The Founding Fathers of the United States and the Ethno Religious State

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Onijunbei
Date: 2020-07-04 17:23:33
Reaction Score: 9
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

The individuals that created the United States never formed a Christian nation. They prohibited it. Christ is not mentioned, as far as I know, on any historical document of the United States. Christians say Christ, non Christians say God. All the floundling fackers said "God". They wrote "God".

it is apparent to me, with all the research on this site, and on many others, that this so called Constitution was only written for "them" and "their" offspring. Just because someone was "white" didnt make them a citizen. Historically, we dont see United States Citizens until the 14th amendment. Up until then, only members of government were "citizens". And even then, they werent really citizens.

why?

Because a "citizen" is subject to the laws of the United States. That would mean the U.S. Code.
Unbeknownst to the general public of this land, it is only members of government who have the full rights listed in the Con Stitution. I dont have the time to list all the Code, but "Citizens" are "enemies" of the "United States".

Do you have a "Coat of Arms"? Can you bear your "Arms". Are you one of the Gentry? The Right to bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Since I am here, I will also try to appeal to the readers sensibilities. If I start an organization and make a bunch of rules for it, how would those rules apply to you? They would only apply if you were a member.

Is there a law that says you have to be a member of the "United States". Just putting it out there.

For more information, Clint Richardson, who writes quite a bit on the "strawman" is a great source of information on the United States and its Laws.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: RTP now
Date: 2020-07-04 17:50:12
Reaction Score: 3
Ok, from what I can tell, the original poster has not yet responded to any of the comments/questions since he/she posted, so it's a bit difficult to determine the original intent.

However, based on the title and content of the post, I'd have to say that indeed it is about "white supremacy". I think one possible reason that this terms causes so much pain and confusion is because we tend to mix it prejudice, bias, and other similar terms. The truth of the matter is that white supremacy is actually a synonym for RACISM. To understand this, we must go back to Bacon's Rebellion of 1676. For it was out of this event that the idea of race was codified into a system to separate people for the express purpose of "racial" dominance. The actual codification process was put into various laws in 1691 as mentioned by the OP. Prior to this event, the various races were more or less equal and lived according to whether they free men, women or servants (I am simplifying the groupings due to time constraints). It's a bit frustrating to see the extent to which history is being re-written currently because a big fallout from this re-write will emerge the idea that anyone can be a "racist". No, I am sorry to report and will not debate, the only people who can be racist are the creators of the system and those who defend and uphold it today.

So, what is racism/white supremacy?

It is a global system based on the ideology that people "classified" as white are superior to those people classified as non-white. The people classified as "white" have the collective social, economic and political power to effect and control the lives of the people classified as non-white. In other words, they have the ability to define and manipulate the REALITY of the people classified as non-white... THE HAVE POWER. As far as I can tell, and I could be wrong, those people classified as non-white do not have anywhere near this kind of POWER. Marching down the street screaming BLM is NOT power, that is just another example of your mind being f**ked to such an extent that you are wasting your time in the streets. Even the people in SA or any of these so-called African countries do not have FULL and complete social, political and economic power. Show me a non-white country that is truly sovereign? With regard to who gets classified as white, the original people classified as white are keen to expand the pool of "whiteness" to suit their agenda. So today, Mexicans are regularly classified as white whereas they were NOT ten years ago.

As far as the slave narrative, there is quite a bit of evidence coming out supporting that it was/is a false story created to support the agenda of the "white" supremacists. And NO, not all people classified as "white" are WHITE and or RACIST. However, every person living on the planet today that is classified as "white" has benefitted and is benefitting from the system.

This is very difficult stuff to discuss due to the lies that we have all lived with. However, if you want the TRUTH, you gotta be bold and brave. Those people we call English and Germans are principally responsible for creating and upholding the system of racism/white supremacy. Go back and study 1691 and the 19th century and you will find the evidence. They've tricked us into looking at skin tone as a key marker when in fact it is all a game of colors they created to f**k us. The so-called black people have been screwed the worst and are now being used to further f**k us and the other so-called whites are now wanting to blame the ignorant so-called blacks.

