Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 159 (8126 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-18-2014 3:41 PM
110 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Happy Birthday: Spiritual Anarchist
Post Volume:
Total: 736,183 Year: 22,024/28,606 Month: 1,111/1,410 Week: 313/524 Day: 16/61 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   A Christian State.
Larni
Member
Posts: 3745
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 1 of 65 (303446)
04-12-2006 6:15 AM


I was wondering the other day what would a country turn out like if it became a xian fundementalist state. That is to say that the government would abide by the religious laws and strictures of the bible. Here I include YEC ideology.

An extreme example of this can be seen in

"The Taliban ("Students of Islamic Knowledge Movement") (who) ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001. They came to power during Afghanistan's long civil war. Although they managed to hold 90% of the country's territory, their policies—including their treatment of women and support of terrorists—ostracized them from the world community. The Taliban was ousted from power in December 2001 by the U.S. military and Afghani opposition forces."

www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

What would the impact be on education, health, the economy and personal freedom be if a xian fundemenatlist party gained a similar level of control over the state apperatus?

As someone vehemently against religion having any role in politics I feel this would have a universally detrimental effect on the country's developement and would cause it to potentially lag behind other more secular countries.

But would that actually be the case? I would like to hear from both pro and con. Not totaly sure where to put this, Coffe House?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by riVeRraT, posted 04-12-2006 8:40 AM Larni has responded
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 9:23 AM Larni has responded
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 04-12-2006 9:43 AM Larni has responded
 Message 11 by jar, posted 04-12-2006 11:10 AM Larni has responded
 Message 18 by EZscience, posted 04-12-2006 12:37 PM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 27 by nator, posted 04-12-2006 4:26 PM Larni has responded
 Message 50 by DorfMan, posted 04-16-2006 9:41 PM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 51 by DorfMan, posted 04-16-2006 9:42 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 65 (303456)
04-12-2006 7:40 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5606
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 3 of 65 (303466)
04-12-2006 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
04-12-2006 6:15 AM


haha
Ideally, it would be like it was in Acts...

quote:
The Fellowship of the Believers
Acts 2
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.
45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

But judging it by the world is today and all it's denominations, I think it would more closely resemble a cluster fuck (excuse my french).
Nothing more than a Pharisee parade.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 04-12-2006 6:15 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Larni, posted 04-12-2006 9:20 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3745
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 4 of 65 (303472)
04-12-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by riVeRraT
04-12-2006 8:40 AM


Re: haha
A cluster fuck eh?

I was kind of thinking fundementalist xian society, somewhat like a state that uses the literal interpretation of the bible for direction of how to run a society.

Would there not be any redeeming features of a truly xian fundementalist state?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by riVeRraT, posted 04-12-2006 8:40 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by riVeRraT, posted 04-12-2006 10:17 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 16041
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 5 of 65 (303473)
04-12-2006 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
04-12-2006 6:15 AM


SO silly. The Reformation was as good as a fundamentalist state and Europe thrived under it. The Mayflower brought over nothing but fundamentalists. The early days of America were fundamentalist. Good things came of it such as the first governing principles that ultimately undergirded the US Constitution. Sheesh.

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-12-2006 09:24 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 04-12-2006 6:15 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 04-12-2006 10:31 AM Faith has responded
 Message 15 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-12-2006 11:58 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 20 by ReverendDG, posted 04-12-2006 2:33 PM Faith has responded
 Message 26 by nator, posted 04-12-2006 4:12 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Larni, posted 04-13-2006 3:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 6307
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 6 of 65 (303481)
04-12-2006 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
04-12-2006 6:15 AM


A theocratic state? I think history has demonstrated quite amply how those turn out. I'm sure theocracies start with the very best intentions (they need them to help pave the road), but they pretty universally end up as 'not good'. Even Buddhists have managed to screw up theocracy. I think a dead cert is the removal of evolution from the curriculum, the teaching of Flood geology and banning of abortion would follow.

As with any other theocracy, personal freedom would be quickly eliminated. I wouldn't be surprised if Islam was effectively banned in this state. I'd imagine that before the problems got a lot worse, there would be a schism and the country would collapse into bickering over denominations before finally some bright spark decides to create a country where the state doesn't get directly involved in religious business.

It would be a united collection of pocket empires, only without the religious implication of an imperium. Make it a federal republic with a president. Eventually the religious bickering will flare up again, and so the wheel turns.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 04-12-2006 6:15 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 04-12-2006 9:48 AM Modulous has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Larni, posted 04-13-2006 3:53 AM Modulous has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 1010 days)
Posts: 6202
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 7 of 65 (303484)
04-12-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
04-12-2006 9:43 AM


quote:
As with any other theocracy, personal freedom would be quickly eliminated.

Indeed. If history teaches anything, it is that even the wrong beliefs are considered "sinful", and allowing sin of any kind, even the open admission of heretical beliefs, might even invoke God's punishment against the entire nation. What is more, as contemporary fundamentalism shows, every government question can be viewed as a statement of religious principle. Therefore, dissent would be effectively prohibited outside of a very narrow range, and eventually banned altogether.


"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 04-12-2006 9:43 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Larni, posted 04-13-2006 4:00 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5606
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 8 of 65 (303487)
04-12-2006 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Larni
04-12-2006 9:20 AM


Re: haha
Would there not be any redeeming features of a truly xian fundementalist state?

As soon as you use the word iterpretation, your done.

It won't be from God, it will be from man. So it will be a cluster.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Larni, posted 04-12-2006 9:20 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 2265 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 9 of 65 (303490)
04-12-2006 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
04-12-2006 9:23 AM


Nonsense
Again, I have to follow Faith around cleaning up her nonsense posts.

