Sunday, November 22, 2015

How time has warped the minds of this mighty secular nation!

How have we allowed the Christians to derail the Constitution and pervert this mighty secular nation?

The First Amendment to the Constitution grants Americans the "freedom from religious persecution" and yet the Christians have perverted this Amendment to mean "freedom of religious".  A subtle yet important difference exists that can not be allowed by the free people of this mighty secular nation.  In "freedom from religious persecution" every citizen is protected from religious persecution and the other has come to mean that the government can not control the actions of individuals claiming religious authority.  The intent was to protect from religion those that seek such protection from religious laws that are in conflict with national or state laws.  No citizen shall be held to answer to a religious authority expect by choice and that no religious authority shall hold power over the people of this mighty secular nation.  If a citizen chooses to reject the faith of their parents or community such citizen has the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution and can not be compelled to return to that religion.  The citizen has the right to live either in that community or to leave to establish a new home free from persecution.  No citizen shall be marked or harassed by others that seek to compel them to except a religion not of their own choosing by protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Any citizen calling for such markings or refusal to allow others to live their lives free from such religious persecution is in conflict with the Constitution and hence The Federal Laws of this mighty secular nation.  No religious test or requirement shall be enforceable upon an application for citizenship under the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

On a historical note: Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended, this mighty secular nation assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith.  According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.

Art. 11. of The Treaty of Tripoli as presented to the Senate by President John Adams;
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 Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


  1. How the mighty fall, and depravity suits us in such situations.. Few people strike against all other religion, because simply put, they are idiots who do not KNOW any better. If there GOD was to look at them in such a pitiful state, he would burn there VERY existence from history. Jesus was MUSLIM, get over it. It's not like there terro--Wait, you honestly think the WHOLE religion is TERRORISTS? Dumb FUCKS, how ignorant can you be: The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

    Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

    The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God; however this works both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

    Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

  2. I get what you are saying but my point was that this is not a Christian nation. We must accept all who come in peace to join our messed up country. Refugees are mostly beaten and worn out souls that have lost all to the madness in their country. Does anyone really think that these people are homeless by choice? My moral compass says I must accept the weak and needy. I must give help when I can and not judge those in need. At least this is what I would do. I don't believe in any GOD! I am lead by common sense to help those in need. What about you? Does your GOD tell to help or to kill?