re: Charlie masterfully lays out proof that we were founded as a Christian nation

The claim is different than the reality. I was also surprised to discover the truth of the matter.

Officially most Founders signed on as some sect of "Christians in some form" as a mere formality.

Signing on as anything other than "Christian" identity was construed as a red flag. I realize this claim is an affront to die-hards of our "official history."

As a reminder, our very first "President" (George Washington) was a Freemason first and foremost. Not accidental.

quote:

---

Patently false, wishful thinking -- and a myth.

---

quote:

---

Officially most Founders signed on as some sect of "Christians in some form" as a mere formality.

Signing on as anything other than "Christian" identity was construed as a red flag. I realize this claim is an affront to die-hards of our "official history."

As a reminder, our very first "President" (George Washington) was a Freemason first and foremost. Not accidental.

---

I'll preface this response by acknowledging that your arguments in this thread are against the notion that America was founded as a 'Christian nation.' This is a reply to you that I've also attempted to tie into my overarching argument, so most of this post isn't meant to be a direct rebuttal to you.

I don’t actually care all that much about how sincere any given Founder’s church membership was. People joined denominations for all sorts of reasons back then, be it community, respectability, or habit,so it’s tough to measure sincerity across the board.

What is easier to measure is what they actually wrote into law. And that’s where I get stuck. If the intent was to create a Christian nation, why does the Constitution go out of its way to ban religious tests in Article VI and leave out any reference to Christ at all?

And even if I take your point that many signers just wore the label “Christian” as formality, doesn’t that cut both ways? If the identity was so thin and flexible, what exactly would “Christian nation” have even meant in practice?

So for me the core question is less about whether Washington was more Mason than Anglican, and more about whether the system they built looks like an official Christian order or like one designed to keep creeds out of government while still protecting free exercise. When I read the Constitution, it looks much more like the latter to me.

quote:

---

Was the country founded by the Articles of Confederation? Nope.
---
Absolutely.

---

Our country is not a Confederation

quote:

---

The government was restructured with the constitution.

---

That restructuring, not its predecessor, was the foundational basis of our nation.

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

---

and this simple statement in the Constitution should end any argument. Everything Charlie was saying was just mental gymnastics to try and get around this statement. Proving that the founders were Christians and held Christian values only makes for a stronger argument that they wanted separation of Chruch and state. Being Christians themselves, they still sought to include the Establishment clause, knowing full well of the consequences that could befall the nation without this in the constitution. That's the genius of the framers of the constitution.

quote:

---

Protestants ain't NEVER persecuted no one, have they?

---

To the degree of the Vatican stomping on continental European kingdoms and city-states while executing, threatening and banning Bible ownership for a thousand years?

Get real. There's ZERO comparison.

quote:

---

What is easier to measure is what they actually wrote into law. And that’s where I get stuck. If the intent was to create a Christian nation, why does the Constitution go out of its way to ban religious tests in Article VI and leave out any reference to Christ at all?

---

Sneaky loophole and plausible deniability that they weren't exactly "Christian-friendly"?

(Yeah, the omissions of "Jesus Christ" was conspicuous. TOO conspicuous.)

quote:

---

And even if I take your point that many signers just wore the label “Christian” as formality, doesn’t that cut both ways? If the identity was so thin and flexible, what exactly would “Christian nation” have even meant in practice?

---

I agree on the latter point.

Only speculation of course; The "Christian label" used by Deists and FMs provided cover and plausible deniability in case actual Christian questioned and challenged their actual occultist beliefs.

quote:

---

So for me the core question is...more about whether the system they built looks like an official Christian order or like one designed to keep creeds out of government while still protecting free exercise. When I read the Constitution, it looks much more like the latter to me.

---

Possibly the case. It does appear they finessed a fine line there

And/Or

Maybe there was far more behind the scene power-broking by non-Christians than the historical narrative has led us to believe. Pretending or feigning Christian influence was stronger than it actual was seemed to be tactical at the time and going forward for 200 years.

Illuminati, Freemasons and Babylonian Kabbalists had already comprised most of govt org, mercantilism, trade and migration. As we know they plan an agenda centuries in advance.

So if we had another continental Congress you would no longer say the country was founded by the constitution? We have a new country founded by a new document?