As has been stated in many other threads... The US constitution has absolutely NOTHING to do with fundamentalist principles and any claim that is does is uninformed nonsense.

Again from the writer of the US constitution, Thomas Jefferson:

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." - Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." - Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." - Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." - Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted fro artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." - Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it.
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, 1820

"The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever more dangerous. Jesus had to work on the perilous confines of reason and religion; and a step to the right or left might place him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore." - Thomas Jefferson to Story, Aug. 4, 1820

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.
1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, is nothing.
3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit the faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save." - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822

"Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a slaughter-house." - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822

"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823

"The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin, are, to my understanding, mere lapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible." - Thomas Jefferson to Jared Sparks, 1820

Sorry Faith, I'm going to refute everyone of your ridiculous assertions that are contradicted by evidence everything I see one. Hopefully it will motivate you to actually learn some history instead of inventing it.

As for Europe... If you knew your history you would know that Europe was able to emerge from the dark ages by adopting a more secular outlook and getting out from under the control of the church. We've had a secular society for only a few hundred years and we have already put a man on the moon.... Compare that to the 1500+ years that the church ruled western society


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 9:23 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by AdminModulous, posted 04-12-2006 11:09 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 11:30 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 872
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 10 of 65 (303508)
04-12-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
04-12-2006 10:31 AM


Re: Nonsense
Whilst I realise this is basically associated with the topic (and I appreciate that in a very real sense it is on topic), it is one of those subjects that is guaranteed to hijack a thread. So this is a friendly warning to not steer down that path if we can.

If anyone feels like responding to somebody else's claims regarding the seperation issue, consider posting them in the one of the still open threads:
Separation of Church and State
Ruling: No Separation of Church and State?

Thanks.

Any comments, direct them to the appropriate link in my sig.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 04-12-2006 10:31 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24664
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 11 of 65 (303509)
04-12-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
04-12-2006 6:15 AM


These questions have been asked before.
In fact, here is a copy of the letter sent to Dr. Laura.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 04-12-2006 6:15 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-12-2006 11:38 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 04-13-2006 5:01 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 16041
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 12 of 65 (303513)
04-12-2006 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
04-12-2006 10:31 AM


Re: Nonsense
The occupants of the Mayflower were fundamentalists, meaning Bible-believing Christians. The Mayflower Compact was a basis for the Constitution.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 04-12-2006 10:31 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 04-12-2006 11:49 AM Faith has responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 358 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 13 of 65 (303516)
04-12-2006 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
04-12-2006 11:10 AM


Re: These questions have been asked before.
lols. did she reply?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 04-12-2006 11:10 AM jar has not yet responded

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 2265 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 14 of 65 (303520)
04-12-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
04-12-2006 11:30 AM


Re: Nonsense
The occupants of the Mayflower were fundamentalists, meaning Bible-believing Christians. The Mayflower Compact was a basis for the Constitution.

First of all the mayflower compact was NOT the basis for the constitution.

What was?

Many of the framers, especially Madison, studied history and political philosophy. Two political theorists had great influence on the creation of the Constitution. John Locke, an important British political philosopher, had a large impact through his Second Treatise of Government (1690). Locke argued that sovereignty resides in individuals, not rulers. A political state, he theorized, emerged from a social contract among the people, who consent to government in order to preserve their lives, liberties, and property. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, which also drew heavily on Locke, governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Locke also pioneered the idea of the separation of powers. The French writer Baron de Montesquieu, who was the second major intellectual influence on the Constitution, further developed the concept of a separation of powers in his treatise The Spirit of the Laws (1748).

Secondly, the only part of the Mayflower compact that provided any inspiration was the section concerning consent of the governed. If you knew anything about John Adams you would know that he was speaking figuratively and not literally when discussing the Mayflower compact.

Please stop making assertions about subjects that you know little to nothing about. If you want to debate any of these issues start a new thread....

This is what you are clamining is the basis of the constitution:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereigne Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britaine, France, and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe, by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just and equall laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time as shall be thought most meete and convenient for the generall good of the Colonie unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cap-Codd the II. of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereigne lord, King James of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fiftie-fourth. Anno. Dom. 1620.

I didn't know that the constitution put King James in charge.

Now that you actually know the content of the Mayflower compact you can clearly see that it has almost nothing in common with the constitution at all. I'm glad I could clear this up.

This message has been edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, 04-12-2006 11:51 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 11:30 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 12:22 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 358 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 15 of 65 (303523)
04-12-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
04-12-2006 9:23 AM


um. luther was a driving force in european anti-semitism.
yeah. the reformation was AWESOME.

and as to your later mayflower discussion...

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

it reads like a preamble. notice the 'grace of god' junk absent from the constitution:

we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states.

the mayflower compact was nothing more than another example of contract society. the people wrote a contract that could be amended 'from time to time' which they swore to follow and then ratified by signature. there lies the similarities. the mayflower compact has more to do with the declaration of independence which has NOTHING and a bag of chips to do with the constitution. have you read this before or do you just quote other people? cause. really. i mean. i have the preamble memorized. it's one sentence. the mayflower is little more and unboundingly insignificant. this is nonsense on stilts. you wanna read something that influenced the constitution?

an essay concerning human understanding
two tretises on government

and while you're at it
the social contract
that should clear some things up for you.

and don't start with "oh well locke was a christian". yes, and he was a good scottish presbyterian who kept his beliefs out of his politics. yes, he wrote on religion. but not in conjunction with his politics. totally separate. as should be the state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 9:23 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014