What a joke it is.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Hovdenes
Date: 2020-07-04 17:52:40
Reaction Score: 1
This is something for which there is ample evidence to prove. The lack of the mention of Christ has always been suspect to me. These men say they are Christian, and yet they only ever speak of God and Divine Providence.

There is a quote I remember from the 6th President, John Quincy Adams, that says something along the lines of: "The Framers were nearly all Christians, and nearly all believed in the Bible." However, I can't find this quote anymore. My search results for :"John Quincy Adams the Founders Christian faith," is giving me a plethora of results for: "How the Founders of America missed the chance to abolish slavery," and "John Quincy Adam's fight against slavery," and further, "John Quincy Adams, a Bible-Loving Believer in Jewish Statehood."

I did find a different quote from this source:

"John Quincy Adams

SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR;
U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION

”My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.6

The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].7

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.8"

If the Founders were such adamant Christians, they should have included it into the Framing documents. Could the reason for not including their faith have something to do with the "separation of church and state" concept?
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Onijunbei
Date: 2020-07-04 18:02:50
Reaction Score: 1
"separation of church and state" concept?

Yes, the seperation of the "Church" from the State, but not seperation of the Temple from the State. Christians go to Church. Masons go to Temples. Many of the words used like "oath" and "affirmation" are ecclesiastical , meaning involving religion...their etymology is Religious. But the religion that the United States is built upon is not Christian.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Son of a Bor
Date: 2020-07-04 18:18:50
Reaction Score: 7
Please, reconsider the very painstakingly laid out arguments of @dejavu. She made it plain as can be.

Please also know, I write as a “white, English-speaking Christian.” I read the same Bible as you. I got an entirely different message: one of inclusivity, hope and charity. Because of it, I have traveled the world and met the most amazing people, many of whom don’t speak English but Chinese or Taiwanese. Many are virtuous and sincere souls caught up in the same planetary machinations that we all have been. I’ve also met some xenophobic Chinese and Taiwanese nationalists. They are full of fantasies about the past and razor-like zeal in their eyes. Who is a Christian to trust? My answer has always been easy: the kind and sincere souls-- regardless of their parents' forms of faith.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dejavu
Date: 2020-07-04 18:22:43
Reaction Score: 2
I am not complaining or whining. I am considering all the information that has been shared and doing a serious analysis to try to understand what it means because this is not consistent with what I’ve been taught related to our country’s history and the Christian faith at its supposed foundation. I am asking questions because it seems to imply that this nation is not, in fact, founded under Christian principles so where then does all this Christian foundation ideology and narrative that we have been fed come from?

I am not attacking you personally, but rather attempting to use your thoughts and supporting information to examine things along with everything else that has been presented by others too. I am truly not looking to make things go my way, per se. I am looking to understand what this perceived dichotomy that has been presented through the thread as historical evidence for the nation’s founding based on beliefs that the Freemasons and Founding Fathers claim to hold their ideology on really means.

My post format is to address piece by piece so I can understand the meaning step by step because this emerging picture is deep, complex and not the same as what I have been taught so this evidence is new. I am not disregarding your views. I’m trying to process them through a question based approach to decide what role it plays – whether truthful or part of a manipulated narrative or even hidden agenda – because as this forum shows, what has been presented to us as history is highly questionable and worth critical review. As I said in my original post, I appreciate the information because I am using it to conduct serious inquiry and self-analysis.

