[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk]

But Brian loses twenty points for the line about “the right” and Obama. Why do you insist on throwing these weak, worthless jabs into your posts?

[/quote]

Ok I apologize. My point was obtuse and badly made.

It seems to me like many Americans now are so ashamed of the history of slavery that they want to argue that it was not about slavery but about states rights.[/quote]

And why are we so ashamed of it? Because we have had years of people using racism to divide and conquer. Slavery almost always comes up in these discussions and teachings in school like previously mentioned. Most white people have been thought or preached at to harbor some sort of “white guilt” even though none of us today had anything to do with slavery. Apparently, we are still suppose to have some responsibility for the actions of generations so far back I can’t even count. This is a whole separate topic we don’t have time to go into.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk]

But Brian loses twenty points for the line about “the right” and Obama. Why do you insist on throwing these weak, worthless jabs into your posts?

[/quote]

Ok I apologize. My point was obtuse and badly made.

It seems to me like many Americans now are so ashamed of the history of slavery that they want to argue that it was not about slavery but about states rights.[/quote]

And why are we so ashamed of it? Because we have had years of people using racism to divide and conquer. Slavery almost always comes up in these discussions and teachings in school like previously mentioned. Most white people have been thought or preached at to harbor some sort of “white guilt” even though none of us today had anything to do with slavery. Apparently, we are still suppose to have some responsibility for the actions of generations so far back I can’t even count. This is a whole separate topic we don’t have time to go into.

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk]Brian gets one point for mentioning the Missouri Compromise. It serves as pretty compelling evidence that many the North did give some of a shit about slavery.

But Brian loses twenty points for the line about “the right” and Obama. Why do you insist on throwing these weak, worthless jabs into your posts?

We aren’t going the settle the slavery/Civil War debate here. I just hope the next generation is educated enough that they will be able to understand the debate.[/quote]

I will also give credit for the mentioning of slavery as one of the reasons…of the many. The North did give a shit or they wouldn’t have fought for the 3/5’s clause. You will always her uneducated people rag on the constitution as being a racist document because it only considered blacks 3/5’s of a person but that clause was actually added to help free the slaves.

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk]Brian gets one point for mentioning the Missouri Compromise. It serves as pretty compelling evidence that many the North did give some of a shit about slavery.

But Brian loses twenty points for the line about “the right” and Obama. Why do you insist on throwing these weak, worthless jabs into your posts?

We aren’t going the settle the slavery/Civil War debate here. I just hope the next generation is educated enough that they will be able to understand the debate.[/quote]

I will also give credit for the mentioning of slavery as one of the reasons…of the many. The North did give a shit or they wouldn’t have fought for the 3/5’s clause. You will always her uneducated people rag on the constitution as being a racist document because it only considered blacks 3/5’s of a person but that clause was actually added to help free the slaves.

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk]Brian gets one point for mentioning the Missouri Compromise. It serves as pretty compelling evidence that many the North did give some of a shit about slavery.

But Brian loses twenty points for the line about “the right” and Obama. Why do you insist on throwing these weak, worthless jabs into your posts?

We aren’t going the settle the slavery/Civil War debate here. I just hope the next generation is educated enough that they will be able to understand the debate.[/quote]

I will also give credit for the mentioning of slavery as one of the reasons…of the many. The North did give a shit or they wouldn’t have fought for the 3/5’s clause. You will always her uneducated people rag on the constitution as being a racist document because it only considered blacks 3/5’s of a person but that clause was actually added to help free the slaves.

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk]Brian gets one point for mentioning the Missouri Compromise. It serves as pretty compelling evidence that many the North did give some of a shit about slavery.

But Brian loses twenty points for the line about “the right” and Obama. Why do you insist on throwing these weak, worthless jabs into your posts?

We aren’t going the settle the slavery/Civil War debate here. I just hope the next generation is educated enough that they will be able to understand the debate.[/quote]

I will also give credit for the mentioning of slavery as one of the reasons…of the many. The North did give a shit or they wouldn’t have fought for the 3/5’s clause. You will always her uneducated people rag on the constitution as being a racist document because it only considered blacks 3/5’s of a person but that clause was actually added to help free the slaves.

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk]Brian gets one point for mentioning the Missouri Compromise. It serves as pretty compelling evidence that many the North did give some of a shit about slavery.

But Brian loses twenty points for the line about “the right” and Obama. Why do you insist on throwing these weak, worthless jabs into your posts?

We aren’t going the settle the slavery/Civil War debate here. I just hope the next generation is educated enough that they will be able to understand the debate.[/quote]

I will also give credit for the mentioning of slavery as one of the reasons…of the many. The North did give a shit or they wouldn’t have fought for the 3/5’s clause. You will always her uneducated people rag on the constitution as being a racist document because it only considered blacks 3/5’s of a person but that clause was actually added to help free the slaves.

[Djshakes]

Amen

[Djshakes]

Amen

[Djshakes]

Amen

[Djshakes]

Amen

[Djshakes]

Amen

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=Djshakes]Beside, how is the notion that our nation was founded on Christian values SOOOOOO offensive and damaging?[/quote]

I’m not offended by it. I’m just pointing out that it is completely incorrect.

If anything bothers me, it’s the fact that so many people refuse to acknowledge the lack of Christianity in our founding documents.

Even Allan dissapoints on this one.

But I could turn the question around: Why are you so offended by the idea that our nation was not founded directly upon Christian values. What does it change?

[quote]The foundation of this nation is our freedom. Therefore, threats against this foundation are the most offensive. I have never heard of Christian values threatening this.[/quote]

You’ve just lost all credibility with that last sentence. I enjoy a good debate, but there has to be some semblance of reality in the opposing point of view.[/quote]

I’m not offended by it. As a previous poster mentioned, our founding fathers were mostly Christian but in writing the constitution wanted to make it clear that there was NOT a state or national religion. Now, with that said, to think that any of their religious values didn’t influence when setting the foundation is absurd. They were great men…but still men. However, I think they did a great job at being as objective as possible.

Interesting tid bit I read:

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
[June 28, 1813; John Adams Letter to Thomas Jefferson]

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –October 11, 1798

Thomas Jefferson and some of the other founders were deists. They believed a higher power set the universe in motion, then left it alone. The term “separation of church and state” is from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association he never intended the words “Separation of Church and State” to be taken out of context and used as a substitute for the First Amendment, but for all practical purposes that is what the courts have done. The wall was between practitioners of peaceful faiths and the federal government’s intrusion in any capacity, not between the peaceful practitioners and their ability to practice how they want where they want.

What the 1st amendment protects against is the government establishing a state religion AND infringing on any citizens’ right to practice their religion. It does not permit the federal government to stop someone from practicing their religion anywhere unless they are violating the life, liberty or private property of another individual. The terminology “Congress shall make no law…” could not be clearer. The restriction is on the government, not the people.

The nation was founded on the principles of Natural Law which are generally in congruence with Christian ideals. Humanity has 3 inalienable rights – Life, Liberty, and Private Property. Humans created governments to protect those rights. Because governments write laws and law’s sanction is force, government’s only role can be to protect rights. Because governments are made up of men with the same fallibility as everyone else, they are no better able to direct individuals than free individuals direct themselves. Therefore, to keep men free government must be kept strictly limited.”

Again, can we get off the religion and onto the topic of multiculturalism this thread was started for. I’m about to give up on this thread.

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=Djshakes]Beside, how is the notion that our nation was founded on Christian values SOOOOOO offensive and damaging?[/quote]

I’m not offended by it. I’m just pointing out that it is completely incorrect.

If anything bothers me, it’s the fact that so many people refuse to acknowledge the lack of Christianity in our founding documents.

Even Allan dissapoints on this one.

But I could turn the question around: Why are you so offended by the idea that our nation was not founded directly upon Christian values. What does it change?

[quote]The foundation of this nation is our freedom. Therefore, threats against this foundation are the most offensive. I have never heard of Christian values threatening this.[/quote]

You’ve just lost all credibility with that last sentence. I enjoy a good debate, but there has to be some semblance of reality in the opposing point of view.[/quote]

I’m not offended by it. As a previous poster mentioned, our founding fathers were mostly Christian but in writing the constitution wanted to make it clear that there was NOT a state or national religion. Now, with that said, to think that any of their religious values didn’t influence when setting the foundation is absurd. They were great men…but still men. However, I think they did a great job at being as objective as possible.

Interesting tid bit I read:

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
[June 28, 1813; John Adams Letter to Thomas Jefferson]

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –October 11, 1798

Thomas Jefferson and some of the other founders were deists. They believed a higher power set the universe in motion, then left it alone. The term “separation of church and state” is from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association he never intended the words “Separation of Church and State” to be taken out of context and used as a substitute for the First Amendment, but for all practical purposes that is what the courts have done. The wall was between practitioners of peaceful faiths and the federal government’s intrusion in any capacity, not between the peaceful practitioners and their ability to practice how they want where they want.

What the 1st amendment protects against is the government establishing a state religion AND infringing on any citizens’ right to practice their religion. It does not permit the federal government to stop someone from practicing their religion anywhere unless they are violating the life, liberty or private property of another individual. The terminology “Congress shall make no law…” could not be clearer. The restriction is on the government, not the people.

The nation was founded on the principles of Natural Law which are generally in congruence with Christian ideals. Humanity has 3 inalienable rights – Life, Liberty, and Private Property. Humans created governments to protect those rights. Because governments write laws and law’s sanction is force, government’s only role can be to protect rights. Because governments are made up of men with the same fallibility as everyone else, they are no better able to direct individuals than free individuals direct themselves. Therefore, to keep men free government must be kept strictly limited.”

Again, can we get off the religion and onto the topic of multiculturalism this thread was started for. I’m about to give up on this thread.

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=Djshakes]Beside, how is the notion that our nation was founded on Christian values SOOOOOO offensive and damaging?[/quote]

I’m not offended by it. I’m just pointing out that it is completely incorrect.

If anything bothers me, it’s the fact that so many people refuse to acknowledge the lack of Christianity in our founding documents.

Even Allan dissapoints on this one.

But I could turn the question around: Why are you so offended by the idea that our nation was not founded directly upon Christian values. What does it change?

[quote]The foundation of this nation is our freedom. Therefore, threats against this foundation are the most offensive. I have never heard of Christian values threatening this.[/quote]

You’ve just lost all credibility with that last sentence. I enjoy a good debate, but there has to be some semblance of reality in the opposing point of view.[/quote]

I’m not offended by it. As a previous poster mentioned, our founding fathers were mostly Christian but in writing the constitution wanted to make it clear that there was NOT a state or national religion. Now, with that said, to think that any of their religious values didn’t influence when setting the foundation is absurd. They were great men…but still men. However, I think they did a great job at being as objective as possible.

Interesting tid bit I read:

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
[June 28, 1813; John Adams Letter to Thomas Jefferson]

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –October 11, 1798

Thomas Jefferson and some of the other founders were deists. They believed a higher power set the universe in motion, then left it alone. The term “separation of church and state” is from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association he never intended the words “Separation of Church and State” to be taken out of context and used as a substitute for the First Amendment, but for all practical purposes that is what the courts have done. The wall was between practitioners of peaceful faiths and the federal government’s intrusion in any capacity, not between the peaceful practitioners and their ability to practice how they want where they want.

What the 1st amendment protects against is the government establishing a state religion AND infringing on any citizens’ right to practice their religion. It does not permit the federal government to stop someone from practicing their religion anywhere unless they are violating the life, liberty or private property of another individual. The terminology “Congress shall make no law…” could not be clearer. The restriction is on the government, not the people.

The nation was founded on the principles of Natural Law which are generally in congruence with Christian ideals. Humanity has 3 inalienable rights – Life, Liberty, and Private Property. Humans created governments to protect those rights. Because governments write laws and law’s sanction is force, government’s only role can be to protect rights. Because governments are made up of men with the same fallibility as everyone else, they are no better able to direct individuals than free individuals direct themselves. Therefore, to keep men free government must be kept strictly limited.”

Again, can we get off the religion and onto the topic of multiculturalism this thread was started for. I’m about to give up on this thread.

[Author]

Posts