ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Our Islamo-Christian heritage

Hey, it worked for the Jews, right? Why shouldn't it work for the Muslims too? Or, for that matter, the Hindus and ancestor-worshipping pagans?
CNN rewrites history to claim that Islam was part of America’s founding

For CNN, the argument that Islam has “always” been present in the U.S. rests largely on the claim that a significant minority of black slaves were Muslim. On Saturday, CNN correspondent Dean Obeidallah claimed that “Islam has been here since the time of slavery, because ten to fifteen percent of the African slaves brought were Muslim. So Islam was here before the creation of the United States. It was actually part of the creation of the United States of America.” Bell’s interviewee raises the estimate, claiming that “during the slave trade, up to about 25 to 30% of the slaves came from areas where there were predominantly Muslim populations.”
Ironically, the Muslims have got a much stronger claim to America than the Jews do, as there were considerably more of them present at the time of the American Revolution. The Jewish population of America is estimated at about 1,500 in 1790, which is considerably less than the conservative estimate of 95,000 Muslims. Furthermore, given that 9,000 blacks were among the 200,000 soldiers who fought for the Revolution, it is statistically probable that more Muslims (90 to 2,700) fought for American independence than Jews (90 to 100).

From time to time, people have asked me why I consistently criticize the ahistorical mythology of Judeo-Christian America; the primary reason is because it is almost entirely false. That being said, this Islamo-Christian heritage nonsense is exactly the sort of consequence I expected if the previous historical revisionism wasn't seen by the public for the false historical propaganda that it is.

To paraphrase the linked article, while both Jews and Muslims were present at America’s founding, neither Judaism and Islam — as coherent, self-conscious religious and political civilizations — were. America is a Christian nation. Its heritage is Christian and its values are Christian. Those are the historical facts, and be very wary of the objectives of anyone who attempts to revise them. If they are doing so, rest assured they have a purpose that is at best self-serving, and quite possibly nefarious.

UPDATE: It has been suggested that the black Muslim population was considerably lower than the estimated 10 to 30 percent. In which case, I propose that we revise history once more and henceforth refer to America's Pagan-Christian heritage and values.

Labels: ,

178 Comments:

Anonymous Jim Mortensen May 30, 2017 5:11 AM  

See the Telmarines were here even before the formation of the Stone Table.

All hail Tash-lan!!!

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 30, 2017 5:19 AM  

The muslim Barbary Pirates were the first foreign military challenge for the fledgling US government, as the pirates terrorized American ships crossing the Mediterranean and sold captives into slavery.

Crushing islamic supremacy is as American as apple pie.

Blogger red clock May 30, 2017 5:22 AM  

All this dishonest gymnastics to claim Islam is part of America yet tell these people that America has a European (specially Anglo-Saxon) heritage and watch them sputter about racism and slaves and native Americans and supremacy.

I can't imagine Japs denying that Japan is a Japanese nation while propping up Islam because some random muslim was present on its territory once. Time for smug-suicidal Occidentals to learn from the Orient.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 30, 2017 5:23 AM  

Is that 95,000 estimate before or after applying the 3/5 multiplier?

Blogger VD May 30, 2017 5:31 AM  

The number of Africans in the USA was 757,000 in 1790. So, based on the various estimates, there were between 75,000 and 225,000 Muslims in Colonial America, compared to between 1,000 and 2,000 Jews.

Anonymous Rush May 30, 2017 5:36 AM  

If we follow this theory then we should be a pagan country as at one time there were more native americans pagans than european americans christians here.

Its not hard to understand the term judeo-christian or the fact that both christianity and islam share some common roots historically, theologically and even document wise ... but from there to say that jews and muslims had a hand in the formation of the nation is silly... we have complete access of the writings of our founding fathers and know with almost complete certainty of thier intentions and motives.

Anonymous Red May 30, 2017 5:40 AM  

During the US slave trade Islam in west Africa didn't really exist outside the Arab/Berber elites who ran the African kingdoms. The people being sent over as slaves were not Muslim.

Blogger Aeoli Pera May 30, 2017 5:42 AM  

Jim Mortensen wrote:See the Telmarines were here even before the formation of the Stone Table.

All hail Tash-lan!!!


Got it in one.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 30, 2017 5:43 AM  

"...but from there to say that jews and muslims had a hand in the formation of the nation is silly..."

Fake News is fake.

Blogger VD May 30, 2017 5:44 AM  

If we follow this theory then we should be a pagan country as at one time there were more native americans pagans than european americans christians here.

That's not true. There were relatively few Native Americans in the Thirteen Colonies at the time of the American Revolution.

To say that jews and muslims had a hand in the formation of the nation is silly... we have complete access of the writings of our founding fathers and know with almost complete certainty of thier intentions and motives.

That is absolutely true.

Anonymous Red May 30, 2017 5:45 AM  

>Its not hard to understand the term judeo-christian or the fact that both christianity and islam share some common roots historically,


Actually it's pure Jewish propaganda. Jews hate Christianity and refuse to recognize it as Jewish offshoot. The current form of Judaism is what's left of the Hebrew Law and the Prophets after the Pharisees rewrote it hundreds of years after Jesus. Christianity is actually older than Judaism.


But Jews have found it useful in hoodwinking Evangelicals so they promoted it in the US but try to talking to a jew about in Israel and they'll attack you for suggesting it.

Blogger Aeoli Pera May 30, 2017 5:47 AM  

America is a Christian nation. Its heritage is Christian and its values are Christian. Those are the historical facts, and be very wary of the objectives of anyone who attempts to revise them. If they are doing so, rest assured they have a purpose that is at best self-serving, and quite possibly nefarious.

People get confused because the "founding fathers" came on the scene hundreds of years after the nation was founded by Christians, and they were big on continental philosophy. Occultism was also spreading like wildfire in New York circa 1800 (tfw you realize the puritans did nothing wrong).

Blogger Phillip George May 30, 2017 5:57 AM  

Why would muslims be selling other muslims into slavery? This makes little sense. Jews were pioneers in transcontinental slave trading, but needed black mercenary expeditionary forces.

Slavery could only exist with one tribe ready willing and able to sell another into slavery.
I can't quite envision any nominally muslim communities trading in other muslim communities unless there was the Sunni Shia rift happening.

Without black and Jewish involvement there was no slave trade. Or vanishingly little. So it has been reported.

Blogger APL May 30, 2017 6:03 AM  

"up to about 25 to 30% of the slaves came from areas where there were predominantly Muslim populations.”

Er, Don't care. But we can get into the 'tit for tat' arguments too. How many slaves were taken from the Iberian peninsula by Moslems during the dark ages?

By some accounts, millions. Does that mean we own Algeria, or Libya?

Perhaps Clinton's destruction of Libya was simply the continuation of a family feud.

Blogger The Kurgan May 30, 2017 6:05 AM  

I really don't believe that. The Jews always under report themselves in terms of numbers. I am certain of it. Proving it empirically may not be easy, but my life experience bears this out.

Anonymous George of the Jungle May 30, 2017 6:13 AM  

Those wily Salem-ites were convinced they had some witches dwelling amongst them. That means we should write satanists into our current list of hallowed American religions (please pass the PizzaGate, will you?).

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 30, 2017 6:16 AM  

And there are probably at least a dozen Indian tribes that have been more influential that jews and muslims.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer May 30, 2017 6:20 AM  

The mere fact that they were slaves sold to us indicates strongly that they were not themselves Muslims. The fact that the only connection the pushers of this theory can make is that the slaves came from Muslim areas illustrates the point that most of them were not likely to be Muslim. If there were Korans lying around all over the place or even some written accounts by slave owners about converting the Muslim slaves to Christianity then they would be pointing to those as proof. The fact they aren't pointing to those speaks volumes.

Now that I have sperged a little on details, I will agree with VD that it is all moot any way because Islam was never brought up like Christianity was in the founders writing. This is the equivalent of attempting to give a participation trophy to Islam for being present in the country during the revolution.

Blogger VD May 30, 2017 6:41 AM  

Shut up, Spartan. No one asked you. If you're just going to jump in and make the same declarations you've made 500 times before, I'm going to start spamming you. Try to understand that you're not the Content Police.

Blogger Stilicho May 30, 2017 6:42 AM  

Wheeler, ... nevermind. Carry on.

Anonymous Manwe May 30, 2017 6:47 AM  

Dean Obedaillah? Last time I heard from him he was a failed stand up comedian making antiwhite jokes on MSNBC. Now he's a CNN correspondent? I guess there is affirmative action for talentless unfunny half Arab, half Italian Muslim comedians. BTW, google his picture, the guy is whiter skinned than I am.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore May 30, 2017 6:49 AM  

Get ready for the "follow-up" narrative; that the so-called "Founders" and "Framers" were Free Masons and, therefore, the founding of America was African because Freemasonry borrows from Egyptian theology. They'll also reference something about Freemasonry and Islam; that Thomas Jefferson possessed a Qur'an.

I'm not tryna' support the nonsense expressed by Dean Obeidallah, I'm merely predicting an incoming narrative that will be used as a follow up. Get ready.

