Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles? Of Course it was!

My apologies, gave a rebuttal to the wrong post. Please feel free to give one to what I said, though. Actually, please do so. I'll expect two rebuttals from you in your next post.

1)

You specifically implied that Christians were Jews, or were Jews at one point, which they are not and were not. His followers were not Jews because they believed in a false profit and the false Messiah, that is assuming he even existed. Christ was not a practicing Jew, as he declared himself the Messiah unjustly, and believed in a Cult religion which was a shoot off of Judaism at the time that the Romans occupied Israel.

2)

Try quoting me on that. No, really. Go ahead and try to find where I said that. Because I didn't. I said I didn't like the one source you provided. Are you even reading what I post?

3) Jesus might very well have been an acting Rabbi, but he wasn't a Jew. Maybe during birth, maybe even as a child. But he was not a Jew as he grew up, again, assuming he even lived.

4)
What are you talking about? I'm trying to have an intelligent debate with you, and whilst your accusing me of being "too emotional" on the issue, you're using text type, mocking my statements which you cannot prove wrong with such things as "blah, blah, blah" and are typing letters repeatedly in words to exaggerate them. For example, "waaaay." Please. Get type correctly, act maturely or I do not wish to continue this debate.

Also, please be sure to post a rebuttal to the Treaty of Tripoli which I posted in my previous rebuttal two posts up.


It occurs to me to also add that in the text of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, the phrase:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

not only refers to a foundation of Christian "religion" as opposed to "principles" but implies that my assertion: America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, means that "America" strictly refers to the government. To my way of thinking, that would exclude those who founded Jamestown, and the subsequent colonies who fled from religious persecution as one of their major reasons for leaving Great Britain. Keeping in mind that the orginal colonies existed long before the establishment of our government. This of course does not preclude that the authors of the founding documents were indeed influenced by Judeo-Christian principles. Denial of this changes nothing.

There should be no confusing this issue: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." To my way of thinking this is a true statement. However, America was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
 
There should be no confusing this issue: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." To my way of thinking this is a true statement. However, America was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

But earlier you agreed with me that Judeo-Christian principles are simply based on the code of ethics that evolved naturally out of the experiences of early man living in multi-family social groups.

Therefore, one could easily say that America was founded on neolithic principles.
 
Yea me. Barton is batshit.



This quote is from Barton's book America's Godly Heritage


Now, why would David Barton so openly and blatantly lie like this, if not for an agenda? Historians are not suppose to have an agenda.


Also, since you are leaning that way, might want to join up on some information about real persecution in America, you can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee


I would also add the final and ultimate blow to this conversation... I am much more heavily educated than Barton. Holding more degrees, holding more time in real schools...

The man received a Bachelors of ARTS in RELIGIOUS EDUCATION from Oral Roberts of all places... why this gives him any authority to make up history is beyond me...


Kade you are writing falsehoods and disinformation!

This quote is from Barton's book America's Godly Heritage

Quote:
On January 1,1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them—he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.

A blatant falsity!

These words are no where to be found in the book: America's Godly Heritage. Here is the actual quote:

"Jefferson understood their concern. In his response he assured them that the free exercise of religion was indeed an unalienable right that would not be meddled with by the government. Jefferson pointed out to them that there was a "wall of separation between church and state" to insure that the government would never interfere with religious activities." America's Godly Heritage. pg. 14. copyright 1993.


Probably the best refutation of Barton's argument simply is to quote his own exegesis of the First Amendment: "Today," Barton says, "we would best understand the actual context of the First Amendment by saying, 'Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.' " In keeping with Barton's restated First Amendment, Congress could presumably make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion, and each state could pass a law establishing a particular Christian church as its official religion.

All of this pseudoscholarship would hardly be worth discussing, let alone disproving, were it not for the fact that it is taken so very seriously by so many people. -Arlen Specter

Arlen Specter, whom you use to attempt to discredit Barton for not having a degree in history, authors a quasi history book himself with no academic background in history. At any rate, I find it laughable, assuming Barton actually quoted the above, that anyone could come to such a ridiculous conclusion as the one set forth. Congress can NEVER make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion. Absolutely absurd.

And, since when does lack of a degree in history automatically disqualify a person to write about it? You seem to be confusing the issue. A 'Historian' who authors books on history should be neutral and without an agenda. (Which is one reason I think Zinn, if anyone, should be considered a pseudo-historian.) However, legions of people have studied and researched history in order to put forth a legitimate argument and be able to substantiate it with historical facts.

And lastly, Oral Roberts University is an accredited college. You are just biased against it because it is a religious school.
 
Last edited:
I'm tired of people attacking Christians. You don't like Christianity, good for you but you don't have to attack people who aren't attacking you.

I am a Christian, I don't like organized religion, and I don't say much, but it gets really irritating to see constant attacks against Christians for no good reason.

I have nothing against christians or christianity, I have a problem with certain people claiming principles are christian and were a basis for our government when in all reality these same principles existed long before christianity in other forms. Do you not agree that the founders also studied PLato? Are christians denying that many of their principles were not also laid out in the Gita. Its not an attack on the religion, it is an attack on pseudo historians who attempt to say rewrite history without giving the appropriate notations to origin. You simply cannot claim principles as intellectual property of christianity solely without at least admitting that those principles existed long before the religion.

Its not an attack on you, its an attack on the point that the OP was attempting to make. Please dont take it personal. I dont.
 
Another nit-picker who would just as soon deny Christianity ever existed. Gita and Plato can't take credit for Christ's message of love and forgiveness.

Nit picking...I think not. To glaze over the true origins of certain principles and philosophies so that some can claim the ideas to prove their point is in no way nit picking.
The bible is no more of an influence to the founders then the Gita or the writings of Plato. Sorry, I dont give people a pass to claim the bible as anything more then what it is. It is a tomb of handed down stories that were written many years after the death of a man they called Jesus. These stories many times included principles that other religions espoused and included some political thought that is mear and dear to Plato.
I dont mind the bible having the information in there because there were no copyrights or any other legal standings that precluded it but to have someone on a forum attempt to claim those passages as christian only is simply wrong and I will point it out, even if the OP thinks its nit picking.
 
Kade you are writing falsehoods and disinformation!



A blatant falsity!

These words are no where to be found in the book: America's Godly Heritage.


1990 version of Barton's video America's Godly Heritage. Check again.

Congress can NEVER make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion. Absolutely absurd.

Yet, Barton believes it should. As does a few people you are defending on these boards.


More corroborating evidence from various sources:

A Baptist Join Committee wrote in their official findings here:

In 1995 I wrote a critique of "America's Godly Heritage," a video by David Barton. At that time, Barton's views were little-known beyond his native Texas. I prepared my critique in response to occasional inquiries from friends of the BJC who rightly questioned Barton's claim that America is "a Christian nation."

Since then Barton's reputation and influence have steadily grown. He has written several books, founded an organization to advance his ideas and become a central figure in some religious circles, as well as an operative of the Republican Party. He has served as the Vice Chair of the Texas GOP and was named one of the nation's "25 Most Influential Evangelicals" by Time magazine in 2005.

While the avenues for his message have multiplied, the themes of Barton's work are the same today as they were in 1995. Barton peddles the proposition that America is a Christian nation, legally and historically. He asserts that the principle of church-state separation, while not in the Constitution, has systematically been used to rule religion out of the public arena, particularly the public school system. His presentation has just enough ring of truth to make him credible to many people. His work, however, is laced with exaggerations, half-truths and misstatements of fact.

As more individuals, congregations and elected officials are influenced by Barton's claims, the threat of his campaign becomes more real. In an effort to counter Barton's misguided mission, and still using "America's Godly Heritage" as an outline, I have updated and revised my critique of some of Barton's most prominent and problematic claims.

J. Brent Walker, Executive Director
Baptist Joint Committee
April 2005


You should read the rest of that actually, it's good.

And these:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2006-09-01/feature5 (Even the backwards state of Texas chimes in)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050425/blumenthal/2 (This is a doozy, considering the "Religious Education" degree holder soon becomes a law expert)

http://positiveliberty.com/2006/05/david-bartons-bad-legal-scholarship.html (A critique of his "law" expertise)

http://www.baylor.edu/pr/bitn/news.php?action=story&story=34559 (young independent reporter meets with Barton, another Texas lovestory)
 
Last edited:
It occurs to me to also add that in the text of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, the phrase:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

not only refers to a foundation of Christian "religion" as opposed to "principles" but implies that my assertion: America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, means that "America" strictly refers to the government. To my way of thinking, that would exclude those who founded Jamestown, and the subsequent colonies who fled from religious persecution as one of their major reasons for leaving Great Britain. Keeping in mind that the orginal colonies existed long before the establishment of our government. This of course does not preclude that the authors of the founding documents were indeed influenced by Judeo-Christian principles. Denial of this changes nothing.

There should be no confusing this issue: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." To my way of thinking this is a true statement. However, America was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

My G-d, it is the same, exact thing. If you found a country on the basis of another, but say that you're founding it on such and such countries principles, it's the same thing. You're running around in circles, now. It's black and white, right there. You're just trying to nitpick your way out of it. It's black and white, right there.
 
An Excellent Article on the Treaty of Tripoli

My G-d, it is the same, exact thing. If you found a country on the basis of another, but say that you're founding it on such and such countries principles, it's the same thing. You're running around in circles, now. It's black and white, right there. You're just trying to nitpick your way out of it. It's black and white, right there.

If you're seeking clarity about the true meaning and intent of the Treaty of Tripoli, I would encourage you to read this expository article by David Barton, which can be found here.
 
Judeo-Christian, what does that mean?

To my mind, it necessarily must refer to religion, since that is the only real point where those two words could be compatible.

Christians worship the same God as the Jews, with the exception of the savior. The two religions are therefore compatible.

"......one nation under God......." The same God, true believers in one universally accepted idea. That is the glue which seems to bind us.

When God becomes irrelevant, as happens when a population is educated and understands science, then the tie that binds comes apart. The unifying element disappears, and the differences become more clear.

Jews are Jews first then Americans, Christians are Americans first, last and always.

I won't go into the whys or hows the minority race divides the majority, causes friction and separates the majority, producing conflict among them. Rest assured that is what has happened to these united states.

If Ron Paul's vision for America were ever to be realized, we would no longer be or need an empire. We could begin to heal as a nation, and come together as brothers. I just don't know how to make that happen within a reasonable time frame. Whatever is the answer to our dilemma?
 
This is what Henry Ford had to say:

ANGLES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE
The Jewish Question exists wherever Jews appear, says Theodor Herzl, because they bring it with them. It is not their numbers that create the Question, for there is in almost every country a larger number of other aliens than of Jews. It is not their much-boasted ability, for it is now coming to be understood that, give the Jew an equal start and hold him to the rules of the game, and he is not smarter than anyone else; indeed, in one great class of Jews the zeal is quenched when opportunity for intrigue is removed.

The Jewish Question is not the number of Jews who reside here, not in the American's jealousy of the Jew's success, certainly not in any objection to the Jew's Mosaic religion; it is in something else, and that something else is the fact of Jewish influence on the life of the country where Jews dwell; in the United States it is the Jewish influence on American life.

That the Jews exert an influence, they themselves loudly proclaim. The Jews claim, indeed, that the fundamentals of the United States are Jewish and not Christian, and that the entire history of this country should be re-written to make proper acknowledgement of the prior glory due to Judah. If the question of influence rested entirely on the Jewish claim, there would be no occasion for doubt; they claim it all. But it is kindness to hold them to the facts; it is also more clearly explanatory of the conditions in our country.

If they insist that they "gave us our Bible" and "gave us our God" and "gave us our religion," as they do over and over again with nauseating superciliousness throughout all their polemic publications -- not a single one of these claims being true -- they must not grow impatient and profane while we complete the list of the real influences they have set at work in American life.

It is not the Jewish people but the Jewish idea, and the people only as vehicles of the idea, that is the point at issue. In this investigation of the Jewish Question, it is Jewish influence and the Jewish Idea that are being discovered and defined.

The Jews are propagandists. This was originally their mission. But they were to propagate the central tenet of their religion. This they failed to do. By failing in this they, according to their own Scriptures, failed everywhere They are now without a mission of blessing. Few of their leaders even claim a spiritual mission. But the mission idea is still with them in a degenerate form; it represents the grossest materialism of the day; it has become a means of sordid acquisition instead of a channel of service.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LABOR AND JEWRY
The essence of the Jewish Idea in its influence on the labor world is the same as in all other departments -- the destruction of real values in favor of fictitious values. The Jewish philosophy of money is not to "make money," but to "get money." The distinction between these two is fundamental. That explains Jews being "financiers" instead of "captains of industry." It is the difference between "getting" and "making."

The creative, constructive type of mind has an affection for the thing it is doing. The non-Jewish worker formerly chose the work he liked best. He did not change employment easily, because there was a bond between him and the kind of work he had chosen. Nothing else was so attractive to him. He would rather draw a little less money and do what he liked to do, than a little more and do what irked him. The "maker" is always thus influenced by his liking.

Not so the "getter." It doesn't matter what he does, so long as the income is satisfactory. He has no illusions, sentiments or affections on the side of work. It is the "geld" that counts. He has no attachment for the things he makes, for he doesn't make any; he deals in the things which other men make and regards them solely on the side of their money-making value. "The joy of creative labor" is nothing to him, not even an intelligible saying.

Now, previous to the advent of Jewish socialistic and subversive ideas, the predominant thought in the labor world was to "make" things and thus "make" money. There was a pride among mechanics. Men who made things were a sturdy, honest race because they dealt with ideas of skill and quality, and their very characters were formed by the satisfaction of having performed useful functions in society. They were the Makers. And society was solid so long as they were solid. Men made shoes as exhibitions of their skill. Farmers raised crops for the inherent love of crops, not with reference to far-off money-markets. Everywhere THE JOB was the main thing and the rest was incidental.

The only way to break down this strong safeguard of society -- a creative laboring class of sturdy character -- was to sow other ideas among it; and the most dangerous of all the ideas sown was that which substituted "get" for "make."

With the required manipulation of the money and food markets, enough pressure could be brought to bear on the ultimate consumers to give point to the idea of "get," and it was not long before the internal relations of American business were totally upset, with Jews at the head of the banking system, and Jews at the head of both the conservative and radical elements of the Labor Movement, and, most potent of all, the Jewish Idea sowed through the minds of workingmen. What Idea? The idea of "get" instead of "make."

The idea of "get" is a vicious, anti-social and destructive idea when held alone; but when held in company with "make" and as second in importance, it is legitimate and constructive. As soon as a man or a class is inoculated with the strictly Jewish idea of "getting" -- ("getting mine"; "getting while the getting is good"; honestly if you can, dishonestly if you must -- but get it" -- all of which are notes of this treasonable philosophy), the very cement of Duncan society loses its adhesiveness and begins to crumble. The great myth and fiction of Money has been forced into the place of real things, and the second step of the drama can thus be opened up.

Jewish influence on the thought of the working-men of the United States, as well as on the thought of business and professional men, has been bad, thoroughly bad. This is not manifested in a division between "capital" and "labor," for there are no such separate elements; there is only the executive and operating departments of American business. The real division is between the Jewish Idea of "get" and the Anglo-Saxon idea of "make," and at the present time the Jewish idea has been successful enough to have caused an upset.

All over the United States, in many branches of trade, Communist colleges are maintained, officered and taught by Jews. These so-called colleges exist in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Rochester, Pittsburgh, New York, Philadelphia and other cities, the whole intent being to put all American labor on a "get" basis, which must prove the economic damnation of the country. That is the end sought, as in Russia.

Until Jews can show that the infiltration of foreign Jews and the Jewish Idea into the American labor movement has made for the betterment in character and estate, in citizenship and economic statesmanship, the charge of being an alien, destructive and treasonable influence will have to stand.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CHURCHES AND JEWRY
The last place the uninstructed observer would look for traces of Jewish influence is in the Christian Church, yet if he fails to look there he will miss much. If the libraries of our theological seminaries were equipped with complete files of Jewish literary effort during recent decades, and if the theological students were required to read these Jewish utterances there would be less silly talk and fewer "easy marks" for Jewish propaganda in the American pulpit. For the next 25 years every theological seminary should support a chair for the study of Modern Jewish influence and the Protocols. The fiction, that the Jews are an Old Testament people faithful to the Mosaic Law, would then be exploded, and timid Christians would no longer superstitiously hesitate to speak the truth about them because of that sadly misinterpreted text: "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee."

There is a mission for the pulpit to liberate the Church from what the New Testament Scriptures call "the fear of the Jews." The pulpit has also the mission of liberating the Church from the error that Judah and Israel are synonymous. The reading of the Scriptures which confuse the tribe of Judah with Israel, and which interpret every mention of Israel as signifying the Jews, is at the root of more than one-half the confusion and division traceable in Christian doctrinal statements.

The Jews are NOT "The Chosen People," though practically the entire Church has succumbed to the propaganda which declares them to be so. The Jewish tinge of thought has of late years overspread many Christian statements, and the uninstructed clergy have proved more and more amenable to Jewish suggestion.

The flaccid condition of the Church, so much deplored by spokesmen who had regard for her inner life, was brought about not by "science," not by "scholarship," not by the "increase of light and learning"-- for none of these things are antagonistic even to incomplete statements of truth -- but by Jewish-German Higher Criticism. The defenders of the faith have fought long and valiantly against the inroads made by the so-called Higher Criticism, but were sadly incapacitated in their defense, because they did not see that its origin and purpose were Jewish. It was not Christian; it was not German; it was Jewish.

It is perfectly in keeping with the Jewish World Program that this destructive influence should be sent out under Jewish auspices, and it is perfectly in keeping with non-Jewish trustfulness to accept the thing without looking at its source. The Church is now victim of a second attack against her, in the rampant Socialism and Sovietism that have been thrust upon her in the name of flabby and unmoral theories of "brotherhood" and in an appeal to her "fairness." The church has been made to believe that she is a forum for discussion and not a high place for annunciation.

Jews have actually invaded, in person and in program, hundreds of American churches, with their subversive and impossible social ideals, and at last became so cocksure of their domination of the situation that they were met with the inevitable check.

Clergymen ought to know that seven-eights of the economic mush they speak from the pulpit is prepared by Jewish professors of political economy and revolutionary leaders. They should be informed that economic thought has been so completely Judaized by means of a deliberate and masterly plan of camouflaged propaganda, that the mass-thought of the crowd (which is the thought mostly echoed in "popular" pulpits and editorials) is more Jewish than Jewry itself holds.

The Jew has got hold of the Church in doctrine, in liberalism, so-called, and in the feverish and feeble sociological diversions of many classes. If there is any place where a straight study of the Jewish Question should be made it is in the modern Church which is unconsciously giving allegiance to a mass of Jewish propaganda. It is not reaction that is counselled here; it is progress along constructive paths, the paths of our forefathers, the Anglo-Saxons, who have to this day been the World-Builders, the Makers of cities and commerce and continents; and not the Jews who have never been builders or pioneers, who have never peopled the wilderness, but who move in upon the labors of other men. They are not to be blamed for not being Builders or Pioneers, perhaps; they are to be blamed for claiming all the rights of pioneers; but even then, perhaps, their blame ought not to be so great as the blame that rests upon the sons of the Anglo-Saxons for rejecting the straightforward Building of their fathers, and taking up with the doubtful ideas of Judah.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JEWRY IN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
Colleges are being constantly invaded by the Jewish Idea. The sons of the Anglo-Saxons are being attacked in their very heredity. The sons of the Builders, the Makers, are being subverted to the philosophy of the destroyers. Young men in the first exhilarating months of intellectual freedom are being seized with promissory doctrines, the source and consequences of which they do not see. There is a natural rebelliousness of youth, which promises progress; there is a natural venturesomeness to play free with ancient faiths; both of which are ebullitions of the spirit and significance of dawning mental virility. It is during the periods when these adolescent expansions are in process that the youth is captured by influences which deliberately lie in wait for him at the colleges. True, in after years a large proportion come to their senses sufficiently to be able "to sit on the fence and see themselves go by," and they come back to sanity. They find that "freelove" doctrines make exhilarating club topics, but that the Family -- the old-fashioned loyalty of one man and one woman to each other and their children -- is the basis not only of society, but of all personal character and progress. They find that Revolution, while a delightful subject for fiery debates and an excellent stimulant to the feeling of superman-likeness, is nevertheless not the process of progress.

The trouble with the colleges has progressed along precisely the same lines that have been described in connection with the churches. First, Jewish higher criticism in the destruction of young men's sense of respect for the ancient foundations; second, Jewish revolutionary social doctrines. The two always go together. They cannot live apart. They are the fulfillment of the Protocol's program to split non-Jewish society by means of ideas.

It is idle to attack the "radicalism" of college student -- these are the qualities of immaturity. But it is not idle to show that social radicalism ("radicalism" being a very good word very sadly misused) comes from a Jewish source. The central group of Red philosophers in every university is a Jewish group, with often enough a "Gentile front" in the shape of a deluded professor. Some of these professors are in the pay of outside Red organizations. There are Intercollegiate Socialist Societies, swarming with Jews and Jewish influences, and toting Jewish professors around the country, addressing fraternities under the patronage of the best civic and university auspices. Student lecture courses are fine pasture for this propaganda, the purpose being to give the students the thrill of believing that they are taking part in the beginning of a new great movement, comparable to the winning of Independence.

The revolutionary forces which head up in Jewry rely very heavily on the respectability which is given their movement by the adhesion of students and a few professors. It was so in Russia -- everyone knows what the name "student" eventually came to signify in that country. The Jewish Chautauqua, which works almost exclusively in colleges and universities, together with Bolshevism in art, science, religion, economics and sociology, are driving straight through the Anglo-Saxon traditions and landmarks of our race of students. These are ably assisted by professors and clergymen whose thinking has been dislocated and poisoned by Jewish subversive influences in theology and sociology.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?
Simply identify the source and nature of the influence which has overrun our schools and universities. Let the students know that their choice is between the Anglo-Saxons and the Tribe of Judah. Let the students decide, in making up their allegiance, whether they will follow the Builders or those who seek to tear down. It is not a case for argument. The only absolute antidote to the Jewish influence is to call college students back to a pride of race.

We often speak of the Fathers as if they were the few who happened to affix their signatures to a great document which marked a new era of liberty. The Fathers of our nation were the men of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic race. The men who came from Europe with civilization in their blood and in their destiny. The men who crossed the Atlantic and set up civilization on a bleak and rock-bound coast; the men who drove north to Alaska and west to California; the men who opened up the tropics and subdued the arctics; the men who mastered the African veldt; the men who peopled Australia and seized the gates of the world at Suez, Gibraltar and Panama; men who have given form to every government and a livelihood to every people and an ideal to every century. They got neither their God nor their religion from Judah, nor yet their speech nor their creative genius -- they are the Ruling People. Chosen throughout the centuries to Master the world, by building it ever better and better, and not by breaking it down.

Into the camp of this race, among the sons of the rulers, comes a people that has no civilization to point to, no aspiring religion, no universal speech, no great achievement in any realm but the realm of "get," cast out of every land that gave them hospitality, and these people endeavor to tell the Sons of the Saxons what is needed to make the world what it ought to be!

If our sons follow this counsel of dark rebellion and destruction, it is because they do not know whose sons they are, of what race they are the scions. Let there be free speech to the limit in our universities and free intercourse of ideas, but let Jewish thoughts be labeled Jewish, and let our sons know the racial secret.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAME THE ENEMY!
The warning has already gone out through the colleges. The system of Jewish procedure is already fully known. How simple it is! First, you secularize the public schools -- "secularize" is the precise word the Jews use for the process. You prepare the mind of the public school child by enforcing the rule that no mention shall ever be made to indicate that culture or patriotism is in any way connected with the deeper principles of the Anglo-Saxon religion. Keep it out, every sight and sound of it! Keep out also every word that will aid any child to identify the Jewish race. Then, when you have thus prepared the soil, you can go into the universities and colleges and enter upon the double program of pouring contempt on all the AngloSaxon landmarks, at the same time filling the void with Jewish revolutionary ideas.

The influence of the common people is driven out of the schools, where common people's influence can go; but Jewish influence is allowed to run rampant in the higher institutions where the common people's influence cannot go. Secularize the schools, and you can then Judaize the universities.

This is the "liberalism" which Jewish spokesmen so much applaud. In labor unions, in churches, in universities, it has tainted the principles of work, faith and society. The proof of it is written thickly over all Jewish activities and utterances. It is in exerting these very influences that Jewry convinces itself that it is fulfilling its "mission" to the world.

The capitalism attacked is non-Jewish capitalism; the orthodoxy attacked is Christian orthodoxy; the society attacked is the Anglo-Saxon form of society; all of which by their destruction would redound to the glory of Judaism.
The list could be extended -- the influence of the Jewish idea on Anglo-Saxon sports and pleasure, on the Anglo-Saxon idea of patriotism, on the Anglo-Saxon conception of the learned professions; the influence of the Jewish idea runs down through every department of life.

"Well," one very badly deluded American editor, wrapped up in Jewish advertising contracts, was heard to say, "if the Jews can get away with it, then they have a right to." It is a variant of the "answer" of Jewish origin, which runs thus: "How can a paltry 3 million run the 100 million of the rest of us? Nonsense!"

Yes, let it be agreed; if the Jewish idea is the stronger, if the Jewish ability is the greater, let them conquer; let Anglo-Saxon principles and power go down in ruins before the Tribe of Judah. But first let the two ideas struggle under their own banners; let it be a fair struggle.

It is not a fair fight when in the movies, in the schools, in the Judaized churches, in the universities, the Anglo-Saxon idea is kept away from the Anglo-Saxons on the plea that it is "sectarian" or "clannish" or "obsolete" or something else, say, reaction.

It is not a fair fight when Jewish ideas are offered as AngloSaxon ideas, because offered under Anglo-Saxon auspices. Let the heritage of our Anglo-Saxon fathers have free course among their Anglo-Saxon sons, and the Jewish idea can never triumph over it, in the university forum or in the marts of trade. The Jewish idea never triumphs until first the people over whom it triumphs are denied the nurture of their native culture.

Judah has begun the struggle. Judah has made the invasion. Let it come. Let no man fear it. But let every a man insist that the fight be fair. Let college students and leaders of thought know that the objective is the regnancy of the ideas and the race that have built all the civilization we see and that promises all the civilization of the future; let them also know that the attacking force is Jewish.

That is all that will be necessary. It is against this that the Jews protest. "You must not identify us," they say, "You must not use the term 'Jew'." Why? Because unless the Jewish idea can creep in under the assumption of other than Jewish origin, it is doomed. Anglo-Saxon ideas dare proclaim themselves and their origin. A proper proclamation is all that is necessary today. Compel every invading idea to run up its flag!
 
IcyPeacemaker, with all due respect, I think you should start a new thread about this because you seem to be getting off topic with several of your posts.

My argument is that certain people with certain agendas are trying to re-write history as it pertains to the prinicples this country was founded upon. There is a great deal of denial about our Judeo-Christian heritage. I call it a "Judeo-Christian" heritage because Christianity was born out of Judaism. Christ was a Jew, etc. etc. I've stated this ad nauseam.

Your concern seems to revolve around Jewish control. I do not have an issue whatsoever with Jewish control. To my way of thinking, complaining about Jews controlling everything seems to imply that non-Jews are immuned to power, control, and greed. I believe your line of thinking on this matter divides us rather than unites us.

Some people on this thread may think that my argument divides us as well. That is not my intention. Again, I am trying to right a wrong here. It is ridiculous to pretend, deny, and otherwise ignore the fact that religious principles had little, or nothing whatever to do with the founding of America.

On that, I think you and I agree.
 
Last edited:
My G-d, it is the same, exact thing. If you found a country on the basis of another, but say that you're founding it on such and such countries principles, it's the same thing. You're running around in circles, now. It's black and white, right there. You're just trying to nitpick your way out of it. It's black and white, right there.

Hehe, if you think our government being founded on the Christian religion is "the exact same thing" as our country being founded on Judeo-Christian principles, then I have nothing left to debate with you. You need a dictionary and a thesaurus, and a few history lessons.
 
But earlier you agreed with me that Judeo-Christian principles are simply based on the code of ethics that evolved naturally out of the experiences of early man living in multi-family social groups.

Therefore, one could easily say that America was founded on neolithic principles.


Yes, I do agree with this, however I also believe that Judeo-Christian priniciples take your theory one step further by teaching people how to temper their drives, emotions, etc. through a relationship with the divine. If you don't believe in spirituality, you won't accept or understand this. For example, it is one thing to refrain from killing someone out of fear of reprisal, imprisonment, etc. but it is another to learn how to refrain from the anger and hatred that preceeds murder in almost all cases. Religion has been helpful in teaching people how to rise above and combat our internal, and sometimes, destructive drives. The tenant of almost all religions is love and charity. Christ also taught us that forgiveness is equally as important not only for the person being forgiven, but for our own peace.
 
Nit picking...I think not. To glaze over the true origins of certain principles and philosophies so that some can claim the ideas to prove their point is in no way nit picking.
The bible is no more of an influence to the founders then the Gita or the writings of Plato. Sorry, I dont give people a pass to claim the bible as anything more then what it is. It is a tomb of handed down stories that were written many years after the death of a man they called Jesus. These stories many times included principles that other religions espoused and included some political thought that is mear and dear to Plato.
I dont mind the bible having the information in there because there were no copyrights or any other legal standings that precluded it but to have someone on a forum attempt to claim those passages as christian only is simply wrong and I will point it out, even if the OP thinks its nit picking.


No one is "glazing" over anything. Show me where the founders quoted Gita and Plato as often as they quoted the bible and I will rescind my argument.
 
No one is "glazing" over anything. Show me where the founders quoted Gita and Plato as often as they quoted the bible and I will rescind my argument.

you keep talking of the founders.

It is those that ratified the constitution that matter. They ratified a document that was void of religious reference.

From a legal standpoint, I care about the parties that signed the document, not the lawyers that wrote the blasted thing up.
 
1990 version of Barton's video America's Godly Heritage. Check again.



Yet, Barton believes it should. As does a few people you are defending on these boards.


More corroborating evidence from various sources:

A Baptist Join Committee wrote in their official findings here:

In 1995 I wrote a critique of "America's Godly Heritage," a video by David Barton. At that time, Barton's views were little-known beyond his native Texas. I prepared my critique in response to occasional inquiries from friends of the BJC who rightly questioned Barton's claim that America is "a Christian nation."

Since then Barton's reputation and influence have steadily grown. He has written several books, founded an organization to advance his ideas and become a central figure in some religious circles, as well as an operative of the Republican Party. He has served as the Vice Chair of the Texas GOP and was named one of the nation's "25 Most Influential Evangelicals" by Time magazine in 2005.

While the avenues for his message have multiplied, the themes of Barton's work are the same today as they were in 1995. Barton peddles the proposition that America is a Christian nation, legally and historically. He asserts that the principle of church-state separation, while not in the Constitution, has systematically been used to rule religion out of the public arena, particularly the public school system. His presentation has just enough ring of truth to make him credible to many people. His work, however, is laced with exaggerations, half-truths and misstatements of fact.

As more individuals, congregations and elected officials are influenced by Barton's claims, the threat of his campaign becomes more real. In an effort to counter Barton's misguided mission, and still using "America's Godly Heritage" as an outline, I have updated and revised my critique of some of Barton's most prominent and problematic claims.

J. Brent Walker, Executive Director
Baptist Joint Committee
April 2005


You should read the rest of that actually, it's good.

And these:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2006-09-01/feature5 (Even the backwards state of Texas chimes in)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050425/blumenthal/2 (This is a doozy, considering the "Religious Education" degree holder soon becomes a law expert)

http://positiveliberty.com/2006/05/david-bartons-bad-legal-scholarship.html (A critique of his "law" expertise)

http://www.baylor.edu/pr/bitn/news.php?action=story&story=34559 (young independent reporter meets with Barton, another Texas lovestory)

Kade, Kade, Kade...... first you claim that Barton said something, and you source it from a BOOK-that I have proven was false - and now, you change your source and say that it was from a VERSION of a video. I have researched this further. No such version of a video on "Our Godly Heritage" from 1990 exists that I can find. You will need to provide the ORIGINAL sourcing from this and not just some claim by some anti-Barton article.

As to your links and other criticisms of Barton, I didn't read them because of the lack of credible sourcing.

Also, in my OP, I substantiate my position on this with a 10 year study that was done by the political science department at the University of Houston headed up by Lutz. You and others on this thread have yet to discredit that study. I really don't want to debate about who likes or dislikes David Barton. While I quoted him regarding the study, beyond that I have no investment, ideological or otherwise, in the man or his work.
 
Last edited:
you keep talking of the founders.

It is those that ratified the constitution that matter. They ratified a document that was void of religious reference.

From a legal standpoint, I care about the parties that signed the document, not the lawyers that wrote the blasted thing up.


The founding fathers, wrote the documents. If they don't matter, then why should those who ratified it matter? Without the documents, there would be nothing to ratify. I don't get your argument at all.
 
Kade, Kade, Kade...... first you claim that Barton said something, and you source it from a BOOK-that I have proven was false - and now, you change your source and say that it was from a VERSION of a video. I have researched this further. No such version of a video on "Our Godly Heritage" from 1990 exists that I can find. You will need to provide the ORIGINAL sourcing from this and not just some claim by some anti-Barton article.

As to your links and other criticisms of Barton, I didn't read them because of the lack of credible sourcing.

Also, in my OP, I substantiate my position on this with a 10 year study that was done by the political science department at the University of Houston headed up by Lutz. You and others on this thread have yet to discredit that study. I really don't want to debate about who likes or dislikes David Barton. While I quoted him regarding the study, beyond that I have no investment, ideological or otherwise, in the man or his work.

The video is real. You are the historian.

The Baptist Joint Committee is not a reliable source? There are no reliable sources for you then... I gave you a mix from everything, journals, papers, committees... none of this matters.

Instead, some ranting lunatic has your attention.
 
The founding fathers, wrote the documents. If they don't matter, then why should those who ratified it matter? Without the documents, there would be nothing to ratify. I don't get your argument at all.

We the people are the ones responsible for a Constitutional Form of Government. It is the people that agreed to be bound by this social contract that matters.

The constitution was largely void of religious reference, outside of mention of a creator and that congress shall pass no law concerning religion, the legal contract ratified by the people is silent on the issue.

When courts try to rule on a breach of contract, the first thing they do is ascertain the original understanding of those that agreed to the contract. The understanding of those that wrote the contract is less important.

So why do I care about those that approved it? Because that is how the law is supposed to work.
 
Back
Top