SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chris land who wrote (27703)10/11/1999 8:33:00 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 39621
 
I like Thanksgiving as much as anybody. But the holiday does not go back as far as you think. The Pilgrims didn't establish a new holiday. They had ONE Thanksgiving feast. It wasn't a holiday in the colonial period or the revolutionary period.

Also, the Mayflower compact had nothing to do with the establishment of the United States.



To: Chris land who wrote (27703)10/11/1999 2:30:00 PM
From: mark silvers  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 39621
 
Chris,

Thanksgiving is not a Christian holiday.

<<Christians do not pay homage to Allah anymore than they would a snake>>

As far as Christians paying homage to Allah, then why should Jews pay homage to Jesus any more than they would a snake? there is no difference. We are talking about a religious group of people paying homage to a God they don't believe in. If you can;t see the difference, then you have a serious problem with logic.

Mark



To: Chris land who wrote (27703)10/11/1999 8:28:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine  Respond to of 39621
 
The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter
Raleigh in 1584, was from 'Elizabeth, by the
grace of God, of England, Fraunce and Ireland,
queene, defender of the faith,' etc.; and the grant
authorizing him to enact statutes of the
government of the proposed colony provided
that 'they be not against the true Christian faith
nowe professed in the Church of England.'



To: Chris land who wrote (27703)10/11/1999 8:30:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine  Respond to of 39621
 
The first charter of Virginia, granted by King
James I. in 1606, after reciting the application of
certain parties for a charter, commenced the
grant in these words:

First Charter of Virginia

'We, greatly commending, and
graciously accepting of, their
Desires for the Furtherance of so
noble a Work, which may, by the
Providence of Almighty God,
hereafter tend to the Glory of his
Divine Majesty, in propagating of
Christian Religion to such People,
as yet live in Darkness and
miserable Ignorance of the true
Knowledge and Worship of God,
and may in time bring the Infidels
and Savages, living in those parts,
to human Civility, and to a settled
and quiet Government; DO, by
these our Letters-Patents,
graciously accept of, and agree to,
their humble and well-intended
Desires.'



To: Chris land who wrote (27703)10/11/1999 8:31:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 39621
 
The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites:

'Having undertaken for the Glory of
God, and Advancement of the
Christian Faith, and the Honour of
our King and Country, a Voyage to
plant the first Colony in the northern
Parts of Virginia; Do by these
Presents, solemnly and mutually, in
the Presence of God and one
another, covenant and combine
ourselves together into a civil Body
Politick, for our better Ordering
and Preservation, and Furtherance
of the Ends aforesaid.'



To: Chris land who wrote (27703)10/11/1999 8:33:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine  Respond to of 39621
 
The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under
which a provisional government was instituted in
1638-39, commence with this declaration:
'Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God
by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence
[143 U.S. 457, 467] so to Order and dispose of
things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of
Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now
cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River
of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto
adioyneing; And well knowing where a people
are gathered togather the word of [*515] God
requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion
of such a people there should be an orderly and
decent Gouerment established according to God,
to order and dispose of the affayres of the
people at all seasons as occation shall require;
doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues
to be as one Publike State or Comonwelth; and
doe, for our selues and our Successors and such
as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter,
enter into Combination and Confederation
togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty
and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch
we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the
Churches, wch according to the truth of the said
gospell is now practised amongst vs.'



To: Chris land who wrote (27703)10/11/1999 8:37:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine  Respond to of 39621
 
Or by article 22 of the constitution of Delaware,
(1776,) which required all officers, besides an
oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the
following declaration:

'I, A. B., do profess [143 U.S. 457,
470] faith in God the Father, and in
Jesus Christ His only Son, and in
the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed
for evermore; and I do
acknowledge the Holy Scriptures
of the Old and New Testament to
be given by divine inspiration.'



To: Chris land who wrote (27703)10/11/1999 8:41:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine  Respond to of 39621
 
There is no dissonance in these declarations.
There is a universal language pervading them all,
having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that
this is a religious nation. These are not individual
sayings, declarations of private persons. They
are organic utterances. They speak the voice of
the entire people.
Official, "Organic" laws
While because of a general recognition of this
truth the question has seldom been presented to
the courts, yet we find that
No one has doubted this
in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400,
it was decided that,

'Christianity, general Christianity, is,
and always has been, a part of the
common law of Pennsylvania; *



To: Chris land who wrote (27703)10/11/1999 8:45:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 39621
 
And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294,
295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator
on American law, speaking as chief justice of the
supreme court of New York, said:

'The people of this state, in
common with the people of this
country, profess the general
doctrines of Christianity as the rule
of their faith and practice; and to
scandalize the author of these
doctrines is not only, in a religious
point of view, extremely impious,
but, even in respect to the
obligations due to society, is a
gross violation of decency and
good order. * * * The free, equal,
and undisturbed enjoyment of
religious opinion, whatever it may
be, and free and decent discussions
on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471]
subject, is granted and secured; but
to revile, with malicious and
blasphemous contempt, the religion
professed by almost the whole
community is an abuse of that right.
Nor are we bound by any
expressions in the constitution, as
some have strangely supposed,
either not to punish at all, or to
panish indiscriminately the like
attacks upon the religion of
Mahomet or of the Grand Lama;
and for this plain reason, that the
case assumes that we are a
Christian people, and the morality
of the country is deeply ingrafted
upon Christianity, and not upon the
doctrines or worship of those
impostors.'


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News