Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Katherine Harris: God Didn't Want Secular U.S.
NewsMax ^ | 27 August 2006

Posted on 08/27/2006 7:01:21 AM PDT by Aussie Dasher

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-412 last
To: Pharmboy
Show me where the National Archives vouch for the truth of John P. Kaminski's claims?
401 posted on 09/08/2006 2:07:31 PM PDT by TexasJackFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: zendari

The 'base' is what it is in the GOP, and her comments were an attempt to appeal to it. It doesn't matter if she ends up alienating those with a secular view of government - some who may be fiscally conservative (like me). As Rove has illustrated in his recycled southern strategy tactics, religious conservatives consistently show up at the polls. Appealing to the small conservative secular population isn't important if she can get five times the voters to take their place. I personally don't like her message, but I can't fault her tactics.


402 posted on 09/08/2006 2:40:45 PM PDT by stacytec (Nihilism, its whats for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy; TexasJackFlash
Bump to Tex. You are the NY expert.

The statements presented below were made by John P. Kaminski in a work titled, Religion and the Founding Fathers. Are the statements true or false?

In New York, Huguenot-descended John Jay argued unsuccessfully in the provincial convention for a prohibition against Catholic officeholding. In February 1788, however, the New York legislature approved an act requiring officeholders to renounce all foreign authorities, "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil," an obvious exclusion of Catholics from holding office.

403 posted on 09/08/2006 5:32:38 PM PDT by MuddyWaters2006
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: MuddyWaters2006; Pharmboy
The statements presented below were made by John P. Kaminski in a work titled, Religion and the Founding Fathers. Are the statements true or false?

In New York, Huguenot-descended John Jay argued unsuccessfully in the provincial convention for a prohibition against Catholic officeholding. In February 1788, however, the New York legislature approved an act requiring officeholders to renounce all foreign authorities, "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil," an obvious exclusion of Catholics from holding office.


The statements are false. Article 42 of the NY Constitution of 1777 required all persons naturalized by the State, to take an oath of abjuration of all foreign allegiance, and subjection in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil.

The Constitution of New York : April 20, 1777

XLII. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that it shall be in the discretion of the legislature to naturalize all such persons, and in such manner, as they shall think proper: Provided, All such of the persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in and become subjects of this State, shall take an oath of allegiance to this State, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil.


It was not a religious test for office holders. It was a test for citizenship and I'm not sure it was religious in nature. If it was religious it might have eliminated Episcopalians and Anglicans because I believe the clergy of those religious societies were ordained in England and their creeds required allegiance to the church and the head of the church was in England. But, check me out before you use that. The American Bishops might have been considered the head of the American churches. Check that out also before you use it cause I ain't no expert on those religious societies.
404 posted on 09/08/2006 6:01:31 PM PDT by TexasJackFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy; MuddyWaters2006
you have to show me that CT had no religious requirements after my authoritative reference said it did

You made the claim of fact, therefore you bear the burden to prove it. Your authority merely repeats your bogus claim; but just like you, cites no historical evidence to support the claim.

Go read the Connecticut Charter of 1662 issued by Charles II, which was still in effect in 1787. If you find a religious test, you got a scoop.
405 posted on 09/08/2006 6:11:20 PM PDT by TexasJackFlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: TexasJackFlash

Your reading comprehension is abysmal. The more you post, the more idiotic you sound (and that's not easy for you).


406 posted on 09/08/2006 6:35:19 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Every single day provides at least one new reason to hate the mainstream media...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Sharp words indicate a shortage of hard facts.

--Thomas Jefferson
407 posted on 09/09/2006 7:39:53 AM PDT by MuddyWaters2006
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

Comment #408 Removed by Moderator

To: an amused spectator
"In fact, a lot of guys got killed or injured in a big fight over this called "The Civil War"."

You mean to tell me that the fact that other idiots did not comprehend the simple words "Supreme Law of the Land" is your excuse for making the argument that "Supreme Law of the Land" means just that?

I wasn't the one sleeping

409 posted on 09/11/2006 8:07:57 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
"...making the argument that "Supreme Law of the Land" means doesn't mean just that?

Premature push on the "Post" button correction.

410 posted on 09/11/2006 8:09:44 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You mean to tell me that the fact that other idiots did not comprehend the simple words "Supreme Law of the Land" is your excuse for making the argument that "Supreme Law of the Land" means just that?

LOL! You're absolutely impervious, LG!

Yes, "other idiots", like Confederate general Lewis Armistead [whose uncle who defended Fort McHenry during the war of 1812, and that he was therefore regarded as the guardian of the original star-spangled banner]:

Col. Freemantle, it does not begin or end, with my uncle or myself. We're all sons of Virginia here. That major out there, commanding the canon? That's James Deeran, first in his class at West Point, before Virgina seceeded. The boy over there, with the color guard? That's private Robert Tyler John. His grandfather was President of the United States! That colonel behind me? That's Colonel William Ailen. Now, his great-grandfather was the Virginian Patrick Henry. It was Patrick Henry who said to your King George III; "Give me liberty, or give me death." There are boys here from Norfolk, Portsmouth, Malhamlet, Long James River. From Charlottsville, Fredericksburg, and the Shenondoah Valley. Mostly, they're all veteran soldiers now, the cowards and shirkers are long gone. Every man here knows his duty! They would make this charge even without an officer to lead them. They know the gravity of the situation, and the metal of their foe! They know, that this days work will be desperate and deadly. They know, that for many of them, this will be their last charge. But not one of them, needs to be told, what is expected of him! They're all willing to make the supreme sacrifice. To achieve victory, here, the crowning victory, and the end of this war. We're all hear, Colonel. You may tell them, when you return to your country, that all Virginia was here this day. - (from the movie Gettysburg)

Those men were closer to the thought of the Founders than you could ever be - and braver and more intellectually honest. Yet you denigrate those who dared "the Angle" as "idiots".

It's pretty easy to sit at your keyboard nearly 150 years later and call guys who were brave enough to charge into Minie balls and cannon fire for their beliefs "idiots", ain't it?

Well, I guess after you kill them, you can mock them at your leisure. Oh, hang on a sec - YOU didn't kill them - OTHER guys killed them - and THEY were too honorable to mock a worthy foe...

411 posted on 09/12/2006 7:50:45 PM PDT by an amused spectator (Hezbollah: Habitat for Humanity with an attitude)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

Comment #412 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-412 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson