1. It wasn't poetry 2. Are you calling them liars? 3. Are you saying they were insincere?
If you haven't noticed, politicians have the tendency to write down about themselves in a different light than what they actually believe. We make fun of Bush now, but in a couple hundred years I'm sure they will praise him as god's chosen one from all the rhetoric he's been writing and people have been writing about him.
Since when did you believe politicians are completely honest people about themselves and others?
So in other words, the Founding Fathers were politicking liars, of which you have no evidence for?
Yes, that's right, ignore common sense and their actions. Hitler wrote in mein campf that he had the german people's best interest in mind. Nevermind that at the end he ordered the complete destruction of his country. He was a good man who had everyone's best interest at heart because he wrote it down.
Don't you see how silly you sound by ignoring history and just look at what those politicians wrote about themselves?
Edit.
Watch the following video.
I'm sure in his biography somewhere he's going to write down that tax breaks paid for themselves. Look at how many times the republican dodged the question. In other words, he doesn't even believe his own political slogan, that tax breaks pay for themselves.
Hyro, when people write down about themselves knowing future generations will judge them based on those writings, don't expect them to be completely honest about their flaws.
I know that no matter how many poems and biographies the republican leaders publish claiming they believe tax breaks pay for themselves, I will never believe that even they believe in this philosophy.
Yes, that's right, ignore common sense and their actions. Hitler wrote in mein campf that he had the german people's best interest in mind. Nevermind that at the end he ordered the complete destruction of his country. He was a good man who had everyone's best interest at heart because he wrote it down. Don't you see how silly you sound by ignoring history and just look at what those politicians wrote about themselves?
Are you being serious? Are you saying that it's a fact that all politicians, by the sole virtue of them being politicians, are destined to not ever tell the truth? It's literally impossible that John Adams never owned slaves, and was disturbed by the practice of slave ownership? That is impossible?
Your video is completely irrelevant. That's an anecdote 200 years after-the-fact. It bears no relevance to the current discussion.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Are you being serious? Are you saying that it's a fact that all politicians, by the sole virtue of them being politicians, are destined to not ever tell the truth? It's literally impossible that John Adams never owned slaves, and was disturbed by the practice of slave ownership? That is impossible?
(1) No, I'm not saying by the sole virtue of them being politicians they have to never tell the truth.
(2) The issue isn't about owning slaves or not. The issue is about whether they actually believed all men and women were suppose to be equal.
(3) Lincoln was didn't believe in slavery but he freely admitted that the "black race" was inferior to the "white race". There, I just proved that it's possible to not believe in slavery and still be a bigot.
(4) My video is relevant. It proves that it is possible for people to claim they believe one thing but not really believe it.
(5) Just because it was 200 years ago doesn't mean man's nature was different.
People who knows their name will ring in the history book will try to put themselves in the best light possible. This isn't anecdotal. This is a fact of life.
I am not saying that I believe those framers who didn't own slaves were bigots solely because they said they weren't. I'm saying I believe them to be bigots because of their actions in history.
As I said before, Hitler could have published 100 different versions of mein campf telling the world how much he loved Germany and it's people. The fact of the matter is at the end he ordered the complete destruction of the country's infrastructure.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not dissing the framers at all. If anything, I think they were way ahead of their time. That said, I'm not naive enough to think they truly believed in equal rights for all. Hell, almost 300 years later and people still don't believe in equal rights for all.
I know what you are saying, with regard to politicians, but it is too extreme. The art of politics does not depend on not telling the truth. It is far more subtle than that and any politician who lies frequently is a bad politician and will probably suffer for it. Of course a politician has to represent disparate opinion, which is frequently contradictory. If a politician is representing a constituency that is evenly divided on an issue (to take a hypothetical) such as nuclear power, then they are unlikely to express strong support or strong opposition, since to do so immediately halves the potential vote. I don't regard that as dishonest PROVIDED that the actions match the words. If the politician says that he/she is not yet convinced either way, then I would expect them to debate and vote consistent with that position. The greatest crime, IMHO, is not being a little "economical with the actualit" (to quote the late Alan Clarke). It is hypocrisy.
Their article, "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought," revealed that the Bible, especially the book of Deuteronomy, contributed 34 percent of all quotations used by our Founding Fathers.4 The other sources cited include;
Irrelevant, even if true. I asked for specific examples of things in the Constitution that can be found in the bible, not about individual views of any of the FF.
The concept of freedom and liberty are found throughout the Bible.
Throughout the bible, yet you can only find 8 examples out of how many total verses? It doesn't seem that the bible is overly concerned with liberty, even if we assume that all of your quotes have anything to do with freedom and liberty.
In any event, let's look at freedom and liberty. Here is a fascinating map that allows you to look at freedom throughout the world. Among other things, we see that the following countries are free: India, Mongolia, Japan, virtually all of western Europe, Mali, Bhutan, Indonesia and South Korea.
I'm sure the people of those various countries would be quite startled to learn that their countries are biblically based.
quote:The first known use of the word freedom in a political context dates back to the 24th century BC, in a text describing the restoration of social and economic liberty in Lagash, a Sumerian city-state. Urukagina, the king of Lagash, established the first known legal code to protect citizens from the rich and powerful. Known as a great reformer, Urukagina established laws that forbade compelling the sale of property and required the charges against the accused to be stated before any man accused of a crime could be punished. This is the first known example of any form of due process in the history of humanity.
So, in summary, the bible isn't really particularly focused on liberty. The concept of liberty certainly didn't originate with the bible. It's quite possible for a country to be totally secular, and even have a population consisting largely of Hindus, Shintoists (is that a word?), Buddists and even Muslims and still be free.
On the whole, I'd say that your suggestion that the Constitution was biblically based because the bible mentions liberty doesn't seem very compelling to say the least.
Here is what Proverbs 18:17 says;
The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.
The judicial and political proceedings in the constitution reflect this type of Biblical thinking.
Well, if you think so, you're going to have to explain why, because I have no idea what you mean, nor how it relates to the Constitution.
{AbE}
The Federalist Papers were a collection of essays that explain the philosophy and defend the advantages of the U.S. Constitution. An overall summary of the Federalist Papers is that the primary political motive of man is selfish, and that men — whether acting individually or collectively — are selfish and only imperfectly rational. Isaiah 33; 22 says For the Lord is our judge; the Lord is our lawgiver; the Lord is our king The founders didn’t pull out of thin air the constitutional concept of three separate divisions for; judging (Supreme court and inferior courts), lawgiving (Congress) and king (president) The checks and balances, the separation of powers, that are much of what the Constitution is about, is patterned after the Christian doctrine that men are sinners, and that the only possibility of good government lay in mans capacity to devise several political institutions that would police each other.
Well of course, because there never was any sort of governmental representative legislative body, judicial system, or executive before the U.S. invented them, inspired by the bible.
I hate to keep turning to Wikipedia, but I'm trying to keep these explanations as simple as possible for you. The idea of checks and balances in government goes back to ancient Greece and was widespread in the Roman Republic. And I feel safe in assuming that the FF were aware of ancient Greece and the Roman Republic.
{AbE again}It's also rather amusing that you claim the decision to separate the powers was inspired by a biblical passage where the powers were all held by one individual.
Edited by subbie, : As noted
Edited by subbie, : As noted again
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
I think it’s a bad thing, because it allows the religion of scientism free reign to combine with state.
Please define what you mean by the "religion of scientism" and give examples of how it exists in the real world.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
I think it’s a bad thing, because it allows the religion of scientism free reign to combine with state.
If you're using the term "scientism" to conflate people's acceptance and enthusiasm for science with some kind of religious devotion, surely you have to see how stupid that is.
Science and scientific findings, for the most part, are popular and sought out by people. People want "the science" on their side. Why is this true? It's not because science is a religion; it's because science works. Two centuries of science have doubled human lifespans, connected disparate peoples across the globe (including you and me), democratized knowledge and information, and provided incredible understanding of how the world around us actually operates.
Nothing that two thousand years of Christianity has ever achieved could measure up to a hundredth of the utility science has provided in one-tenth the time. People are enthusiastic and passionate about science not because they've been brainwashed, but because they've been convinced. Results are convincing. Nothing succeeds like success, and the history of science has been one of a consistent roll-out of ever-increasing wonders. There's nothing religious about noting that; the notion of "scientism" is a pernicious myth meant to obstruct human progress and prop up the failed legacy of do-nothing religions like Christianity.
"Knowledge in most scientific domains is now doubling about every five years. How fast is it growing in religion?" - Sam Harris
I think it’s a bad thing, because it allows the religion of scientism free reign to combine with state.
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.
The only times I've ever heard of anyone complain about "the religion of scientism," it's when conclusions reached by the logical analysis of empirical data conflict with positions held because of emotional biases.
To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
Marc, buddy, give the pity-party a rest. There are plenty of conservatives on this forum who do quite well for themselves. I am one of them. As much as it would fill you with joy to think that there is this evo-liberal conspiracy at work, it's nothing more than an overactive imagination.
When I see a group of 15 or 20 posters, using the n word, four-letter words, and personal insults against one poster, you might see a quest for open, thoughtful debate, but I don’t see it. I see increasing attempts to make me angry, draw me into similar responses, and get the administration to close the thread. I’d really like to continue to explore the evolution of church and state separation, the fact of its existence in the Soviet constitution, and President Wilson’s words about the societal costs of citizens who ignore their country’s actual history.
The objections people are having is because you are not being clear. You are taking disparate neo-conservative claims and jumbling them all up in to one gigantic bowl of stew. It's like you're taking a segment of Rush Limbaugh's show on Thursday and with a segment of Glenn Beck's Friday broadcast, jumbling it all up, and coming up with a thesis about how liberals are to blame for all the world's ills.
It's not making any sense. Please focus on the topic at hand.
I have 13 opponents, with questions and demands from about 10 different positions. If you feel things are jumbled up, you can blame me if you’d like, but I’d just ask you to be patient. No poster has yet said a word about the Soviet constitution’s content about separation of church and state. It was in the opening post, and it’s part of the topic at hand. Even if no one else addresses it, I’d like to get to it eventually.
You made the claim that the Framers never intended on the Separation of Church and State. The readers responded, providing historical facts to refute your claim.
I claimed that it was a two way street, and haven’t yet had a chance to thoroughly explain that, as I had to wait and see just how far that was going to soar over everyone’s heads. I see I have a LOT to do. I have to work for a living — tonight I have about 1 hour to post. I’m not going to be able to get it all done tonight. Tomorrow night I’m likely to start my computer and find 10 more posts about the Treaty of Tripoli, or still more goalpost moving about Christian principles in the Constitution. How about giving me a couple of weeks, before you sum up my ability to stay on topic?
The question was asked to you, several times, in light of you thinking that the Separation of Church and State is invalid, what would you like to do about it?
I think it’s valid in that it prevents a state religion from being established — any denomination from having a politically established advantage over another. That’s ONE WAY, of the two way street I mentioned previously. Before 1947, there was a good, long standing balance between government and religion. The OTHER WAY is in how, since 1947, it’s become a way to make voluntary religious activities unconstitutional, or disrupting a long standing balance between government and religion. The courts are increasingly basing their decisions on their own past decisions more than they are on the original intent of the framers. Some say that’s fine — we now know more than the founders did. Then why have a constitution at all?
Would you like to repeal the Separation of Church and State, and if so, on what grounds?
Usurping state powers, destroying the cooperative relationship between church and state, restricting public religious expressions, these didn't happen overnight, and no single act is going to fix everything overnight. I don't favor any repeals, I favor some honest education about US history. It's not all summed up by the Treaty of Tripoli.
Who is we? Atheists? Liberals? The scientific community? Please list your giants, and the criteria you use to compile that list.
History, historians, americans. Honestly now, had you ever heard of king or sherman before you found that ridiculous website?
I never heard about them in public schools, but that site and many others educated me beyond my public schooling. We all learn things as we explore — I’d bet you never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli before you visited some atheist websites. I’d bet you never heard of the Constitutional phrase EXCEPT SUNDAYS before I pointed it out in this thread, did you?
What historians? What giants?
Lets get to the bare bones. Which you continue to evade. Show us biblical principles that have been enshrined in the Constitution.
They are not direct, they are indirect.
You keep claiming the founders wanted a christian nation.
Show me where I claimed that.
In any event, let's look at freedom and liberty. Here is a fascinating map that allows you to look at freedom throughout the world. Among other things, we see that the following countries are free: India, Mongolia, Japan, virtually all of western Europe, Mali, Bhutan, Indonesia and South Korea.
And we see that the Soviet Union is not free. The Soviet Union that has separation of church and state in its constitution.
I think it’s a bad thing, because it allows the religion of scientism free reign to combine with state.
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.
The only times I've ever heard of anyone complain about "the religion of scientism," it's when conclusions reached by the logical analysis of empirical data conflict with positions held because of emotional biases.
The analysis of empirical data is an entire political and economic worldview, comparable to the beliefs of any religious denomination. Embryonic stem cell research, cloning, animal rights, global warming, on and on. The 'constitutional rights' to research and funding for it, with a power above the traditional morality that existed when the US was founded, is exactly the same as an establishment of religion in government.
And we see that the Soviet Union is not free. The Soviet Union that has separation of church and state in its constitution.
And what exactly does that have to do with the topic?
marc9000 writes:
I never heard about them in public schools, but that site and many others educated me beyond my public schooling. We all learn things as we explore — I’d bet you never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli before you visited some atheist websites. I’d bet you never heard of the Constitutional phrase EXCEPT SUNDAYS before I pointed it out in this thread, did you?
Actually the Treaty of Tripoli was covered in I guess middle school or early High School in a Christian Church School during the mid to late 50s as a major point that the US was NOT created as a Christian Nation.
Edited by jar, : rearrange words to make more sense grammatically
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
We all learn things as we explore — I’d bet you never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli before you visited some atheist websites. I’d bet you never heard of the Constitutional phrase EXCEPT SUNDAYS before I pointed it out in this thread, did you?
Oh how little you know of me. I have been avidly studying US and World history for 30 years. I actually have a B.A. in History. I have known about the Treaty of Tripoli for at least all that time. I have been a serious student of the separation of church and state for at least 15 years. I am well aware of the mention of Sunday in the Constitution. The actual phrase is "Sundays excepted".
Are you really going to hang your hat on that phrase. You truly think the mention of Sunday makes the Constitution a Christian document?Sunday is a traditional western off day. Yes it is a Christian holy day. That the vast majority of Americans were and are Christian makes it realistic to except Sundays. That the vast majority were Christian does not make it a Christian document. The logic you are using fails miserably.
They are not direct, they are indirect.
In other words we should accept it on faith.
And we see that the Soviet Union is not free. The Soviet Union that has separation of church and state in its constitution.
News flash the Soviet Union hasn't existed for a while now.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
™ Version 4.2