Keep religion out of this topic. In the post I'm responding to you lump all Christians into a group and all non Christians into a group. This again is a shifted position on your part. First you cite a poll about how politics are affecting congregants to the extent of desertion of their churches, now that shifts to Christians and non-Christians. In the first you lumped "born agains" a term usually reserved for the most fundamental of Evangelicals to describe all Evangelicals. Most Christians think of themselves as being evangelical in some degree. It's too broad of a spectrum to paint so glibly with a broad brush. Even novices in religious observation don't make this mistake. Now the argument has shifted to Christians vs non-Christians. Both groups are way to diverse for this to be a rational position with regard to the article you cited, and they are not germane to Trump tweets which are the OP. It is why I suggested that you start your own thread on the topic.

Any study that focuses on people leaving their faith institution because of politics which focuses on political parties is laughable. People leave faith institutions for many reasons the least of which involves political party bias. They leave because they discover where the money actually goes, they leave because their ministers aren't faithful to the polity of their denomination, or aren't faithful to their understanding of Biblical interpretation, or because their ministers are faithful period. Some leave because they have confided a personal matter to the minister and then later feel embarrassed. But more commonly they leave over social disputes with other members, or because their children want to go elsewhere. Unfortunately in all cases they usually say the motivation was other than what it really was and that in itself should nullify such polls. And any religiously based organization knows this already so such a poll is tacitly a manipulation.

So again, stick to the OP or start a new thread.

(11-01-2018 10:26 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 03:07 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 02:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  Trump is rude, crude and socially unacceptable, but he is right to call out the fake news. The hateful liars in the media have been treated with unjustified respect for too long. They need to be called out for the partisan hacks they are. And yes, the game they are playing is very dangerous to this country.

No one is saying that the news organizations in America aren't ridiculously partisan. And no one is saying that the divide in America isn't getting dangerous.

And Trump is allowed to defend himself. All the better if he cites accurate facts and statistics that show how the media is distorting him.

But him only saying fake news without any evidence, or making up easily disprovable facts and statistics, or trying to fight fire with fire by ratcheting up the rhetoric, none of these things are helpful.

And so liberals and independents are looking at conservatives saying, "You still love everything he does?" and it seems like all conservatives can say back is, "You got owned, brah!"

Wait, isn't that exactly what you said earlier?

"Liberal: I think the coverage is fair, but we can disagree.
/thread"

Spot on TigerBlue4Ever .....

To quote atsKnight from an earlier post:
"NBC, CBS, and ABC aren't trying to be partisan outlets."

Only other way to read his dual comments is that he fully agrees that the mainstream media is extremely partisan in backing the Liberal agenda, while at the same time he is saying that they simply can't help themselves. Either way one looks at it, things are extremely bad with journalism these days. I don't think the average person thinks hard enough about how much the news media influences things politically, which in turn greatly influences our individual everyday lives.

(11-01-2018 12:41 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:40 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 04:17 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 04:13 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Prior to Trump election, are you suggesting that radical leftists had a positive view of Christians?

No, but probably more positive than it is now, right?

No, not in the least. There has been a cultural war against Christianity for a few decades now.

So it's better now than it was? What do you think was the cause of that shift?

I don't know that there is a "better" stage. Attacks are attacks.

What do I personally believe was the cause?

I can't point to a specific instance that officially started the culture war against Christianity; rather, I think there has been a progression.

I think American college graduates going to Europe, primarily Germany, in the 1800s imported Marxist philosophy and began the process of entrenching it in our educational institutions.

I think the 1940s SCOTUS beginning to apply the Living Document ideology was key.

I believe the 60s cultural revolution opened the floodgates to radicalism challenging traditional American values and philosophies.


Give this serious consideration and analyze what you think it meant in real world application:

The North American continent underwent a Christian revival knows as The Great Awakening between 1730-1740. This evangelical revival impacted the lives of and institutions of our Founders.

Prior to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 each of the 13 states had their own constitutions.

Those constitutions included text of the Oath of Office. Though they were not boilerplate, they all conveyed the same idea. Note that the examples of these constitutions were established after the Great Awakening and prior to the Revolution and subsequent Constitutional Convention.

Constitution of Delaware; 1776

Quote:ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

Constitution of Maryland - November 11, 1776

Quote:LV. That every person, appointed to any office of profit or trust, shall, before he enters on the execution thereof, take the following oath; to wit :-" I, A. B., do swear, that I do not hold myself bound in allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland; " and shall also subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

Quote:SECT. 10. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz:
I do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which stall appear to free injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of only judgment and abilities.
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777

Quote:SECTION IX. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall, each of them, before they proceed to business, take and subscribe, as well the oath of fidelity and allegiance herein after directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz.
" I ____ do solemnly swear, by the ever living God, (or, I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the Constitution of this State; but will, in all things' conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities."
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.
" I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."
And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

As territories became states after the adoption of the Constitution you see state constitutions including similar sentiment in their oaths of office.

Anyway, every single Founder appointed to the Constitutional Convention (they were not elected to represent their states, they were appointed) took the oath of office required by their state constitution.

Every Founder professed to be a Christian. PERIOD.

They were of the mindset that the states had power and that the US Constitution was a framework that bound the various states together for certain things -- very specific things. Only those items specifically defined in the Constitution were allocated to the federal government. All other powers were left to the states.

Quote:X - Rights of the States under Constitution
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.

The Founders did not intend for the Constitution to rip Christianity from the fabric of American life. In fact, they actively promoted it.

The Northwest Ordinance
Washington's Farewell Address
Numerous writings of the various Founding Fathers
State court rulings
SCOTUS rulings

Throughout this nation's history Christianity was a primary unifying agent among the people. This does not mean every person was a Christian. It did not mean every person was required to be a Christian.

It does mean that Christianity was part of the foundation and fabric of this nation, it's people and it's governing institutions.

In the decision to Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) Justice David Brewer shared a summarized history of the US explaining that Organic Utterances tell us America is a Christian nation.


Prayer was a daily part of children's lives at school until the 1960s. From the foundation of this nation from Christian men until the 1960s Christianity was a part of daily life not only personally but also in the Public Square.

Gradual changes over time (boiling the frog) tend to hide things from us. There are a few examples that, to me, encapsulate the changes in society and provide sharp contrasts.

I grew up in the 70s watching a lot of 50s and 60s reruns.

In I Love Lucy you never heard cursing. If a scene was shot in Ricky and Lucy's bedroom (and they were a married couple, mind you) you saw twin beds. If they were in bed they shown in those separate beds and dressed in pajamas. If Lucy was in bed and Ricky was sitting on her bed it was required that one foot had to maintain constant contact with the floor.

Today, it is quite common for characters to curse, to discuss sexually explicit topics, and to be in various stages of undress if not nude.


This is simply evidence to show where we were compared to where we are.

(11-01-2018 02:10 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:41 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:40 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 04:17 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 04:13 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Prior to Trump election, are you suggesting that radical leftists had a positive view of Christians?

No, but probably more positive than it is now, right?

No, not in the least. There has been a cultural war against Christianity for a few decades now.

So it's better now than it was? What do you think was the cause of that shift?

I don't know that there is a "better" stage. Attacks are attacks.

What do I personally believe was the cause?

I can't point to a specific instance that officially started the culture war against Christianity; rather, I think there has been a progression.

I think American college graduates going to Europe, primarily Germany, in the 1800s imported Marxist philosophy and began the process of entrenching it in our educational institutions.

I think the 1940s SCOTUS beginning to apply the Living Document ideology was key.

I believe the 60s cultural revolution opened the floodgates to radicalism challenging traditional American values and philosophies.


Give this serious consideration and analyze what you think it meant in real world application:

The North American continent underwent a Christian revival knows as The Great Awakening between 1730-1740. This evangelical revival impacted the lives of and institutions of our Founders.

Prior to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 each of the 13 states had their own constitutions.

Those constitutions included text of the Oath of Office. Though they were not boilerplate, they all conveyed the same idea. Note that the examples of these constitutions were established after the Great Awakening and prior to the Revolution and subsequent Constitutional Convention.

Constitution of Delaware; 1776

Quote:ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

Constitution of Maryland - November 11, 1776

Quote:LV. That every person, appointed to any office of profit or trust, shall, before he enters on the execution thereof, take the following oath; to wit :-" I, A. B., do swear, that I do not hold myself bound in allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland; " and shall also subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

Quote:SECT. 10. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz:
I do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which stall appear to free injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of only judgment and abilities.
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777

Quote:SECTION IX. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall, each of them, before they proceed to business, take and subscribe, as well the oath of fidelity and allegiance herein after directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz.
" I ____ do solemnly swear, by the ever living God, (or, I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the Constitution of this State; but will, in all things' conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities."
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.
" I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."
And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

As territories became states after the adoption of the Constitution you see state constitutions including similar sentiment in their oaths of office.

Anyway, every single Founder appointed to the Constitutional Convention (they were not elected to represent their states, they were appointed) took the oath of office required by their state constitution.

Every Founder professed to be a Christian. PERIOD.

They were of the mindset that the states had power and that the US Constitution was a framework that bound the various states together for certain things -- very specific things. Only those items specifically defined in the Constitution were allocated to the federal government. All other powers were left to the states.

Quote:X - Rights of the States under Constitution
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.

The Founders did not intend for the Constitution to rip Christianity from the fabric of American life. In fact, they actively promoted it.

The Northwest Ordinance
Washington's Farewell Address
Numerous writings of the various Founding Fathers
State court rulings
SCOTUS rulings

Throughout this nation's history Christianity was a primary unifying agent among the people. This does not mean every person was a Christian. It did not mean every person was required to be a Christian.

It does mean that Christianity was part of the foundation and fabric of this nation, it's people and it's governing institutions.

In the decision to Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) Justice David Brewer shared a summarized history of the US explaining that Organic Utterances tell us America is a Christian nation.


Prayer was a daily part of children's lives at school until the 1960s. From the foundation of this nation from Christian men until the 1960s Christianity was a part of daily life not only personally but also in the Public Square.

Gradual changes over time (boiling the frog) tend to hide things from us. There are a few examples that, to me, encapsulate the changes in society and provide sharp contrasts.

I grew up in the 70s watching a lot of 50s and 60s reruns.

In I Love Lucy you never heard cursing. If a scene was shot in Ricky and Lucy's bedroom (and they were a married couple, mind you) you saw twin beds. If they were in bed they shown in those separate beds and dressed in pajamas. If Lucy was in bed and Ricky was sitting on her bed it was required that one foot had to maintain constant contact with the floor.

Today, it is quite common for characters to curse, to discuss sexually explicit topics, and to be in various stages of undress if not nude.


This is simply evidence to show where we were compared to where we are.

All in the Family in the 70s was considered groundbreaking because Archie Bunker said the "d" word.

(11-01-2018 02:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:10 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:41 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:40 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 04:17 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  No, but probably more positive than it is now, right?

No, not in the least. There has been a cultural war against Christianity for a few decades now.

So it's better now than it was? What do you think was the cause of that shift?

I don't know that there is a "better" stage. Attacks are attacks.

What do I personally believe was the cause?

I can't point to a specific instance that officially started the culture war against Christianity; rather, I think there has been a progression.

I think American college graduates going to Europe, primarily Germany, in the 1800s imported Marxist philosophy and began the process of entrenching it in our educational institutions.

I think the 1940s SCOTUS beginning to apply the Living Document ideology was key.

I believe the 60s cultural revolution opened the floodgates to radicalism challenging traditional American values and philosophies.


Give this serious consideration and analyze what you think it meant in real world application:

The North American continent underwent a Christian revival knows as The Great Awakening between 1730-1740. This evangelical revival impacted the lives of and institutions of our Founders.

Prior to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 each of the 13 states had their own constitutions.

Those constitutions included text of the Oath of Office. Though they were not boilerplate, they all conveyed the same idea. Note that the examples of these constitutions were established after the Great Awakening and prior to the Revolution and subsequent Constitutional Convention.

Constitution of Delaware; 1776

Quote:ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

Constitution of Maryland - November 11, 1776

Quote:LV. That every person, appointed to any office of profit or trust, shall, before he enters on the execution thereof, take the following oath; to wit :-" I, A. B., do swear, that I do not hold myself bound in allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland; " and shall also subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

Quote:SECT. 10. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz:
I do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which stall appear to free injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of only judgment and abilities.
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777

Quote:SECTION IX. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall, each of them, before they proceed to business, take and subscribe, as well the oath of fidelity and allegiance herein after directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz.
" I ____ do solemnly swear, by the ever living God, (or, I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the Constitution of this State; but will, in all things' conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities."
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.
" I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."
And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

As territories became states after the adoption of the Constitution you see state constitutions including similar sentiment in their oaths of office.

Anyway, every single Founder appointed to the Constitutional Convention (they were not elected to represent their states, they were appointed) took the oath of office required by their state constitution.

Every Founder professed to be a Christian. PERIOD.

They were of the mindset that the states had power and that the US Constitution was a framework that bound the various states together for certain things -- very specific things. Only those items specifically defined in the Constitution were allocated to the federal government. All other powers were left to the states.

Quote:X - Rights of the States under Constitution
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.

The Founders did not intend for the Constitution to rip Christianity from the fabric of American life. In fact, they actively promoted it.

The Northwest Ordinance
Washington's Farewell Address
Numerous writings of the various Founding Fathers
State court rulings
SCOTUS rulings

Throughout this nation's history Christianity was a primary unifying agent among the people. This does not mean every person was a Christian. It did not mean every person was required to be a Christian.

It does mean that Christianity was part of the foundation and fabric of this nation, it's people and it's governing institutions.

In the decision to Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) Justice David Brewer shared a summarized history of the US explaining that Organic Utterances tell us America is a Christian nation.


Prayer was a daily part of children's lives at school until the 1960s. From the foundation of this nation from Christian men until the 1960s Christianity was a part of daily life not only personally but also in the Public Square.

Gradual changes over time (boiling the frog) tend to hide things from us. There are a few examples that, to me, encapsulate the changes in society and provide sharp contrasts.

I grew up in the 70s watching a lot of 50s and 60s reruns.

In I Love Lucy you never heard cursing. If a scene was shot in Ricky and Lucy's bedroom (and they were a married couple, mind you) you saw twin beds. If they were in bed they shown in those separate beds and dressed in pajamas. If Lucy was in bed and Ricky was sitting on her bed it was required that one foot had to maintain constant contact with the floor.

Today, it is quite common for characters to curse, to discuss sexually explicit topics, and to be in various stages of undress if not nude.


This is simply evidence to show where we were compared to where we are.

All in the Family in the 70s was considered groundbreaking because Archie Bunker said the "d" word.

True. And that was part of the boiling frog process.

Archie also represented traditional America made over as a bumbling, out-of-touch, dotard while his son-in-law Meathead was the educated progressive.

Interesting to note, Meathead would marginalize Archie's archaic views while displaying his intellectual superiority all under the comfort and provision of Archie's hard work. Meathead couldn't feed our house himself or his wife.

Kinda makes me think that's how it was when Marx was living with his in-laws.

(11-01-2018 02:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:10 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:41 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:40 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 04:17 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  No, but probably more positive than it is now, right?

No, not in the least. There has been a cultural war against Christianity for a few decades now.

So it's better now than it was? What do you think was the cause of that shift?

I don't know that there is a "better" stage. Attacks are attacks.

What do I personally believe was the cause?

I can't point to a specific instance that officially started the culture war against Christianity; rather, I think there has been a progression.

I think American college graduates going to Europe, primarily Germany, in the 1800s imported Marxist philosophy and began the process of entrenching it in our educational institutions.

I think the 1940s SCOTUS beginning to apply the Living Document ideology was key.

I believe the 60s cultural revolution opened the floodgates to radicalism challenging traditional American values and philosophies.


Give this serious consideration and analyze what you think it meant in real world application:

The North American continent underwent a Christian revival knows as The Great Awakening between 1730-1740. This evangelical revival impacted the lives of and institutions of our Founders.

Prior to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 each of the 13 states had their own constitutions.

Those constitutions included text of the Oath of Office. Though they were not boilerplate, they all conveyed the same idea. Note that the examples of these constitutions were established after the Great Awakening and prior to the Revolution and subsequent Constitutional Convention.

Constitution of Delaware; 1776

Quote:ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

Constitution of Maryland - November 11, 1776

Quote:LV. That every person, appointed to any office of profit or trust, shall, before he enters on the execution thereof, take the following oath; to wit :-" I, A. B., do swear, that I do not hold myself bound in allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland; " and shall also subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

Quote:SECT. 10. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz:
I do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which stall appear to free injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of only judgment and abilities.
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777

Quote:SECTION IX. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall, each of them, before they proceed to business, take and subscribe, as well the oath of fidelity and allegiance herein after directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz.
" I ____ do solemnly swear, by the ever living God, (or, I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the Constitution of this State; but will, in all things' conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities."
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.
" I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."
And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

As territories became states after the adoption of the Constitution you see state constitutions including similar sentiment in their oaths of office.

Anyway, every single Founder appointed to the Constitutional Convention (they were not elected to represent their states, they were appointed) took the oath of office required by their state constitution.

Every Founder professed to be a Christian. PERIOD.

They were of the mindset that the states had power and that the US Constitution was a framework that bound the various states together for certain things -- very specific things. Only those items specifically defined in the Constitution were allocated to the federal government. All other powers were left to the states.

Quote:X - Rights of the States under Constitution
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.

The Founders did not intend for the Constitution to rip Christianity from the fabric of American life. In fact, they actively promoted it.

The Northwest Ordinance
Washington's Farewell Address
Numerous writings of the various Founding Fathers
State court rulings
SCOTUS rulings

Throughout this nation's history Christianity was a primary unifying agent among the people. This does not mean every person was a Christian. It did not mean every person was required to be a Christian.

It does mean that Christianity was part of the foundation and fabric of this nation, it's people and it's governing institutions.

In the decision to Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) Justice David Brewer shared a summarized history of the US explaining that Organic Utterances tell us America is a Christian nation.


Prayer was a daily part of children's lives at school until the 1960s. From the foundation of this nation from Christian men until the 1960s Christianity was a part of daily life not only personally but also in the Public Square.

Gradual changes over time (boiling the frog) tend to hide things from us. There are a few examples that, to me, encapsulate the changes in society and provide sharp contrasts.

I grew up in the 70s watching a lot of 50s and 60s reruns.

In I Love Lucy you never heard cursing. If a scene was shot in Ricky and Lucy's bedroom (and they were a married couple, mind you) you saw twin beds. If they were in bed they shown in those separate beds and dressed in pajamas. If Lucy was in bed and Ricky was sitting on her bed it was required that one foot had to maintain constant contact with the floor.

Today, it is quite common for characters to curse, to discuss sexually explicit topics, and to be in various stages of undress if not nude.


This is simply evidence to show where we were compared to where we are.

All in the Family in the 70s was considered groundbreaking because Archie Bunker said the "d" word.

And now among many who claim conservative values we can't keep the "f" word out of a chat room. I'd say that frog was now stew.

Nice set of posts Blue&Gray, but you left out that in the end Meathead was also unfaithful to Gloria, thereby holding up another Marxist value, the devaluation of the family. But then pseudo-intellectuals do tend to be self absorbed worthless navel gazers.

(11-01-2018 03:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:10 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:41 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:40 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  No, not in the least. There has been a cultural war against Christianity for a few decades now.

So it's better now than it was? What do you think was the cause of that shift?

I don't know that there is a "better" stage. Attacks are attacks.

What do I personally believe was the cause?

I can't point to a specific instance that officially started the culture war against Christianity; rather, I think there has been a progression.

I think American college graduates going to Europe, primarily Germany, in the 1800s imported Marxist philosophy and began the process of entrenching it in our educational institutions.

I think the 1940s SCOTUS beginning to apply the Living Document ideology was key.

I believe the 60s cultural revolution opened the floodgates to radicalism challenging traditional American values and philosophies.


Give this serious consideration and analyze what you think it meant in real world application:

The North American continent underwent a Christian revival knows as The Great Awakening between 1730-1740. This evangelical revival impacted the lives of and institutions of our Founders.

Prior to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 each of the 13 states had their own constitutions.

Those constitutions included text of the Oath of Office. Though they were not boilerplate, they all conveyed the same idea. Note that the examples of these constitutions were established after the Great Awakening and prior to the Revolution and subsequent Constitutional Convention.

Constitution of Delaware; 1776

Quote:ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

Constitution of Maryland - November 11, 1776

Quote:LV. That every person, appointed to any office of profit or trust, shall, before he enters on the execution thereof, take the following oath; to wit :-" I, A. B., do swear, that I do not hold myself bound in allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland; " and shall also subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

Quote:SECT. 10. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz:
I do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which stall appear to free injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of only judgment and abilities.
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777

Quote:SECTION IX. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall, each of them, before they proceed to business, take and subscribe, as well the oath of fidelity and allegiance herein after directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz.
" I ____ do solemnly swear, by the ever living God, (or, I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the Constitution of this State; but will, in all things' conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities."
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.
" I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."
And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

As territories became states after the adoption of the Constitution you see state constitutions including similar sentiment in their oaths of office.

Anyway, every single Founder appointed to the Constitutional Convention (they were not elected to represent their states, they were appointed) took the oath of office required by their state constitution.

Every Founder professed to be a Christian. PERIOD.

They were of the mindset that the states had power and that the US Constitution was a framework that bound the various states together for certain things -- very specific things. Only those items specifically defined in the Constitution were allocated to the federal government. All other powers were left to the states.

Quote:X - Rights of the States under Constitution
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.

The Founders did not intend for the Constitution to rip Christianity from the fabric of American life. In fact, they actively promoted it.

The Northwest Ordinance
Washington's Farewell Address
Numerous writings of the various Founding Fathers
State court rulings
SCOTUS rulings

Throughout this nation's history Christianity was a primary unifying agent among the people. This does not mean every person was a Christian. It did not mean every person was required to be a Christian.

It does mean that Christianity was part of the foundation and fabric of this nation, it's people and it's governing institutions.

In the decision to Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) Justice David Brewer shared a summarized history of the US explaining that Organic Utterances tell us America is a Christian nation.


Prayer was a daily part of children's lives at school until the 1960s. From the foundation of this nation from Christian men until the 1960s Christianity was a part of daily life not only personally but also in the Public Square.

Gradual changes over time (boiling the frog) tend to hide things from us. There are a few examples that, to me, encapsulate the changes in society and provide sharp contrasts.

I grew up in the 70s watching a lot of 50s and 60s reruns.

In I Love Lucy you never heard cursing. If a scene was shot in Ricky and Lucy's bedroom (and they were a married couple, mind you) you saw twin beds. If they were in bed they shown in those separate beds and dressed in pajamas. If Lucy was in bed and Ricky was sitting on her bed it was required that one foot had to maintain constant contact with the floor.

Today, it is quite common for characters to curse, to discuss sexually explicit topics, and to be in various stages of undress if not nude.


This is simply evidence to show where we were compared to where we are.

All in the Family in the 70s was considered groundbreaking because Archie Bunker said the "d" word.

And now among many who claim conservative values we can't keep the "f" word out of a chat room. I'd say that frog was now stew.

Nice set of posts Blue&Gray, but you left out that in the end Meathead was also unfaithful to Gloria, thereby holding up another Marxist value, the devaluation of the family. But then pseudo-intellectuals do tend to be self absorbed worthless navel gazers.

And contrary probably to the intent of the writers and actors, the American people liked Archie. They didn't like Meathead.

And like President Trump, they didn't like Archie because of his weaknesses, but because he was real and had good points and intended well.

(11-01-2018 03:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:10 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:41 AM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 10:40 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  No, not in the least. There has been a cultural war against Christianity for a few decades now.

So it's better now than it was? What do you think was the cause of that shift?

I don't know that there is a "better" stage. Attacks are attacks.

What do I personally believe was the cause?

I can't point to a specific instance that officially started the culture war against Christianity; rather, I think there has been a progression.

I think American college graduates going to Europe, primarily Germany, in the 1800s imported Marxist philosophy and began the process of entrenching it in our educational institutions.

I think the 1940s SCOTUS beginning to apply the Living Document ideology was key.

I believe the 60s cultural revolution opened the floodgates to radicalism challenging traditional American values and philosophies.


Give this serious consideration and analyze what you think it meant in real world application:

The North American continent underwent a Christian revival knows as The Great Awakening between 1730-1740. This evangelical revival impacted the lives of and institutions of our Founders.

Prior to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 each of the 13 states had their own constitutions.

Those constitutions included text of the Oath of Office. Though they were not boilerplate, they all conveyed the same idea. Note that the examples of these constitutions were established after the Great Awakening and prior to the Revolution and subsequent Constitutional Convention.

Constitution of Delaware; 1776

Quote:ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

Constitution of Maryland - November 11, 1776

Quote:LV. That every person, appointed to any office of profit or trust, shall, before he enters on the execution thereof, take the following oath; to wit :-" I, A. B., do swear, that I do not hold myself bound in allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland; " and shall also subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

Quote:SECT. 10. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz:
I do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which stall appear to free injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of only judgment and abilities.
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777

Quote:SECTION IX. A quorum of the house of representatives shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and chosen their speaker, shall, each of them, before they proceed to business, take and subscribe, as well the oath of fidelity and allegiance herein after directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz.
" I ____ do solemnly swear, by the ever living God, (or, I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the Constitution of this State; but will, in all things' conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities."
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.
" I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."
And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

As territories became states after the adoption of the Constitution you see state constitutions including similar sentiment in their oaths of office.

Anyway, every single Founder appointed to the Constitutional Convention (they were not elected to represent their states, they were appointed) took the oath of office required by their state constitution.

Every Founder professed to be a Christian. PERIOD.

They were of the mindset that the states had power and that the US Constitution was a framework that bound the various states together for certain things -- very specific things. Only those items specifically defined in the Constitution were allocated to the federal government. All other powers were left to the states.

Quote:X - Rights of the States under Constitution
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.

The Founders did not intend for the Constitution to rip Christianity from the fabric of American life. In fact, they actively promoted it.

The Northwest Ordinance
Washington's Farewell Address
Numerous writings of the various Founding Fathers
State court rulings
SCOTUS rulings

Throughout this nation's history Christianity was a primary unifying agent among the people. This does not mean every person was a Christian. It did not mean every person was required to be a Christian.

It does mean that Christianity was part of the foundation and fabric of this nation, it's people and it's governing institutions.

In the decision to Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) Justice David Brewer shared a summarized history of the US explaining that Organic Utterances tell us America is a Christian nation.


Prayer was a daily part of children's lives at school until the 1960s. From the foundation of this nation from Christian men until the 1960s Christianity was a part of daily life not only personally but also in the Public Square.

Gradual changes over time (boiling the frog) tend to hide things from us. There are a few examples that, to me, encapsulate the changes in society and provide sharp contrasts.

I grew up in the 70s watching a lot of 50s and 60s reruns.

In I Love Lucy you never heard cursing. If a scene was shot in Ricky and Lucy's bedroom (and they were a married couple, mind you) you saw twin beds. If they were in bed they shown in those separate beds and dressed in pajamas. If Lucy was in bed and Ricky was sitting on her bed it was required that one foot had to maintain constant contact with the floor.

Today, it is quite common for characters to curse, to discuss sexually explicit topics, and to be in various stages of undress if not nude.


This is simply evidence to show where we were compared to where we are.

All in the Family in the 70s was considered groundbreaking because Archie Bunker said the "d" word.

And now among many who claim conservative values we can't keep the "f" word out of a chat room. I'd say that frog was now stew.

Nice set of posts Blue&Gray, but you left out that in the end Meathead was also unfaithful to Gloria, thereby holding up another Marxist value, the devaluation of the family. But then pseudo-intellectuals do tend to be self absorbed worthless navel gazers.

You know Marx! You're correct, the devaluation of the family is another tactic.

I had forgotten that about Meathead.


Looking back, I don't think Rob Reiner had to do much acting to portray Meathead. I think he was actually playing himself.