Blogger Stilicho May 30, 2017 7:16 AM  

Our Judeo-Islamic roots are documented in the Constitution itself. Specifically, the section that states the President can never reduce the influx of terrorists from Mohammedan countries. Both the 4th and 9th Circuits have recently relied on this provision (closely related to the Zeroeth Amendment) and it can be found immediately after the penumbra section that establishes the right to abortion and states that the Constitution is a living document.

Blogger Tank May 30, 2017 7:17 AM  

What made this country great was it's 90-95% Christian White founders and people. On the other hand, the values were in fact Judeo/Christian values, so in that regard we are a Judeo/Christian nation. We never had Islamo/Christian values. On the other other hand, at this point the 70% of Jews who are leftists have probably done more damage to this country than the Islamists.

Anonymous Dyskord May 30, 2017 7:23 AM  

Of course America was founded by Muzzies.

The very first line of the decleration of Independence reads "Salaam my fellow goat herders"

I also believe there's an Amendment in the constitution regarding Sharia law. The father of an unfaithful wife must pay 5 fertile goats and the funeral costs but the stoning must be organized by the husbands family or some such.

Blogger Johnny May 30, 2017 7:24 AM  

@14 Tank

The values were Judeo/Christian if you count the Old Testament as the "Judeo" half of it. The point often made here is that Judeo-ism continued to develop after Christ and that part of the current Jewish belief system is disconnected from Christianity, as in, not a part of it.

Anonymous Icicle May 30, 2017 7:26 AM  

Vox, did you know Thomas Jefferson bought a qur'an for his private library about ten years before writing the Declaration?

He really was Muslim all along!

Celebrate diversity!

America is a Christian nation. Its heritage is Christian and its values are Christian.

Well, for one thing, Americans actually drank alcohol.

Blogger 4499 May 30, 2017 7:26 AM  

Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and clitoridectomies.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 30, 2017 7:34 AM  

It's political rhetoric not history

Blogger Johnny May 30, 2017 7:34 AM  

Icicle wrote:Vox, did you know Thomas Jefferson bought a qur'an for his private library about ten years before writing the Declaration?

He really was Muslim all along!

Celebrate diversity!

America is a Christian nation. Its heritage is Christian and its values are Christian.

Well, for one thing, Americans actually drank alcohol.


Thomas Jefferson is very well documented as having followed the Christian faith, although he had his own particular version of it, no doubt influenced by the European Enlightenment. If I remember correctly he even wrote his own revised version of the New Testament, and I doubt Muhammad got mentioned.

Otherwise, if you want to be silly, I guess you can declare whatever you want.

Blogger VD May 30, 2017 7:35 AM  

You're banned and spammed, Wheeler. Add this to the many, many places you're not allowed to comment.

Blogger Johnny May 30, 2017 7:39 AM  

"up to about 25 to 30% of the slaves came from areas where there were predominantly Muslim populations.”

History as I understand it is that most of the slaves that went to the colonies were first taken slave by fellow blacks and then later sold to whoever the slavers were along the coast of West Africa. Perhaps people of European ancestry, Jew or Gentile, could survive the conditions on the coast, but otherwise their health would often fail in the interior. The blacks were, to use Christian terminology, pagans who followed tribal gods or some kind of more primitive animism. The paganism would live on for one generation at the least and perhaps several, thus along with the Indians there would be black pagans in the colonies, but of course they would have no influence as they were an anathema to the colonials.

The slavers that sent blacks north were Islamic Arabs. Perhaps purchased from other tribal people or captured by the Arabs, it was an Islamic dominated trade that lasted into modern times, the exact termination date unknown. The British made efforts to shut it down in the Indian Ocean with some success in the early nineteenth century.

Could be wrong about it, but other than Ethiopia and maybe some of the Sahara Desert border areas to the north, I am skeptical there were many black Muslims, and perhaps none. 25 to30%? Me thinks fake news.

Anonymous Looking Glass May 30, 2017 7:40 AM  

I remember the part where we had to kill a bunch of Muslim pirates in the early, but I don't think that's what CNN was going for.

Anonymous Dyskord May 30, 2017 7:43 AM  

@ 29

What is concerning is that if pushed far enough, it will become revisionist history.

a lie taught in schools and universities. cited as facts on supposedly reliable sources.

This is how the muslims declare a state. They infiltrate. Claim some founding heritage. Then claim to have rights pre existing the founding, just wait, in a decade there will be a claim that Mustaffa al buttfuqa discovered the American continent on his camels 300 years before Columbus learned to sail. Then they will claim a state by ancestral right.

Anonymous Mathias May 30, 2017 7:43 AM  

So Islam is the religion of slaves? Sorry buddy, but we abolished slavery a long time ago.

Blogger VD May 30, 2017 7:44 AM  

On the other hand, the values were in fact Judeo/Christian values, so in that regard we are a Judeo/Christian nation.

No, they are not. That is a lie. The Old Testament is not Jewish. It can be described as Hebrew or Israelite, but not Jewish. Moses was a Levite, not a Jew. Josuah was an Ephraimite. And, more importantly, Judaism is not limited to the Old Testament.

Islam shares as many values with Christianity on the basis of the Old Testament as Judaism does. You cannot possibly claim Judeo-Christian values while omitting Islam. A more correct term would be Abrahamic values, or possibly monotheistic values, which are a subset of Christian values.

Blogger Robert What? May 30, 2017 7:44 AM  

@Phillip George,

"Why would muslims be selling other muslims into slavery?"

Is that really hard to believe? Would you have any problem believing, for example, a Suni Muslim selling a Shia Muslim into slavery?

Anonymous Looking Glass May 30, 2017 7:48 AM  

@33 VD

It's truly impressive how well the propaganda campaign has been on the topic. Post-Temple Judaism is, in fact, younger than Christianity. The codified version by several centuries. (Most of the Apostles were dead and most of the NT canon was written before the fall of the Second Temple.)

Related, one of the point, especially among the more observant Jews, is that Talmudic Judaism is amazingly self-loathing. It's a religion with some deeply Gamma approaches to topics. They've spent over 1000 years mourning the loss of the Temple, and it really shows in some of the outcroppings. (Also, Israeli politics is really cuck-central in a lot of ways.)

Blogger Leatherwing May 30, 2017 7:50 AM  

In college I had to read Olaudah Equiano, b. 1745 (pseud. Gustavus Vassa)
The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa, the African
an early slave narrative. One of the things that struck me was that Equiano knew as soon as he was captured that he was to be a slave - because his family owned slaves. Transport to another continent was a surprise.

I know that in the US, one of the first slave owners in Virginia was black, and in New Orleans there were a lot of black slave owners. I wonder if any/how many freed slaves later became slave owners. Perhaps that is our Muslim heritage?

Blogger Tank May 30, 2017 7:55 AM  

On the other hand, the values were in fact Judeo/Christian values, so in that regard we are a Judeo/Christian nation.

No, they are not. That is a lie. The Old Testament is not Jewish. It can be described as Hebrew or Israelite, but not Jewish. Moses was a Levite, not a Jew. Josuah was an Ephraimite. And, more importantly, Judaism is not limited to the Old Testament.


This has the stench of desperation. You want to call it Hebrew/Christion values? Fine. Which came first the Judeo or the Christian? Which is a subset of which? No, you can't get our shit off your shoe, the Judeo/Hebrew/Israeli aspect is there in your/America's values.

Blogger VD May 30, 2017 8:02 AM  

This has the stench of desperation.

You're projecting. THE GOYIM KNOW!

No, you can't get our shit off your shoe, the Judeo/Hebrew/Israeli aspect is there in your/America's values.

No, there is no Tikkun Olam in America. Now, listen to Bibi and your Learned Elders of Wye. You have to go back.

Blogger Ransom Smith May 30, 2017 8:02 AM  

How to make Jews sperg in one quick step.

Ask why they refuse to accept Messianic ones back into Israel

Blogger Koanic May 30, 2017 8:05 AM  

This has the stench of desperation. ... No, you can't get our shit off your shoe,

Shit crumbles after heat treatment.

The Pharisees are indeed a part of Christian culture forever... as the Christ-killing villains.

Who can deny the children of the Prince of this World their place in it? The oven is your inheritance, and the lake of fire your Promised Land!

Anonymous Icicle May 30, 2017 8:06 AM  

Islam shares as many values with Christianity on the basis of the Old Testament as Judaism does.

For one thing, you find in the qur'an:

Noah = Nuh
Jonah = Yunus
Job = Ayub
Elijah = Ilyas
Isaac = Ishaq
Lot = Lut
Moses = Musa
Aaron = Harun

A more correct term would be Abrahamic values, or possibly monotheistic values, which are a subset of Christian values.

Abraham is Ibrahim in the qur'an. The Kaaba (that black cube they walk around in Mecca) is supposed to have been built by him. The Maqam Ibrahim next to the Kaaba supposedly houses Ibrahim's footprints.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable May 30, 2017 8:07 AM  

This has the stench of desperation.

Do you not understand that Jews are only a subset of both Hebrews and Israelites? (Not sure what "Israelis" have to do with anything; that's a modern nation.) The values of modern American Judaism have very little in common with the values of Judaism in the time of Christ and even less in common with the values of the Old Testament law.

Rabbi B, am I all wet here?

Blogger Orthodox May 30, 2017 8:07 AM  

So you're telling me slavery was the result of Judeo-Islamic culture, not Christian culture? Wow just wow.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore May 30, 2017 8:07 AM  

Gonna chime in on the slavery and pre-Constitutional American polity "thingy". What is often forgotten is that American polity, under the Articles of Confederation, was on pace to limit slavery to within the boundaries of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. The Northwest Ordinance (1787) prohibited slavery in newly established territories. In the Confederation Congress, representatives of slave holding states were outnumbered by representatives from states that were outlawing slavery. And local representatives in the Virginia legislature, a slave holding state, were taking steps to limit slavery. This is important because the state legislatures elected representatives for the Confederation Congress.

The entire ballgame changed with the ratification of the Constitution's general body (addition of the Bill of Rights would follow). The Constitution created a national judiciary (SCOTUS) which, in Dred Scott v. Sanford, would overturn the anti-slavery provision of the Northwest Ordinanc

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 8:08 AM  

From the Time of Babxlonian Exile als hebrews where called News. In the Boom of Esther mordechsi je called a Jew eben though he came Form benjamin

Anonymous Athor Pel May 30, 2017 8:11 AM  

"40. Tank May 30, 2017 7:55 AM
...
You want to call it Hebrew/Christion values? Fine. Which came first the Judeo or the Christian? Which is a subset of which? No, you can't get our shit off your shoe, the Judeo/Hebrew/Israeli aspect is there in your/America's values.
"



Is Jesus the promised Messiah?

Anonymous DissidentRight May 30, 2017 8:14 AM  

and quite possibly nefarious

Much understatement.

Blogger dienw May 30, 2017 8:14 AM  

Under the delusion that because some slaves may have been Moslem therefore this is a Islamo-Christian nation; it follows that the Ottoman Empire was Christo-Islamic due to the larger amount of Christian slaves who kidnapped from the shores of Europe. Le's not even get started on those Christian Janissaries who helped build the Ummah through conquest.

I wonder how many Moslem Rod Drehers are delighted that they have one drop of White, Christian blood in them. Are they excited they now share the burdens and hardships of the Christians of Europe and the Middle East?

Blogger VD May 30, 2017 8:15 AM  

From the Time of Babxlonian Exile als hebrews where called News. In the Boom of Esther mordechsi je called a Jew eben though he came Form benjamin

It doesn't matter how many times you say that 2+2=5, that still doesn't make it true. Are you seriously going to try justifying an ahistorical falsehood on the basis of a previous ahistorical falsehood?

Anonymous Steve May 30, 2017 8:17 AM  

“Islam has always been part of the American fabric,” one Muslim man in Detroit tells Bell at an anti-Trump event.

Islam is American as apple pie, or murdering your own mother because she went outside without a male chaperone, bigots.

Remember that episode of Happy Days where Moslems blew up Al's Diner and beheaded Potsie, and the Fonz explained everybody should just be cool and not learn any lessons from it?

Whaddayamean, no???!?

Anonymous DissidentRight May 30, 2017 8:19 AM  

5343 Kinds of Deplorable wrote:This has the stench of desperation.

Do you not understand that Jews are only a subset of both Hebrews and Israelites? (Not sure what "Israelis" have to do with anything; that's a modern nation.) The values of modern American Judaism have very little in common with the values of Judaism in the time of Christ and even less in common with the values of the Old Testament law.

Rabbi B, am I all wet here?


Jesus considered the Jews of his time to be fake due to the post-Babylonian Captivity innovations. How much more “Jews” with no temple, no sacrifices, no promised land, and an absolute rejection of their Messiah.

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 8:19 AM  

Its in zur Bible. BOOK of esther.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore May 30, 2017 8:20 AM  

@53 I love that Happy Days reference.

Blogger Michael Neal May 30, 2017 8:21 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 8:22 AM  

Language and usage came Change oder Time. It probably came about because they came Form Tor Kingdom of judah.

Blogger Ransom Smith May 30, 2017 8:25 AM  

Tor Kingdom of judah

Tor kingdom?

Man. Jews went dark net.

No more shekels. It's Bitcoin now.

Anonymous Icicle May 30, 2017 8:25 AM  

The Old Testament is not Jewish. Moses was a Levite, not a Jew.

VOX IS TROLLING

Blogger Johnny May 30, 2017 8:26 AM  

Orthodox wrote:So you're telling me slavery was the result of Judeo-Islamic culture, not Christian culture? Wow just wow.

Slavery was a near universal in the ancient world. No need for any religious belief system to invent it.

Blogger Duke Norfolk May 30, 2017 8:28 AM  

This is Exhibit 1,574,384 (or something like that) of why this is all going to end in violence. So much sophistry and outright dishonesty with no interest is truth. This cannot be ended by debate, unfortunately. It just won't happen. No surprise, of course.

Blogger Duke Norfolk May 30, 2017 8:29 AM  

Al From Bay Shore wrote:The entire ballgame changed with the ratification of the Constitution's general body

Indeed, so much went wrong when that little coup took place.

Blogger Johnny May 30, 2017 8:30 AM  

>>No, they are not. That is a lie. The Old Testament is not Jewish. It can be described as Hebrew or Israelite, but not Jewish. Moses was a Levite, not a Jew. Josuah was an Ephraimite. And, more importantly, Judaism is not limited to the Old Testament.

Just as a point of information, these ethnic terms are more slippery than might be expected. The standard line is that the Hebrew tribal people settled by some means Canaan and came to dominate it. But the "Hebrew" thing is hard to track down and I personally suspect the word is a later day invention, a corruption of the Egyptian term for the people from the region. Aramean would be a better guess as to ethnic type. That would be the people from Aram, or Syria, who moved in following the turmoil in the thirteenth century and became the ruling class in this multi ethnic area.

Jew is the word the Romans used to describe the residents of the province of Judea. And there is significant evidence that the commonly accepted Jewish history in the post Jesus period is fake.

The post Jesus Jewish history that is commonly understood is not easily supported by evidence. It appears the Jewish diaspora predates the revolts against the Romans, and occurred in part because Judaism was a spreading faith, spread mainly by picked up converts. And it may also be that the apostle Paul was spreading Christianity mainly by cannibalizing on the recent Jewish converts. He was selling a similar doctrine that was easier for the pagans to pick on. More appeal with Christ, no circumcision needed for conversion, and he dropped the numerous and obscure rules that were in the Old testament.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 30, 2017 8:30 AM  

Sounds like we need to do more to acknowledge the essential Judeo-Islamic character of our heritage. Oy vey.

Anonymous Jeff May 30, 2017 8:33 AM  

Praise be to our father Abraham.

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 8:33 AM  

It seems to me that talmudic judaidm has more in common with what people here are calling biblical judaism that Chtistianity does. For example the Bible says Hear oh Israel, the Lord is our G-d the Lord is one. Talmudic Jews recite this twive daily to affirm that sunce it says to speak these words when you lie dpwn and when you get up. Christians believe G-d is three. There are a loz more examples as well.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore May 30, 2017 8:35 AM  

Is it fair to say that the term "Judeo-Christianity" is incorrect because of the passage of time that sits in between the Nazarenes breaking away from Judaism and, say, the theological branches formed in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation? That the Abrahamic commonality is the only connection? If one can invoke the term "Judeo-Christian" can they not also invoke "Judeo-Islam"? Just askin'.

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 8:35 AM  

The egyptian and other ancient people talk about the apuri, close to Hebrew.

Blogger dienw May 30, 2017 8:42 AM  

Do you not understand that Jews are only a subset of both Hebrews and Israelites? (Not sure what "Israelis" have to do with anything; that's a modern nation.) The values of modern American Judaism have very little in common with the values of Judaism in the time of Christ and even less in common with the values of the Old Testament law.

Judaism is of the Talmud, the tradition of the elders which Christ hated and which hated Him. The Jews at that time were mostly Edomites. The modern Jews are mostly Turkic: Ashkenazim/Khazars; Zionism is the ideology of the latter.

This touches one of the sore points I have with Bible commentators: they keeps referring to all the tribes together as Jews. This is as though one were to call all Americans as New Yorkers - get the smelling salts Southrons, you're now Yorkies. There is the house of Israel and the House of Judah; when all the tribes are as one nation; then it is call Israel; and the population is called Israelite.

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 8:55 AM  

Most of the laws in the Talmud are actually derived from q very close reading of the Bible. Every letter is assumed to have a purpose to tell us a law. If the same word is usef in different passages, it is assumed that that is telling they are,related some how. The juxtaposition of two passages is assumed to convey information.

Anonymous rienzi May 30, 2017 8:55 AM  

In the Old Testament all the "begatting" is done through the male line. Yet, today the Jews determine who is a Jew through matriarchal descent. When did this change?

Prior to the building of Solomon's temple, the Hebrews did all of their sacrifices, etc., in what was essentially a series of large tents out in the countryside. What's preventing them from doing that now?

A number of the Jews I know are complete sticklers for following the laws in Leviticus. In some cases taking it to ludicrous extremes. Yet they completely and utterly ignore the very specific and detailed laws about animal sacrifice from the same book.

It has been estimated that about a quarter of the population of Europe are direct descendants of Charlemagne. In the same way, it would be extremely difficult for anyone of European ancestry NOT to be a direct descendant of Abraham. So think about that for a minute all those who think we have to suck up to the Israelis as a command from God.

My son lives in Spain. He is a Protestant. Warms my heart to know that this makes Spain a Protesto-Catholic country. Who would have guessed?

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 30, 2017 8:59 AM  

It changed after the destruction of Jerusalem by the romans and subsequent scattering of the tribes.

Because 20 centuries of rape doesn't allow you to know who the father is, only the mother.

Basically none of the people claiming to be Jewish today have any scriptural warrant for their claim.

Blogger DeploraBard May 30, 2017 9:00 AM  

JudeoAllah

Anonymous rienzi May 30, 2017 9:02 AM  

57. Michael Neal:"I guess we can start building voodoo god statues also to replace the confederate ones being torn down"


As much as it pains me to say it, it being New Orleans and all, perhaps voodoo statues would be more appropriate than Confederate ones.

Blogger Johnny May 30, 2017 9:03 AM  

>>It has been estimated that about a quarter of the population of Europe are direct descendants of Charlemagne. In the same way, it would be extremely difficult for anyone of European ancestry NOT to be a direct descendant of Abraham.

If you use the Bible method only male lineage counts and you don't get this huge multiplication of offspring. So staying biblical, most of us would not be related to Charlemagne or Abraham as each of us would have only a single male ancestor during the time these men were around, and so there would be a whole lot of other equally choices. All depends on how you want to think about it.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 30, 2017 9:03 AM  

It's truly impressive how well the propaganda campaign has been on the topic.

A thought that struck me yesterday is that the people who most proudly proclaim our Judeo-Christian heritage are often the least curious about the Judeo- part. They don't go studying to find out what their "elder brothers in faith" really believe, or how much those beliefs have changed over the centuries. They just take for granted that it's some things we also believe, like the Ten Commandments (with the faulty assumption that we mean the same things by them), plus some harmless cultural stuff like dietary laws. If the Judeo- part of our culture and values is so important that they need to lampshade it regularly, shouldn't they want to do some elementary study of the Talmud, or of Jewish history post-Temple, to gain a deeper understanding of that heritage?

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 9:04 AM  

The bible says ritually impure peope camnot sacrifice. A petson who comes in comtact with the dead or is in the same structure as a corpse is ritually impure and remains so untill sprinkled with the ashed of the red heifer. Its in tbe bible.

Blogger Johnny May 30, 2017 9:08 AM  

Resident Moron™ wrote:It changed after the destruction of Jerusalem by the romans and subsequent scattering of the tribes.

Because 20 centuries of rape doesn't allow you to know who the father is, only the mother.

Basically none of the people claiming to be Jewish today have any scriptural warrant for their claim.


The rub here is that aside from somebody saying it there is no real evidence of the Romans dispersing the population. They were murderous but not given to expulsion. So why do we think they did? Because somebody started saying.

And it is documentable that the diaspora predated Jesus. For the Romans Jew and Jewish religion following were the same for the Romans, and they bring it up as a matter of record. There were a lot of Jews in the Roman empire, too many for it to have been an ethnic spread.

Anonymous Sertorius May 30, 2017 9:13 AM  

Regarding "Muslims in America," one thing to remember is that West Africa was increasingly Islam-ified in the 19th Century. During the Colonial period, for instance, Islam was just making inroads into the trader/elite class in Gambia--any slave sold to Europeans would be much more likely to be "pagan," with any enslaved Muslims by-catch like a dolphin in a tuna net.

There were recorded instances of Muslim slaves in the Colonies, but they were rare enough to be worthy of mention even in the WPA slave narrative collections and in local folklore. And of course, there is the famous case of Job ben Solomon--explored in Douglas Grant's "Fortunate Slave," that provides a great case study of both the slave trade and Anglo-American philanthropists of the day.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) May 30, 2017 9:21 AM  

You're banned and spammed, Wheeler. Add this to the many, many places you're not allowed to comment.

This is madness!

Blogger Johnny May 30, 2017 9:23 AM  

@80. Sertorius

Although they sort of cheat on it, Islamics are not supposed to enslave fellow Islamics and usually don't. That injunction would be an incentive to not convert the local blacks. What may have brought about black Islam, the genuine type in Africa, was the shutdown of the slave trade that started in the 19th Century. The shutdown eliminated the disincentive for making converts.

And gosh oh golly, the blacks from Africa used to be animists and stuff; and now Islamic? I guess it depends on what kind of fake news crap they want to feed

Anonymous Philalethes May 30, 2017 9:30 AM  

America is a Christian nation. Its heritage is Christian and its values are Christian.

Not so fast, fella. Sharīʿah means "Law". There were laws in colonial America. Therefore, Islam was instrumental in the founding of the country. (What's the Arabic for Q.E.D.?)

Blogger Rob May 30, 2017 9:34 AM  

I don't know how or why people have forgotten this:

Christianity is "The correct continuation of Judaism."

The Judaism of today is not the Judaism of Jesus' day. The Judaism of Jesus' time "sputtered out" and ran out of steam around 70 AD, when Rome sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple.

One of the markings of Judaism was the Temple in Jerusalem. That is where sacrifices were made.

Without that Temple, all they were left with was their scriptures. Jews today don't Sacrifice anything in their Synagogues.

Judaism today is basically like Protestantism. It's an incomplete religion.

Jesus was Jewish. He was the Messiah. Peter, James, John, and the rest were all a bunch of Jews who figured they had recognized the Messiah in Jesus, and were going to continue on "in their Jewishness" with this knowledge. Paul comes along and brings in a bunch of Gentiles.

Judaism before Jesus was defined as: "Those who are waiting for the Messiah."

Judaism after Jesus was, and is still, defined as: "Those who don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah."

There is no "Judeo-Christianity." "Christianity" **IS** the Correct Form of Judaism!

Blogger Johnny May 30, 2017 9:35 AM  

Philalethes wrote:America is a Christian nation. Its heritage is Christian and its values are Christian.

Not so fast, fella. Sharīʿah means "Law". There were laws in colonial America. Therefore, Islam was instrumental in the founding of the country. (What's the Arabic for Q.E.D.?)


And Torah means law also and the five books have maybe 400 of them. So round and round we go.

Anonymous Philalethes May 30, 2017 9:43 AM  

So Islam is the religion of slaves? Sorry buddy, but we abolished slavery a long time ago.

The word "islam" means "submission". Every Muslim is a slave of Allah, by definition. Note the prevalence of ʿabd in Muslim names, e.g. Abdullah. I read many years ago that ʿabd translates as "slave"; but I note that in Wikipedia (and Infogalactic) and Wiktionary Abdullah is translated as "Servant of God". However, when I clicked on the Arabic عَبْدُ ٱللّٰه on the Wiktionary page, it went to a page headed by the Arabic word, but written in English, where عَبْد ʿabd is translated as "servant, slave". Guess the PC editors didn't get to it.

Btw, the Latin word for "slave" is servus. Guess which English word derives therefrom.

Blogger Orthodox May 30, 2017 9:50 AM  

Slavery was a near universal in the ancient world. No need for any religious belief system to invent it.

We're talking about America and the influence of various groups. Apparently, Jewish and Muslim slave traders played a huge role in things. We need to remove symbols of Judaism and Islam because it reminds us of slavery. Too divisive!

Anonymous Sertorius May 30, 2017 10:00 AM  

@82 Johnny

An interesting (contemporary) novel on the conversion process is Marissa Conde's "Segu"--although since it portrays the animist/pagan world that's destroyed in a positive light, no doubt it's been "stealth banned" on any number of multi-culti reading lists recently.

At any rate, I'll quibble with VD's (rhetorical) flourish regarding relative numbers of Jews and Muslims in the Colonies, and while the Enlightenment mind could be fascinated with the Islamic "Other" (e.g. Voltaire) there was an altogether stronger, native English strain of Republicanism to be found in "Judaizing" Christians (e.g. John Selden) of the previous century.


Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 10:18 AM  

Jews cant sacrifive since the torah says ritually impure peo0e cant sacrifice. And Chtistians dont wacrifice either to the best of mx knowledge.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer May 30, 2017 10:23 AM  

Christians don't sacrifice because Christ was our sacrifice. Your excuse seems pretty weak compared to ours.

Anonymous Found-It May 30, 2017 10:26 AM  

The religious composition of those in the U.S. at its founding is academic. That we were overwhelmingly a christian people is of zero importance today unless one is going to suggest that Christian dominance then ought to have some practical policy consequence for today....Which of course it ought not.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer May 30, 2017 10:34 AM  

Found-It wrote:The religious composition of those in the U.S. at its founding is academic. That we were overwhelmingly a christian people is of zero importance today unless one is going to suggest that Christian dominance then ought to have some practical policy consequence for today....Which of course it ought not.

Never mind that the system was setup based on a Christian society. I am sure it will operate just as well for any type of society because culture has no effect on the rule of law at all

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 10:36 AM  

But my excuse is from the torah.

Anonymous Crew May 30, 2017 10:41 AM  

I propose that we revise history once more and henceforth refer to America's Pagan-Christian heritage and values.

Should that be Pageo-Christian or Paleo-Christian?

Anonymous Found-It May 30, 2017 10:50 AM  

"Never mind that the system was setup based on a Christian society. I am sure it will operate just as well for any type of society because culture has no effect on the rule of law at all"

Interesting. But a non Sequitur. Whether or not the U.S. was set up based on a "Christian Society" has nothing to do with how America ought to create and put into place policy today. Furthermore, it's perfectly clear that non-christians are are quite capable of successfully operating within the governmental system set up here in the 18th century as well as further that system.

Blogger Nick S May 30, 2017 10:53 AM  

This is one of those obsessions of Vox I generally ignore, but the false equivalencies were intriguing, so, at a glance...

As I understand it, the term originated as just another way to speak about Messianic Jews. It was subsequently appropriated, misapplied and consequently ruined by leftists the same way they've been allowed to ruin so much other perfectly good nomenclature.

Even if such a thing as Messianic Muslims existed, the Islamic aspect of their faith would need to be completely rejected and abandoned since Islam is compatible with neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament.

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 10:57 AM  

The Declaration of Independence talks about self evident truths. That sounds kind of elightenment or age of reason like. It doeant't mention biblical truths does it? I read that Jefferson wantef to write sacred smd eternal instead of self evident but Franklin said that sounded top Biblical.

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 11:01 AM  

And the only word in the Preamble to the Constitution that sounds Biblical is Blessings.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer May 30, 2017 11:08 AM  

Found-It wrote:"Never mind that the system was setup based on a Christian society. I am sure it will operate just as well for any type of society because culture has no effect on the rule of law at all"

Interesting. But a non Sequitur. Whether or not the U.S. was set up based on a "Christian Society" has nothing to do with how America ought to create and put into place policy today. Furthermore, it's perfectly clear that non-christians are are quite capable of successfully operating within the governmental system set up here in the 18th century as well as further that system.


It's current year! We can do whatever we want!

Your definition of "furthering" is the first problem in the statement. Furthering implies that the system has changed and it in fact has changed a great deal from the original system. Non-Christians are incapable of maintaining the system and that is why it had to be "furthered". This mainly revolves around the "high-trust social mindset" which is common among Christians and extremely uncommon among people of other religions.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 30, 2017 11:08 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 30, 2017 11:10 AM  

The nation was founded in 1865 when the CSA lost their war for independence and the consolidated union callws THE uSA won. Prior, THESE uSA were born in 1788 when 9 former Colonies left/seceded from the Articles Of Confederation to join under the new Constitution of 1787, which new Constitution was an abandonment of the "No King But Jesus" to an Enlightenment view of government.
Yes, it was a Christian people, culture and government until 1783. Then it was a Christian people and culture in 1788. In 1865, it was Unitarians.

Anonymous Azimus May 30, 2017 11:18 AM  

Other than get a count of how many live slaves were debarked from each ship, male or female and approximate age (all information that would be desired for financial reasons)... they didn't even bother with names... how can anyone possibly deduce religion? From reading the article, it seems that they are basing this belief in muslim slaves on the port of origin, and general notions of the religious preferences of that port.

They really need to read "Into Africa" by Martin Dugard - it is primarily a work on Livingstone, but it chronicles how slaves were taken from hundreds of miles inland by muslims to ports where they were loaded on ships. The fact that 30% of the people living in the ports WHO SOLD THEM INTO SLAVERY, has zero bearing on the religiosity of the land they were stolen from. I can't imagine a more deeply insulting lie to foist on American blacks that the hand that made slavery possible in the first place - the arab muslim - is somehow a banner of pride to be embraced. This is truly disgusting, truly disgusting rhetoric and the vilest muslim propaganda.

This would be right up there with "space aliens built the pyramids'" it's so absurd... if it didn't try to cover such a trail of blood and human suffering as muslims have heaped onto black people.

Anonymous Jeff May 30, 2017 11:20 AM  

"Furthering" is the new progressive.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl May 30, 2017 11:21 AM  

Yeah, the Muslims would often not convert black people for the purposes of selling them into slavery. And most black people converted to Christianity or stayed pagan on arrival.

There were probably 10-30 Muslims as a whole in the original United States. There were probably more Romanians or Ingrians.

Blogger Matamoros May 30, 2017 11:21 AM  

Swedish wiki page for Swedes in 2012:

Swedes are an ethnic group native to Sweden, with descendants living in many other countries, primarily Finland, Estonia and the other Nordic countries, as well as the United States. Swedes originated from various Scandinavian tribes inhabiting what is today the country of Sweden.

Wiki page in 2017:
”Swedes” is a term used to denote individuals, depending on the definition, with an association to Sweden. Whether or not an ethnic group called “Swedes” exist is dubious, and can in various contexts be linked to extreme ring-wing concepts of race and biological heritage.

Anonymous Found-It May 30, 2017 11:25 AM  

"Non-Christians are incapable of maintaining the system"

Absurd. Many a non-christian has very successfully defended and worked within the government system set up by the founders. And yes, it has changed, but this is not a result of non-christians.

Your comment is indicative of the kind of silliness that results from evaluating the world as you think it ought to be rather than as it is.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 May 30, 2017 11:26 AM  

Johnny wrote:>>No, they are not. That is a lie. The Old Testament is not Jewish. It can be described as Hebrew or Israelite, but not Jewish. Moses was a Levite, not a Jew. Josuah was an Ephraimite. And, more importantly, Judaism is not limited to the Old Testament.

Just as a point of information, these ethnic terms are more slippery than might be expected. The standard line is that the Hebrew tribal people settled by some means Canaan and came to dominate it. But the "Hebrew" thing is hard to track down and I personally suspect the word is a later day invention, a corruption of the Egyptian term for the people from the region. Aramean would be a better guess as to ethnic type. That would be the people from Aram, or Syria, who moved in following the turmoil in the thirteenth century and became the ruling class in this multi ethnic area.

Jew is the word the Romans used to describe the residents of the province of Judea. And there is significant evidence that the commonly accepted Jewish history in the post Jesus period is fake.

The post Jesus Jewish history that is commonly understood is not easily supported by evidence. It appears the Jewish diaspora predates the revolts against the Romans, and occurred in part because Judaism was a spreading faith, spread mainly by picked up converts. And it may also be that the apostle Paul was spreading Christianity mainly by cannibalizing on the recent Jewish converts. He was selling a similar doctrine that was easier for the pagans to pick on. More appeal with Christ, no circumcision needed for conversion, and he dropped the numerous and obscure rules that were in the Old testament.


Point of contention: the term "Jew" was used by the Babylonians before the Romans. The northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians, who basically destroyed them. The Southern kingdom consisted mostly of Judah, which was eventually conquered by the Chaldeans or Babylonians. They were the ones who came up with the term "Jew" to describe them. You'll notice that when the Israelites return from exile, they refer to themselves as Jews for the first time, hundreds of years before Roman occupation.

Anonymous BBGKB May 30, 2017 11:30 AM  

Islam did play a part Tom Jefferson created the marines to deal with moslem pirates.

30% of the slaves came from areas where there were predominantly Muslim populations.”

I thought the jewish owned slave boats bought slaves, from African moslems, that were defeated voodoo blacks to sell at jewish run auctions?

The Jews always under report themselves in terms of numbers.

1/3 of all US lynchings were "white" with many states only having "whites" lynched, but the ADL was formed after a jew was lynched for raping a 13yo girl to death.

Is that really hard to believe? Would you have any problem believing, for example, a Suni Muslim selling a Shia Muslim into slavery?

I have a harder time believing that moslems in Africa would be able to tell the difference between one sect of moslems and another without imams telling them.

Yet they completely and utterly ignore the very specific and detailed laws about animal sacrifice from the same book.

Too cheap

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 30, 2017 11:31 AM  

@102. Azimus
That was one well written rant and absolutely correct.

ISLAM AND SLAVERY
http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/slavery.htm

Can Muslims be enslaved by other Muslims?
https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/12960/can-muslims-be-enslaved-by-other-muslims

Blogger Johnny May 30, 2017 11:32 AM  

Mathias wrote:So Islam is the religion of slaves? Sorry buddy, but we abolished slavery a long time ago.

Of course the slave to Allah is symbolic. But Islam abandoned slavery a long time ago? Sorry, ain't so. There never has been an indigenous anti slavery movement in Islam and in central Africa the practice is making a comeback. It never shut down completely. Note ISIS and its real live before your eyes slave auctions. Hey, they got footage.

The British along with a few others stopped the slave taking of whites in the Mediterranean by the use of warships. They also threatened slavers in the Indian Ocean, causing the slave trade to shift to the Sahara Desert route. The last known slave auction in Saudi Arabia was in the 1960's.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 30, 2017 11:32 AM  

Found-It wrote:Furthermore, it's perfectly clear that non-christians are are quite capable of successfully operating within the governmental system set up here in the 18th century as well as further that system.
This is observably false, as the non- or rather anti-Christians have been setting themselves up in power for 40 or 50 years now. The subsequent devolution of the US into warring 3rd-world enclaves, and total breakdown in the political system is, I'm sure, entirely coincidental.

