Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 99
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks (Given)
    177
    Thanks (Received)
    680
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1200645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOki View Post
    Securing "the Blessings of Liberty" is not the same thing as securing "the Blessings of Christ", and using the idomatic convention "The Year of Our Lord" to establish the date of an event is not the same as an establisng principle. Your argument is specious, and pointing that out is not deflecting.
    If not from Christ then from where? Why not simply "The Year", or "Dated"?

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    696
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    5
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    3
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    179154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glockmail View Post
    If not from Christ then from where?
    Christ is not mentioned, Christ does not enter the equation; the Blessings that are secured, are Blessings that come from Liberty--exactly as it it written.

    Quote Originally Posted by glockmail View Post
    Why not simply "The Year", or "Dated"?
    Deflection--your turn to look it up.
    "... whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." - Lysander Spooner

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Classact View Post
    My point was the constitution alone only supports government power while the Bill of Rights recognize and secure the rights of the people.
    Nonsense. The Constitution is a product of compromise, experience, and a well-founded fear of the power of central government. It was written for the purpose of (a) creating a new form of government, and (b) limiting the powers of that government - things that had never been tried before. It was successful beyond any of the Framer's wildest expectations, until we started flagrantly disobeying it around the turn of the (20th) century.

    It gave the Fed govt only certain, limited powers (those specifically named in it), and by doing so, implicitly forbade all other powers to the Fed govt. Some of the powers not mentioned, and thus forbidden, were the power to regulate speech, religion, weapons, etc. A lot of people thought that would be too easy to violate (history has since proven them right), and so demanded that some of the most important rights be also specifically mentioned and the govt banned from interfering with them. So the Bill of Rights came into being shortly after the Constitution was ratified.

    The Constitution alone does NOT "only" support govt power. It gives the Fed gov certain powers, true, buth then it LIMITS the Fed to only those powers, leaving the rest to the states and lower govts to exercise as they chose. Except for those few powers specifically given to the Fed, of course. And it calls for a deliberately complex, cumbersome amendment process, assigning veto power to even a small minority of states, that must be fulfilled if any more power is to be legally taken from the states and given to the Fed govt.

    That limitation was what made the Constitution the great, enduring document it is. The recent violation of that limitation by our current "progressive" liberals (in both parties) is what makes them the country-destroyers they are.

    BTW, the Bill of Rights does not "secure the rights of the people". It only secures some of them - those the Framers considered the most important. It contains a statement pointing this out (9th amendment), saying that the rights it mentions, aren't necessarily the only right the people have.

    Most of those declarations of rights, were unnecessary and superfluous, since the onstitution gave the Fed govt no powers to interfere with them in the first place. But many people at that time, knew that slick lawyers and power-grabbers would ignore the Const's implicit limitation, all too well. And so they tried to "cast in stone" the most important rights, to make them harder to unconstitutionally violate. How right they were to do so. Our "progressives" now have to flagrantly ignore written Constitutional mandates to violate those rights - something they do anyway, with increasing frequency in the last 70+ years.
    Last edited by Little-Acorn; 11-26-2007 at 10:19 AM.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks (Given)
    177
    Thanks (Received)
    680
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1200645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOki View Post
    Christ is not mentioned, Christ does not enter the equation; the Blessings that are secured, are Blessings that come from Liberty--exactly as it it written.

    Deflection--your turn to look it up.
    Its clear that it is you who is deflecting now.

    If Christ is not mentioned, then who is "The Lord"?

    The preamble states the reasons for drafting the Constitution include “in Order to… secure the Blessings of Liberty…” Again, who gave those Blessings?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    1,690
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeep Driver View Post
    The Articles Failed because the states were still to divided to defend America.
    "We needed to join or die. ( Ben Franklin). "
    I know that quote was earlier than 1787 but it was still true for us.
    It was natural evolution . brought on by necessity.

    Your post is a great question . But where will we go with this?
    Are you trying to assess our religious commitment as a country today?
    Form a religious standard to approach future policy direction?
    Question how much religious infulence is nessary?
    Debate is fine , and fun. I just wondered if you are looking toward a
    resolution to some loose ends found in the Constution. or Bill of Rights.
    My idea was to debate the idea that the founders were just a bunch of rich guys looking to get richer and they wrote a constitution that the people rejected... the people refused to ratify it. Later the people, the religious people, ratified it after removing much of the power from the federal government while protecting the power of the people from the government. The very fact that 99.9% of the population were Christians including the rich fat white powerful folks running things would indicate this is a Christian nation and the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights reflects the religious values of "the people". How does it do it without saying cause God says so... it does it by the amendments associated with common law and judge by jury... Christians will make the moral laws they like and they will be the determining judge of fact and not a rich fat white powerful government official. I would like everyone to consider that there is a possibility that the founders did not have the people's best interest at heart at that time.

    Look at the historian Charles Beard. and look at rebellions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion and now look at this guys prospective... http://americareads.blogspot.com/200...rigins-of.html

    Is everyone aware that the first printing of the American bible was authorized and printed by the first Congress of the US? It is a matter of Law. The American version of the King James Bible... Government Printing Office...
    Last edited by Classact; 11-26-2007 at 11:03 AM.
    "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
    ---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
    Nonsense. The Constitution is a product of compromise, experience, and a well-founded fear of the power of central government. It was written for the purpose of (a) creating a new form of government, and (b) limiting the powers of that government - things that had never been tried before.
    The point of my post, BTW, was to point out that the Framers had NO particular religious or judicial point of view in mind when they wrote the Const and the BOR. Thinking that they did, can lead you down the wrong path to understanding why the Const says what it does.

    The Const was written as it was, mostly because the Framers thought that (a) it would work that way, (b) it would keep central govt out of people's hair enough to provide a maximum of freedom and individual responsibility, and (c) they could get enough states to ratify it that way. Hence some of the compromises (slave is 3/5 of a full citizen for enumeration purposes in the House, etc.). Some states demanded a BOR as a condition of their ratification, and so that was soon provided, superfluous though it mostly was.

    The Framers by and large agreed with what we call Judeo-Christian values (though many of those values are simply good ideas whether Jews, Christians, or whomever agreed with them or not). And some of that did rub off into the Constitution as the Framers tried to provide for freedom. But they were doing it less because the values were Judeo-Christian, than because they felt it would provide for maximum freedom while still giving a govt strong enough to do what it needed to do.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    1,690
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glockmail View Post
    Its clear that it is you who is deflecting now.

    If Christ is not mentioned, then who is "The Lord"?

    The preamble states the reasons for drafting the Constitution include “in Order to… secure the Blessings of Liberty…” Again, who gave those Blessings?
    Progressive liberals would have you believe that the founders were learned visionaries, products of the age of Enlightenment that were truly SECULAR as they see themselves. In the year of our Lord is a good point because if you look at France during the same period the Progressive Liberals were actually there getting busy...
    In the autumn of A.D. 1793, the new dictatorship instituted a new calendar whose names would more closely correspond to the spirit of the time than the old Gregorian calendar which was based on the liturgical year of the Church. In line with other de-Christianizing acts—many churches had been gutted and converted to Temples of Reason, museums or other secular buildings—the names of days and months were replaced by symbols of nature and other things related to the Republic’s principles. Thus the days were given names such as Lamb’s Lettuce, Plow, Billy Goat, and Spinach; the holidays were known as Opinion Day, Labor Day, and so on.
    The new system was implemented retroactively from September 22, 1792, which by coincidence was both the fall equinox and the day the French Republic was created. This calendar was observed by the French until Napolean reverted to the use of the Gregorian calendar in A.D. 1806.
    http://www.aquinas-multimedia.com/stjoseph/history.html

    Yet, in America the founders agreed to American version of the Common Law whereby a citizen, including themselves could be punished for violation of Blasphemy laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphe...tes_of_America.
    Last edited by Classact; 11-26-2007 at 11:40 AM.
    "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
    ---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    696
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    5
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    3
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    179154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glockmail View Post
    Its clear that it is you who is deflecting now.
    Nonsense. You are now grasping, hoping that the following jab at non-sequitur will save you--it will not:
    Quote Originally Posted by glockmail View Post
    If Christ is not mentioned, then who is "The Lord"?
    "The Year of Our Lord" is an idomatic expression that helps precisely establish the date of the document; it does not make a statement of principle, it does not establish a foundation in Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by glockmail View Post
    The preamble states the reasons for drafting the Constitution include “in Order to… secure the Blessings of Liberty…” Again, who gave those Blessings?
    "Who" doesn't come into it; the Blessings that are secured, are Blessings that come from Liberty--exactly as it is written.
    "... whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." - Lysander Spooner

