If We Erase The Christian Basis Of Governance, Then What Do We Unleash?

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm hoping that this is a fun topic. A century ago G.K. Chesterton observed:

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” ​

Christians have this quaint belief that God created Adam and Eve and that all of mankind is equal in the eyes of God. A King and a Pauper shall be judged equally by God once in Heaven. This God inspired notion has informed our governing philosophy ever since we began as a nation.

The evidence of reality however is abundantly clear that we are not all made equal, so what higher principle can we turn to to guide us and prevent us from a utilitarian reform of our laws and customs which recognizes and enshrines what the real world is SCREAMING at us - we are not all equal?

We have past experiments where legislatures have tried to impose the will of man over reality, such as when the Indiana Legislature came close to passing a bill legislating a method to derive pi to a value of 3.2. Any engineer will tell you that if forced to use an imagined value for pi while building a bridge or an airplane, the product will be unstable. Man's will can't override reality. Disaster follows.

So we have a society where the great majority of people believe in God and the belief that God created us all equally. Once that belief is crushed into dust, why on Earth would we close our eyes to what nature is telling us about human inequality? Some will try to argue that appealing to the nature as a model for how society should be constructed is fallacious thinking but what then in its stead? We see the negative ramifications today of a world where we treat all people as equal when they in fact are not, but when God's command is being honored, who are mere men to know better and so we suffer through.

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, how shall we proceed to reform society? The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles - it is actually formed by appealing to Christian foundational beliefs. How do we justify the notion of one man, one vote when some men are better and wiser than other men? The rational course is to acknowledge this reality and construct a society reflective of what nature has created. We no longer have to fear God's displeasure because we no longer cling to silly superstitions like "we are all created equal."

Sorry, but where's the Bible say all men are created equal? And where in the Constitution is that statement substantiated? If blacks are only 3/5ths a free person how exactly is 'all men are created equal' anything more than a typo when it should have read, "All white men are created equal?"

14th Amendment corrected the oversight from a Constitutional perspective (which is what matters).

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sure, but the fact that the document as originally written was clearly and laughably hypocritical remains.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm hoping that this is a fun topic. A century ago G.K. Chesterton observed:

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” ​

Christians have this quaint belief that God created Adam and Eve and that all of mankind is equal in the eyes of God. A King and a Pauper shall be judged equally by God once in Heaven. This God inspired notion has informed our governing philosophy ever since we began as a nation.

The evidence of reality however is abundantly clear that we are not all made equal, so what higher principle can we turn to to guide us and prevent us from a utilitarian reform of our laws and customs which recognizes and enshrines what the real world is SCREAMING at us - we are not all equal?

We have past experiments where legislatures have tried to impose the will of man over reality, such as when the Indiana Legislature came close to passing a bill legislating a method to derive pi to a value of 3.2. Any engineer will tell you that if forced to use an imagined value for pi while building a bridge or an airplane, the product will be unstable. Man's will can't override reality. Disaster follows.

So we have a society where the great majority of people believe in God and the belief that God created us all equally. Once that belief is crushed into dust, why on Earth would we close our eyes to what nature is telling us about human inequality? Some will try to argue that appealing to the nature as a model for how society should be constructed is fallacious thinking but what then in its stead? We see the negative ramifications today of a world where we treat all people as equal when they in fact are not, but when God's command is being honored, who are mere men to know better and so we suffer through.

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, how shall we proceed to reform society? The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles - it is actually formed by appealing to Christian foundational beliefs. How do we justify the notion of one man, one vote when some men are better and wiser than other men? The rational course is to acknowledge this reality and construct a society reflective of what nature has created. We no longer have to fear God's displeasure because we no longer cling to silly superstitions like "we are all created equal."

Sorry, but where's the Bible say all men are created equal? And where in the Constitution is that statement substantiated? If blacks are only 3/5ths a free person how exactly is 'all men are created equal' anything more than a typo when it should have read, "All white men are created equal?"

That's a lie look it up and shut up

Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Can kneel down and get to apologizing (unzips pants) or write out a formal apology and affivdavit.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm hoping that this is a fun topic. A century ago G.K. Chesterton observed:

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” ​

Christians have this quaint belief that God created Adam and Eve and that all of mankind is equal in the eyes of God. A King and a Pauper shall be judged equally by God once in Heaven. This God inspired notion has informed our governing philosophy ever since we began as a nation.

