Is There Any Doubt That We Are Next?

Howard Duncan - Are We Next



As a young Protestant my last experience of actually “worshipping” in a church (outside of funerals, weddings, etc.) came when I was about fifteen. It was Easter Sunday in the warm climate of California. It was a modest sized church, and on this day the only seating was outside on folding chairs on the front lawn. It looked to me that there were as many people outside as inside. A loudspeaker was provided in order to hear the service and of course, the sermon. As a family we had ceased going to church on a regular basis a few years prior. This was special, it was Easter.

Many decades have passed since that day. American culture has passed outwardly through the “Beatnik” and “Hippie” eras and still is outwardly and inwardly the “Me” era. These were not merely cute expressions of adolescent breaking away, but, a desire to change society by those who saw their future in power over the management of society.

I suppose my thoughts while sitting there were the same as many of my generation, “What am I doing among these hypocrites sitting on a lawn in front of a church that I would not see the inside of, probably ever!”

Did I miss the point of religion?


And so did most of my entire generation, and the generation that has followed us, and the generation that came before us in America.


A few years ago while attending a conference I had dinner with several people, a conversation began with a man sitting next to me at that dinner table. He was a doctor originally from Turkey and now living in Michigan. He asked me if I thought that the conditions that caused the Nazi holocaust could ever happen here. My immediate answer without a second’s thought (I am prone to this lack of restraint) was, “No, I don’t think so because each person you see at this table is taught from birth by their parents to revere freedom.” I have pondered this answer many times over the years. What exactly was “freedom” to those people and does it have the same meaning today.

As a new Catholic, the Church gave me the answer when I started to read and hear an explanation of moral relativism, especially coming from Pope Benedict XVI. He said in his Papal Message for World Day of Peace 2012:

“Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of educating is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires.”


Living almost my entire life under the threat of powers that wanted to dominate the world, specifically National Socialists (Nazi), Fascists, and Communists, it was bizarre to read a recent article (February 4) with the headline, “Romanian Court Orders Skyscraper Demolished to Protect Catholic Cathedral”.


My uncle’s parents emigrated from Romania in 1906. He and my aunt traveled there in 1966 and 1972, she recently remembered an incident from 1966.

In 1966 Lou and I went to Romania to visit his family (first cousins) for the first time. This was the first time in more than 40 years that Romania’s borders were opened to Westerners. A lot of journalists went in that year. We were not on assignment, merely visiting family, so had no official status. I think that helped us because we were not guided about [and] given the party line as we had been previously in Bulgaria.

Having contacted the family and been joyously welcomed by all, we had to have a meal in each and every cousin’s home — even the most humble cottage in the small village of Sibiului. One evening, after dinner, about ten of us were sitting around the table talking, of course, in Romanian. The cousins were telling Lou about their oppression and the subject of religion came up among other things. (Lou was translating for me as I do not speak the language.) One of the women said that brother George had been a chanter in the church before it was forbidden to attend services.

I love church music, chants in particular, and asked him to sing for me. Almost as one the group reared back and said, “No, No, No!” They explained to Lou who relayed to me that if he was heard chanting they all could be arrested and maybe put in prison. They were very distraught. I withdrew my request realizing how very naive I was in asking and how easily we take freedom for granted.

An argument ensued. George prevailed. He would sing. One of the women got up closed the windows, pulled the curtains and bolted the door. No one was pleased. All were flushed. The men stared down or straight ahead. The women sat upright twisting their hands. George sang softly.

I know he could not do justice to the song. Chants are not written to be whispered. It was the only gift the men who had been stripped of land and freedom had to give–the gift of prayer in quiet music. There were no repercussions that I know of. – Gloria Evon


Barton v. City of Balch Springs, No. 3:03-2258 (N.D. Tex. 2004)
“Senior citizens in Balch Springs, Texas, were told to stop praying before their meals, listening to inspirational religious messages, and singing gospel songs in their senior citizens’ center because of a new city policy banning religion in public buildings. The citizens sued to defend their right to religious freedom. The seniors were told that if they won their lawsuit, their meals would be taken away since praying over government-funded meals violates the “separation of church and state.” The Department of Justice also opened an investigation.”

Illinois Severs Ties With Catholic Charities Over Adoption to Homosexuals
“The state of Illinois ended its historic relationship with Catholic Charities, which was the organization that inspired the first child welfare services in that state, because of the organization’s religious views against adopting children to homosexual couples. Although Catholic Charities was willing to refer homosexual couples to other adoption agencies, the state refused to accommodate them. Ironically, this religious discrimination is in response to the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act. The Act, when combined with state anti-discrimination laws, requires homosexual civil unions to be treated like marriages, but only provides protection to religious clergy who decline to officiate a civil union. Two-thousand children will now have to transition to new agencies.”

These two incidents and over 600 cases like these are documented here by The Family Research Council, the same organization whose offices were the target of a gunman last August in Washington, D.C.

Or, recently from the Beckett Fund For Religious Liberty:

“More than 200 synagogues, churches, and other houses of worship were damaged or even destroyed when Superstorm Sandy hit the Northeast last October. And, when the snow and ice fell on them this weekend, they were still in a state of disrepair. Even though Congress has made billions of tax dollars available to the communities that are trying to rebuild after that devastating storm, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) refuses to help.”

“American Atheists v. City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority rejected the arguments that FEMA seems to have bought into. As the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in its opinion: ‘If a city may save the exterior of a church from a fire, it is hard to understand why it cannot help that same church with peeling paint or tuckpointing – at least where it provides the same benefit to all downtown buildings on the same terms.’

We defeated Communism, restored freedom to Eastern Europe, so how could religion ever be outlawed here the same way it was there?


Back it into a corner then stomp on it, like a bug.

“…recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires.”

We are nearing the point where we recognize “Law” only as definitive, but do not recognize that “Law” is created and changed by the desires of the “Self” which is influenced or not by objective truth. Without recognition of God, we have insured the future of personal desire via the Constitutional Amendment procedure and allowing repeal of existing laws. But, specific law is not only created by Congress and other legislative bodies, it is created in modern America by regulation. This power is specifically given to governmental agencies to make rules that carry the force of law.

A recent example is the Health And Human Services (HHS) mandate concealed within the text of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, better known as “Obamacare”. The effect of these rulings developed by Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) an agency of the HHS, after the law went into effect, was to require all employers to provide insurance coverage for sterilization and contraceptives which include abortifacient drug, items that have historically been objected to by many Americans. Conscience objectors are defined as religious and in a way that confines them within the four walls, floor and roof of a building. Reducing free exercise of religion, it’s presence, and confining it’s existence – the first step.

The regulation allows the HRSA to exempt (it may, does not have to) organizations under these conditions:

(1) its purpose is the inculcation of religious values,
(2) it employs “primarily” persons who share the organization’s religious tenets;
(3) it serves “primarily” persons who share the organization’s religious tenets; and also
(4) it qualifies under the IRS code as a church or religious order.

Attempts to propose modifications to these rulings that HHS hoped would avoid court intervention, proved to be only illusionary and deceptive. This is a fundamental change by modern American leadership for the regard religion has had in American public life, supported by an increasing number of the population. Cracks in the structure that made America great that can be widened and spread by the disease of relativism amuck in the population, cracks that will doom America to declining influence and prosperity and ultimately totalitarianism.

Another area of power that can force change with a minimum of opposition is the treaty power of the president with a resolution of ratification of the Senate and a sympathetic or apathetic population and court. The “International Criminal Court” is an example that has been proposed and rejected for many years, but, it still has it’s proponents in politics. As said by Justice Black in Reid v. Covert:

“The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government”.

America was founded on the belief in law as a protector of civilized association under the Christian God and His natural law. We know this from the Declaration of Independence. America progressed imperfectly, and when Christianity exerted itself, as in the history of slavery and civil rights, Christian guidance corrected faults. When belief in God is removed from our consciousness using the excuse that religion is an outmoded lifestyle and that it’s teachings have disregard for personal desires, it will eventually be removed also from the formulation and protection of law.

“They explained to Lou who relayed to me that if he was heard chanting they all could be arrested and maybe put in prison.”

Without the protection of Christianity, we are left to ourselves and our human failings and lust for power – even in America.

© 2013. Howard Duncan. All Rights Reserved.

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

32 thoughts on “Is There Any Doubt That We Are Next?”

  1. Well said, Mr. Duncan!

    Eerily enough, just this week the Archdiocese Military Services submitted a press release denouncing a US Army Reserve training module that listed “Catholicism” and “Evangelical Christianity” as extremism alongside groups like Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc.

    And let’s not forget the NDAA that can make our Bill of Rights go bye-bye at the convenience or desire of the federal government–especially if we are labeled “terrorists” and “extremists.”

    The foundation is being put in place, and most of us are asleep.

    1. Yes Lili, change must be judged from a longer perspective than complacency.

      “So it is with most states in human history. They are reaching,
      or have just reached their highest. The vital spirit of their
      growth is still apparently at work though not in its pristine force,
      the momentum of their triumphant past still seems to move
      them, their memories are still proud and too secure; but beneath
      these still obvious things which all observers take for granted,
      the change has begun, the decline is prepared, and the first
      Warnings of doom are at hand.”

      Hilaire Belloc, 1937

  2. Homo sapiens (you and I) is a bipedal primate

    Thank you, I understand the physical anthropology of the term; I was asking why you chose to reference the human person with that word. It seems it would be to make a point…just curious what that point was.

    1. LJP, Curiosity killed the cat, but they it 9 lives. Anyway,
      I use the word primate because were a scant two strands of DNA separated from many of the other higher primates, that we share common social structures, that we can learn my from their behavior to apply to our lives, that the bonds of kinship among higher primates are an example to us. Given the fact that we have evolved a larger cranium…there ain’t too much different. All creation is aware of itself, so that means soul.
      As my friend Greg House, MD would say “If her DNA was off by one percentage point she’d be a dolphin.”
      I abhor the distinctions between man and animal, so as a primate I am part of a larger kingdom…

  3. Phil,

    Why the constant reference to the human person as “primate”? Also, the article you linked to in your response to Alex seems to be a bit orthogonal to your assertion that genocide “usually has religious not atheistic roots”. The author essentially asserts that religion is often used as a tool by the ruling elite; the underlying force behind genocide is no more than good ole’ political and economic gain.

  4. Phil, this website which you link is owned by Ian Paisley. Are you declaring yourself a follower and supporter his political fights, including his anti-homosexual beliefs? He is, as founder of the Democratic Unionist Party in Britian and by his statements about Tony Blair, comparing his government to that of Hitler’s, a very committed person to his own views. I don’t think his statements such as said in public about JP2, “I denounce you as the Antichrist!” show much of anything except Protestant anti-Catholism and Northern Ireland extremism.

    I would prefer to read your own thoughts derived from reflection instead of someone else’s aggressive Anti-Whatever. This kind of cherry picking of a dubious quote here and there is not real thinking from your own mind.

    1. Even simpler Phil, you picked the link. What is your bottom line regarding this article of mine. Is it only for you an excuse to slogging it out with anti-Catholic links? Is that all you have? This is America, what is your view on religious liberty as it is under attack today? Religious liberty affects all religions; Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc.

      Are you against all of them strongly enough to want them eliminated?

    2. Oh, Howard, You are conflating issues. I am ardently and unequivocally a believer in religious liberty. Everyone in the US should be a believer in whatever they choose to believe and practice what their beliefs dictate in their lives and religion. I do not believe that any primate should have permission to foist their beliefs, religious, political, aesthetic, etc on any other primate. To give you an example: I believe that Catholics believe that gay marriage is not part of the natural law and also against the law of God. They have the liberty to believe that, they have the liberty to speak out against it, they have a right to prohibit such marriages or unions in their churches. That’s religious liberty. They do not have the right to compel the state or other primates to ascribe to their beliefs nor act accordingly. As Jefferson stated , government derives from the people (majority) For the state to try to compel the RC Church to believe differently about gay people or to compel gay marriage in Church would be wrong, unconstitutional and a denial of religious liberty.
      So, to continue the answer to your questions. We are a country of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, pantheists, etc. etc. The state has no right to interfere in any religious practice in the context of their religious institution (maybe, unless the religion would mandate primate sacrifice). Yes, my personal belief is that organized religion poisons everything. That’s a stolen line from Hitchens.

    3. So Phil when you say, “They have the liberty to believe that, they have the liberty to speak out against it…” then I assume that your version of religious liberty would not muzzle by the force of law any religious minister or priest when they speak in public about the sin of homosexuality. So then you would be against laws that consider anti-homosexual speech “hate speech” as un-American and un-constitutional?

      FWIW I considered Hichins a better speaker over Dawkins.

    4. Yes, Howard, speech is protected ; now, beating a homosexual because of a particular belief is a hate crime (because gender is protected as a civil right, and beating is plain criminal). Speech is protected, violent behavior is not. I despise (kind word) members of the Westboro Baptist Church, but I defend their right be asses.

    5. So, you would join me then in speaking out against the “hate crime” laws that fine or imprison.

      In Mr. Paisley’s UK and other places. If Mr Paisley was to use the motto he promoted at one time, “Save Ulster from Sodomy”, he would today be arrested and put in prison or fined.

      Canada’s Supreme Court said recently in an opinion against a defendant, in order to guide “Hate Speech Tribunals”:

      “The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination,” they decided.


      Is not an objective of our federal government to eliminate discrimination? Is not this the argument given in defense of Homosexual marriage?

      Then Phil, would your statement, “Yes, my personal belief is that organized religion poisons everything.” be considered hate speech?

    6. If I were not in the US and if I were not protected by the 1st amendment, it would probably be considered hate speech. If I were in Iran, I would probably be be-headed. If I were a woman and I wanted to go to school in some Muslim countries, I’d be flogged. Yup, all in the name of an angry Allah or religion. I would become a modern day Salman Rushdie. So, I’m happy I’m in the USA, despite it’s many flaws.
      BTW, we do agree on Hitchens’ ability to speak and maintain one’s interest. Dawkins is a scientist and talks like one. I much prefer the philosopher-journalist.

    7. “The Good Ole U.S.A.”

      We shall see if the current attacks on freedom of religion that have made it to the Supreme Court succeed or not. Attacks by our own federal government among others. And why did they have to get that far if we are protected by the 1st Amendment? This is a clear indication of a change of meaning in America of freedom.

      A year ago or so I (and others) was in a blog conversation with a person from the Netherlands regarding hot social issues. He got so angry at one point that he threatened a law suit against the blog owner. He was aware that U.S. law probably would not apply, instead he threatened (after consulting his professional associations attorneys), that if the internet server existed in the EU he could sue.

      We exist in a different age Phil, to prohibit by law what someone does is time honored and rather easy to understand, but, to prohibit what some one says is very tricky especially when, to again quote the Canadian SUPREME court:

      “The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm,…”

      We live in a time when American isolationism cannot work anymore. Increasingly we are being subjected to the concept of a “global government” with a global ideology, not just a “Common Market” as it was originally proposed.

  5. Excellent article! Having had my Mexican grandma (abuelita) tell me about the atrocities against & killings of faithful Catholics (including in her family) done by the ATHEIST Pres. Plutarco Calles in the 1920s Cristero War I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened here tomorrow in the USA if militant atheists & secularists (they’re so arrogantly ignorant of history & philosophy) had their ways. I recommend Catholics watch the recent “For Greater Glory” movie. Que Viva Cristo Rey!! Atheistic governments & ideologies have killed more humans in just the past centuries than any other group (& the continue to call themselves “enlightened”).

    1. Agreed that the Cristeros war was formented by the the Mexican government, anticlericalism and anti Catholicism. To say that genocide and oppression are the result of atheism and atheist regimes is blatantly false. It’s outrageously false.
      Let’s look at Rwanda and the Catholic Church. The Hutu priests and nuns herded brother and sister Tutsis into churches to get slaughtered. Pulpits were filled with Hutu RC Clergy calling the Tutsis “cockroaches” and inciting their genocide.
      There is a vast amount of documentation of Church complicity and an absence of Vatican intervention.
      Genocide is pure evil and in most instances some religion is complicit. What’s the basis for Hitler’s Jewish extermination…what are the roots of Anti-Semitism? Why did it take the Church till 1998 to apologize for it’s role in Anti-Semitism and the Shoah.
      Let’s be honest about genocide…it usually has religious not atheistic roots. Let’s also be honest about the lack of religious intervention and genocide.

    2. Phil, Pres. Calles (& his cronies) was a proud, downright CARD-CARRYING ATHEIST! Everybody knew it. No doubt about it; in his deathbed, he asked a priest for confession. Communism, an ideology by Karl Marx, was fundamentally ATHEIST. All their documents/writings called for anticlericalism, practically making atheism the state religion, labeling religion as “opium for masses”, etc. When they arrived in Spain during the 1930s Civil War (killing Catholic priests, destroying churches), things got so bad my grandpa’s (abuelo’s) family fled to Mexico. Communists killed millions of more humans than Rwanda (in which foreign interestswere primarily involved). I tell you: you militant atheists/secularists say “relgion is the cause of all evil in the world” yet you quickly turn your eyes away from atrocities committed by ATHEISTS! Get your head outta the sand. My family has personally seen what atheist ideologies are really about (anti-Catholicism) & I don’t want it here in USA.

    3. I did not deny the Cristos war and the anti Catholic killings in Mexico…what I said and unless you can disprove it…most others acts of genocide in history had NOTHING to do with atheism…talk about Rwanda,, Serbio Croatia, Shoah, etc. Then I will listen. You focus on one war, let’s look at human history.

    4. If an atrocious card-carrying atheist like Pres. Calles can admit how wrong he was at the sight of death & have confession, I have hope that all you I-am-better-&-more- enlightened-than-you atheists can change for better. (Btw what those Knights of Columbus did for solidarity with Mexicans during the Cristero War was amazing.)

    5. If all the militant Atheistic Communist regimes/ideologies (in Cambodia, China, Cuba, USSR, Soviets, North Korea, Vietnam, Spain, etc.) that killed MILLIONS more humans than African tribes is not enough proof then it takes so much faith to be an atheist than I thought (to be so proudly ignorant of history & philosophy).

  6. Why is it that secular humanists and relativists can urinate all over a well-written piece such as this, without the slightest shred of an argument, and then when told that it is truly lame (because it was), feign offense? Answer: Because their entire world is based on ego and feelings.

  7. Pingback: Ritual, Evidence of Eternity - Big Pulpit

  8. Phil,

    That Treaty has been used to death and has been knowingly misinterpreted. I have no respect for that kind of nonsense. If you were not aware, then my apologies.

    Any person in history who has publically denied the divinity of Jesus Christ was not a Christian. I noticed that you have copied some text from somewhere – the [51] .

    I don’t intend to get into a complete and detailed history of each of our founding fathers lives here, suffice it to say that we received AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE in 1791 that supposedly guaranteed us the freedom to exercise our religion in America forever, unless it is removed by a repeal of that amendment. That danger is what we face today.

  9. Howard, I did not personalize my comments at your revisionist history of our founding so I would appreciate that my attempt to answer you post not be labeled lame.
    FACT:None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature’s God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity.
    FACT:In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of religious freedom, expressed in Thomas Jefferson’s letters and included in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence.
    Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[51] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout the USA and Europe)

    Your comments, Howard, are thoughtful, please do not outrightly dismiss others…it’s not nice.

  10. Phil,

    As to the lack of mentioning God in the Constitution, maybe you would prefer we add the words “God said that” in front of each Article’s text.

    A few examples from Article 1 Section 1 & 2:

    “God said that all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

    “God said that No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and…..”

    “God said that When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.”

    Is that better?

    I have no idea where we are going to find the scriptural passages to directly quote for these laws. I think God wants us to freely think for ourselves using his guidance, which had been asked for by our founders.

  11. A very sobering article. It is frightening that the freedom of religion we have in America now seems to be hanging on by a thread. Is there enough public outrage to threats against it (by HHS mandates, etc.) or have most Americans been too busy to even notice how these freedoms are slowly being eroded away? Our country was founded on the principles of Christianity. Phil, although the actual document of the Constitution may not specifically mention God, there was no doubt that our founding fathers framed our government on “Natural Law”, which for their generation was defined as the “Laws of the Creator”. The real question is, are we still a faithful country? If so, how willing are we to exhibit and defend our Christian faith in public ways? I think Jesus himself was giving us an ominous warning when he asked “… when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8)

  12. Phil, I am well aware of the interpretation of that treaty with it’s punctuation added to try and emphasize the point you are making, it is a lame attempt.

    All who have studied this treaty with Muslims continuously at war, understand that the treaty itself was am attempt to explain that the government of the U.S. was not founded in order to wage a religious war with Islam because as a government uniting the various states it had not declared a state religion. That has nothing to do with the Christian principals brought over from Europe that influenced our founders.

    The same trick was tried by the infamous Richard Dawkins in his Delusion book. I don’t know why an Englishman would try and rewrite American history unless it was to sell more books to American atheists.

    An expanded explaination can be found here:

  13. ‘America was founded on the belief in law as a protector of civilized association under the Christian God and His natural law.’ There is no historical evidence that this statement is true.

    (1)Many Christian’s who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as “proof” of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)

    However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.
    (2) The Treaty of Tripoli passed unanimously by the Senate and signed by John Adam in 1797 “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 tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
    (3) The founding fathers were deists (mostly) and Jefferson re-wrote the Bible by excising much written there.
    (4) Thomas Jefferson, 1817 “”For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.”
    (5) No mention of god, period, in the Constitution.

    No. The USA was not founded on Christian principles nor is it a Christian nation

  14. Pingback: Is There Any Doubt That We Are Next? - CATHOLIC FEAST - Sync your Soul

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: