For decades now, secular revisionists continue to deny the United States was founded a Christian nation; rejecting the Common Law foundation of Republican Government; Common Law, found in the Bible, is no longer a mystery; brought to light to refute the disingenuous agenda of the American secularist order. Common knowledge, and research of the Founding Fathers' writings shows the Republican Government of the United States was based on the political system of England. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, guarantees the United States shall guarantee every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.
The foundation of Republican Government is Law, Common Law. The basis of the Constitution's Republican Government, and Common Law, is without a doubt, The Ten Commandments from Yahweh, the God of Israel. It is an indisputable fact the Founding Fathers believed this(emphasis added). God ordained Republican Government three-thousand five-hundred years ago, albeit not formed as a theocracy, the Founding Fathers started a Constitutional Republic, based on representatives ruling for the people. It is irrelevant the differences in government, and manner the representatives came about to rule, Biblical Law is the standard, and in both cases the people agreed to the choosen Representatives:
Deuteronomy 1 (King James Version)
14And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
15So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
Like I said, whether the representatives were selected or elected is irrelevant, this is only a diversion to reject the Biblical foundation. Secularists distort the issue by claiming Republican Government is where citizens elect representatives to actually govern, and authority is derived from the citizens or their elected representatives.This is an incorrect assertion; no where did the Christian Philosophers(Aquinas, Calvin, Locke, Blackstone, Montesquieu, etc.) believe electing representatives was the foundation of Republicanism. Law(Biblical Law) is the foundation of Republicanism; how representatives are elected is not mandatory. The only mandatory aspect of Republicanism is the acceptance of the people to form a government that has representatives, which is true of ancient Israel, and the United States.
From the Holy Bible, we see the conscience(reason) of man, and The Ten Commandments(Divine Law), is the foundation of Law in a Republican Government; this being clearly revealed to the world in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:14-15:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."
Thomas Aquinas did not need to bypass the New Testament, and employ Aristotle's theories into the church, that was an error; the sacred oracles in man(conscience) were designed in man by the true God, Jesus Christ, not the "thought thinking self" of Aristotle.
The Founding Fathers rejected every other Republican Government, except that of the English, as James Madison explains:
"Sparta, Rome, and Carthage...These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other."
James Madison, Federalist #63
http://www.llpoh.org/federalist/63.html
The moral laws of the states prove their law was Biblical Law, and no other.
England is the main example of Republican Government to the Founding Fathers; the celebrated Montesquieu, their main authority on the matter. How did the English acquire Republican Government for their nation? Montesquieu explains:
"In perusing the admirable treatise of Tacitus On the Manners of the Germans, we find it is from that nation the English have borrowed the idea of their political government."
Book XI. Of the Laws Which Establish Political Liberty, with Regard to the Constitution 6. Of the Constitution ofEngland.
However, in my opinion, Sir William Blackstone provides a better explanation:
"there never was any formal exchange of one system of laws for another: though doubtless by the intermixture of adventitious nations, the Romans, the Picts, the Saxons, the Danes, and the Normans, they must have insensibly introduced and incorporated many of their own customs with those that were before established; thereby in all probability improving the texture and wisdom of the whole, by the accumulated wisdom of divers particular countries. Our laws, saith lord Bacon, are mixed as our language: and, as our language is so much the richer, the laws are the more complete.
And indeed our antiquaries and early historians do all positively assure us, that our body of laws is of this compounded nature. For they tell us, that in the time of Alfred, the local customs of the several provinces of the kingdom were grown so various, that he found it expedient to compile his dome-book, or liber judicialis, for the general use of the whole kingdom. This book is said to have been extant so late as the reign of king Edward the fourth, but is now unfortunately lost. It contained, we may probably suppose, the principal maxims of the common law, the penalties for misdemesnors, and the forms of judicial proceedings. Thus much may at least be collected from that injunction to observe it, which we find in the laws of king Edward the elder, the son of Alfred."
That the Divine Law is The Ten Commandments is clear:
"Divine Providence, which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, in sundry times and diverse manners, to discover and enforce it's laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures" (emphasis added). Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/introa.htm
Yet this rule admits of exception, where the former determination is most evidently contrary to reason; much more if it be dearly contrary to the divine law...And hence it is that our lawyers are with justice so copious in their encomiums on the reason of the common law, that they tell us, that the law is the perfection of reason, that it always intends to conform thereto, and that what is not reason is not law. Blackstone, SECTION THE THIRD. OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-1103.htm
So the immigrants from Europe brought with them their customs and religion; being primarily Christianity with Common Law. The Common Law is no doubt the Divine Law, and the Gospel as Blackstone has said. Christianity had spread into England as early as the first century; Christianity gaining converts throughout England by the beginning of the fourth century. Christianity was known in pagan saxon territory, as well as the rest of England:
"The discovery of the Darenth Bowl (a glass communion chalice c.450 A.D.) discovered by the Dartford District Archaeological Group in a Saxon grave in the grounds of the old Darenth Park Hospital has raised all sorts of questions about the possible survival of Christian belief in and around Dartford."
