"For God and my Country"

[Sonny Limatina]

~~~

Sonny Limatina, you and others may believe that Pragmatism or Empiricism are the answers to all things, but most of the rational world knows otherwise.

The philosophy you implicitly advocate is that of clerks and beancounters; data and statistics. Your philosophy inevitably justifies the 'one child policy' of China, or the final solution of Germany in and prior to, WW2, numbers without morals or ethics.

Dealing purely with data is a death trap and you should know that.

Think upon what I say, it is not said lightly.

Amicus

I'm comfortable determining for myself what to think upon.

Why try to place the argument in the realm of fact only to scurry away from "data" when presented with it?

You spent a post in another thread decrying the horror that common citizens were not allowed access to books. Yet here you are discouraging the use of any actual reference source to found an argument on.

You seem confused.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Meanwhile, Eyer seems to be having a little bit of trouble closing the deal. He invoked slander! He questioned my manhood! I was way off!

He couldn't have been full of faux-common-law shit, could he?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Clever, sophisticated and somewhat correct. My intentional attack on your method was to draw you out and sense the quality of your response. I am impressed; good on you.

I cannot tell you how relieved I am that my argument has passed muster with you. My self-esteem, nay, my entire sense of self-worth is entirely dependent upon the approval of aging fringe-right conservative apologists on porn boards. As you have no doubt surmised by now, my day is complete.

If, as I implied above, Christianity was not the foundation, what then was? Present, support and defend your own thesis, as eyer did his.

<snip>

I am of the opinion that the foundation of American democracy owes more towards both Greek philosophy and Roman law than purported "Judeo-Christian morality". (And let's be honest here, the "Judeo" adjective is nothing more than conservative Christian camoflauge designed to appease those of the Jewish faith...this "morality" is strictly conservative interpretation of Christian philosophy).

One of the drawbacks of the lack of a liberal arts education today is that very few people have an understanding of the "Natural Rights"/"social contract" philosophical school (primarily, but not exclusively, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke).

Anyone with even a cursory understanding of this school would immediately recognize the pervasive influence it had on our founding fathers ("all men are created equal" and "government by the people" i.e. "popular consent" probably the most famous examples).

The pervasive influence of Hobbes and Locke had a much greater influence on the shaping of a nascent America than any Johnny-come-lately "Judeo-Christian morality" revisionism.

I look forward to your inevitable dismissal/retort.

Toodles!
Rob

 

[RobDownSouth]

I'm comfortable determining for myself what to think upon.

Son, you'll never rise through the ranks of the Republican party with THAT attitude!

Now repeat after me:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The severity of the ongoing debate over the degree of religious faith held by the majority of our founding fathers belies the suggestion that the clamor is only about a desire for historical accuracy within the collection of colonial biographies.

To the contrary, there seems to be a belief that if one can prove what our earliest lawmakers felt and practiced regarding religious faith, that fact might constitute prima facie evidence as to the appropriateness of laws and legal precedents impacting religion today.

This is nothing more than the judicial philosophy of "orginalism" writ large, a philosophy I happen to think is wholly appropriate in most instances of Constitutional interpretation. I'm just not at all certain it helps us much in the area of religious freedom as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

What is humorous to me is that I see those on the political left falling in to the trap of essentially vindicating a philosophy they would never embrace. It goes like this: Speaker A asserts the concept of a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, evidenced by the documented Christian beliefs of Washington, Adams and reference in the Declaration of Independence to an individual's inalienable rights "endowed by their" creator.

"Not so" claims Speaker B, citing the agnostic (at best) Jefferson and others.

Both arguments, it seems to me, diminish in importance upon closer examination of the relevant words in the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Viewed narrowly, the Constitution's sole restriction on or the encouragement of religion is directed at merely two potential acts of Congress.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume a more expansive view. Let us suppose that the 1st Amendment's text "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is meant not to prevent the mere passage of an anti-religious statute but to literally guarantee freedom of religion for all. (If you don't see that much distinction in the hypothetical I'm creating, that's fine.)

Let us further contemplate that in order to make good on the guarantee of religious freedom for all, major voices in the government and the courts felt it essential that the government itself always maintain a position of strict neutrality in regards to religious expression by its officers and agents.

If you accept that premise, then we move from attaching so much importance to how or whether the founding fathers worshiped to asking whether the various efforts to maintain religious neutrality on the part of the government have or have not been reasonable in all cases throughout our history.

Identifying and correcting those particular excesses seems to me a far more productive exercise than researching the baptismal records of our forefathers.

 

[Peregrinator]

JesusJumpingup Christ, KingOreocookies Procastinator and Barrenexiled with their one-liners and sound bytes pretending sophistication are the true bottom feeders of the GB, sucking mud and farting methane, or meethane as the backward Brits say.

You folks don't even have a remote clue as to the real issue at hand here and that doesn't surprise me at all. Of course, you, in your faithless superiority complex, pretend to be above it all in your amorality, since you know neither right nor wrong good nor bad, can always feign righteousness and claim superiority because you never take a stand on anything....that is for the plebes, right?

Fuck y'all! You are such a joke in the real world.

Amicus

Oh well. This was promising to be a somewhat interesting conversation. As usual with amicus and eyer, a point they cannot answer is met with ad hominem arrogance. And in this case, childish name-calling.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Do you realize how many different faiths were represented in the Colonies?

Other than Protestant Christian denominations, and the kindasorta Protestant Unitarians and Quakers? (What the Indians believed was irrelevant save to missionaries, of course, and the slaves worshipped however massa let them, which meant Protestant Christianity. Catholics were a minority in every colony, even Maryland which had been founded for them.)

 

[zipman]

Oh well. This was promising to be a somewhat interesting conversation. As usual with amicus and eyer, a point they cannot answer is met with ad hominem arrogance. And in this case, childish name-calling.

Come on Perg, you're losing your sense of humor.

I think it's hysterical that Amicus Incorrectus is saying anyone else posts with pretend "sophistication."

Comedy gold.

 

[about_average]

To the contrary, there seems to be a belief that if one can prove what our earliest lawmakers felt and practiced regarding religious faith, that fact might constitute prima facie evidence as to the appropriateness of laws and legal precedents impacting religion today.

Exactly my point in my last post!

No one who can read and comprehend very simple concepts would deny that many of the founding fathers were religious, ranging from atheist to very devout Christians.

Where the founding fathers showed their greatness, among other places, was in the Constitution by not mentioning god or the creator at all yet making sure that individuals could worship as they saw fit, or not worship, and the state would not say what was the correct way.

They did not want to establish a theocracy. That was part of what the colonies were rebelling against.

 

[about_average]

Are you honest?

I do my best to be. I'm not getting the point of your question.

 

[hobbit.]

The Quaker movement was generally ok, except the ones who fled west.

 

[rosco rathbone]

The Quaker movement was generally ok, except the ones who fled west.

Got a lot of them in my family tree, going way back to the beginning.

 

[hobbit.]

Got a lot of them in my family tree, going way back to the beginning.

I quite like Quakers. (weird or what?) all hail the co-op and various workers movements!!

 

[Peregrinator]

Come on Perg, you're losing your sense of humor.

I think it's hysterical that Amicus Incorrectus is saying anyone else posts with pretend "sophistication."

Comedy gold.

I didn't say it wasn't funny. I said it could have been interesting. *sigh*

But it's this, is it? No enigma, no dignity, nothing classical, poetic...

/Guildenstern

 

[RoryN]

But you are shunned and isolated in real life.

Really?

Who's boat will you be on this weekend?

Who's birthday will you be attending in Las Vegas next weekend?

Who's bachelor party will you be at the following weekend?

 

[Peregrinator]

"Whose."

 

[bronzeage]

"Whose."

Who's birthday party in Las Vegas.

 

[eyer]

God has long now been falling from citizen favor in regards to His influence on the revolutionary founders of this great nation...

...as can be seen plainly even in this thread, some dismiss that fact outright - no matter what the founders say themselves.

Only by deception may one claim respect for the truth while subverting it...

The founders acknowledged God and His nature as the Giver of certain individual rights to man; rights, by the way, so sacred that Jefferson named them "unalienable". That means those rights are an individual"s alone, and can not be violated by any other man or government. To do so is a violation of what the founders considered the Supreme constitution: natural law.

This is the basis for the founding and framing of our great political nation: that God grants rights to man that no other man or government may violate. Just as essential in understanding that formation is the order of natural authority (in the founders' eyes): Providence (if you will), individual - unalienable rights - man, government.

Hopefully, the most biased, prejudiced, and/or even disingenuous poster would acknowledge that our founders considered all government evil, only necessary at very best. So our framers, already lovers of natural law, composed a document that made clear at least two vital principles: it is the People (a nation of individuals with unalienable rights) who consent to any government, and if the Constitution does not specifically grant a/any power to the federal government, then that issue resides with the people and the states...

...this was the ideal of greatly limited government our framers made real.

So here are three natural philosophy fundamentals of America's creation:

1. The Creator (God)
2. individual - unalienable rights - liberty (man)
3. "evil" government greatly limited (government)

In a culture that respects individual rights above all else, the unnatural act is violating the unalienableness of them. A culture, a nation, which would mature itself in reverent respect for individual rights would not only be the most free people ever in existence, but would be the closest to the visionary ideal so many of our founders had of what the next step would be from their revolutionary one: self-government.

I admire folks like Ayn Rand and amicus who stand stoutly against all enemies while championing individual unalienable rights as the greatest political gift the world has ever known, all along professing atheism (although it saddens me that they're going to burn in hell! ). But from my experience, politically interested folks who don't believe in a Superior power almost always negate the founding fact of individual rights being off-limits to other men and/or government. I understand that stance: if one doesn't believe in God, how could one believe that unalienable rights are given to us from Him?

So many naturally take the position that any rights (and they seem to be offended when one calls them individual rights) are accorded and recognized by only other men and/or government...

...which totally negates the declaratory and founding principle of unalienable.

And, when one does not recognize a Creator nor His gift of unalienable individual rights, one is simply left with the necessary evil remaining: government.

Ironically, it seems, too, most who say they are believers do not champion individual rights above all else either.

I believe this is where most of America trods today: a complete reversal of what our founders and framers designed specifically for prosperity. And completely at the mercy of Leviathan: government.

This thread is not posted to market God or urge the disingenuous idea that this nation was created to be religious.

But, there is a definite line between 2. and 3....

...and if one falls to 3., one is a socialist and an enemy of the free nation our founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to establish.

~ George Mason ~​

"The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth."

"That Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our divine and omnipotent Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be governed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence; and therefore, that all Men shou'd enjoy the fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates under Colour of Religion, any Man disturb the Peace, the happiness, or Safety of Society, or of Individuals And that it is the mutual Duty of all, to practice Christian Forebearance, Love, and Charity, towards Each other."

"All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others." - Mason's proposed wording for the First Amendment

"We are now to rank among the nations of the world; but whether our Independence shall prove a blessing or a curse must depend upon our own wisdom or folly, virtue or wickedness. ... Justice and virtue are the vital principles of republican government."

"Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins, by national calamities." - to the delegates at the Constitutional Convention

"As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery]." - regarded with James Madison as most responsible for the Bill of Rights, and a delegate from Virginia at the Convention, Mason refused to sign the Constitution in Philadelphia.

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot by any compact deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

"My soul I resign into the hands of my Almighty Creator, whose tender mercies are all over His works, who hateth nothing that He hath made, and to the justice and wisdom of whose dispensations I willingly and cheerfully submit, humbly hoping from His unbounded mercy and benevolence, through the merits of my blessed Savior a remission of my sins." - "Last Will and Testament"

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Who's birthday party in Las Vegas.

That's odd. None of them look like doctors.

 

[phrodeau]

Got a lot of them in my family tree, going way back to the beginning.

How far back, I wonder? I would be curious if they believe that a murderer should be banished, as God did with Cain, or killed, as God told the Hebrews to do.

 

[rosco rathbone]

How far back, I wonder? I would be curious if they believe that a murderer should be banished, as God did with Cain, or killed, as God told the Hebrews to do.

I was referring to the origins of Pennsylvania, not the cosmos.

 

[about_average]

I don't get threads like this.
People go on and on about how many of the founding fathers were very religious (which no one denies), yet completely ignore the US Constitution which the founding fathers intentionally wrote in such a way to prevent the country turning in to a Christian nation. Though that didn't work too well, that was a clear goal of it.

It really makes them look rather foolish and I don't get why they like doing that.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Really?

Who's boat will you be on this weekend?

Who's birthday will you be attending in Las Vegas next weekend?

Who's bachelor party will you be at the following weekend?

Oh, defeated!

You rule. Obviously.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I don't get threads like this.
People go on and on about how many of the founding fathers were very religious (which no one denies), yet completely ignore the US Constitution which the founding fathers intentionally wrote in such a way to prevent the country turning in to a Christian nation. Though that didn't work too well, that was a clear goal of it.

It really makes them look rather foolish and I don't get why they like doing that.

It was called "The Enlightenment" for a reason.

 

[about_average]

And yet people seem to be devolving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVGINIsLnqU