You are not even reading Article 6 properly. In its truest sense you are ignorant of the law. You are playing the fool. Why don't you argue with the U.S. supreme court... The U.S. Supreme Court would not have cited unconstitutional state cases and state constitutions.... yet they cited all of these in Support of the declaration that this is a Christian Nation. .... Quote form Church of the Holy Trinity V. U.S. "If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the Constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc. It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God." It may be in clauses like that of the Constitution of Indiana, 1816, Art. XI, section 4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God." Or in provisions such as are found in Articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the Constitution of Maryland, 1867: "That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief, provided he Page 143 U. S. 469 believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution." Or like that in Articles 2 and 3 of part 1st of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780: "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. . . . As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality, therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily." Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of Article 7 of the Constitution of Mississippi, 1832: "No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. . . . Religion morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state." 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 Page 143 U. S. 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." Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., and also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill. 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. While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." 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 Page 143 U. S. 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 punish 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 engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." And in the famous case of @ 43 U. S. 198, this Court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania." If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
See where an interminably nonsensical defense of religious ideology gets you. Just more and more cut and paste case law for smoke screens. Churning up old chestnuts. Round and round in circles. Airing the old deceit that the opinion of a Supreme Court Judge is Supreme Court Law when it is no such thing. But that is religion. It gets you nowhere. Desperate now, clutching at straws in defense of that idiotic religious appeal. You might as well argue America was founded on slavery while you are in so much denial. At least you'd have a stronger case. Not sure if you are aware though, it is the 21st century and according to the Constitution, a no conditional religion framework of secular fed and states should have been the case ever since 1788, when the legal Founding Constitution of America was put in place. Amendments forming the Bill of Rights that make reference to religion, confirm there will be freedom from any religious stipulation as far as any state constitutions are concerned, and likewise through their selection of representatives Guess what....hello.... It has been that way. Furthermore after 1833 and the 14th Amendment, no states were acting unconstitutionally anymore by referring to religion in their own constitutions. Non of the ridiculous ideas you have in posting irrelevant case law will change that fact. This country was not founded on religion nor specifically christianity, as all Founding Law confirms . You need to get to grips with reality. Religious indoctrination clearly leaves you very ignorant.
None of what you say is grounded in reality or fact. In fact your arguments do not even make sense. I quote the U.S. Supreme Court which is the highest authority. You just make shit up. Your revision of U.S. history is grounded in delusion and deceit.
What I say is simply what the Constitution says What I say is simply what the obvious and clear reality is, which exists post Constitution. What I say is simply what the actual situation is today and what has existed since the14th Amendment Obviously you have no kind of sensible or meaningful response to that. Get over it and for your own benefit I suggest you get over that senseless habit you have of relying on absurd religious apologetics to re-write history and dream up incomprehensible non realities. .
Jem makes you seem like a stupid piece of shit over and over, and then you act like one... here's the truth about Christians and education: When education was done by churches back in the day the US had about a 99% literacy rate, under the Atheists that took it over it declined to where people graduated that could not read their diplomas!! Atheists don't want people to read because they might pick up a Bible and become educated about God!!
1. you are not educated enough to know how Article 6 has been applied. And if you were you have no credibility on the subject. 2. The argument is whether we were a Christian Nation then... (not now.) I produced a quote from the Supreme Court... explaining how the states had ties to Christianity and God at our founding and for a long time thereafter. 3. Why don't you explain to me how those facts cited by the U.S Supreme court were wrong. Did state case law not say that? Did state constitutions not read that way? Things have changed. We are no longer a Christian nation. But we were and that is why we were a Great Nation.