our Founding Fathers were Christian, and were influenced by their Christian beliefs? --- and created a secular nation so that christians couldn't continue to persecute those with different beliefs. very smart.
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 9:31:49 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > > "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] <javascript:>>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]<javascript:>> >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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.
