"What" thesis is it that you are referring to? That our Founding Fathers were Christian, and were influenced by their Christian beliefs?
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:17 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Believe you will find it difficult to support your thesis. > I remain interested in quotes from those Founders identifying Book, > Chapter and Verse providing basis for Article, Section and Clause or > similar. > The divine rights of kings has a biblical/Christian basis ... it was > ousted in case you missed it. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "Although it had its share of strenuous Christians... the gathering at > Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under > control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of > the traditional churches in their part of the country.. and most were men > who could take their religion or leave it alone. Although no one in this > sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, > neither would anyone have dared to proclaim his opinions had the support of > the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist > and even secular in spirit." -- Clinton Rossiter, 1787; The Grand > Convention, pp. 147-148 > > > > > At 03:05 PM 4/22/2014, you wrote: > > There is a separation between Church and State, as mandated by the > Constitution and as it should be. That has nothing to do with > Christianity being the most influential dictate of our Founding Fathers, > and still continues to be in this Nation....Again, whether you like it or > not.​ > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:53 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote: > ​Unfortunately for you Plain Ol, during yours and my lifetime, the > United States is, and will continue to be a non-secular Nation-State > ---- > speculation noted ... not shared. > A secular state is a concept of > secularism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism>, > whereby a state <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29> or > country <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country> purports to be officially > neutral in matters of religion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion>, > supporting neither religion nor irreligion. > [1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state#cite_note-1>A secular state > also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of > religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a > particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular > states do not have a state > religion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion>(established religion) > or equivalent. > The United States does not have an official religion at either the federal > or state level. There are some traditions and customs regarding the use of > a Bible when taking oaths in court, or for the President of the United > States during the oath of office, but neither of these are required by law. > The First Amendment to the United States > Constitution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>is > written as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the > freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to > assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" and > is held to be applied to the state via the Fourteenth > Amendment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>. > Furthermore, Article Six of the United States > Constitution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution>prohibits > the use of any religious test as qualification for any public > office. > > Alas, many American religious leaders resent the concept of religious > freedom. What they seek is religious dominion. The late Jerry Falwell was a > prime example of this; he despised > America's Constitution, and desperately tried to advance dominion. Not a > progressive society, but a fundamentalist one. > > “If we are going to save America and evangelize the world,†said > Falwell, “We cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are > diametrically opposed to Christian truth.†> > Before the Constitution, religious leaders using "spectral evidence" to > justify murder: > > How is this so different from the words of former Taliban spiritual leader > Mullah Mohammed Omar who, before September 11, 2001, oversaw the campaign > to destroy all his country's ancient Buddhist statues, some of which dated > back to the second century? And what reason for this destruction? Omar > explained: “I don't care about anything else but Islam.†Religious > pluralism, indeed, any pluralism, is forbidden. Law comes from the > "inspired" rule of the church or mosque. > > > On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:24:51 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > ​Unfortunately for you Plain Ol, during yours and my lifetime, the > United States is, and will continue to be a non-secular Nation-State, > relying upon it's Christian heritage as its moral compass and depending > upon Christian values, principals and tenets for the concept of "Ordered > Liberty". You hate this I know, and you and your secularist liberal > friends do everything in your power to revise history, but it's pretty > much for naught! > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:18 PM, plainolamerican > <[email protected]<http://??>> > wrote: > the government cannot mandate or regulate social behavior or morality. > --- > nor can the religious. > > the good news! > as Americans become more secular the religious will lose political power > and influence. > > > On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:12:50 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > As a "Genocidal Conservative"; I think this just goes to show that the > government cannot mandate or regulate social behavior or morality. It's > been tried and failed at each and every attempt. > > ​ > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, MJ <[email protected] <http://??>> > wrote: > "Herewith another and yet worse confession: I do not see, or care, why > it is thought my duty to like, or dislike, groups because of their race, > creed, color, sex, sexual aberration, or national origin. Nor do I think it > their duty to like me. I especially do not understand why the federal > government should decide with whom I ought to associate." > > "So what?" > How do you like them apples? > By Fred Reed > April 22, 2014 > > I am puzzled as to why racism is thought to be a terrible thing, rather > than entirely natural and often reasonable, and why people allow themselves > to be brow-beaten about it. Maybe we should stop. Domestic tranquility > would follow in torrents. > > As nearly as I can tell, a racist is one who approves of rigorous > education, good English, civilized manners, minimal criminality, and > responsible parenthood, among other things. I am, then, a racist. I see no > reason to grovel about it. > > I decided long ago that if, while I was doing a radio interview, a > caller-in told me, “You a racist!†I would hesitate as if puzzled, and > say “…So what?†This would add immeasurabbly to the planetary supply > of stunned silence. The expectation is that anyone so charged will fall on > his knees and beg for mercy. It would be a lesser offense to be caught > sexually molesting autistic three-year-old girls while attending a Nazi > torch-rally. > > Herewith another and yet worse confession: I do not see, or care, why it > is thought my duty to like, or dislike, groups because of their race, > creed, color, sex, sexual aberration, or national origin. Nor do I think it > their duty to like me. I especially do not understand why the federal > government should decide with whom I ought to associate. > > But back to “So what?†Among its charms is that there is no answer to > it, other than huffing and puffing and indignant expostulation. All of > these amuse me. Used frequently, “So what?†would shut up people who > badly need to shut up, or else force them to think. Not likely, as most > apparently cannot. > > Let us, improbably, glance at reality. A characteristic of human groups is > that they do not like each other. The greater the difference between the > groups, the greater the dislike; the closer the contact between them, the > more open the friction. Note that before the advent of mass immigration, > Americans of whatever politics had no dislike of Hispanics. > > Thus separation increases the likelihood of amity. Is this not obvious? > The instinctive rancor between disparate groups accounts for most of the > world’s problems. Moslems and Christians dislike each other, Tamils and > Sinhalese, Cambodians and Vietnamese, blacks and whites, Americans and > Frenchmen, men and women, homosexuals and the normal and, as Tom Lehrer > famously sang, “…everybody hates the Jews.†> > Except that in America Jews are so assimilated that most of us don’t > remember to hate them. They aren’t different enough. I’ll have to make > myself a note. > > Humans like to be among their own kind. This can mean many things. It can > be political. In Washington, white liberals cheerlead for diversity while > spending their time exclusively with white liberals and execrating > Southerners, Jesus Creepers, genocidal conservatives (understood to mean > all conservatives), Catholics, racists, owners of guns, rednecks, and so > on. No dissenting voices are heard because, like conservatives, liberals > choose to be among their own. Similarly, if in any of Washington’s dives > you know that one person in a table of six has an IQ in excess 130, it is a > good bet that all do. It isn’t snobbery. Smart people enjoy the company > of smart people. Their own kind. So what? > > If left alone, people will naturally and peacefully form such associations > as seem to them desirable. If left alone. So what? > > The Chinese cluster together in China Towns because they want to be among > their own. So what? Jews have yeshivas because they want to preserve their > culture. So what? On campus, black students want separate fraternities and > dormitories. So what? When men can find a pretext for being among other > men, they do. So what? > > In all of this, I am a bit of an outlier, having lived among many cultures > and generally liked them. Some can do this. Yet as a white American of > European extraction, I too want to preserve my culture. This involves (or > did) respect for law, studiousness, the production of children within > marriage, self-reliance, honesty, sexual restraint, and so on. Another part > of my cultural package is the literature of Milne, Milton, Twain, > Galsworthy, Gibbon, and others at length. I want my children to read them > > However, I do not want to impose my values and culture on others. American > blacks for example are truly African Americans, and quite reasonably may > have as little interest in European history as I do in African. Rationally > this would argue for separate schools where each could study what and as it > chose. For reasons impenetrable to me, to suggest this is thought worse > than genocide. > > A reason for letting people associate as they choose is that, while groups > naturally do not like each other, they overlap in curious ways. Left to > themselves, people sort these matters out like water reaching its level. > When I lived in Washington I used to spend afternoons over a Bass and > several of its friends at the Cafe Asia, on Wilson Boulevard just across > Key Bridge into Virginia. The Asia was then staffed by Asian girlsÂMalays, > Chinese, Vietnamese, and a lovely Japanese woman who managed it. The > clientele ran to young white professionals. > > Their unanimous opinion held of these women by white men was highly > favorable. Why? Well, these young ladiesÂthey were ladies–were sleek, > pretty, classy, never toilet-mouthed, and smart. Smart: One was doing > graduate work in computer security, another was a wide-area network > engineer, a third had been unable to find work after a master’s in > biochem, and so was in dental school. > > Here we have an example of people, being left alone, deciding for > themselves who to hang out with. The young white professionals had decided, > probably not consciously, that the Asian women had enough in common with > us, and enough not in common but appealing, that we really enjoyed them. > > Where is the fly in this ointment? I suppose we were racists, as we were > assuredly discriminating racially: We thought Malays pretty. The horror. No > doubt we were sinners all. > > Today of course we are federally admonished not to choose our own friends > and neighbors as if our lives were our own business. No. Instead we must > follow the social directives of the Potomac Soviet, whether anyone wants to > or not. Few do. In Washington, on the Hill, upper Connecticut, the inner > suburbs, the outer suburbs, everywhere, clubs and restaurants are either > almost perfectly white or perfectly black. Whites happily patronize Latin > American restaurants intended for the general trade, yet in mini-barrios > many venues tacitly are for browns only. So what? It is how people want > it. If freedom of association is racism, I am for it. > > So what? > > http://www.fredoneverything.net/LaudableRacism.shtml > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <http://??>. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <http://??>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
