@Mott-The-Hoople saidInteresting.
“The treaty is often cited in discussions regarding the role of religion in United States government due to a clause in Article 11 of the English language translation that was ratified by the Senate and signed by the president, which states, "[t]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."[4] However, modern t ...[text shortened]... that no such phrase exists in the text.[5]”
https://everything.explained.today/Treaty_of_Tripoli/
I'm investigating this now.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidThe founding fathers were Deists, not Christians.
What have we learned in this thread?
You and marrider have proved you believe in God, you have proved this is a nation founded on Christianity.
Funny how the truth comes out sometimes 😉
You misrepresent them and Christianity.
1 edit
@AThousandYoung saidStill it was the English version the Senate ratified which includes the quoted language, so your point still applies; early in the nation's history both the Executive and Legislative branches of the government accepted in a legally binding document that the US was "not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,"
This is the translation being referred to.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796e.asp
The quoted phrase is in the English version so it still applies but this is a good point you brought up Mott.
@AThousandYoung saidToo bad the far-right has reduced this treaty to so much ash.Treaty of Tripoli:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims],-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Muslim] nation, it is declared ...[text shortened]... inions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The post that was quoted here has been removedYet again, you fools are missing the point.
This is not about the decision itself, but rather the Supreme Court's decision to go all in on “substantive due process” which gives judges nearly unlimited power. I'm frankly surprised the Republicans haven't been against this, since they are the ones who used to crow about "liberal activist judges". This must be why they aren't up in arms against this, because the SC has hidden this behind an effort to remove a kid's right to be themselves in school.
I'm also frankly surprised that you are for this, but I guess I really shouldn't be, since you have shown yourself to be all about gay rights (because you are gay), and against lesbian rights, bisexual rights and trans rights.
Unlike you, I am for any human to have the right to be and express themselves as who they are without outside influence.
But my overarching point here is the basis the Republicans on the Supreme Court using this case as a reason to give judges unlimited freedom to make decisions based not on what the Constitution wants, but on what they, personally, want, in this case the eradication of LGBTQ+ rights.
Not surprised that all you thin-brained selfish people are completely for this scorched-earth policy-making from the bench.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidStill kind of a "cart before the horse" kinda guy, huh?
Both do.
As God is the giver of natural rights as mentioned in the preamble.
How can you believe there are natural rights if there is no God?
@no1marauder saidThey also believed in following the teaching of Jesus regarding how to treat one another, but they drew the line at the current Christian creed about the divinity of Jesus.
Easily though my religious views are a bit more complex than simple atheism.
The Framers believed that God created Nature and that Nature's rules therefore flow from Him (ancient head gods invariably are male).
One can believe Nature has rules without it being created by a God.
There were Christians on both sides of the American Revolution.