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    College Park, GA
    Posts
    4,749
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1680

    Default

    It doesn't matter what you believe. The writers of the US Constitution took most of their ideas from the Magna Carta and the teachings of the English philosopher, John Locke. NOT the Bible. The US was never and will never be a theocracy or even a republic loosely based on theology. It's a secular republic.
    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.
    There it is! BOLDED for your enjoyment. These endless threads about how US law is based on the Bible are getting ridiculous. The horse is dead! Quit beating it!
    Last edited by Hagbard Celine; 11-26-2007 at 11:51 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaffer
    Science wants to explain things and understand why they happen. Creationists want to use science to justify their own causes.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,214
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2937

    Default

    I'd say 'inspired by' rather than 'based on.'

    The Constitution doesn't actually have any 'laws' in it, per se, so it can't truly be based on any code of laws. Rather, the Constitution was a document detailing a system by which laws were made and enforced. Up until the Bill of Rights, the document essentially did away with the idea that some men were born better than others, a concept very much in line with Christian doctrine ('For all have sinned...'), but was primarily a rejection of the stagnant, corrupt British system which allowed certain people to rule others based solely on who their parents were.

    The Bill of Rights, similarly, had much of it written in response to injustices done by the British government, but was also based on the Christian concept of individual rights. The founders believed that every man was given, by God, certain inalienable rights, and that no one man was better than another at the time of their birth. It was this same concept of individuality that led to the abolition movements in Europe.
    "Lighght"
    - This 'poem' was bought and paid for with $2,250 of YOUR money.

    Name one thing the government does better than the private sector and I'll show you something that requires the use of force to accomplish.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks (Given)
    177
    Thanks (Received)
    680
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1200645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOki View Post
    Nonsense. You are now grasping, hoping that the following jab at non-sequitur will save you--it will not:
    "The Year of Our Lord" is an idomatic expression that helps precisely establish the date of the document; it does not make a statement of principle, it does not establish a foundation in Christ.

    "Who" doesn't come into it; the Blessings that are secured, are Blessings that come from Liberty--exactly as it is written.

    The Founders had the option to omit "The Year of our Lord" and chose not to. This shows heir intent.

    the Founders used the term "Blessings", but could have used several other terms, or none at all. Again, points to intent.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    1,690
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine View Post
    It doesn't matter what you believe. The writers of the US Constitution took most of their ideas from the Magna Carta and the teachings of the English philosopher, John Locke. NOT the Bible. Give it a rest! The US was never and will never be a theocracy or even a republic loosely based on theology! It's a secular republic!
    There it is! BOLDED for your enjoyment. These endless threads about how US law is based on the Bible are getting ridiculous. The horse is dead! Quit beating it!
    In my definition the words Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means that Congress will not form a religion as an act of law, will not chose a flavor of the varieties of religion available and make it part of the government and Congress will simply not apply religion as a mandate.

    If the above were not true how could the position of Chaplain of the Senate and the House of Representatives be an elected office voted on by all members of the House and Senate? If they elect a Christian Chaplain are they not establishing Christianity under your definition of establishment?
    "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
    ---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Biggest Little City In The World
    Posts
    1,569
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    The same people, "Americans/Founding Fathers," that wrote the Constitution wrote the Declaration of Independence, which states....

    The United States Declaration of Independence declares, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" The founding fathers thought that it was self-evident (in other words, not even questionable) that humans were created by God.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    696
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    5
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    3
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    179154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pale Rider View Post
    The same people, "Americans/Founding Fathers," that wrote the Constitution wrote the Declaration of Independence, which states....

    The United States Declaration of Independence declares, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" The founding fathers thought that it was self-evident (in other words, not even questionable) that humans were created by God.
    Not so fast. They felt it is self evident that men are created--period. No mention of your God.
    "... whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." - Lysander Spooner

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    696
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    5
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    3
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    179154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glockmail View Post
    The Founders had the option to omit "The Year of our Lord" and chose not to. This shows heir intent.
    Yes. The intent to use English rather than Latin.

    Quote Originally Posted by glockmail View Post
    the Founders used the term "Blessings", but could have used several other terms, or none at all. Again, points to intent
    The intent to use plain English? I agree.
    "... whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." - Lysander Spooner

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums