Liberty, Freedom, Reflection: Happy Birthday to the United States of America!!

Think about how much this country means to YOU...

"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God entitle them..."
     This is a wonderful country; do not misinterpret such a comment as a declaration of perfection or superiority. As a nation, as a people we have largely taken our history and our freedoms for granted. I would encourage you to actually read our founding documents and at the same time consider how they affect you and your future.
     Below I have provided links that explain our Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

     The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, right to assembly, protects the citizen from the government, freedom of religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Cm5ocVXkU

     The Second Amendment protects the Right to Bear Arms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88RLTqUQ1Tk

     The Third Amendment protects from being forced to quarter soldiers without consent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLWg4sM9NxQ

     The Fourth Amendment protects against illegal search and seizure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTHmjvteAlY

     The Fifth Amendment protects due process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rc2A6NmWag

     The Sixth Amendment protects the right to an attorney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJJD19ldwZw

     The Seventh Amendment protects the right to trial by jury.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DTNtLXL-xs

     The Eighth Amendment protects against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EghKqUdBsyc

     The Ninth Amendment notes that rights not mentioned in the Constitution are still retained by the people. Just because a right is not in the Constitution that does not mean you DON'T have that particular right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57L4ZNKOBZs

     The Tenth Amendment notes that laws not specifically allocated to the Federal Government are to remain in the states' hands.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JmKAgC6rYo


https://sites.google.com/site/esterlighthorse/
https://sites.google.com/site/esterlighthorse/theopoly
https://sites.google.com/site/esterlighthorse/customization
http://toleratingaggressivereligioushumor.blogspot.com/
http://realbookofrevelation.blogspot.com/
http://cantstandreligion.blogspot.com/
http://www.zazzle.com/biblical_myth_periodic_table_of_elements_posters-228084324809883766

Here is their Proof

Evidence Presented by those Claiming America Founded on Christianity:

And Rebuttals And Alternative Viewpoints

Alright! Let us look at and review this so-called proof that people say makes us a Christian Nation.

This man starts off with a sizable mistake when he references the colonies becoming a nation in 1781. This is incorrect. The colonies were not a nation until March 4, 1789.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h8hAbrPyaY

This guy says he can prove the US is a Christian and then he proceeds to ramble on about killing someone's dog...and...well, I don't really get what the hell he is trying to say. He makes no goddamn sense whatsoever. He said he would give proof. WHERE is this proof? No scenarios...give real actual proof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-sh5QcxyQ

Christians have a very bad habit of taking the Founding Fathers wayyy out of context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHSVqZLCk1Y

All these people say they can prove the US is a Christian nation but never come around with that proof. All they do is play a stupid game of semantics. Never at ANY point is even ONE of their assertions backed up by actual proof. Oh, and the first amendment only applies to Christians. I have said it before and I will say it again: these people are fucked in the head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtJY7de476I

For all those who still believe this is a Christian nation read up on your US History, you jackasses.

http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hrifirstamendment.htm

When I first began reading this article and then watched the accompanying video I thought that perhaps the Christians had in fact finally stumbled on some kind of legitimate proof the US is a Christian nation. Nope, false alarm. These guys need to come up with better lies. Oh...and they STILL have not proved a goddamn thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/no-mr-beck-congress-did-n_b_598698.html

Oh my Jesus! David Barton is an idiot and apparently has no qualms whatsoever about misinterpreting documents and situations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKUqoboiSWQ

This Barton guy never once shows or provides actual proof for anything. Nothing at all. What he has is a collage of documents from which he takes ambiguos statements and tries to form them to his opinion. He still has proved nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU_CwuEeJyM

Again, here we go with people claiming they have proof this is a Christian nation but they never prove anything. Never once does any kind of information from any document directly state in unequivocal terms that this is a Christian nation. Good Christians make good citizens? Has he checked the prison population in the US? There are PLENTY of professed Christians there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PjdFQ2qEvY

Still waiting for that proof. Show me something, anything that states we are a Christian nation. Do not go off on tangents. Do not try to use a fist full of ambiguous statements as proof. Give actual proof. And stop taking our nation's founding documents out of context because you aren't helping yourself prove anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbI52l51IGE

And STILL waiting for that proof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV_fHE_VuCU

Still waiting for that proof. Don't take a whole bunch of situations and then try to use that as proof. No. I go to the founding documents to prove this is NOT a Christian nation, so if you think this IS a Christian nation you should have no trouble going to our founding documents and pointing out where your proof is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsRQfZQGjs

http://makinggodangry.blogspot.com/

http://noahsarkrevealed.blogspot.com/

http://justlivingbyfaith.blogspot.com/

http://cantstandreligion.blogspot.com/

http://realbookofrevelation.blogspot.com/

https://sites.google.com/site/esterlighthorse/home

Maintaining Our Country's Foundation

Now, we do have in our Bill of Rights the right to a trial. When I heard and even read articles that vehemently asserted that the accused man really does not even need to go on trial because of all the evidence against him (video, witnesses, etc.) and therefore he should be sentenced straight away, my stomach lurched with horror.

     Yes, what was done was terrible indeed. However, he still has to go to trial and be found guilty. I mean, and I hope I am saying this correctly, because the deed he is accused of is considered an act of terror against the US and the people of this nation does that mean he can be denied the right to trial? I am not saying that is what is happening. I just want to know if there is anything in our Constitution or Bill of Rights that states acts considered to be treason and a threat to national security automatically negate rights? I do not think so.

     Much of the conversation/articles that supported some type of revocation of the rights of this man carried an air of, "Well, he hates the US and its citizens and our government. Considering such, why should the rights afforded by the Bill of Rights of this nation that he hates so much extend to him?"

     Then there was the issue of the man not being properly read his Miranda Rights. Why in the world did they allow him to continue? Was it because they were afraid he would not say anything at all if they did? Wouldn't that be his right to remain silent? Was an attorney present for the man, and if so why didn't the attorney stop the man and insist Miranda Rights be read? Shocking to me also was an article in which  Representative Peter King, R-NY, is noted as saying he "totally disagreed" with the decision of the magistrate to read the accused his rights at a hearing.

     By asking these questions I absolutely do not intend any disrespect for the victims and their families or Boston. I love this country and our citizens, yes. Granted I say this without being a victim and without having any of my family and friends fall victim, but if people allow their anger and hatred for this man and his violent cause to create some kind of validation for breaching rights that are at the very core of this nation's foundation, well, if that happens a very dark, very ugly precedent may be set.

     Our justice system may not be perfect in application, but one of the reasons we have the laws and Constitution and Bill of Rights of this country is to strive for fairness and equality in the eyes of the law. There is, I think, an implied understanding and assertion by the drafters of our founding documents that what makes a nation strong, THIS nation strong, persevering, and lasting is a persistence to be just, and that the drive for justness/justice does not include the allowance of strong emotions of revenge/vengeance to dictate where and when and why rights may or may not be extended to the accused. 

     I understand the fear and the anger, the resentment and the sheer loathing for the accused. Like many people of this nation I still vividly recall 9/11 and the fear, sorrow, hurt, and even rage that I felt. But the last thing people of this nation should do is establish any kind of habit, political or otherwise, that undermines the purpose of our foundation and what sets this nation apart as an example for the rest.

     It is important that Americans remember the manner of approach taken in the prosecution of some of the Nazi leaders for war crimes at the trials at Nuremberg. Many government leaders including Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, and to a lesser degree FDR at first supported summary executions.

     However, while the world waded through the aftermath of WWII, trying to comprehend the scope of the inhumane, atrocious, and evil actions that brought about the deaths of tens of millions of people, US Secretary of War, Henry Stimson argued for the war trials to be commenced with the basic rights of due process as so noted in the US Bill of Rights.

     Stimson argued that such an approach would help to uphold the "democratic notion of justice" and that the purpose of the trial was for "prevention and not for vengeance." Because of this approach the Nuremberg Trials will be remembered in part for being consistent with due process.

     It would serve this nation and it's leaders and it's people well to remember and consider this.