[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Attack on the USS Liberty (June 8, 1967) - Speech by Survivor Phillip Tourney At the Revisionist History of War Conference (Video) ‘I Smell CIA/Deep State All Over ThisÂ’ — RFK Jr. VP Nicole Shanahan Blasts Sanctuary Cities, we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles” - Democrat Senator Cory Booke We have no legal framework for designating domestic terror organizations Los Angeles Braces For Another Day Of Chaos As Newsom Pits Marxist Color Revolution Against Trump Admin Methylene Blue Benefits Another Mossad War Crime 80 served arrest warrants at 'cartel afterparty' in South Carolina When Ideas Become Too Dangerous To Platform The silent bloodbath that's tearing through the middle-class Kiev Postponed Exchange With Russia, Leaves Bodies Of 6,000 Slain Ukrainian Troops In Trucks Iranian Intelligence Stole Trove Of Sensitive Israeli Nuclear Files In the USA, the identity of Musk's abuser, who gave him a black eye, was revealed Return of 6,000 Soldiers' Bodies Will Cost Ukraine Extra $2.1Bln Palantir's Secret War: Inside the Plot to Cripple WikiLeaks Digital Prison in the Making? In France we're horrified by spending money on Ukraine Russia has patented technology for launching drones from the space station Kill ICE: Foreign Flags And Fires Sweep LA 6,000-year-old skeletons with never-before-seen DNA rewrites human history First Close Look at China’s Ultra-Long Range Sixth Generation J-36Jet I'm Caitlin Clark, and I refuse to return to the WNBA Border Czar Tom Homan: “We Are Going to Bring National Guard in Tonight” to Los Angeles These Are The U.S. States With The Most Drug Use Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means?Anita Chabria White House Staffer Responsible for ‘Fanning Flames’ Between Trump and Musk ID’d Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens - After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago Dozens detained during Los Angeles ICE raids Russian army suffers massive losses as Kremlin feigns interest in peace talks — ISW Russia’s Defense Collapse Exposed by Ukraine Strike

All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: MEET THE CHRISTIAN PARTY ***racism alert***
Source: nolu chan
URL Source: http://n/a
Published: May 7, 2008
Author: nolu chan
Post Date: 2008-05-07 17:01:51 by nolu_chan
Keywords: None
Views: 1009
Comments: 31

MEET THE CHRISTIAN PARTY
by nolu chan
May 7, 2008

(and The Fathers Manifesto)

[Old Friend #24]

The following facts are what The Gallup Organization does NOT want you to know about their abortion poll, why they went through a tortured exercise in data manipulation to conceal the following facts about American opinion, why their poll results showing that almost half of Americans view abortion as murder are now missing from their web site, and why they had their lawyers demand that the Fathers' Manifesto Web Site be shut down (which they were successful at doing)

He failed to include the link and the title, so I will oblige:

http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm

Abortion Poll

The Criminal Gallup Organization

The homepage of The Christian Party has a menu on the left hand side. There appears to be no link to the article "The Criminal Gallup Organization," nor seemingly any link to a section on abortion. With perseverance, I found the article without the aid of any menu screen.

They note that the offending information was legally challenged and the hosting Fathers Manifesto website shut down. Even without a title such as, "The Criminal Gallup Organization," its content could constitute libel, and vomiting it up on the pages of 4um, while hiding the source, could invite trouble to 4um.

All image links are given in unusable truncated fashion, for example, "abortion1969.jpg" works more effectively as "http://christianparty.net/abortion1969.jpg" but then that also reveals the source as The Christian Party.

And, of course, the credits at the end are cut off, including, "Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party"

The deletions edited out any and all reference to The Christian Party.

The Christian Party website is there, and self-proclaimed as "Official Fathers' Manifesto Worldwide Web Sites Since 1995."

That was quite an effort to hide the source of the Christian Identity crap that was vomited all over the board.

The Fathers Manifesto is published and copyright by The Christian Party, a bunch of crazy loons with the Christian Identity movement who espouse racism, antisemitism, and anti-feminism. They offer a poll on whether to send Blacks back to Africa and espouse amending the Constitution to revoke a woman's right to vote. They offer the ladies the following pledge: "I, as a submissive woman of God, and of sound mind, do hereby give my vote to this man of God: __________________ to exercise for the glory of Yahvh, our Creator. I make this statement publickly as an example for other godly women to emulate, and for the edification of the world through which we are passing. I make this statement bona fide dei gratia, for Christ Jesus my Lord. Amen."

I provide the whole pledge with a link below in case any of the ladies are interested in signing on.

Of course, as resident racists are quick to point out, their Obama attacks are never racist. It is an enlightened discussion of policy positions. Nine pages of Christian Identity libelous crap just sneaked in there without attribution. It was just a happening.

Any and all racists enlightened thinkers who care to defend this group, or placing any of its turds of non-thought on 4um, are invited to give it their best enlightened shot.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23.

#5. To: nolu_chan (#0)

The Christian Party, a bunch of crazy loons with the Christian Identity movement who espouse racism, antisemitism, and anti-feminism.

Why, how dare they!

Espouse AntiSemitism?

Only the Zionistas, who are themselves the Origininal AntiSemites, can do that kind of espousing!!

Otherwise sounds like a Cool Party...

SCPO Blackshoe Retired  posted on  2008-05-07   19:18:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

NC: do you believe that Menorahs in the public square are acceptable, but Crèches are oppressive?

buckeye  posted on  2008-05-07   19:35:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2008-05-08   9:38:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

We're not talking about subsidizing anything. The public square is already constructed, it has open space, and the "people" are supplying the decorations, as they have for generations. The "people" used to have a right to celebrate their closely held beliefs in the public square, but that would have offended you know who.

buckeye  posted on  2008-05-08   17:20:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

We're not talking about subsidizing anything. The public square is already constructed, it has open space, and the "people" are supplying the decorations, as they have for generations. The "people" used to have a right to celebrate their closely held beliefs in the public square, but that would have offended you know who.

If there is space and resources for all religions to have access - if they want access - then it's probably fine. If there isn't space and resources for all religions to have access, the most fair result is to say that no religion can have access. The goal is to avoid promoting one religion over another and thereby establishing a state religion.

...  posted on  2008-05-08   17:27:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The goal is to avoid promoting one religion over another and thereby establishing a state religion.

Whose goal? Yours?

buckeye  posted on  2008-05-08   17:29:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Whose goal? Yours?

It is the literal and articulated goal of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. There are hundreds of Supreme Court cases that affirm this. It is one of the basic tenants behind the First Amendment - and has been for well over 100 years.

Jefferson himself stated that the primary purpose of the amendment was to erect "a wall" between church and state. He foresaw the danger of fundie loons like those mentioned above trying to take over the government and then force their religion upon us by force of law.

Google "Treaty of Tripoli" and read how the founding fathers clearly stated that the United States is not a Christian nation. The first Congress of the United States ratified this language.

Following this, almost 100 years was dedicated to a Constitutional Amendment which would name the US as a Christian nation. This effort finally failed at about the time of the civil war.

...  posted on  2008-05-08   17:41:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#24. To: ... (#23)

Don't get me wrong. I could just care less about debating this issue with you. I can't believe it's even something that 4 invites. By the way, are you planning to endorse Obama in any way?

buckeye  posted on  2008-05-08 17:44:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Google "Treaty of Tripoli" and read how the founding fathers clearly stated that the United States is not a Christian nation.

For Christian Party dishonesty and nonsense, see

http://christianparty.net/christianation.htm

The question begs then, did the Supreme Court recognize the United States as a Christian nation? Well, in 1892 the US Supreme Court made this ruling in a case. (Church of The Holy Trinity vs. The United States.) "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is a Christian nation."

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

This purported bastardized quote contains one sentence from 143 U.S. page 465 and a sentence fragment from 143 U.S. page 471.

The sentence from page 465 is from the Court's discussion of the content of the Congressional record.

The "quote" from page 471 is really the end of a sentence. It is less impressive when the whole thing is read in context

From 143 U.S. 471:

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?

Page 143 U. S. 472

Suppose, in the Congress that passed this act, some member had offered a bill which in terms declared that if any Roman Catholic church in this country should contract with Cardinal Manning to come to this country and enter into its service as pastor and priest, or any Episcopal church should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar, or any Baptist church should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon, or any Jewish synagogue with some eminent rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, and the church making it be subject to prosecution and punishment. Can it be believed that it would have received a minute of approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was, in effect, the meaning of this statute. The construction invoked cannot be accepted as correct. It is a case where there was presented a definite evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the purpose of reaching all phases of that evil, and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts under those circumstances to say that, however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.

The judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

The Court did not rule that this was a Christian nation as that question was not before the Court. The Court noted, in dictum, that there was a "volume of unofficial declarations" and a "mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation" in deciding that it was not the intent of Congress to criminalize the act of a church which contracts for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation. Anything in dictum is the opinion of the individual justice, not the holding of the court.

http://tinyurl.com/5pyjxm

News-Leader, Springfiled, MO

April 9, 2008

No legal basis for Wampler's claim

Re: "America is great because it was built on foundation of Christian principles," March 22.

Mr. Wampler is incorrect when he states, "The Supreme Court declared the United States a Christian nation in 1892." The actual case was concerned with contracts to import aliens to perform labor. Whether or not the U.S. was a Christian nation was not even an issue. Justice Brewer did write "that unofficial declaration has shown the U.S. to be a Christian nation." This reflected Justice Brewer's personal view and not a legal one.

In a 1905 book, [nc - The United States: A Christian Nation, by David Brewer, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States] Justice Brewer said he meant "Christian in a cultural sense, not a legal one." Nevertheless, it is often used by the religious right. Mr. Wampler cites this Supreme Court case and ignores at least 50 others. Allow me to quote from just a few ...

"The First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We must not approve the slightest breach." Justice Hugo Black, 1947 ...

"We have staked our very existence on the faith that complete separation between state and religion is best for both state and religion." Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1948 ...

"Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson speaks of a wall not a fine line easily overstepped." Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1948 ...

"In the relationship between man and religion the state is firmly committed to a position of neutrality." Justice Tom Clark, 1963.

Whenever a breach is tolerated, the religious right will then use it as justification for further breaches as Mr. Wampler and other writers have done with the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge was composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892 without the phrase "under God."

For 62 years, the pledge was recited without the phrase. In 1954, at the height of the anti-communist hysteria when people saw communists lurking under every bed, Congress added the phrase. At the same time, they changed our national motto from "E pluribus unum" to "In God We Trust" and put it on our paper currency. The religious right will never be satisfied until we have a Christian version of the Taliban here.

http://tinyurl.com/5vmslt

THE UNITED STATES
A CHRISTIAN NATION

By David J. Brewer
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Philadelphia, The John C. Winston Company
1905

We classify nations various ways, as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallic, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations.

This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U. S. 471, that court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, "these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

As for The Treaty of Tripoli,

ARTICLE 11.

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 Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-05-09 06:02:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]