As you say, if the USA is the foundation of your Christianity, then I would say you were never a Christian is precisely what this whole debate/thread comes down to for me and where I see this going. My ancestry goes back to white European roots but how are we (the people of the USA in the here and now) supposed to consider ourselves as individuals and as a nation from that perspective when we’ve been taught ours is a nation founded on Christian principles, yet this new information seems to suggest that may not be the case? Then where did this “Christian foundation” mindset come from and who is pushing it if it is not the truth? Is Christianity being used to manipulate a false narrative? If those things turn out to be the case and my understanding of this country’s foundation and the Christian faith is not accurate because this whole USA is founded on Christian principles is false, then ok. I will assess and explore what that means to me. But before I go there, I am going to examine things presented and that includes questioning everything until I feel I have clarity to make that assessment for myself.

I know these topics are challenging but it is not a personal attack, truthfully. It is a direct questioning of the information presented.

This is something that is helpful. I can see that words and how they are used will help determine the narrative...
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Hovdenes
Date: 2020-07-04 18:22:47
Reaction Score: 0
Entirely plausible. These secretive religious cults love to say and pretend they're following the Holy Spirit of God-in-Christ, all the while doing things that are contrary to Him. From what I understand, modern Freemasons worship a "Divine Mother." I've never seen even a hint of a mention of femininity from the Founders. Perhaps what the Founders followed no longer exists in its original form.

Temples are reminiscent of Jews. In Revelation 2:9 Christ says there are those "Jews who say they are Jews and are not, but are a Synagogue of Satan." I wouldn't be surprised if the the Founders were similar to Messianic Jews - though Messianic Jews as a religion is a newer thing according to wikipedia.

Some of the actions of the Founders tell us they are not Christians. But, what actions today have people who consider themselves Christian taken that to others would make them out to not be Christians? We also must remember that what we consider to be horrible practices today, were not considered horrible practices in the past.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Son of a Bor
Date: 2020-07-04 18:38:08
Reaction Score: 0
The New Testament is pretty clear that people experience a lot of horror in the world. The crucifix might not have seemed so horrible to the Romans and Jewish elites, but Christ and the common people knew exactly what it meant. The historical relativism you propose is very selective and only operates on the assumption of a universally shared point of view. Christ provided a universally shared point of view, based on the experience of the common people. That is why it is called “The Good News" or "The New Testament."
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dejavu
Date: 2020-07-04 18:39:45
Reaction Score: 1
And NO, not all people classified as "white" are WHITE and or RACIST. Excellent point. Am glad you are clarifying this for the thread. Thank you.

I, in no way, am using the identification to mean all whites are racist or carry that mindset. It was to show the purposeful separation that was created by those who deemed themselves separate and superior over others through this ideology.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2020-07-04 18:50:20
Reaction Score: 1
Aimed at this thread in general...

Posting guidelines: We all can sense when things go in the wrong direction. Diffuse the situation instead of provoking your fellow debater.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: RTP now
Date: 2020-07-04 18:59:05
Reaction Score: 1
No, I do not think the post is going in the wrong direction and I am not and haven't been offended in any way by anything said thus far. This is a very lively exchange with lots of great input on a very sensitive topic that needs to be discussed. As long as we remain civil, I feel there is a lot to learn and am grateful for it.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Hovdenes
Date: 2020-07-04 19:29:40
Reaction Score: 1
This is turning into a Scriptural debate, rather than the OP which related to: What intent did the Founders have, based on whether they were Christian or not.

Here's how I'm understanding what you're saying: Because you think things should be a certain way - that everyone is equal so all should be together - you are calling those who do not want that: bad, racist, or contrary to Scripture. Not saying you are but that's how I'm seeing it.

Here's what I'm saying: People can choose whether or not to associate with whoever they want - it is allowable in Scripture.

As a practical example: I don't blame the Japanese for only wanting a majority of Japanese in their nation. I like Japanese culture as it is and would prefer it not to become something other than what the Japanese want it to be. If Europeans went en masse to Japan and started changing the culture, I wouldn't blame the Japanese for collectively wiping out the invaders - same applies to the people who were in North America before the British came, but alas.

Just how it seems, to me.

No offenses taken, never saw it as a personal attack. I tried to keep it on topic, which I saw as: What did the Founders intend for the USA, were they Christian, and, branching off just a bit, what even is Christianity.

Some of the initial responses seemed, to me, a complaint upon what was shown by the OP rather then dissent by way of disapproval of the topic with evidence. I posted no reply to anyone in specific because I wanted to keep it neutral while offering a defense & viewpoint for people who have views similar to mine. My views are that the Founders were Christians, or some type (denomination) of Christianity; though I would lump many Founders in with, "not a True Christian" - as a jest: I'm looking at you, Catholics...but no offense intended.

As a hypothesis: It could be that the religion of many of the Founders no longer exists in its original form, today. Whether that was perhaps a rogue sect of Freemasonry, or otherwise. To me, the Founders did not seem to be purely Freemasonic, nor did they appear overtly Christian. Many say they are "Deists" but that certainly doesn't sound Christian to me.

Anecdotally: Having spoken with a handful of people who have Freemasonic friends/family, they've all claimed that Freemasons are Christians - I disagree with them but there are those who say it is Christian (see Catholics).
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Son of a Bor
Date: 2020-07-04 20:16:32
Reaction Score: 0
I don’t know about your personal proclivities and beliefs, except what is written. The Bible is pretty clear, at least in the New Testament, about what are the universal values. As for history, it shows that a bunch of politicians said a bunch of things, which, based on my lifetime experience, should be treated not as sacred but as probable lies and half-truths. The history of the continent in the aftermath of the American revolution has been a disaster for minorities. It has also been pretty difficult for anyone not born into the educated classes.

I stand by all my conclusions. Of course, you have a right to associate with whomever you please. But to do so based on Christian values, which only exist in fantastical concepts of the purity of the “fathers”, is deadly dangerous for everyone.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dejavu
Date: 2020-07-04 21:05:49
Reaction Score: 1
LOL. I just noticed the "he" in your statement. Just to clarify, I'm a she, with glasses :geek:. I can be intense and direct so I can understand how it may come across as more masculine at times...oh well. I appreciate you recognizing my attempt to offer specifics with info being discussed.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Son of a Bor
Date: 2020-07-05 02:41:03
Reaction Score: 6
These threads should be linked here for anyone in the future who wanders into this thread unaware.

King George wins the Revolutionary War

America Was Stolen by the Holy Roman Empire

How to steal History and Land using the Bible.

There are others in the archives I’m sure. The real history of America is so interesting and revealing. Why do I care? Precisely because I know how powerful mythologies are and how dangerous identity politics are for everyone. I lived in a cauldron of identity politics politics in Taiwan. The heat kept getting turned up. I had to leave, although I love the place. All identity politics are based on myths. Myths are never based on fact-- only tangental to them. (Including, no doubt, the myth of Christianity-- which is the basis of my faith. But only that). I probably sound like an old scold. But I don’t want people to get tripped into the wrong direction or assumptions about the many facets of research going on here.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Nostradennis
Date: 2020-07-05 07:20:22
Reaction Score: 2
Joseph Story (September 18, 1779 – September 10, 1845) was an American lawyer and jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1812 to 1845 during the Marshall Court and early Taney Court eras. Justice Taney wrote the majority decision in the Dred Scott case. Justice Story penned an exhaustive tome entitled: "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in Three Volumes (1810-1845)", a comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and remains a critical source of historical information about the forming of the American republic and the early struggles to define its law. This work is a cornerstone of early American jurisprudence.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Justice Story says that the First Article in Amendment sanctioned Christianity only and none other:
The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former age) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age." Commentaries, Story, supra, Vol. III, at 728.

The Establishment Clause has nothing to do with the separation of church and state but more to sever inter-religious Christian persecution. It was a way to protect the many Christian sects and prevent a path to ascendency.

And why not, they knew their history and the Scriptures; Keep it simple; Why complicate matters?
"Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?" DRV 2 Corinthians 6:14

The "Fathers" Freemasonry membership never weighed in much for me. I know the political arena is packed with them but maybe their membership was more a generational than a political motivation which they used to their advantage. I have always given them the benefit of doubt.


The 39 Signers Religion or Church
IMG_7709.JPG
IMG_7710.JPG
IMG_7711.JPG

Feedback
@Hovdenes said:"I for one think the USA should die, as it was already lost with the ratifying of the 13th Amendment"
To complicate matters further there are two 13th (Abolition) Amendments, ie, a twenty section 13th and a two section 13th. Have a look: Which 13th Amendment?

@dejavu said: "I'm not sure how "mutation" would result by mixing people from different cultures when we are told that all people are descendants from Noah's lineage after the great flood...unless the flood story is not as we have been told."

Book of Enoch says this about Noah; "And his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose, and the hair of his head and his long locks were white as wool, and his eyes beautiful. And when he opened his eyes, he lighted up the whole house ..." and Scripture says that "Noah was perfect in his generations", ie, pure gene pool, ie, Noah, his wife, and their three sons and their three wives were all white. Like kind begets like kind, genetics 101. The Flood was not world wide. Cain's descendants were scattered throughout the world and were known as human flesh eaters, ie, cannibals (cain worshipers of baal). The Flood did destroy the giants and the men of renown though, think mud fossils.

@Onijunbei said: "Historically, we dont see United States Citizens until the 14th amendment."
Quite possible that the 14th amendment lacked the ratification signers and therefore invalid. Here's just two links of many:
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dejavu
Date: 2020-07-05 12:14:57
Reaction Score: 0
Thank you for adding this.

I think I'm starting to identify points that will help me better assess things as I develop my mind map. I think the confusion for me is that I was under the impression that Christianity was the shared ideology and basis, but it seems not to be, at least based on this thread, because there is knowledge/text that is at the heart of these ideologies that goes beyond the biblical perspective as represented in the Bible (not that it is necessarily bad, but rather different from what I understood to be the case). So I'm going to try to suspend that idea to create a more objective road map because what I'm trying to understand is at what point did Christianity and its principles come to represent what I've been taught to be this country's foundation at its relationship to the Founding Fathers and Freemasons, if Christianity was never its source. Then why is that the narrative we have today? That's where I'm at with this thread so I appreciate all the different views being shared.

I think @Onijunbei's comment about how words are referenced will help me follow patterns in the narrative.

I appreciate all the different links and suggestions from everyone. Got a lot to pursue.

I hope we all continue to share as we go. This is an incredibly important conversation.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: RTP now
Date: 2020-07-05 12:36:37
Reaction Score: 1
Just thought I’d throw this in about one of the “Founding Fathers” even though I’m sure most of you have probably come across this in your research... [Alexander Hamilton's Family Tree].

There’s quite a bit of information out there about his family lineage, which is why I personally think it’s true. If it is true, it adds another interesting question as to who these people were and how much of what they allegedly wrote/said is true.

Who were the Founding Fathers and who was the God they worshipped? Did their God cause the Flood as a path for them to conquer the world?
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dejavu
Date: 2020-07-05 12:43:14
Reaction Score: 0
I think if we can figure this out, then we have a better chance of unraveling the twisted mess we have in our history to find the truth.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: RTP now
Date: 2020-07-05 13:01:54
Reaction Score: 1
I do not see any evidence that they were Christian in the same sense that most people think of Christian. These mean seem to have been high magicians in possession of secret knowledge that they kept to themselves. They were certainly Masters in language and used words to trick and deceive us to this day. There is no doubt that almost ALL of the “history” presented to us about them and this country is pure fabricated fiction.

If we could crack the code on who they really were/are, we’d be further along. They were NOT who we’ve been told and our belief in them has prevented us from solving this problem of what is REALITY?
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.
Back
Top