The evidence of reality however is abundantly clear that we are not all made equal, so what higher principle can we turn to to guide us and prevent us from a utilitarian reform of our laws and customs which recognizes and enshrines what the real world is SCREAMING at us - we are not all equal?

We have past experiments where legislatures have tried to impose the will of man over reality, such as when the Indiana Legislature came close to passing a bill legislating a method to derive pi to a value of 3.2. Any engineer will tell you that if forced to use an imagined value for pi while building a bridge or an airplane, the product will be unstable. Man's will can't override reality. Disaster follows.

So we have a society where the great majority of people believe in God and the belief that God created us all equally. Once that belief is crushed into dust, why on Earth would we close our eyes to what nature is telling us about human inequality? Some will try to argue that appealing to the nature as a model for how society should be constructed is fallacious thinking but what then in its stead? We see the negative ramifications today of a world where we treat all people as equal when they in fact are not, but when God's command is being honored, who are mere men to know better and so we suffer through.

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, how shall we proceed to reform society? The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles - it is actually formed by appealing to Christian foundational beliefs. How do we justify the notion of one man, one vote when some men are better and wiser than other men? The rational course is to acknowledge this reality and construct a society reflective of what nature has created. We no longer have to fear God's displeasure because we no longer cling to silly superstitions like "we are all created equal."

Sorry, but where's the Bible say all men are created equal? And where in the Constitution is that statement substantiated? If blacks are only 3/5ths a free person how exactly is 'all men are created equal' anything more than a typo when it should have read, "All white men are created equal?"

14th Amendment corrected the oversight from a Constitutional perspective (which is what matters).

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sure, but the fact that the document as originally written was clearly and laughably hypocritical remains.

Absolutely! An object lesson in making a bad compromise but to give the FF's their due they were literally "under the gun" and a divided nation would have been easier for the British to retake.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm hoping that this is a fun topic. A century ago G.K. Chesterton observed:

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” ​

Christians have this quaint belief that God created Adam and Eve and that all of mankind is equal in the eyes of God. A King and a Pauper shall be judged equally by God once in Heaven. This God inspired notion has informed our governing philosophy ever since we began as a nation.

The evidence of reality however is abundantly clear that we are not all made equal, so what higher principle can we turn to to guide us and prevent us from a utilitarian reform of our laws and customs which recognizes and enshrines what the real world is SCREAMING at us - we are not all equal?

We have past experiments where legislatures have tried to impose the will of man over reality, such as when the Indiana Legislature came close to passing a bill legislating a method to derive pi to a value of 3.2. Any engineer will tell you that if forced to use an imagined value for pi while building a bridge or an airplane, the product will be unstable. Man's will can't override reality. Disaster follows.

So we have a society where the great majority of people believe in God and the belief that God created us all equally. Once that belief is crushed into dust, why on Earth would we close our eyes to what nature is telling us about human inequality? Some will try to argue that appealing to the nature as a model for how society should be constructed is fallacious thinking but what then in its stead? We see the negative ramifications today of a world where we treat all people as equal when they in fact are not, but when God's command is being honored, who are mere men to know better and so we suffer through.

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, how shall we proceed to reform society? The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles - it is actually formed by appealing to Christian foundational beliefs. How do we justify the notion of one man, one vote when some men are better and wiser than other men? The rational course is to acknowledge this reality and construct a society reflective of what nature has created. We no longer have to fear God's displeasure because we no longer cling to silly superstitions like "we are all created equal."

Sorry, but where's the Bible say all men are created equal? And where in the Constitution is that statement substantiated? If blacks are only 3/5ths a free person how exactly is 'all men are created equal' anything more than a typo when it should have read, "All white men are created equal?"

14th Amendment corrected the oversight from a Constitutional perspective (which is what matters).

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sure, but the fact that the document as originally written was clearly and laughably hypocritical remains.

Absolutely! An object lesson in making a bad compromise but to give the FF's their due they were literally "under the gun" and a divided nation would have been easier for the British to retake.

Would only give them credit for recognizing the mistakes made and instead of erasing them from the document, leaving the document in its' original form then making the changes later on.

 

[MaxGrit]

I'm hoping that this is a fun topic. A century ago G.K. Chesterton observed:

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” ​

Christians have this quaint belief that God created Adam and Eve and that all of mankind is equal in the eyes of God. A King and a Pauper shall be judged equally by God once in Heaven. This God inspired notion has informed our governing philosophy ever since we began as a nation.

The evidence of reality however is abundantly clear that we are not all made equal, so what higher principle can we turn to to guide us and prevent us from a utilitarian reform of our laws and customs which recognizes and enshrines what the real world is SCREAMING at us - we are not all equal?

We have past experiments where legislatures have tried to impose the will of man over reality, such as when the Indiana Legislature came close to passing a bill legislating a method to derive pi to a value of 3.2. Any engineer will tell you that if forced to use an imagined value for pi while building a bridge or an airplane, the product will be unstable. Man's will can't override reality. Disaster follows.

So we have a society where the great majority of people believe in God and the belief that God created us all equally. Once that belief is crushed into dust, why on Earth would we close our eyes to what nature is telling us about human inequality? Some will try to argue that appealing to the nature as a model for how society should be constructed is fallacious thinking but what then in its stead? We see the negative ramifications today of a world where we treat all people as equal when they in fact are not, but when God's command is being honored, who are mere men to know better and so we suffer through.

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, how shall we proceed to reform society? The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles - it is actually formed by appealing to Christian foundational beliefs. How do we justify the notion of one man, one vote when some men are better and wiser than other men? The rational course is to acknowledge this reality and construct a society reflective of what nature has created. We no longer have to fear God's displeasure because we no longer cling to silly superstitions like "we are all created equal."

Sorry, but where's the Bible say all men are created equal? And where in the Constitution is that statement substantiated? If blacks are only 3/5ths a free person how exactly is 'all men are created equal' anything more than a typo when it should have read, "All white men are created equal?"

That's a lie look it up and shut up

Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Can kneel down and get to apologizing (unzips pants) or write out a formal apology and affivdavit.

ok let me school you

 

[MaxGrit]

The Original Constitution and the Three-Fifths Myth - The American Vision

The Original Constitution and the Three-Fifths Myth

Lanny Davis is a lawyer, a graduate of Yale Law School and from 1996 to 1998 he served as a special counsel to President Bill Clinton. He and Jay Sekulow appeared together on “The Sean Hannity Show” to discuss the reading of the Constitution by the new Congress. Davis wanted to know if the “three-fifths” clause would be read, implying that it was a racist part of the Constitution. Mr. Sekulow did not have time to take on this issue, but he shouldn’t have had to. Mr. Davis should know that the “three-fifths” clause has nothing to do with the idea that black slaves were being described as “three-fifths” of a white person. If he doesn’t know this, then he shouldn’t be practicing law, and if does know this and perpetuates the falsehood in order to gain some political edge, then he shouldn’t be practicing law.

The issue of slavery was a major concern at the Constitutional Convention and was discussed at length in the debates. A significant minority of the delegates to the Federal Convention were staunch opponents of slavery, primarily those who adhered to the Federalist philosophy. Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton opposed slavery. John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States, was president of the New York anti-slavery society. Northern Federalist leaders Rufus King and Gouvernour Morris were outspoken opponents of slavery and the slave trade.

Elias Boudinot (1740–1821), who was a lawyer, served three congressional terms representing New Jersey (1789–1795), was a delegate to the Continental Congress, and presided as President of the Continental Congress from 1782 to 1783, making him the chief executive officer of the United States. Boudinot signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783 that ended the Revolutionary War. He was an early opponent of slavery. “Southern and Border State Federalists also openly opposed the institution.”(1) Many people do not know that the original Constitution words “race,” “slavery,” “slave,” “white,” or “black.” Such omissions are curious since there are many who view the Constitution as a racist document. Actually, the word “slavery” did not enter the Constitution until after the War Between the States in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.

The so-called racist intent of the Constitution is seen by some (many?) in the “three-fifths clause” found in Article I, section 2, clause 3. Contrary to what some historians claim, the “three-fifths clause” is a clear indication that a number of our constitutional founders wanted to end slavery; it is not a statement about personhood. The Northern states did not want to count slaves. The Southern states hoped to include slaves in the population statistics in order to acquire additional representation in Congress to advance their political position.

It took 30,000 people to get one congressman, and slaves outnumbered whites in slave states. It was the Democrat hope that with enough pro-slavery congressmen, they could overturn much of the abolitionist legislation Northern Republicans had previously passed.

However, there was one philosophical problem: blacks in Southern states had no rights thus The North deemed it a joke they only be counted when beneficial to Democrats. Northern abolitionists argued that since the South considered blacks their property, all ‘property’ should be counted for the purpose of determining congressional representation. Thus the Northern abolitionists would include their property: horses, cattle, homes, furniture, pets, etc. in their population tallies.

The South denounced the proposal, so anti-slavery northerner James Wilson of Pennsylvania came up with a compromise. Blacks in the Southern states would be counted as “three-fifths” of a person. That way, it would take 50,000 people (instead of 30,000) in a district to earn congressional representation. That had the effect of limiting the power of the slave states.

The compromise was to count slaves as “three-fifths” of a person for representation purposes. The fewer slaves counted the fewer number of representatives. “It had NOTHING to do with the worth of a person and EVERYTHING to do with diminishing the power of” the pro-slavery Southern states.

The goal of the Northern delegates was to dilute Southern voting strength so as to outlaw slavery by constitutional means. “The struggle that took place in the convention was between the Southern delegates trying to strengthen the constitutional supports for slavery and the Northern delegates trying to weaken them.”(2) If none of the slaves had been included in the population count for representation, as Northern delegates wanted, the slave states would have had only 41 percent of the seats in the House. If all the slaves had been included, as the pro-slave states wanted, the slave states would have had 50 percent of the seats. By agreeing to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, the slaveholding states ended up with a minority voting position—47 percent. Robert L. Goldwin concludes:

[T]he point is that the “three-fifths clause” had nothing at all to do with measuring the human worth of blacks. Northern delegates did not want black slaves included, not because they thought them unworthy of being counted, but because they wanted to weaken the slaveholding power in Congress. Southern delegates wanted every slave to count “equally with the Whites,” not because they wanted to proclaim that black slaves were human beings on an equal footing with free white persons, but because they wanted to increase the pro-slavery voting power in Congress. The humanity of blacks was not the subject of the three-fifths clause; voting power in Congress was the subject.(3)

Was it right for the Northern delegates to agree to this compromise? We will never know. Second guessing the actions of men who lived two-hundred years ago is a waste of time and energy. Distorting the facts of history is reprehensible. Lanny Davis should know better.Endnotes:

Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1971), 48.(↩)
Robert A. Goldwin, “Why Blacks, Women & Jews Are Not Mentioned in the Constitution,” Commentary (May 1987), 29.(↩)
“Why Blacks, Women & Jews Are Not Mentioned in the Constitution,” 30.(↩)

 

[MaxGrit]

Idiots got owned. Again and again and again.

 

[koshergrl]

Most of the far left extremist yahoos who post on this site are the intellectual equivalent of 4 year olds, and have educations that hover right around the 8th grade level. Many of them are *disabled* or just *eternally unemployed* and almost none of them enjoy anything like a normal social or family life.

 

[Toro]

I'm hoping that this is a fun topic. A century ago G.K. Chesterton observed:

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” ​

Christians have this quaint belief that God created Adam and Eve and that all of mankind is equal in the eyes of God. A King and a Pauper shall be judged equally by God once in Heaven. This God inspired notion has informed our governing philosophy ever since we began as a nation.

The evidence of reality however is abundantly clear that we are not all made equal, so what higher principle can we turn to to guide us and prevent us from a utilitarian reform of our laws and customs which recognizes and enshrines what the real world is SCREAMING at us - we are not all equal?

We have past experiments where legislatures have tried to impose the will of man over reality, such as when the Indiana Legislature came close to passing a bill legislating a method to derive pi to a value of 3.2. Any engineer will tell you that if forced to use an imagined value for pi while building a bridge or an airplane, the product will be unstable. Man's will can't override reality. Disaster follows.

So we have a society where the great majority of people believe in God and the belief that God created us all equally. Once that belief is crushed into dust, why on Earth would we close our eyes to what nature is telling us about human inequality? Some will try to argue that appealing to the nature as a model for how society should be constructed is fallacious thinking but what then in its stead? We see the negative ramifications today of a world where we treat all people as equal when they in fact are not, but when God's command is being honored, who are mere men to know better and so we suffer through.

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, how shall we proceed to reform society? The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles - it is actually formed by appealing to Christian foundational beliefs. How do we justify the notion of one man, one vote when some men are better and wiser than other men? The rational course is to acknowledge this reality and construct a society reflective of what nature has created. We no longer have to fear God's displeasure because we no longer cling to silly superstitions like "we are all created equal."

Since the Constitution has codified the principles of equal rights, who needs God?

If the Constitution codified that people hop around on one leg, how viable is it to enforce such a silly notion? We are not created equal, we are not equal, nature has made us unequal, there is no godly command that we have been created equal. Why should we pretend to adhere to the silly notion that we are equal and have equal rights? Why not align our governing principles with the reality of life?

I agree. I'm far better than you are, therefore, I should have far more rights than you.

 

[Justin Davis]

I'm hoping that this is a fun topic. A century ago G.K. Chesterton observed:

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” ​

Christians have this quaint belief that God created Adam and Eve and that all of mankind is equal in the eyes of God. A King and a Pauper shall be judged equally by God once in Heaven. This God inspired notion has informed our governing philosophy ever since we began as a nation.

The evidence of reality however is abundantly clear that we are not all made equal, so what higher principle can we turn to to guide us and prevent us from a utilitarian reform of our laws and customs which recognizes and enshrines what the real world is SCREAMING at us - we are not all equal?

We have past experiments where legislatures have tried to impose the will of man over reality, such as when the Indiana Legislature came close to passing a bill legislating a method to derive pi to a value of 3.2. Any engineer will tell you that if forced to use an imagined value for pi while building a bridge or an airplane, the product will be unstable. Man's will can't override reality. Disaster follows.

So we have a society where the great majority of people believe in God and the belief that God created us all equally. Once that belief is crushed into dust, why on Earth would we close our eyes to what nature is telling us about human inequality? Some will try to argue that appealing to the nature as a model for how society should be constructed is fallacious thinking but what then in its stead? We see the negative ramifications today of a world where we treat all people as equal when they in fact are not, but when God's command is being honored, who are mere men to know better and so we suffer through.

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, how shall we proceed to reform society? The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles - it is actually formed by appealing to Christian foundational beliefs. How do we justify the notion of one man, one vote when some men are better and wiser than other men? The rational course is to acknowledge this reality and construct a society reflective of what nature has created. We no longer have to fear God's displeasure because we no longer cling to silly superstitions like "we are all created equal."

Sorry, but where's the Bible say all men are created equal? And where in the Constitution is that statement substantiated? If blacks are only 3/5ths a free person how exactly is 'all men are created equal' anything more than a typo when it should have read, "All white men are created equal?"

This is childlike thinking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's uniquely Christian about representative democracy, voter's rights, elections?

Didn't the rise of democratic government occur largely as a rebellion against the authoritarian nature of the earlier Christian establishment? Wasn't all of that simply a battle between two opposing interpretations of the Christian church's role in government?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

it is 100% based in God's natural law. Hitler Stalin and Mao started over with themselves as GOD. Do you get it now?

Hitler was christian and often quoted christian tenets to do what he did.

But, just for yucks and grins.....why didn't this god stop Stalin and Mao?

Hitler wasn't christian. He was involved in the occult. There were several expeditions in the late thirties in which SS officers and other nazi leaders went on to look for agarthi and aryan god men. He invoked religion to win elections:

""In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that He would give His blessing to our work, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right. I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty. No man can fashion world history unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessings of this Providence."

Hitler was raised as a devout Catholic.

Guess that explains why the catholic church in germany looked the other way when the nazis were gassing jews and other minorities next door.

The Pope was surrounded by Mussolini and his own Black Shirt Fascists. If anything the Pope endorsed Fascism but there is plausible deniability that he knew nothing about what was happening to the Jews.

Agree with your first thought. Sure.....on the second half.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, the rise of democratic government in the west grew out of rebellion against a system which had its roots in PAGAN, tribal and roman culture..as people came to know God, they came to realize that all men are indeed equal, and they began to pursue a method of governance that reflected that.

Again we see that anti-Christian hysterics are, always, know-nothing dolts.

 

[boilermaker55]

Open ones eyes to what?

Still waiting for proof that people are created unequally...

I'm not some mystical healer who can bring sight to the willfully liberal. All it takes is to open one's eyes.

 

[norwegen]

Miley Cyrus, Madonna,Jay-Z, Beyonce have replaced Christendom as avenues of finding "meaning" and "fulfillment"....pathways of "transcendence" and a "revelatory" sense of "personal identity".

You are sick fucking people.

When did any of those people

Burn a Witch
Torture a Heretic
Start a religious war
Molest an altar boy

You know, stuff "Christianity" has been doing for centuries.


the worst thing these folks did was create music I don't care for. And the Radio has an off switch.

Who burned witches?

 

[norwegen]

I'm hoping that this is a fun topic. A century ago G.K. Chesterton observed:

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” ​

Christians have this quaint belief that God created Adam and Eve and that all of mankind is equal in the eyes of God. A King and a Pauper shall be judged equally by God once in Heaven. This God inspired notion has informed our governing philosophy ever since we began as a nation.

The evidence of reality however is abundantly clear that we are not all made equal, so what higher principle can we turn to to guide us and prevent us from a utilitarian reform of our laws and customs which recognizes and enshrines what the real world is SCREAMING at us - we are not all equal?

We have past experiments where legislatures have tried to impose the will of man over reality, such as when the Indiana Legislature came close to passing a bill legislating a method to derive pi to a value of 3.2. Any engineer will tell you that if forced to use an imagined value for pi while building a bridge or an airplane, the product will be unstable. Man's will can't override reality. Disaster follows.

So we have a society where the great majority of people believe in God and the belief that God created us all equally. Once that belief is crushed into dust, why on Earth would we close our eyes to what nature is telling us about human inequality? Some will try to argue that appealing to the nature as a model for how society should be constructed is fallacious thinking but what then in its stead? We see the negative ramifications today of a world where we treat all people as equal when they in fact are not, but when God's command is being honored, who are mere men to know better and so we suffer through.

Once the foundational beliefs which created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are shown to be false, how shall we proceed to reform society? The problem with merely appealing to the Religion of Liberalism is that it's unmoored from independently derived higher principles - it is actually formed by appealing to Christian foundational beliefs. How do we justify the notion of one man, one vote when some men are better and wiser than other men? The rational course is to acknowledge this reality and construct a society reflective of what nature has created. We no longer have to fear God's displeasure because we no longer cling to silly superstitions like "we are all created equal."

Sorry, but where's the Bible say all men are created equal? And where in the Constitution is that statement substantiated? If blacks are only 3/5ths a free person how exactly is 'all men are created equal' anything more than a typo when it should have read, "All white men are created equal?"

That's a lie look it up and shut up

Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Can kneel down and get to apologizing (unzips pants) or write out a formal apology and affivdavit.

Read that passage again. It's about apportionment, not the value of a person.

 

[norwegen]

The Original Constitution and the Three-Fifths Myth - The American Vision

The Original Constitution and the Three-Fifths Myth

Lanny Davis is a lawyer, a graduate of Yale Law School and from 1996 to 1998 he served as a special counsel to President Bill Clinton. He and Jay Sekulow appeared together on “The Sean Hannity Show” to discuss the reading of the Constitution by the new Congress. Davis wanted to know if the “three-fifths” clause would be read, implying that it was a racist part of the Constitution. Mr. Sekulow did not have time to take on this issue, but he shouldn’t have had to. Mr. Davis should know that the “three-fifths” clause has nothing to do with the idea that black slaves were being described as “three-fifths” of a white person. If he doesn’t know this, then he shouldn’t be practicing law, and if does know this and perpetuates the falsehood in order to gain some political edge, then he shouldn’t be practicing law.

The issue of slavery was a major concern at the Constitutional Convention and was discussed at length in the debates. A significant minority of the delegates to the Federal Convention were staunch opponents of slavery, primarily those who adhered to the Federalist philosophy. Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton opposed slavery. John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States, was president of the New York anti-slavery society. Northern Federalist leaders Rufus King and Gouvernour Morris were outspoken opponents of slavery and the slave trade.

Elias Boudinot (1740–1821), who was a lawyer, served three congressional terms representing New Jersey (1789–1795), was a delegate to the Continental Congress, and presided as President of the Continental Congress from 1782 to 1783, making him the chief executive officer of the United States. Boudinot signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783 that ended the Revolutionary War. He was an early opponent of slavery. “Southern and Border State Federalists also openly opposed the institution.”(1) Many people do not know that the original Constitution words “race,” “slavery,” “slave,” “white,” or “black.” Such omissions are curious since there are many who view the Constitution as a racist document. Actually, the word “slavery” did not enter the Constitution until after the War Between the States in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.

The so-called racist intent of the Constitution is seen by some (many?) in the “three-fifths clause” found in Article I, section 2, clause 3. Contrary to what some historians claim, the “three-fifths clause” is a clear indication that a number of our constitutional founders wanted to end slavery; it is not a statement about personhood. The Northern states did not want to count slaves. The Southern states hoped to include slaves in the population statistics in order to acquire additional representation in Congress to advance their political position.

It took 30,000 people to get one congressman, and slaves outnumbered whites in slave states. It was the Democrat hope that with enough pro-slavery congressmen, they could overturn much of the abolitionist legislation Northern Republicans had previously passed.

However, there was one philosophical problem: blacks in Southern states had no rights thus The North deemed it a joke they only be counted when beneficial to Democrats. Northern abolitionists argued that since the South considered blacks their property, all ‘property’ should be counted for the purpose of determining congressional representation. Thus the Northern abolitionists would include their property: horses, cattle, homes, furniture, pets, etc. in their population tallies.

The South denounced the proposal, so anti-slavery northerner James Wilson of Pennsylvania came up with a compromise. Blacks in the Southern states would be counted as “three-fifths” of a person. That way, it would take 50,000 people (instead of 30,000) in a district to earn congressional representation. That had the effect of limiting the power of the slave states.

The compromise was to count slaves as “three-fifths” of a person for representation purposes. The fewer slaves counted the fewer number of representatives. “It had NOTHING to do with the worth of a person and EVERYTHING to do with diminishing the power of” the pro-slavery Southern states.

The goal of the Northern delegates was to dilute Southern voting strength so as to outlaw slavery by constitutional means. “The struggle that took place in the convention was between the Southern delegates trying to strengthen the constitutional supports for slavery and the Northern delegates trying to weaken them.”(2) If none of the slaves had been included in the population count for representation, as Northern delegates wanted, the slave states would have had only 41 percent of the seats in the House. If all the slaves had been included, as the pro-slave states wanted, the slave states would have had 50 percent of the seats. By agreeing to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, the slaveholding states ended up with a minority voting position—47 percent. Robert L. Goldwin concludes:

[T]he point is that the “three-fifths clause” had nothing at all to do with measuring the human worth of blacks. Northern delegates did not want black slaves included, not because they thought them unworthy of being counted, but because they wanted to weaken the slaveholding power in Congress. Southern delegates wanted every slave to count “equally with the Whites,” not because they wanted to proclaim that black slaves were human beings on an equal footing with free white persons, but because they wanted to increase the pro-slavery voting power in Congress. The humanity of blacks was not the subject of the three-fifths clause; voting power in Congress was the subject.(3)

Was it right for the Northern delegates to agree to this compromise? We will never know. Second guessing the actions of men who lived two-hundred years ago is a waste of time and energy. Distorting the facts of history is reprehensible. Lanny Davis should know better.Endnotes:

Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1971), 48.(↩)
Robert A. Goldwin, “Why Blacks, Women & Jews Are Not Mentioned in the Constitution,” Commentary (May 1987), 29.(↩)
“Why Blacks, Women & Jews Are Not Mentioned in the Constitution,” 30.(↩)

If liberals knew history and our constitution, they wouldn't be liberals.

 

[Rikurzhen]

What's uniquely Christian about representative democracy, voter's rights, elections?

Look back through history. Which non-European society has implemented those features without intervention from European Christendom? Did the Maya have them, how about Australia's aborigines, how about African tribal cultures, how about India, how about China, how about Polynesian cultures, etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's uniquely Christian about representative democracy, voter's rights, elections?

Look back through history. Which non-European society has implemented those features without intervention from European Christendom? Did the Maya have them, how about Australia's aborigines, how about African tribal cultures, how about India, how about China, how about Polynesian cultures, etc.

How about the Greeks? How about the Roman Republic?

And btw, what was so democratic about Csarist Russia?

 

[Rikurzhen]

What's uniquely Christian about representative democracy, voter's rights, elections?

Look back through history. Which non-European society has implemented those features without intervention from European Christendom? Did the Maya have them, how about Australia's aborigines, how about African tribal cultures, how about India, how about China, how about Polynesian cultures, etc.

How about the Greeks? How about the Roman Republic?

And btw, what was so democratic about Csarist Russia?

Greece and Rome are in Europe, moron. What part of the question "Which non-European society has implemented . . ." confused you?