Blogger Darwin is a Harsh Mistress May 30, 2017 11:38 AM  

98 Nathan Schuster

I don't understand why non-Christians parse the language of business proposals and contracts (i.e., the Declaration and the Constitution) to argue for or against the Christian esse of the American nation.

What does Jesus have to do with our earthly organizational structures????

It's as though modern mentalities can grasp the Christian religion only in terms of farce and stereotype, as Ned Flanders from The Simpsons.

I am Christian. My family was here in 1620 and later and actually built many towns and institutions thriving even today. I know they were Christian because they are my family and I grew up with knowledge of them and their purpose.

This is incontrovertible except when the desire is to neutralize facts using the absence of government documents that would, to the satisfaction of the destroyer, confirm the obvious points no actual American needs to have confirmed.

In other words, the foundational business documents of the American Republic say little to nothing about Jesus and his Church because the Church was not in need of attention. Our government was in need of attention.

Only immigrants and #FakeAmericans with a nasty personal axe to grind claim otherwise. For us #TrueAmericans who know our own family histories, THOSE ARE FIGHTING WORDS.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer May 30, 2017 11:49 AM  

Found-It wrote:"Non-Christians are incapable of maintaining the system"

Absurd. Many a non-christian has very successfully defended and worked within the government system set up by the founders. And yes, it has changed, but this is not a result of non-christians.

Your comment is indicative of the kind of silliness that results from evaluating the world as you think it ought to be rather than as it is.



As Snidley has pointed out, it is observably false that they have worked within the original system as the founders intended. The results of failing to maintain that system are also very clear. Someone in this argument is "evaluating the the world as you think it ought to be" but it isn't me. I believe the 3rd law of SJWs applies here.

Anonymous Found-It May 30, 2017 11:50 AM  

"This is observably false, as the non- or rather anti-Christians have been setting themselves up in power for 40 or 50 years now. The subsequent devolution of the US into warring 3rd-world enclaves, and total breakdown in the political system is, I'm sure, entirely coincidental."

The U.S. political system hasn't broken down, as the supporters of Donald Trump will surely remind us. Additionally, there has been no Constitutional Crisis great enough to overcome the the Constitution in the past 150+ years. And all this time, numerous non-christians have inhabited the states in greater and greater number.

It's also important to note that the extent to which the U.S. was or is a christian nation has nothing to do with its structure, but rather with the people who have been and are here. The Constitution is a decidedly secular document, in every way.

Finally, it's disingenuous to suggest that non-christians are anti-christian.

Anonymous Found-It May 30, 2017 11:51 AM  

"As Snidley has pointed out, it is observably false that they have worked within the original system as the founders intended."

So you say....but not show.

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 30, 2017 11:54 AM  

@Johnny

There's at least two such scatterings in the history of the Jews.

Once after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and once more after its destruction by the Romans.

I don't credit it because "someone started saying it", I credit it because God promised it before it happened, both times.

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 11:54 AM  

Its just that if it was based on bliblicak stuff i woulf expect bliblical type lanhuage, not something that sounds enlightenment. For example deriving rightd ftom zhr bible not from self evident axiomms.

Blogger Koanic May 30, 2017 11:57 AM  

You can't abolish slavery. You can only universalize it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 30, 2017 12:04 PM  

Found-It wrote:Finally, it's disingenuous to suggest that non-christians are anti-christian.
Your inability to understand what you read is not my problem.

Found-It wrote:The U.S. political system hasn't broken down, as the supporters of Donald Trump will surely remind us. Additionally, there has been no Constitutional Crisis great enough to overcome the the Constitution in the past 150+ years.
Britannia rules the waves.

Anonymous instasetting May 30, 2017 12:22 PM  

#117 Who was the most quoted man by the Founders? John Locke? No, although he was quoted extensively. No, it was Moses.

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 12:29 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger VD May 30, 2017 12:29 PM  

No, it was Moses.

Moses was not a Jew. And Moses is holy to Muslims.

So you say....but not show.

He doesn't have to show you anything, Obvious. All you have ever done is say; you never show anything.

Now, go away.

Blogger Darwin is a Harsh Mistress May 30, 2017 12:40 PM  

121 Nathan Schuster

The later: it wasn't mentioned because (1) it was understood by all concerned and (2) it was not germane to the purpose at hand, which was political.

For example: many of the fighters of the Revolution were Anglican. In my family, we are equally split between Anglican Loyalists and Anglican Patriots. Obviously, their dispute was not doctrinal since they all worship according to the Book of Common Prayer.

After the war, the victorious Patriots were likewise all Christians with no need to dispute the fine points of the Reformation and its sequali. They needed to organize Thirteen independent Colonies into a common front to the world, lest their immediate victory be for naught.

Concerning the Church of England, the only effect of the Revolution on it in American was to cause its renaming to the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, to distinguish it from the Roman episcopal church in America, and the need to secure an alternate source of bishops for the making of priests and confirmands.

This is common sense but sadly wide open to agitation since the Founding Fathers did not anticipate such a vile attack upon their posterity. (I am their Posterity, and my sons.)

Blogger Darwin is a Harsh Mistress May 30, 2017 12:42 PM  

Correction, "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America."

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 12:42 PM  

Arent there a lot of christiams involved in the devolution process as well? Dont xou call them cucks?

Anonymous Crew May 30, 2017 12:45 PM  

I see that the BBC has a video claiming the Spanish Inquisition was largely a myth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhlAqklH0do

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 12:59 PM  

I read thr Jefferson left orthodox Episcopalianism. Franklin wad raised a Puritan but idenzified as a Deist. Hamilton became bit of a freethinker. So questioning thr religious they were raissed was not unheard of among thr founding fathers.

Anonymous Icicle May 30, 2017 1:03 PM  

Moses was a Muslim!
https://www.quora.com/Was-Moses-a-Jew-in-Quran

Moses was a Levite but not a Jew!
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2011/20110208.htm

Moses was a Levite and Levites are Jews due to the Talmud!
http://www.answers.com/Q/Was_Moses_Jewish

Moses was not a Jew due to the Talmud!
http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Torah-Commentaries/Was-Moses-Jewish-438994


Well I'm sold. Only thing left to ask: was Moses even real?

Anonymous FP May 30, 2017 1:08 PM  

"Finally, it's disingenuous to suggest that non-christians are anti-christian."

Have you never dealt with serious atheists? Hell, just look at all of the debate of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance over the last 50 years.

They slaughter their hated Sky God and then erect a new G-man in the sky. With his many spy cameras, listening devices and commerce clauses demanding control of all.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 30, 2017 1:09 PM  

Can Jewishness be proven with a saliva test?

This could be a significant breakthrough," explained Rabbi Yosef Carmel, head of the Gazit rabbinical court and the Eretz Hemdah Institute for Advanced Jewish Studies. According to Carmel, "Using a simple sample of saliva can save a long and difficult conversion process."

They are looking at mtDNA, the DNA from the maternal side. Anyone see the joke here for Ashkenazim?

Anyone?
Bueller?

Anonymous Found-It May 30, 2017 1:52 PM  

"Have you never dealt with serious atheists? Hell, just look at all of the debate of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance over the last 50 years."

Sure. The vast majority of atheists are like the vast majority of Christians and Jews: They go about their business doing what they do and believing what they believe (or don't believe) with very little public action or advocacy of any kind on behalf of their view.

Are there fanatical Atheists, Christians, Jews, etc? Of course. But they represent the tiniest of minorities.

Blogger Mr Darcy May 30, 2017 1:58 PM  

@#39 leatherwing: You wrote:

" [...] I know that in the US, one of the first slave owners in Virginia was black, [...]."

Date? Name? Source? How do you "know" this?
Not "challenging." Merely asking. That's a place & time I know a LOT about, but this remark doesn't fit into what I know to be true. There are primary source docs.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer May 30, 2017 2:12 PM  


Mr Darcy wrote:@#39 leatherwing: You wrote:

" [...] I know that in the US, one of the first slave owners in Virginia was black, [...]."

Date? Name? Source? How do you "know" this?

Not "challenging." Merely asking. That's a place & time I know a LOT about, but this remark doesn't fit into what I know to be true. There are primary source docs.



I am guessing he is referring to this, https://infogalactic.com/info/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 30, 2017 2:13 PM  

@81 "This is madness!"

The Masons win again.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett May 30, 2017 2:18 PM  

I really wish you had some familiarity with the usage of whatever language you're trying to write....

I thought Jewboys had high verbal IQs

Blogger Mr Darcy May 30, 2017 2:20 PM  

@105 Matamoros:

Astounding. Thanks for posting that. What a difference a very few years can make.

Blogger Mr Darcy May 30, 2017 2:24 PM  

@112 Darwin is a harsh mistress:

This^^. BRAVO!

Anonymous Jack Murphy May 30, 2017 2:26 PM  

As always, I appreciate and enjoy the level of discourse on Vox's blog.

I have a question/request:

I casually used the phrase judeo-christian around here once to sort of summarize the general belief implanted in my brain somewhere that Jews and Christians represented one branch of the Abraham family tree and Muslims the other. It also was shorthand to explain the idea that American values were somewhat based on the ten commandments from Exodus which as I was told in the past, are both canonical to each religion. To me that was a sufficient enough cross over to generally believe there were/are morals and guiding principles common enough to both Jews and Christians which made for a reasonable grouping of judeo christian vis a vis islam or pagans et al. I've been curious to have all this refuted/learn more to clarify my thinking on this subject.