http://www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/early_history/religion_s.shtml
The Common Law of the Bible was instituted by early Christians, and Christian Kings: Ethelbert, in the sixth century, and in the ninth century under Christian King Alfred the Great, the only English King called the Great. Granted, the Bible was not translated into the common language of the people, but they understood the Gospel; their Common Law is evidence of this fact. So, Christianity is the foundation of Common Law; Republican Government founded on the Law and the Gospel.
The Founding Fathers were correct in claiming Common Law is founded on Christianity; if not for the sinfulness of man, what was the reason for the separation of powers in a Republican Government? There is no other reason for the separation of powers other than sin, and wickedness of man; the Founding Fathers knowing this full well.
"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
James Madison, Federalist #51.
"Republican government loses half of its value where the moral and social duties are...negligently practiced. To exterminate our popular vices is a work of far more importance to the charachter and happiness of our citizens, than any other improvements in our system of education. [T]he moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws....All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, and ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." History, p. 339. Noah Webster
"[O]ur citizens should early understand that the geniune source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6.
Webster understood where true Liberty and Free Government lies:
[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles...and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." History, p. 300,
John Adams understood our Republican Government is based on Law, Common Law of the Bible:
"No good government but what is republican...the very definition of a republic is'an empire of laws, and not of men.'' "Thoughts on Government" January, 1776
Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu was the main influence on the Founding Fathers regarding Republican Government, his Spirit of Laws published in 1752, was studied intensely by the framers; proclaiming Christianity the foundation of Republican Law, agreeing that law and religion are twin sisters, to form the greatest government of mankind:
"The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would without doubt have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these, next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive." - United States Founding Influences, Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws", (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. II, pp. 125-126
Book XXIV.Of Laws in relation to Religion Considered in Itself,and in its Doctrines1. Of Religion in General. 3. "That a moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahometan. The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty."
"Society notwithstanding all its revolutions, must repose on principles that do not change." - United States Founding Influences, Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws", (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. I, p. 18, ad passim
Secularists try to claim Montesquieu did not use biblical examples for Republican Government; diverting the important point of Law as its foundation; the author giving examples of pagan government is not claiming they are the originators of it. To the Founding Fathers, religion and government are to work together, worthy of the peoples support, as Thomas Jefferson explains:
"No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example." Hutson (see n. 8) at p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.
Critics believe this is a spurious quote because of the early age of the Reverend, but many framers had diaries and writings when they were young; the quote also has confirmation from another witness; the quote was not disputed when it was published, and is harmonious with the views of other framers:
"[W]e can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning during the sessions in order to open the meeting with prayer." Elias Boudinot, Acting President of the United States, Chairman of the House Committee which Drafted the Bill of Rights. Member of the Continental Congress (1778-79, 1781-84). The Life, Public Service, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot, LL.D., President of the Continental Congress, J. J. Boudinot, editor (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1896), Vol. I, p. 21, to the First Provincial Congress of New Jersey.
"Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [T]he very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion." John Hancock, member of the Continental Congress (1774-78) where he was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and Acting President of the United States (1774-77); Senior Major-General of Massachusetts Militia (1778); delegate to the State constitutional convention (1779); and he was Governor of Massachusetts (1780-85, 1787-93). Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780, last page; see also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1898), p. 269.
"[A] free government. . . . can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed. . . . by religion and education. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality." Abraham Baldwin, Signer of the Constitution, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress. Charles C. Jones, Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1891), pp. 6-7.
The laws spoken of, are the Law and the Gospel found in the Bible; these laws are the liberty spoken of in the Bible, it is pure liberty, as the framers prohibited man from abrogating them. Most of the states laws on morality are straight from the bible, for instance laws against blasphemy, and profanity come from the bible, "...continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the 1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania, the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.
Judge Zephaniah Swift, author in 1796 of the first legal text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the Decalogue prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing: Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to punish offences against religion.
Notice how Christian Judge Swift used philosophical language in his assessment.
In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law: The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:
The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to “revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . ” He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101
This point also indicates James Wilson helped form the laws prohibiting, and penalizing homosexuality. Here Wilson differentiates rape with consensual homosexuality:
A rape is an irreparable and a most atrocious aggression on the right of personal safety. Besides the thousand excruciating, but nameless circumstances by which it is aggravated, some may be mentioned with propriety. It is a crime committed not only against the citizen, but against the woman; not only against the common rights of society, but against the peculiar rights of the sex: it is committed by one from whom, on every virtuous and manly principle, her sex is entitled to inviolable protection, and her honour to the most sacred regard. This crime is one of the selected few, which, by the laws of the Saxons, were punished with death. The same punishment it still undergoes in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On this subject, for an obvious reason, particular observations will not be expected from a lecture in the hall: they are fit for the book and the closet only: for even the book and the closest they are fit, only because they are necessary.
The crime not to be named, I pass in a total silence.
"OF CRIMES AGAINST THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO PERSONAL SAFETY." http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson3.htm
It seems Wilson helped write the Pennsylvania laws on morality.
Regarding the separation of powers doctrine, it was spoken about in the Bible over twenty-five hundred years ago:
Isaiah 33:22 (King James Version)For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
A Constitutional Republic has the same foundation as a Theocracy; Law. A Theocracy and Republic differ in that God's law is supreme in a Theocracy; the people, not God, are sovereign in a Republic; our framers understanding consent of the governed is consistent with the Law of Nature's free will in man. If a people can keep a Republic, the Divine Law is superior in all cases enumerated. Sir William Blackstone explains:
To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, pp. 42-43.
Because the Constitution is exempt in matters of religion, religion is left to the states; the framers then, formed Christian states. So, the Britons, including saxons, were converted to Christianity by the Apostles(Simon the Zealot in the first century), and missionaries, these Britons employed Common Law(Ten Commandments) of the Bible into their government, hence, the Founding Fathers of the United States used the same Republicanism, but varied. Despite the secularist claim, the United States was founded a nation of Christian states.
38 comments:
Good info, OFT. Thanks for the post.
The quotes you presented are fantastic. And it looks as if you are getting your blog template together; congratulations!
Hey Herc,
I'm still trying on the blog, but I'm getting there. The Christian Nation thesis is easy to prove; the foundation of our Constitution is Republican Govt. in Article IV, section 4.
The secularists still haven't presented a valid rebuttal to Republicanism founded on Common Law, this is the angle the church needs to promote to win the argument; although, I don't think the church knows that much about this area. Federer is good, I don't think Barton has written much on it.
Secularists try to say the Constitution is sovereign, but they know that's a lie, even the infidel Jefferson said, "religion is left to the states."
The interesting thing I learned doing that research is the Christianity of Alfred the Great and Ethelbert of England; they were Christians who understood the Divine Law; they being the first rulers to bring in Common Law, once Christianity was spread into England.
Interestingly, Foxes book of martyrs says Simon the Zealot preached in England.
In the Lord
Hello OFT.
I am not sure what angle Jefferson was coming from (he was not a very strong Constitutionalist, I am finding out through his private letters) when he said "religion was left up to the states." If he meant that whether states will have an established denomination or not, I think he was right. But the Constitution (I.e. NOT the federal government) is supreme over the states and the federal government. Neither the states nor the federal government has supreme power -- they are all equally accountable to submit to the Constitution.
Because the Constitution dealt mostly with the federal government, and its relationship to the various state governments, religious denominations were not as much an issue as they were in the early state constitutions. The reason for this lack of talk about Christian denominations was that the Framers didn't want the federal govt to interfere with the denominations of the states. The Framers were avid students of history, and knew that it is the tendency of national govt's to lord a single denomination or way of worship over the nation. The Founders saw that this did Christianity and govt more harm than good, and therefore tried to prevent this to the best of their ability.
Jefferson seemed to take this to the extreme, and so secularists use him as the precedent-setter for the so-called "separation between church and state." Jefferson during his presidency seemed to equate religious denominations with religious expression, and so he abandoned the traditions, established by his predecessors Washington and Adams, of proclaiming days of prayer, thanksgiving, fasting, etc.
Perhaps a bit if a departure from the subject, but they are interesting facts.
But the Constitution (I.e. NOT the federal government) is supreme over the states and the federal government. Neither the states nor the federal government has supreme power -- they are all equally accountable to submit to the Constitution.>>
I agree, but the Constitution doesn't speak on religion because it doesn't have authority in that realm, besides referring to it from a violation of rights, etc.
Herc, I don't have it in front of me, but read Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798; he makes it perfectly clear; the Federal Govt. is to have nothing at all to do with religion, it is left to the states, so if a state wanted to make hinduism the state religion, they had total authority, but they chose Christianity because they were Christians.
They could have established a particular denomination but they didn't want that either, because it didn't seem right to them, which I agree with.
The First Amendment is clear, the Federal Govt. is to stay out of religion; but not now, right.
The Constitution is authoritative on rights enumerated, or on rights it specifically speaks on, religion being one; all others are left to the states.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by
the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people";(10th Amendment) and that NO POWER over the freedom of
religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the
press...all lawful powers respecting the same did of
right remain, and were reserved to the States or the
people.
Thomas Jefferson
The freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press:
insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down
the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that
libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with
heresy
and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance
of federal tribunals.
Thomas Jefferson
Madison believed the same thing:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
James Madison Federalist
The reason for this lack of talk about Christian denominations was that the Framers didn't want the federal govt to interfere with the denominations of the states.>
They couldn't interfere.
In the Lord.
"Herc, I don't have it in front of me, but read Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798; he makes it perfectly clear; the Federal Govt. is to have nothing at all to do with religion, it is left to the states, ... ."
To this I will only answer that Jefferson is a very poor authority on the Constitution, in general, although he said some worthwhile things. Jefferson, if one reads his letters, had a greater inclination towards a democracy than a government of law, even though he shaped his rhetoric so as to favor constitutionalism. During the time that the Constitution was being drafted, Jefferson was away in France among the French elite, and Jefferson imbibed the humanist philosophy of the French Enlightenment which eventually brought about the French Revolution, which he supported.
Washington, on the other hand, presided over the Convention which framed the Constitution, and had no problem at all with issuing "religious" proclamations and acts during his time as US President. Jefferson, when US Pres, declined from doing so, because he erroneously coupled regulating denominations with religious expression, and thought that he was only authorized to do those things as a state or local official (and he did do them when he was), and not as a federal office-holder.
Although I firmly believe that you are right (and so was Jefferson) that the issue of an established denomination was up to the state govts, and that the federal govt was to have NO PART in that, however, you cannot separate the Christian religion from the federal government. The Christian religion is supposed to be the foundation of the philosophy and conduct of those who hold office in the federal govt, because it is the ONLY philosophy compatible with American Constitutional ideals.
" ... so if a state wanted to make hinduism the state religion, they had total authority, but they chose Christianity because they were Christians."
Here, it is important to qualify what the Founders meant by "religion." USUALLY, when the Founders wrote and spoke, "religion" meant "Christianity." Simply consult their letters.
But let's say "religion" included other "religions" too (and in some cases, the Founders used "religion" in a general sense). I guess if a state(s) wanted to, it could establish Hinduism or any other religion besides Christianity. If they did this, however, that state(s) would probably not have been accepted into the Union established by the Constitution, because the Christian philosophy of govt and the philosophy of Hinduism CANNOT CO-EXIST OR COMPROMISE in government or politics. The only way that America could be a nation is if we had a generally established religion; we can't have a Muslim New York, a Hindu Pennsylvania, a Mormon Utah, a Christian Massachusetts, a Buddhist California, etc, etc. because those systems all stand in opposition to the Christian basis of our Constitution. The only religion that states could have, if they were to be truly united under the Constitution, was a general form of Christianity. I think it is possible for people of different religions to peacefully co-exist; but the states have no right to be under the rule of the US Constitution if they establish a "foreign" religion.
In short, the federal govt had the responsibility to encourage Christianity, and DEFINITELY to recognize the God of the Bible which formed the basis of law in this land. Therefore, Jefferson was wrong to say that a Pres could not issue public prayer proclamations, etc., just because he was a federal officer. The federal govt was given no place in choosing the established religion of the states or of the nation at large. America is (er, was) a Christian nation because the states had some established or tolerated form of Christianity.
however, you cannot separate the Christian religion from the federal government. The Christian religion is supposed to be the foundation of the philosophy and conduct of those who hold office in the federal govt, because it is the ONLY philosophy compatible with American Constitutional ideals.>
I understand your point, I was just referring to a connection of denomination of any religion with the Federal Govt. Sorry if I confused myself, haha.
we can't have a Muslim New York, a Hindu Pennsylvania, a Mormon Utah, a Christian Massachusetts, a Buddhist California, etc, etc. because those systems all stand in opposition to the Christian basis of our Constitution. The only religion that states could have, if they were to be truly united under the Constitution, was a general form of Christianity. I think it is possible for people of different religions to peacefully co-exist; but the states have no right to be under the rule of the US Constitution if they establish a "foreign" religion.>
I see your point, but in the state, and Fed ratifying conventions, they made that perfectly clear. It sounds bizarre, but that is what they granted, the Law of Nature(Jesus Christ) grants freedom of conscience to everyone(state) as long as their beliefs do not subvert public order, they can establish what they want. Most of the framers were not theologians, and weren't experts on islam, not knowing the evil it is. I garrantee, once they really understood islam, they would ban it altogether, as it is an enemy of the survival of planet earth, not only our nation.
Barton clears this up:
The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims.17 Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:
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 [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have 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.18
This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.
Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.
Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.
This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," and by John Adams as "rational." A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:
The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.
Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown - general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!
And as Constitution signer Richard Dobbs Spaight similarly explained:
As to the subject of religion. . . . no power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. . . . No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper.
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington, D. C.: Jonathan Elliot, 1836), Vol. IV, p. 208, Richard Dobbs Spaight, July 30, 1788.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125
In short, the federal govt had the responsibility to encourage Christianity, and DEFINITELY to recognize the God of the Bible which formed the basis of law in this land.>
I agree.
Hi OFT. "First time caller."
Thank you for linking to the Friends of Liberty blogroll. Unfortunately, I am unable to host the blogroll. Hercules Mulligan has offered to host the blogroll at his blog. I wanted to email you but found no email link. I apologize for posting this in a blog article.
The new link for the blogroll is Friends of Liberty. I apologize for the inconvenience. Could you please adjust your link?
God bless you. GREAT blog!
" ... the Law of Nature(Jesus Christ) grants freedom of conscience to everyone(state) as long as their beliefs do not subvert public order, they can establish what they want. Most of the framers were not theologians, and weren't experts on islam, not knowing the evil it is. I garrantee, once they really understood islam, they would ban it altogether, as it is an enemy of the survival of planet earth, not only our nation."
It is true that God does not force people to have a certain religion (speaking "religion" in the general sense). And it is also true that the Founders did not force the people of the United States to have a generally unanimous religion. However, I am not aware (unless you can show me) of any place where the Founding Fathers said it was OK for the state governments to ESTABLISH religions other than Christianity. Our US Constitution is based upon Christianity; therefore, our whole source of unity as a nation is found in Christianity. It would be not only absurd, but totally suicidal for state governments in the American Union to ESTABLISH (they can tolerate, just not ESTABLISH) any other religion than Christianity.
The Founding Fathers did not have to be theologians to know what Islam really teaches (Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Koran), or that it was dangerous to our form of government. All they had to know (and they did) was that a nation founded on Christianity needed to respect the Christian religion above all others. People from other religions will not be forced to convert, and shouldn't be; but those foreign religions should not be adopted by any state legislatures if they want to remain in the Union and under the protection of the Constitution.
However, I am not aware (unless you can show me) of any place where the Founding Fathers said it was OK for the state governments to ESTABLISH religions other than Christianity.>>
It's everywhere in their writings, even in government proclamations, religion is left to the people(states), which means the legislature can mandate whatever religion they want, the framers choosing Christianity as the religion of course.
Most of the State Constitutions mandate to be a member of govt. you have to believe in Christianity, the Bible, etc.
Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:
Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”
That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;
wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421] etc.
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808
I know it sounds crazy, but that's how they believed; to us, a state choosing another religion is crazy to us, but not to them because they were all Christians.
Remember, Adams said the states could choose whatever denomination they wanted, but they chose neither, only general Christianity.
Thanks for your response, OFT.
Here, it is important to clarify what the Founding Fathers meant by "religion," as I have pointed out before.
"Religion" could have meant only "Christianity in general; all denominations would be their own 'religions.'" If the Founders' use of the term "religion" meant "Christianity plus all other religions," then they would have denied what they themselves had been saying and stressing for all the years that they founded this country: that no republic, and certainly not our Constitution-governed republic, could subsist without Christianity. The states cannot be a part of the American Union created under our Christianity-based Constitution if they ESTABLISH any religion other than general Christianity. If they established any other religion, those state legislatures would have been denying the basic philosophy that created the Constitution, and still demanded its protection. That is unthinkable.
The Founding Fathers allowed the states to establish any denomination of Christianity they wanted to; the states could even choose not to have an established denomination, which is what most of them eventually did. However, the Founding Fathers, so far as I am aware, never said that the states are permitted to establish Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, secular humanism, etc.
What this all comes down to is basic beliefs. Basic beliefs are grounded in basic religious philosophy, and the basic religious philosophy of foreign religions are VIOLENTLY OPPOSED to Christianity. Since Christianity is the basic belief system that created our Constitution, and basic belief systems and standards are what make a nation a nation, than the states CAN NOT ESTABLISH ANY OTHER RELIGION THAN CHRISTIANITY, if they establish any religion at all.
If Christians in this land would simply understand that concept, that truth, than all our problems with unbelievers invading public office and defiling our Constitution would go away.
The late Dr. Francis Schaeffer wrote a fantastic book (not all that long, either) called A Christian Manifesto. He gets right to the root of the foundations of American philosophy, and makes sense of what I have just stated above about Christianity vs. other philosophies. IMHO, this book is a must-read for every American Christian.
The states cannot be a part of the American Union created under our Christianity-based Constitution if they ESTABLISH any religion other than general Christianity.>>
The Constitution is religion neutral, it's only mention is regarding a particular sect of Christianity established as the national church, and the free exercise clause, which is freedom to worship whatever. Religion is left solely to the states. The Constitution is neutral, so the Federal Govt. is not based on Christianity, it is left to the state govts to establish what they wish.
"Religion" could have meant only "Christianity in general; all denominations would be their own 'religions.'" If the Founders' use of the term "religion" meant "Christianity plus all other religions," then they would have denied what they themselves had been saying and stressing for all the years that they founded this country:>
It all depends on the context; for the establishment clause, it is definitely talking about a sect of Christianity, Jefferson makes that clear:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, ever one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly (p. 45).
to Dr. Benjamin Rush on Sept. 23, 1800
If Jefferson meant ALL religions, he definitely would have said it, knowing him.
However, the Founding Fathers, so far as I am aware, never said that the states are permitted to establish Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, secular humanism, etc.>>
Mr. Spaight in the state convention clears this up; the people can choose whatever religion they want, the feds cannot tell the people which God to worship, they aren't to have that power:
And as Constitution signer Richard Dobbs Spaight similarly explained:
As to the subject of religion. . . . no power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. . . . No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper.
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington, D. C.: Jonathan Elliot, 1836), Vol. IV, p. 208, Richard Dobbs Spaight, July 30, 1788.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125
Since Christianity is the basic belief system that created our Constitution, and basic belief systems and standards are what make a nation a nation, than the states CAN NOT ESTABLISH ANY OTHER RELIGION THAN CHRISTIANITY, if they establish any religion at all.>>
Freedom of Conscience is for any religion, not just Christianity. The Constitution cannot make anyone establish a particular religion because they are exempt from interfering with it.
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808
By the way, Webster's dictionary says religion is worshipping any creator, not just Jesus Christ, but the context is important when that word is used.
That quote in the Treaty of Tripoli is correct; the United States is not a Christian nation, meaning the FEDERAL Govt, it's neutral, Christianity is left to the states.
Hello OFT.
I don't think it would be polite for me to add another long comment to your blog, so I will post my reply on my blog "Herculean Reflections."
When I have spare time, I will write a reply post.
I forgot to ask you an important question, OFT. It seems pretty clear to me that you agree that the Constitution was established upon Christianity, and the Christian worldview.
Do you believe that Christianity is the ONLY philosophy that could have made the Constitution possible?
This is a very important question in light of our discussion.
Do you believe that Christianity is the ONLY philosophy that could have made the Constitution possible?>>
Most definitely, the framers made that clear, freedom of conscience is granted only within Christianity.
In the Lord
Hello OFT.
I wrote a bit of a detailed response of what we have been discussing, as well as a summary of what I have been trying to say.
I did not pose this question in my post, but I did have one question. In one of your response comments, you said: "Freedom of Conscience is for any religion, not just Christianity. The Constitution cannot make anyone establish a particular religion because they are exempt from interfering with it." And then in your last response you said, "Most definitely, the framers made that clear, freedom of conscience is granted only within Christianity."
I am not sure where you are coming from here, but perhaps you just made a typo (I do that too much :S).
As to the Treaty of Tripoli, which I forgot to address on my post, some scholars argue that the Article 11, which contains the phrase you mentioned, probably did not exist in the text until about 1930 (this year marked the increase of secularist revisionism in this country).
Sorry to flood this with comments, but I forgot to add the two links to which I referred. One was the post on which I posted my reply, and the other was the link to the article about the Treaty of Tripoli.
I did not pose this question in my post, but I did have one question. In one of your response comments, you said: "Freedom of Conscience is for any religion, not just Christianity. The Constitution cannot make anyone establish a particular religion because they are exempt from interfering with it." And then in your last response you said, "Most definitely, the framers made that clear, freedom of conscience is granted only within Christianity.">>
Sorry about that, what I meant is regarding the First Amendment. The establishment clause only refers to Christianity; the context of a national church only being within Christianity to the framers, but the free exercise clause is regarding a person; they can believe whatever they want.
I agree with that link on the Tripoli Treaty, if article 11 isn't a part of it, fine, if it is, it is only referring to the Federal Govt.
Herc,
The Constitution is to be religion neutral, it is as Barton says, the bylaws of the company, how it's to be carried out, the DOI is the legal basis of the foundation of the nation, with Yahweh mentioned as the Creator and giver of our unalienable rights.
In The Lord
It is true that the Constitution is denomination-neutral, but it is impossible for any political body to be truly religion-neutral. The Founding Fathers were denominationally neutral in their activities as federal officials, however, they were not religion-neutral. Declarations and proclamations, as well as acts for support of Christian missionaries, etc., that were issued by our Founding Presidents, are enough to convince anyone of this truth. If the federal government is not founded upon Christianity, than the Constitution, which is the "nuts and bolts" of the federal government, is not a Christian document either. And if the federal government is not founded upon Christianity (although I don't find it in the Founders' writings that the fed ought to be as involved in supporting churches, etc., as the states), than the federal government is nothing at all. Every political body works upon a principle, which is founded upon a basic belief system, which is founded upon religion. The federal government works upon the constitutional republican concept which is grounded upon the basic belief system that "Law is King," which basic belief system is grounded in the Bible.
The Founding Fathers were denominationally neutral in their activities as federal officials, however, they were not religion-neutral. Declarations and proclamations, as well as acts for support of Christian missionaries, etc., that were issued by our Founding Presidents, are enough to convince anyone of this truth.>
I agree, but remember I'm only talking about religion as an establishment, the people are in charge of religion, the people are in charge of everything, that's what consent of the governed is all about.
Our Christian foundation is not being eroded away by liberals, not at all; I blame the church! They(mostly my parents and grandparents generation) are the ones mainly responsible for allowing this. If the forty million or so supposed Christians got motivated, things would change. I blame the Church.
And if the federal government is not founded upon Christianity (although I don't find it in the Founders' writings that the fed ought to be as involved in supporting churches, etc., as the states), than the federal government is nothing at all.>
Correct, it is as Madison said:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
James Madison The Federalist.
You're right, religion is supreme, but only to the people(states). Therefore, the people have the freedom to do what they want.
Herc,
this is the correct interpretation, I will try to dig up some more info from the framers on it.
In the Lord
Herc, I found the quotes I was looking for, Barton has them in his book "Original Intent" and this proves my view is correct.
Notice Governor Johnston at the same convention speaks of the First Amendment only referring to Christianity, since the national church could only be a form of Christianity, but the free exercise clause(religion of the states) is open to whatever the people choose. He differentiates it on the same day.
"I know but two or three States where there is the least chance of establishing any particular religion. The people of Massachusetts and Connecticut are mostly Presbyterians. In every other State, the people are divided into a great number of sects. In Rhode Island, the tenets of the Baptists, I believe prevail...I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established.
Governor Samuel Johnston, North Carolina Ratifying Convention, July 30, 1788
“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]
"As to the subject of religion, I thought what had been said would fully satisfy that gentleman and every other. No power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. Any act of Congress on this subject would be a usurpation.
No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity, are equally eligible to offices. Temporal violence might make mankind wicked, but never religious. A test would enable the prevailing sect to persecute the rest. I do not suppose an infidel, or any such person, will ever be chosen to any office, unless the people themselves be of the same opinion. He says that Congress may establish ecclesiastical courts. I do not know what part of the Constitution warrants that assertion. It is impossible. No such power is given them." --
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Signer of the Constitution, Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, 30 July 1788
"Many wish to know what religion shall be established. I believe a majority of the community are Presbyterians. I am, for my part, against any exclusive establishment; but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal. Henry Abbot, Signer of the Constitution "Elliot's Debates, Vol. IV, pp. 191-192, July 30, 1788.
In the Lord.
Thanks, OFT, for responding. I agree with you that the federal government cannot establish religion, and that the religion of those who hold office is ultimately up to the people of this country. This fact probably explains why Hamilton was so panicky about Jefferson, whom he presumed was an atheist, would become President, because Jefferson's popularity among the people was increasing (unfortunately).
I also have to sadly concur with you in saying that the Church in America, and not the liberals primarily, are to be blamed for the disaster that our nation has incurred. Although it is true that every civilization, even great ones, do come to an end, ours should not have declined as quickly as it has. The Church had the responsibility, and gave it up, and the humanists took over. Ever since then, Christians have adapted to the decrepit culture (music, style of dress, movies, speech, mannerisms, reaction to sin, etc., etc.) that the humanists have given us.
I am currently involved in a somewhat in-depth research project that is tracing the roots of the decline of the free Christian nations, and more particularly America, and my reserach has led me to the Illuminati's principles, which were manifested and enforced during the French Revolution! I am astonished at how many American and English "theologians" like Joseph Priestly, William Godwin, Elihu Palmer, and Richard Price either converted to deism, or tried to compromise Christianity and rationalism (the end result of which is theistic rationalism which our acquaintance Jonathan Rowe always says the Founders believed).
Interestingly, it was the large effort of the Federalist Party, with Hamilton and biblical Christian ministers sounding the alarm, that led to the conflict between the Christian and humanist worldviews in the political realm.
And even more interesting is the fact that Thomas Jefferson, and to a considerable degree the Democratic-Republicans, which heralded humanism, Unitarianism, etc., etc., (Jefferson even praised Weishaupt in one letter). And WHO does the public schools and the media always tell us was the good-guy???
Anyway, there I go drifting from the subject again. Maybe I will post the results of my research in posts (when I am post-publishing again!).
God bless you.
I forgot to add, OFT, that I wrote a new post on my Herculean Reflections blog just now, with an interesting little tidbit from The Federalist Papers. If you are interested, you may come and view the post here.
Herc,
I agree with you on the illuminati agenda in this nation, it is more or less the neo cons now, bush hacks, council of foreign relations elites who are bringing about the New World Order of anti-christ Daniel and Revelation speak about. One of the biggest globalist anti-christ is George Bush, I'm ashamed to even capitalize his name. I live in the heart of globalism, so cal, most of the restaurants are full of people who don't speak english, slave labor for the corporations, if only Hamilton, Jay, and Hancock were here to see this tragedy; jobs leaving our nation, corporations paying slave labor wages to illegals, it makes me sick! Those neocons are wolves in sheep's clothing, actual global leftists, hypocrites who hide behind Christianity, and conservatism, they do not fool me and my friends.
I firmly believe James Madison will not be in the Kingdom, he should have known better, but several founders were mislead by Jefferson and his poison, him being one of them.
The list of pseudo Christians is great, unitarian, universalists, who called themselves Christians who denied the essentials of our faith; I agree with you about Priestley, he was a deviant, who lead many astray, when the evidence of the trinity and Deity of our Great High Priest is so evident.
The Great Joseph Story was a unitarian, as well as John Marshall until the end of his life, where he finally accepted Jesus' Deity, God's Grace was definitely upon Marshall, God saved him at the very end, he went to the perverted William and Mary, but will be in the Kingdom.
Sorry about the rant.
I emailed H. Moore on the Constitutional Society, hopefully I can get be a part.
God's Grace Be Upon You.
Your humble Servant In The Lord.
Our Founding Truth
Urteter nuytre: http://intimprensus.prv.pl
You ought to essentially take into consideration engaged on developing this weblog into a significant authority in this market. You evidently have a grasp deal with of the subjects everyone seems to be searching for on this website anyways and you could actually even earn a buck or two off of some advertisements. I would discover following latest matters and raising the amount of write ups you place up and I guarantee you’d begin seeing some wonderful targeted traffic within the close to future. Only a thought, good luck in no matter you do! что означает фамилия яхин| pink burberry handbags| joshua taylor handbag uk| to America, a "beef slinger" for a packing company, a cooks' assistant
http://s1.shard.jp/campper/brat-camp-series-one.html brat camp series one
Great article! That is the type of info that should be shared across the web.
Disgrace on the search engines for now not positioning
this publish upper! Come on over and visit my web
site . Thanks =)
Stop by my web-site registry cleaners
Hi friends, its great post regarding educationand completely explained, keep it up all the time.
Here is my web-site newbie
Thanks for sharing your info. I really appreciate your efforts and I am waiting for your further write ups thanks
once again.
Feel free to visit my site - paltz
Admiring the time and effort you put into your
blog and in depth information you provide. It's nice to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the same
unwanted rehashed information. Wonderful read!
I've bookmarked your site and I'm including your RSS feeds to my Google account.
Feel free to surf to my homepage stadiums
Good day! I just would like to give you a huge thumbs
up for your excellent information you have here on this post.
I'll be coming back to your website for more soon.
Here is my web page tante
Have you ever thought about writing an ebook or
guest authoring on other websites? I have a blog based
upon on the same subjects you discuss and would
really like to have you share some stories/information.
I know my subscribers would enjoy your work. If you're even remotely interested, feel free to send me an email.
Also visit my blog post - eyeshadow
you are actually a just right webmaster. The website loading pace is amazing.
It kind of feels that you are doing any unique trick.
Also, The contents are masterpiece. you have performed a great process in this topic!
Also visit my site :: tarahumaras
stone island sale
yeezy
off white
retro jordans
curry 6 shoes
curry
yeezy supply
kobe sneakers
kevin durant
kyrie 7 shoes
Notice how Christian Judge Swift used philosophical language in his assessment.
khaadi stitched suits
khaadi eid collection 2021 stitched
cliquez sur le site Fendi Dolabuy son explication réplique gucci vous pouvez essayer ici répliques de designer de haute qualité
hermes bags
yeezy
curry 9
kyrie 6 shoes
goyard store
golden goose sneakers
bape outlet
goyard tote bag
goyard bag
off white clothingoutlet
Post a Comment