Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
AMERICA welcomes ALLFAITHS and ALL RACES, but we ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION.
No we are not. Here are the words of a treaty (The Treaty of Tripoli) negotiated under George Washington and signed by John Adams. It seems particularly relevant even today.
Quote:
Art. 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 Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.
I for one will take their opinion over some 21st century "pastor."
He has told you that he's a Christian. If you don't think he's Christian enough, well... that would just be very Christian of you.
Lots of people tell me they are Christian, but you can't ride, the fence their isn't room for 2 gods.
Christians do have their faults, but Islam call to prayer is not the most beautiful sound on earth to a Christian, it would probably be "Amazing Grace" for one, ringing of a CHURCH BELL for another. As a Christian I only refer to the Bible as being HOLY.
Lots of people tell me they are Christian, but you can't ride, the fence their isn't room for 2 gods.
Christians do have their faults, but Islam call to prayer is not the most beautiful sound on earth to a Christian, it would probably be "Amazing Grace" for one, ringing of a CHURCH BELL for another. As a Christian I only refer to the Bible as being HOLY.
.....Enjoy the the words of your President Sorry but, I don't know of any Christians who refer to the Koran as HOLY!!!
Lots of people tell me they are Christian, but you can't ride, the fence their isn't room for 2 gods.
Christians do have their faults, but Islam call to prayer is not the most beautiful sound on earth to a Christian, it would probably be "Amazing Grace" for one, ringing of a CHURCH BELL for another. As a Christian I only refer to the Bible as being HOLY.
Oh, for God's sake (pun intended)! The holy works of any religion should be respected by all. Obama was a little boy when he lived in Indonesia. I have some memories from my childhood, too.
Sorry but, I don't know of any Christians who refer to the Koran as HOLY!!!
Then you must not know many Christians. Because having lived in a Muslim country myself among Christians, I knew many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds
Lots of people tell me they are Christian, but you can't ride, the fence their isn't room for 2 gods.
Ignoring that Yahweh and Allah are the same god, the only thing Christians seem to hate more than Muslims and Atheists are other Christians who don't seem to adhere to the same particular flavor they do. I'm sure there are no shortage of your fellow coreligionists who would be as anxious to throw you under the bus as you are them.
From the outside looking in though? Sorry. You're all pretty much the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds
Christians do have their faults, but Islam call to prayer is not the most beautiful sound on earth to a Christian, it would probably be "Amazing Grace" for one, ringing of a CHURCH BELL. As a Christian I only refer to the Bible as being HOLY.
You are misquoting him again. But hey, that just must be how you roll.
You are welcome to your own version of Christianity, no matter how orthodox or anomalous as it might be.
It's this kind of attitude that makes me wish that so-called Christians would get the hell out of the United States and truly start their own "Christian nation" and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
AMERICA welcomes ALLFAITHS and ALL RACES, but we ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION.
The Treaty of Tripoli just called and told me that you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about. ETA: Oh bugger, HistorianDude cited that already.
Also, should we expect a cite for
Quote:
He has more than once claim (sic) his Muslim Faith has guided him.
or do we conclude that you're telling big fat whoppers for Jesus?
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 08-30-2010 at 06:33 PM..
Reason: HistorianDude and his wicked fast typing.
VATTEL's Law of NAtions was translated into ENGLISH 10 years after the CONSTITUION WAS WRITTEN! and the term "natural born citizen": didn't EVEN appear in that version!
I'm not sure where you're getting your info, but Benjamin Franklin explicitly thanked Dumas for the 3 copies of Vattel's Law of Nations he sent Franklin. Franklin also specifically states: "It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed, has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress"
Furthermore, Vattel is cited in A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Library of Congress:Farrand's Records
Quote:
Article 2 and 14th amendment of our Constitution CLEARLY establishes who is a citizen and how to become won
You are either BORN a citizen or you ARE NATURALIZEd.
Correct. A citizen. Not the same as natural born citizen.
Quote:
Wong Kim Ark was the son of Chinese Immigrants, during a time when there was the Chinese Exclusion act in place (this DISALLOWED ALL immigrant chinese to be naturalized! THEY COULDN'T BECOME CITIZENS!) was born in San Francisco, CA. Because his parents couldn't become citizens, the US Supreme Court ruled that by virtue of being born on US Soil, he was was citizen of the United States
He was ruled a citizen of the United States, not a natural born citizen of the United States.
Quote:
You forget that Chester A Arthur had only 1 parent who was a citizen (his father wasn't till after he was born). And despite claims from his bitter opponent, the election board did not see and issue with his citizenship.
The reality is that it wasn't known then that Arthur's father wasn't a U.S. citizen at the time of Chester Arthur's birth, which would be the actual reason Arthur was ineligible - he wasn't a natural born citizen because of his non-citizen father. Just recently, the evidence of Arthur's father's belated naturalization has been publicized. William Arthur, father of President Chester Arthur: Naturalization certificate (1843, Congress)
Quote:
Your claim of Vattel's definition has no place in our history
Sure it does. I've already shown that Vattel was cited in the Library Of Congress's U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875.
Quote:
and our LEGAL history supports born in america = Natural born citizen
No, it does not. It supports born in America = citizen. That is all.
Quote:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice,179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.
No. The petitioners claimed their children were natural born citizens. There was no court opinion supporting such.
Quote:
DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992) (equating “natural born citizen” with “native born citizen” for purposes of presidential eligibility):
DeTomaso is “eligible” to be President of the United States if he is “a natural born Citizen … [who has] attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Art. II § 1 cl. 5. A 35-year-old native does not have a property interest in the presidency.
No. The actual wording is "DeTomaso is "eligible" to be President of the United States if he is "a natural born citizen." If. That determination was not made.
Quote:
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Those were the "facts" placed before the INS, BIA, and the court by the petitioners. The court's actual statement: "Petitioner's two children, who are citizens of the United States certainly had legal rights to due process of law." Citizens, not natural born citizens.
Quote:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Again, the plaintiff's wording, not the court's ruling.
We could go on... but the results would be the same. Citizen does not equal natural born citizen. The citations of Vattel in the late 18th century Congressional Records clearly indicate Vattel's influence and why Vattel's phrase 'natural born citizen' was specifically included in the Constitution.
Just to be perfectly clear on Vattel's meaning, from Law of Nations:
Quote:
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