So my question, and thank you in advance, is: Is there an essay/book/article which is voxday.blogspot.com approved which explains the lack of judeo-christian-ness of the United States and debunks once and for all this notion? I am curious and would love to read it.

Thank you in advance!

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl May 30, 2017 2:30 PM  

Soooo wait a second...I thought the Leftist line was that the USA was a capitalistic, misogynistic, imperialistic, patriarchal terror state that has only brought doom and destruction on the world?

Are they saying that Mooslems are responsible for this travesty, being that the Founding Fathers based the Declaration and Constitution on the Holy Koran and were all Musselmen now?

(I know I know, the Left doesn't have a "philosophy" outside of absolute power nor any concept of argument beside bombard, attack, destroy, but still - the level of absurdity they go to...)

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 30, 2017 2:35 PM  

Jack Murphy wrote:To me that was a sufficient enough cross over to generally believe there were/are morals and guiding principles common enough to both Jews and Christians which made for a reasonable grouping of judeo christian vis a vis islam or pagans et al.
While there are shared morals between Judaism and Christianity, there are no shared values between them. As far as guiding principles, the guiding principle of Judaism is that every single thing that Christians hold sacred is blasphemy to Jews. Every single thing.

The divinity of Christ? Blasphemy.
The holy Trinity? Blasphemy.
The bodily resurrection? Blasphemy.
Forgiveness of sins? Blasphemy.
The Holy Spirit? Blasphemy.

Every. Single. Thing.

Blogger Mr Darcy May 30, 2017 2:39 PM  

@133 basementhomebrewer:

Many thanks! Especially for your promptness. Fascinating--the Infogalactic article. I've only recently learned of Infogalactic, so I'd not gotten around to looking up anything as arcane as the article to which you so kindly linked me. I looked over the sources and was satisfied. Doesn't mention Dorman, but almost all other sources are sound. Then I began to read the article itself and ran across this:

"[...] Johnson was sold to a white planter named Bennet [...]."

That's Edward Bennett, shareholder and member of the Board of Directors of the Virginia Company of London, and my 14th-great grandfather...

But I had to learn of this odd connection from a blog! Again, my thanks for the excellent article and your promptness in replying to my questions to another poster. My sister and my daughter will be most interested in this info. Thanks once more.

Anonymous BBGKB May 30, 2017 3:02 PM  

I see that the BBC has a video claiming the Spanish Inquisition was largely a myth:

Same channel that said king Arthur married a niggerette?

OT: Has anyone else noticed the white guys on the show Nigbachelorette are more manly than any other white guys cast by jews?

Blogger Cail Corishev May 30, 2017 3:14 PM  

Jack Murphy,

Searching this blog for the term should turn up some germane articles. Here's one:

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/judeo-christian-is-anti-christian.html

By the way, the point isn't that the USA isn't Judeo-Christian (though it isn't); it's that the term is itself a contradictory piece of propaganda. There simply is no such thing. All Christians would have scoffed at the idea until last century, and many Jews still do.

Blogger weka May 30, 2017 3:16 PM  

If I recall the time when America was sone and the British Empire strong, Pennsylvania was the only colony without a state religon. In all other American colonies Jews and Muslims were not welcome. Blacks were.

They need to go back. Muslims, then Jews. The Africans may have a place.

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 3:33 PM  

Rhode Islamd had a Jewish community. The Synshogue id still there. New York had Jews since the time it eas New Amsterdam

Blogger Mark May 30, 2017 3:41 PM  

Blossom withers but becomes fruit.
Does Christ's new covenant in His blood lose its meaning and context bereft of the Jewish feast of the Passover?
Each, a foretaste of the feast to come?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 30, 2017 3:43 PM  

NathAn Schuster wrote:Rhode Islamd had a Jewish community. The Synshogue id still there. New York had Jews since the time it eas New Amsterdam
There were undoubtedly satanists of some stripe in Boston then too. So what? There were probably more Red Indians in Providence at the time of the Revolution than there were Jews.

Blogger Rabbi B May 30, 2017 3:43 PM  

@140 Snidely Whiplash

The divinity of Christ? Blasphemy.
The holy Trinity? Blasphemy.
The bodily resurrection? Blasphemy.
Forgiveness of sins? Blasphemy.
The Holy Spirit? Blasphemy.


The first two, admittedly, yes. But only because they have never been put into a proper Torah context and understanding. When properly understood from a Torah perspective, Jews should not have a problem with the first two, although I understand why they do.

As for the remaining ... these are not blasphemous concepts. In fact, neither is the idea of being "born again".

We just need more noble-minded Jews who are not so insecure that they won't thoughtfully and dispassionately consider the claims of Y'shua and others' claims about Him during the Second Temple period.

Sadly, though they pride themselves in diligently searching the Scriptures, too many refuse to come to the one about Whom those Scriptures testify so clearly.

The disciples spent the better part of the first century PROVING from the Scriptures that Y'shua was the Messiah. And there was no so-called New Testament from which they were preaching.

We still have Moses and the Prophets, and if we refuse to listen to them, then we will not listen, even if Someone were to rise from the dead.

I can only conclude then, that although we claim Abraham as Father and honor Moses as our Lawgiver, we are listening to neither. If we were, we would also be doing as Abraham and Moses did.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 30, 2017 3:50 PM  

Rabbi B wrote:The first two, admittedly, yes. But only because they have never been put into a proper Torah context and understanding. When properly understood from a Torah perspective, Jews should not have a problem with the first two, although I understand why they do.
They have been put in that context, many many times, and the Jews refused to listen.
The real problem is that a great many Jews have defined themselves in opposition to Christianity. Tolkein once wrote to his son that "The Church of England has only one dogma, "Thank God we're not Catholic". In the same way, many Jews have only one prayer, "Thank you G_d for not making me like the gentiles."
To admit to any validity of Christian claims, would be to deny a piece of their self image.
And most people will NEVER do that.

Blogger Rabbi B May 30, 2017 3:54 PM  

To admit to any validity of Christian claims, would be to deny a piece of their self image.

Just re-frame the "Christian claims" as Torah and Biblical claims. Just like Y'shua and the Twelve did in the first century.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 30, 2017 3:56 PM  

Rabbi B wrote:Just re-frame the "Christian claims" as Torah and Biblical claims. Just like Y'shua and the Twelve did in the first century.
And most Jews understood, and accepted the Messiah as the fulfilment of the Law. The ones who did not are who modern Jews are descended from.

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 4:03 PM  

I was responding tl weka above who said that only Pennsylvania had Jews

Blogger Nick S May 30, 2017 4:08 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Every. Single. Thing.

I'm sensing you lack unconditional positive regard for the transfaithful.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 30, 2017 4:17 PM  

Nick S wrote:I'm sensing you lack unconditional positive regard for the transfaithful.
Your cuck sensor seems to be correctly calibrated.

Blogger Sheila4g May 30, 2017 4:19 PM  

@145 NathAn Schuster: Yes, there were Jews in Rhode Island. That's why Rhode Island passed a law (still valid today) specifically exempting them from the charge of "incest" in the case of uncle/niece marriages, which are explicitly endorsed by the Talmud.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 30, 2017 4:38 PM  


@138 Jack Murphy

"So my question, and thank you in advance, is: Is there an essay/book/article which is voxday.blogspot.com approved which explains the lack of judeo-christian-ness of the United States and debunks once and for all this notion?"

As @143 Cail Corishev pointed out, the presence or absence of "Judeo-Christianity" in the US is not the best way to frame the question; it's the validity of the concept itself (or the lack thereof), that's the real issue. One way to look at this is to examine whether it really makes sense to attempt to join these 2 of the 3 Abrahamic faiths together, and to exclude the third. Why those particular two? To put it another way, is Judaism closer to Christianity? Or to Islam? I don't know if this is a Vox-approved source, but it's a pretty good rundown of the features that Judaism and Islam share that are absent from Christianity.

http://www.judaism-islam.com/similarities-between-judaism-and-islam/

Blogger Tank May 30, 2017 4:55 PM  

Jews must go home says the Indian in Italy.

No, we are in the White House with the President.

Blogger Rabbi B May 30, 2017 4:58 PM  

@157 Tank

No, we are in the White House with the President.

The President should make Israel great again, and send them home.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 30, 2017 5:00 PM  

@155 Sheila4g

"Yes, there were Jews in Rhode Island. That's why Rhode Island passed a law (still valid today) specifically exempting them from the charge of "incest" in the case of uncle/niece marriages, which are explicitly endorsed by the Talmud"

On an entirely unrelated note, Newport, RI, where the first synagogue in the US is located, was the center of the US slave trade in the 1700s. Aaron Lopez, anyone?


@142 BBGKB

"OT: Has anyone else noticed the white guys on the show Nigbachelorette are more manly than any other white guys cast by jews?"

"Real men date dinduettes, goy!"

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 5:07 PM  

I read that paul in corinthians 1 7 38petmitted fathers to marry their daughters

Anonymous Sertorius May 30, 2017 5:08 PM  

Regarding Jews in the Colonies, Charleston and the newly established Georgia had both Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations. (Perennial Steve Sailer favorite, Judah P. Benjamin, was part of that later milieu before moving to Louisiana.)

FWIW, it's the Southern colonies that complicate the Anglo-centrism of the "they have to go back" theory. Take someone, say, like Henry Laurens--second President of the Continental Congress after John Hancock, who spent most of the last part of the war cooling his heels in the Tower of London (before being exchanged for Cornwallis.) Laurens was the son of a Huguenot saddler whose family had been "in country" since the late 17th Century. (FWIW, many of the leading citizens of Carolina were fellow Frenchmen--e.g. John Sevier--"Xavier"--of Overmountain Men fame.)

Add to the mix a large population of Germans in the uplands, Swiss religious refugees on the Savannah River, and Erse-speaking Highlanders who formed Oglethorpe's trip-wire with Spanish Florida, and the concept of "posterity" in a genetic sense becomes a bit tenuous.

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 5:10 PM  

I reax thaz lopez financed 21 out of over 300 slave ships. That isnt a big contribution.

Blogger weka May 30, 2017 5:15 PM  

And my point remains.

You all have the problem now. In NZ we have had a recent settlement of Muslims who want sharia compliant uniforms in our church schools.

They must go back.

Blogger weka May 30, 2017 5:17 PM  

Only Pennsylvania had no state religion as far as I can recall. Jews have never needed to have a state religion.

Blogger weka May 30, 2017 5:26 PM  

Miread. Allowed fathers to honour betrothal contracts. Some were teaching marriage was a sin.

Blogger weka May 30, 2017 5:27 PM  

Misread...

Blogger tublecane May 30, 2017 5:28 PM  

I have referred tongue-in-cheekily to Judeo-Muslim values. I think a better historical case can be made for that than the identity of Christianity and Judaism. If they're less buddy-buddy nowadays, who cares? We're supposed to be dealing with thousands of years of tradition with modifiers like "Judeo-Christian."

Blogger NathAn Schuster May 30, 2017 5:33 PM  

Is that the original reading or a modern interpretation?

Blogger VD May 30, 2017 6:29 PM  

Jews must go home says the Indian in Italy.

And the Prime Minister of Israel. And the Learned Elders of Wye... actually, they just say that Jews must leave the USA eventually.

Anonymous Marvin Boggs May 30, 2017 8:53 PM  

@2: now y'all crush the Burburry (sp?) pirates at Macy's.

[Sorry, I cannot resist puns.]

Anonymous Laz May 30, 2017 11:48 PM  

@102. Azimus

"This would be right up there with "space aliens built the pyramids'" it's so absurd..."

I'm not saying they did, but they certainly could have been the impetus. If you believe in the God of the bible, how is it such a leap when you look at "aliens" as fallen angels who have been here all along?

Anonymous DonReynolds May 31, 2017 1:37 AM  

From 1619 until 1783, this country was British America. Certainly for decades afterward, American society continued in the form of British society, some would even say largely to the present. One feature of that legacy of blood and tradition and habit was religious intolerance. While many Americans today would deny they are religious bigots today, to use the ugly term, there has been a history of religious persecution in this country. Yes, you are correct....Americans have become MORE tolerant of other religions, but it was a slow process.

Exhibit A of my argument is Roman Catholicism, which was not permitted into ANY of the early British colonies, until the King decided to erase debts owed the Calvert family by allowing Catholics to colonize Maryland. That dispensation may have permanently erased the money debt but it did not become a permanent arrangement. Maryland reversed itself on the Catholic question after a few years.

Exhibit B of my argument was the Quaker issue. Here again, the King owed the Penn family a great deal of money and decided to settle accounts by allowing a despised minority to have their own colony in North America, in Pennsylvania. This time, religious toleration was part of the religion and the followers of Fox found in Pennsylvania the perfect opportunity to demonstrate their society. Keep in mind that the Quakers were horribly persecuted, complete with burnings and hangings and public floggings.

Exhibit C of my argument was the Mormons (Church of the Latter Day Saints), a religion that is actually native to America. The violent and bloody persecution of the Mormons pushed them from New York to Illinois and ultimately to Utah. Yes, it even included low-grade warfare with the Mormons, such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Congress was so outraged by the practice of polygamy by the Mormons that the US Army was dispatched on a two-year march from Missouri to Salt Lake City to compel the Mormons to stop the practice.

For Exhibit D, I will group together a number of religious minorities in colonial America....the Puritans, the Baptists, the Methodists. Some were simply expelled from one colony to the next and sometimes they were the subject of physical coercion.

In this historic context, what would be the reaction of the British and Americans to the existence of large numbers of Muslims secretly lurking in the slave population? They could barely tolerate fellow Christians and had great difficulty with the pagan Indians. The Jews were the people of the Old Testament, but the Muslims were not unknown to British and American society. I suspect the correct answer for the Negro Muslims and the Indian pagans was the same....Christianize them, with missionaries and schools and churches. No doubt that was part of the seasoning process of Afrikan slaves BEFORE they were sold in the USA and any claimed existence of many thousands of Muslims in the slave population was unlikely. Yes, they may have been originally from Muslim areas of Afrika, but I strongly suggest that would never have been a selling point when they were sold in the markets of North America. I know of no mosque or apparent Muslim expression or influence in this country by the Negro slaves or after they were emancipated. There is no history that I know of, regarding freed slaves (certainly the case of Negroes serving in the British or the American cause) later creating their own Muslim religious community or mosque. In the religious context of the day, that probably would have been suicidal.

Anonymous DonReynolds May 31, 2017 1:57 AM  

@161 Sertorius
"FWIW, many of the leading citizens of Carolina were fellow Frenchmen--e.g. John Sevier--"Xavier"--of Overmountain Men fame.)"

Excuse me....but John Sevier, the first governor of Tennessee, was not a Frenchman....he was Dutch. His actual name was Johan Xavier, but it was a difficult and confusing name for British-Americans, so the spelling was changed to a more phonetic form.

This quibble does not damage your argument that genetic purity did not actually exist in the Southern colonies. One of the big export industries in the Southern colonies was "naval stores" which took advantage of the great pine forests. Balts and Germans were particularly skilled in this area. The first labor strike in the American colonies was by Polish glass blowers, who were not permitted to vote in Virginia. These people were all part of the "human capital" that was brought to the colonies for their skills and knowledge.

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 31, 2017 3:14 AM  

Rabbi B wrote:To admit to any validity of Christian claims, would be to deny a piece of their self image.

Just re-frame the "Christian claims" as Torah and Biblical claims. Just like Y'shua and the Twelve did in the first century.


If people won't read Daniel then they don't still have Moses and the Prophets.

They just have carefully selected pieces, from which you could equally make Tony Blair a saint and Mother Theresa a devil.

Anonymous Sertorius May 31, 2017 10:55 AM  

Don Reynolds--

Glad to have your insights regarding the ethnic diversity of the South, but I'm writing this about three miles from the John Sevier museum here south of Knoxville, and everything I've read pegs the great man as a Huguenot.

"1685 - Some of the family of St. Francis Xavier, living at Xavier, and bearing the name of the town as a family name, had embraced the Protestant religion, and one of them, a devout young Huguenot, Don Jaun Xavier, left France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) by Louis XIV. He settled in London, gradually changed the family name to Sevier, pronounced like the English adjective "severe," and his first name to John. He married a London girl named Smith. This was the grandfather of General John Sevier (Folmsbee, Stanley J. John Sevier Empire Builder)."

Of course, history is always being amended, so you might have access to genealogical sources I'm not familiar with.

Anonymous DonReynolds June 01, 2017 12:57 AM  

@175 Sertorius
Yes, of course, the museum is much more authoritative and terribly interesting.
I tried to find the town in France where John Sevier came from....Xavier. But all I could find was a country lane with that name in rural France. Apparently, the town is no longer called Xavier.
I was only interested because the Huguenots in the north of France were former Catholics who followed John Calvin, whereas the Huguenots in the south of France were primarily Jews who needed to convert to avoid persecution. Like I said, I never found the town called Xavier.
You are correct....John Sevier was a Huguenot.

Anonymous DonReynolds June 01, 2017 1:21 AM  

@175 Sertorius

Yes, of course, the museum is much more authoritative and terribly interesting.
I tried to find the town in France where John Sevier came from....Xavier. But all I could find was a country lane with that name in rural France. Apparently, the town is no longer called Xavier.
I was only interested because the Huguenots in the north of France were former Catholics who followed John Calvin, whereas the Huguenots in the south of France were primarily Jews who needed to convert to avoid persecution. Like I said, I never found the town called Xavier.
You are correct....John Sevier was a Huguenot.

He was born in Virginia in 1745. His father, Valentine Sevier, came to this country five years before as a colonist from England. So there was several generations of former Huguenots, living in England, before arriving in the British colonies.
John Sevier was certainly a great leader in his time, living a long life until 1815.

Anonymous Sertorius June 01, 2017 9:37 AM  

Don-- No worries! JS left a pretty big imprint on this part of the world (Sevier County, Sevierville, even Bonny Kate, for his wife)--even Jackson, his great rival, would be impressed (though no doubt pissed off by the fact.;)

Best,

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts