Kentucky clerk refusing gay marriage has wed four times

[peach174]

its foolish to judge people who lived 200 years ago by today's standards of right and wrong. in the 1700s most of the world believed that slavery was acceptable. Today we believe otherwise.

In the 1400s most people believed that evil vapors caused pneumonia and that blood letting would cure it. Today we know better.

If you want to judge people in history you need to use the morals and ethics of the time that they lived.

I hold God to a higher standard
I expect him to know that holding another human as property is wrong

Regardless of the time period

I agree, we are not talking about what God thinks. We are talking about what the people of the time believed. But I guess that whole line of thought is beyond your simple mind.

Actually, we were talking about what God thinks

Try to keep up

Wrong, the earlier posts were discussing the FACT that our constitution was based on Judeo/Christian principles and that founders recognized God as the giver of all good things.

Secondarliy we were talking about the morals and ethics of the time, and that they differ from the morals and ethics of today. Miley Cyrus and Beyonce would have probably been burned as witches in the 1700s. In the 1200s they would have been beheaded. Today they are "role models".

Please try to keep up with the thread before you butt in

This particular discussion related to the statement that God was directly involved in our winning the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Constitution

No it wasn't and it never was about that.
That was how it was twisted.
They don't understand the difference of having helping hand and direct involvement or direct writing.

 

[jillian]

Our Constitution was written by a slaveholder and defended the institution of slavery

God was involved in that?

its foolish to judge people who lived 200 years ago by today's standards of right and wrong. in the 1700s most of the world believed that slavery was acceptable. Today we believe otherwise.

In the 1400s most people believed that evil vapors caused pneumonia and that blood letting would cure it. Today we know better.

If you want to judge people in history you need to use the morals and ethics of the time that they lived.

I hold God to a higher standard
I expect him to know that holding another human as property is wrong

Regardless of the time period

I agree, we are not talking about what God thinks. We are talking about what the people of the time believed. But I guess that whole line of thought is beyond your simple mind.

Actually, we were talking about what God thinks

Try to keep up

Wrong, the earlier posts were discussing the FACT that our constitution was based on Judeo/Christian principles and that founders recognized God as the giver of all good things.

Secondarliy we were talking about the morals and ethics of the time, and that they differ from the morals and ethics of today. Miley Cyrus and Beyonce would have probably been burned as witches in the 1700s. In the 1200s they would have been beheaded. Today they are "role models".

actually, no the constitution was based on philosophers like John Stewart Mill and John Locke.

the founding fathers were deists, but not Christians and we were never intended to be anything but secular, hence the first amendment. once any religion decides it has more power or validity or legitimacy than others, there is a state religion.

and, ultimately, whatever the basis for this woman's bigotry, she's violating the law and if she can't fulfill her duties needs to quit.

 

[jillian]

I hold God to a higher standard
I expect him to know that holding another human as property is wrong

Regardless of the time period

I agree, we are not talking about what God thinks. We are talking about what the people of the time believed. But I guess that whole line of thought is beyond your simple mind.

Actually, we were talking about what God thinks

Try to keep up

Wrong, the earlier posts were discussing the FACT that our constitution was based on Judeo/Christian principles and that founders recognized God as the giver of all good things.

Secondarliy we were talking about the morals and ethics of the time, and that they differ from the morals and ethics of today. Miley Cyrus and Beyonce would have probably been burned as witches in the 1700s. In the 1200s they would have been beheaded. Today they are "role models".

Please try to keep up with the thread before you butt in

This particular discussion related to the statement that God was directly involved in our winning the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Constitution

No it wasn't and it never was about that.
That was how it was twisted.
They don't understand the difference of having helping hand and direct involvement or direct writing.

something you might believe, but has zero proof. personally, I think you worship a false messiah. *shrug*

that's fine and it's your business. but it certainly isn't my problem or the problem of those your type sees fit to harass with your bigotry.

p.s. a lot of Christians think your brand of Christians are full of it

 

[peach174]

Attention:

Pay no attention to my adulterous ways. My three previous marriages were the work of the devil and I have now embraced Jesus and realize that God hates Fags

Well it's obvious that you don't know the Bible.

And the Constitution is the law of the land not the big book of the goyim

Without God we would not have our Constitution.
Everyone who fought in the Revolutionary war knew we won because of God's helping hand.
From the Generals down to the soldiers.
You should read some of their letters and papers and the many miracles that happened.

"Everyone who fought in the Revolutionary War knew we won because of Gods helping hand"

Try to keep up before you butt in Redfish

whoever said that was quoting what some of the people of those times said or believed. Maybe they were right maybe they were wrong. Only God knows.

That was me and it was from their letters that they wrote that I was talking about.
Many choose to ignore that fact and twisted the meaning.

 

[Redfish]

its foolish to judge people who lived 200 years ago by today's standards of right and wrong. in the 1700s most of the world believed that slavery was acceptable. Today we believe otherwise.

In the 1400s most people believed that evil vapors caused pneumonia and that blood letting would cure it. Today we know better.

If you want to judge people in history you need to use the morals and ethics of the time that they lived.

I hold God to a higher standard
I expect him to know that holding another human as property is wrong

Regardless of the time period

I agree, we are not talking about what God thinks. We are talking about what the people of the time believed. But I guess that whole line of thought is beyond your simple mind.

Actually, we were talking about what God thinks

Try to keep up

Wrong, the earlier posts were discussing the FACT that our constitution was based on Judeo/Christian principles and that founders recognized God as the giver of all good things.

Secondarliy we were talking about the morals and ethics of the time, and that they differ from the morals and ethics of today. Miley Cyrus and Beyonce would have probably been burned as witches in the 1700s. In the 1200s they would have been beheaded. Today they are "role models".

actually, no the constitution was based on philosophers like John Stewart Mill and John Locke.

the founding fathers were deists, but not Christians and we were never intended to be anything but secular, hence the first amendment. once any religion decides it has more power or validity or legitimacy than others, there is a state religion.

and, ultimately, whatever the basis for this woman's bigotry, she's violating the law and if she can't fulfill her duties needs to quit.

I agree that she violated the law. So did Hillary Clinton. The clerk is in jail with no bail. Hillary is campaigning for president---------------------double standard much?

Why was this woman denied bail? is she a danger to society? is she a flight risk? This is obscene.

 

[jillian]

Without God we would not have our Constitution.
Everyone who fought in the Revolutionary war knew we won because of God's helping hand.
From the Generals down to the soldiers.
You should read some of their letters and papers and the many miracles that happened.

that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. G-d had nothing to do with our constitution. We live in a secular country and the founding fathers were terrified of religious wackos interfering in our government.

but just in case you want to rant about G-d and constitution some more, whose religion should govern. I say Judaism. sunni ijit would probably say islam.

now you see why you wackos need to keep religion out of government?

Our Constitution was written by a slaveholder and defended the institution of slavery

God was involved in that?

its foolish to judge people who lived 200 years ago by today's standards of right and wrong. in the 1700s most of the world believed that slavery was acceptable. Today we believe otherwise.

In the 1400s most people believed that evil vapors caused pneumonia and that blood letting would cure it. Today we know better.

If you want to judge people in history you need to use the morals and ethics of the time that they lived.

which is why laws and constitutional interpretations change. inter-racial marriage used to be illegal. then Loving v Virginia found marriage to be a fundamental right to which all consenting adults were entitled if they chose. this court applied Loving to same sex couples.

it isn't that difficult to grasp. people can't use their professed religious beliefs as an excuse to divest people of their constitutionally protected rights.

Ok, fine. But Loving was about interracial marriage between one man and one woman of different races, not the same sex. Loving is not a valid legal precedent for gay marriage.

But gay marriage is now legal in the USA, Whats next? polygamy, parent/child, siblings, multiples?

The gay marriage ruling DOES set a valid legal precedent for all other forms of "marriage". So get ready for Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice.

irrelevant to constitutional construction. it was about marriage being a fundamental right and only in the face of a heavy duty governmental interest can it be infringed upon.

there is no governmental interest in bigotry.

 

[jillian]

Well it's obvious that you don't know the Bible.

And the Constitution is the law of the land not the big book of the goyim

Without God we would not have our Constitution.
Everyone who fought in the Revolutionary war knew we won because of God's helping hand.
From the Generals down to the soldiers.
You should read some of their letters and papers and the many miracles that happened.

"Everyone who fought in the Revolutionary War knew we won because of Gods helping hand"

Try to keep up before you butt in Redfish

whoever said that was quoting what some of the people of those times said or believed. Maybe they were right maybe they were wrong. Only God knows.

That was me and it was from their letters that they wrote that I was talking about.
Many choose to ignore that fact and twisted the meaning.

whose letters? what one individual person believed is fairly irrelevant. what is relevant is what they ended up with.

I think my religion should run things.

(I figure that has as much validity as your BS).

 

[Redfish]

that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. G-d had nothing to do with our constitution. We live in a secular country and the founding fathers were terrified of religious wackos interfering in our government.

but just in case you want to rant about G-d and constitution some more, whose religion should govern. I say Judaism. sunni ijit would probably say islam.

now you see why you wackos need to keep religion out of government?

Our Constitution was written by a slaveholder and defended the institution of slavery

God was involved in that?

its foolish to judge people who lived 200 years ago by today's standards of right and wrong. in the 1700s most of the world believed that slavery was acceptable. Today we believe otherwise.

In the 1400s most people believed that evil vapors caused pneumonia and that blood letting would cure it. Today we know better.

If you want to judge people in history you need to use the morals and ethics of the time that they lived.

which is why laws and constitutional interpretations change. inter-racial marriage used to be illegal. then Loving v Virginia found marriage to be a fundamental right to which all consenting adults were entitled if they chose. this court applied Loving to same sex couples.

it isn't that difficult to grasp. people can't use their professed religious beliefs as an excuse to divest people of their constitutionally protected rights.

Ok, fine. But Loving was about interracial marriage between one man and one woman of different races, not the same sex. Loving is not a valid legal precedent for gay marriage.

But gay marriage is now legal in the USA, Whats next? polygamy, parent/child, siblings, multiples?

The gay marriage ruling DOES set a valid legal precedent for all other forms of "marriage". So get ready for Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice.

irrelevant to constitutional construction. it was about marriage being a fundamental right and only in the face of a heavy duty governmental interest can it be infringed upon.

there is no governmental interest in bigotry.

you don't even understand the concept of bigotry. You are one of the biggest bigots on this forum. You are bigotted against anyone who professes a believe in God and practices religion.

YOU are the bigot in this discussion.

 

[rightwinger]

I hold God to a higher standard
I expect him to know that holding another human as property is wrong

Regardless of the time period

I agree, we are not talking about what God thinks. We are talking about what the people of the time believed. But I guess that whole line of thought is beyond your simple mind.

Actually, we were talking about what God thinks

Try to keep up

Wrong, the earlier posts were discussing the FACT that our constitution was based on Judeo/Christian principles and that founders recognized God as the giver of all good things.

Secondarliy we were talking about the morals and ethics of the time, and that they differ from the morals and ethics of today. Miley Cyrus and Beyonce would have probably been burned as witches in the 1700s. In the 1200s they would have been beheaded. Today they are "role models".

Please try to keep up with the thread before you butt in

This particular discussion related to the statement that God was directly involved in our winning the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Constitution

No it wasn't and it never was about that.
That was how it was twisted.
They don't understand the difference of having helping hand and direct involvement or direct writing.

My guestion was....Why would God get involved in a document written by a slaveholder and incorporating the institution of slavery into a new nation?

 

[jillian]

I hold God to a higher standard
I expect him to know that holding another human as property is wrong

Regardless of the time period

I agree, we are not talking about what God thinks. We are talking about what the people of the time believed. But I guess that whole line of thought is beyond your simple mind.

Actually, we were talking about what God thinks

Try to keep up

Wrong, the earlier posts were discussing the FACT that our constitution was based on Judeo/Christian principles and that founders recognized God as the giver of all good things.

Secondarliy we were talking about the morals and ethics of the time, and that they differ from the morals and ethics of today. Miley Cyrus and Beyonce would have probably been burned as witches in the 1700s. In the 1200s they would have been beheaded. Today they are "role models".

actually, no the constitution was based on philosophers like John Stewart Mill and John Locke.

the founding fathers were deists, but not Christians and we were never intended to be anything but secular, hence the first amendment. once any religion decides it has more power or validity or legitimacy than others, there is a state religion.

and, ultimately, whatever the basis for this woman's bigotry, she's violating the law and if she can't fulfill her duties needs to quit.

I agree that she violated the law. So did Hillary Clinton. The clerk is in jail with no bail. Hillary is campaigning for president---------------------double standard much?

Why was this woman denied bail? is she a danger to society? is she a flight risk? This is obscene.

Hillary Clinton didn't violatge the law.

or feel free to set forth the date of her trial and conviction. your opinion doesn't count.

and I understand you've lost this argument, but stop going all over the place.... keep your focus.

the supreme court ruled. the witch needs to quit.

i'd be pleased she's in jail except that now she's going to whine about being a martyr -- which is what she wanted, after all. isn't that what the liberty foundation is going to pay her for?

 

[Redfish]

And the Constitution is the law of the land not the big book of the goyim

Without God we would not have our Constitution.
Everyone who fought in the Revolutionary war knew we won because of God's helping hand.
From the Generals down to the soldiers.
You should read some of their letters and papers and the many miracles that happened.

"Everyone who fought in the Revolutionary War knew we won because of Gods helping hand"

Try to keep up before you butt in Redfish

whoever said that was quoting what some of the people of those times said or believed. Maybe they were right maybe they were wrong. Only God knows.

That was me and it was from their letters that they wrote that I was talking about.
Many choose to ignore that fact and twisted the meaning.

whose letters? what one individual person believed is fairly irrelevant. what is relevant is what they ended up with.

I think my religion should run things.

(I figure that has as much validity as your BS).

You say that, and on another topic you support the rights of muslims to practice their sharia law in the US. your hypocrisy makes you look very very stupid.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Our Constitution was written by a slaveholder and defended the institution of slavery

God was involved in that?

its foolish to judge people who lived 200 years ago by today's standards of right and wrong. in the 1700s most of the world believed that slavery was acceptable. Today we believe otherwise.

In the 1400s most people believed that evil vapors caused pneumonia and that blood letting would cure it. Today we know better.

If you want to judge people in history you need to use the morals and ethics of the time that they lived.

which is why laws and constitutional interpretations change. inter-racial marriage used to be illegal. then Loving v Virginia found marriage to be a fundamental right to which all consenting adults were entitled if they chose. this court applied Loving to same sex couples.

it isn't that difficult to grasp. people can't use their professed religious beliefs as an excuse to divest people of their constitutionally protected rights.

Ok, fine. But Loving was about interracial marriage between one man and one woman of different races, not the same sex. Loving is not a valid legal precedent for gay marriage.

But gay marriage is now legal in the USA, Whats next? polygamy, parent/child, siblings, multiples?

The gay marriage ruling DOES set a valid legal precedent for all other forms of "marriage". So get ready for Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice.

irrelevant to constitutional construction. it was about marriage being a fundamental right and only in the face of a heavy duty governmental interest can it be infringed upon.

there is no governmental interest in bigotry.

you don't even understand the concept of bigotry. You are one of the biggest bigots on this forum. You are bigotted against anyone who professes a believe in God and practices religion.

YOU are the bigot in this discussion.

 

[peach174]

its foolish to judge people who lived 200 years ago by today's standards of right and wrong. in the 1700s most of the world believed that slavery was acceptable. Today we believe otherwise.

In the 1400s most people believed that evil vapors caused pneumonia and that blood letting would cure it. Today we know better.

If you want to judge people in history you need to use the morals and ethics of the time that they lived.

I hold God to a higher standard
I expect him to know that holding another human as property is wrong

Regardless of the time period

I agree, we are not talking about what God thinks. We are talking about what the people of the time believed. But I guess that whole line of thought is beyond your simple mind.

Actually, we were talking about what God thinks

Try to keep up

Wrong, the earlier posts were discussing the FACT that our constitution was based on Judeo/Christian principles and that founders recognized God as the giver of all good things.

Secondarliy we were talking about the morals and ethics of the time, and that they differ from the morals and ethics of today. Miley Cyrus and Beyonce would have probably been burned as witches in the 1700s. In the 1200s they would have been beheaded. Today they are "role models".

actually, no the constitution was based on philosophers like John Stewart Mill and John Locke.

the founding fathers were deists, but not Christians and we were never intended to be anything but secular, hence the first amendment. once any religion decides it has more power or validity or legitimacy than others, there is a state religion.

and, ultimately, whatever the basis for this woman's bigotry, she's violating the law and if she can't fulfill her duties needs to quit.

No our Founders were not deists and that has been proven over and over again on this board but you continue to put out that lie.
There were more Christians than deists among the founding fathers, and even those who identified as deist often affirmed an active God who governed history.

 

[jillian]

Our Constitution was written by a slaveholder and defended the institution of slavery

God was involved in that?

its foolish to judge people who lived 200 years ago by today's standards of right and wrong. in the 1700s most of the world believed that slavery was acceptable. Today we believe otherwise.

In the 1400s most people believed that evil vapors caused pneumonia and that blood letting would cure it. Today we know better.

If you want to judge people in history you need to use the morals and ethics of the time that they lived.

which is why laws and constitutional interpretations change. inter-racial marriage used to be illegal. then Loving v Virginia found marriage to be a fundamental right to which all consenting adults were entitled if they chose. this court applied Loving to same sex couples.

it isn't that difficult to grasp. people can't use their professed religious beliefs as an excuse to divest people of their constitutionally protected rights.

Ok, fine. But Loving was about interracial marriage between one man and one woman of different races, not the same sex. Loving is not a valid legal precedent for gay marriage.

But gay marriage is now legal in the USA, Whats next? polygamy, parent/child, siblings, multiples?

The gay marriage ruling DOES set a valid legal precedent for all other forms of "marriage". So get ready for Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice.

irrelevant to constitutional construction. it was about marriage being a fundamental right and only in the face of a heavy duty governmental interest can it be infringed upon.

there is no governmental interest in bigotry.

you don't even understand the concept of bigotry. You are one of the biggest bigots on this forum. You are bigotted against anyone who professes a believe in God and practices religion.

YOU are the bigot in this discussion.

we can pretend.

 

[jillian]

its foolish to judge people who lived 200 years ago by today's standards of right and wrong. in the 1700s most of the world believed that slavery was acceptable. Today we believe otherwise.

In the 1400s most people believed that evil vapors caused pneumonia and that blood letting would cure it. Today we know better.

If you want to judge people in history you need to use the morals and ethics of the time that they lived.

which is why laws and constitutional interpretations change. inter-racial marriage used to be illegal. then Loving v Virginia found marriage to be a fundamental right to which all consenting adults were entitled if they chose. this court applied Loving to same sex couples.

it isn't that difficult to grasp. people can't use their professed religious beliefs as an excuse to divest people of their constitutionally protected rights.

Ok, fine. But Loving was about interracial marriage between one man and one woman of different races, not the same sex. Loving is not a valid legal precedent for gay marriage.

But gay marriage is now legal in the USA, Whats next? polygamy, parent/child, siblings, multiples?

The gay marriage ruling DOES set a valid legal precedent for all other forms of "marriage". So get ready for Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice.

irrelevant to constitutional construction. it was about marriage being a fundamental right and only in the face of a heavy duty governmental interest can it be infringed upon.

there is no governmental interest in bigotry.

you don't even understand the concept of bigotry. You are one of the biggest bigots on this forum. You are bigotted against anyone who professes a believe in God and practices religion.

YOU are the bigot in this discussion.

no, freakshow. now run along back to your basement.

 

[Redfish]

I agree, we are not talking about what God thinks. We are talking about what the people of the time believed. But I guess that whole line of thought is beyond your simple mind.

Actually, we were talking about what God thinks

Try to keep up

Wrong, the earlier posts were discussing the FACT that our constitution was based on Judeo/Christian principles and that founders recognized God as the giver of all good things.

Secondarliy we were talking about the morals and ethics of the time, and that they differ from the morals and ethics of today. Miley Cyrus and Beyonce would have probably been burned as witches in the 1700s. In the 1200s they would have been beheaded. Today they are "role models".

Please try to keep up with the thread before you butt in

This particular discussion related to the statement that God was directly involved in our winning the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Constitution

No it wasn't and it never was about that.
That was how it was twisted.
They don't understand the difference of having helping hand and direct involvement or direct writing.

My guestion was....Why would God get involved in a document written by a slaveholder and incorporating the institution of slavery into a new nation?

Because in those times the general belief was that slavery was an acceptable way of life. Again you are trying to judge the people of 1776 by the morals of 2015.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, we were talking about what God thinks

Try to keep up

Wrong, the earlier posts were discussing the FACT that our constitution was based on Judeo/Christian principles and that founders recognized God as the giver of all good things.

Secondarliy we were talking about the morals and ethics of the time, and that they differ from the morals and ethics of today. Miley Cyrus and Beyonce would have probably been burned as witches in the 1700s. In the 1200s they would have been beheaded. Today they are "role models".

Please try to keep up with the thread before you butt in

This particular discussion related to the statement that God was directly involved in our winning the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Constitution

No it wasn't and it never was about that.
That was how it was twisted.
They don't understand the difference of having helping hand and direct involvement or direct writing.

My guestion was....Why would God get involved in a document written by a slaveholder and incorporating the institution of slavery into a new nation?

Because in those times the general belief was that slavery was an acceptable way of life. Again you are trying to judge the people of 1776 by the morals of 2015.

So God evolves? Hmmm....

 

[Redfish]

I agree, we are not talking about what God thinks. We are talking about what the people of the time believed. But I guess that whole line of thought is beyond your simple mind.

Actually, we were talking about what God thinks

Try to keep up

Wrong, the earlier posts were discussing the FACT that our constitution was based on Judeo/Christian principles and that founders recognized God as the giver of all good things.

Secondarliy we were talking about the morals and ethics of the time, and that they differ from the morals and ethics of today. Miley Cyrus and Beyonce would have probably been burned as witches in the 1700s. In the 1200s they would have been beheaded. Today they are "role models".

actually, no the constitution was based on philosophers like John Stewart Mill and John Locke.

the founding fathers were deists, but not Christians and we were never intended to be anything but secular, hence the first amendment. once any religion decides it has more power or validity or legitimacy than others, there is a state religion.

and, ultimately, whatever the basis for this woman's bigotry, she's violating the law and if she can't fulfill her duties needs to quit.

I agree that she violated the law. So did Hillary Clinton. The clerk is in jail with no bail. Hillary is campaigning for president---------------------double standard much?

Why was this woman denied bail? is she a danger to society? is she a flight risk? This is obscene.

Hillary Clinton didn't violatge the law.

or feel free to set forth the date of her trial and conviction. your opinion doesn't count.

and I understand you've lost this argument, but stop going all over the place.... keep your focus.

the supreme court ruled. the witch needs to quit.

i'd be pleased she's in jail except that now she's going to whine about being a martyr -- which is what she wanted, after all. isn't that what the liberty foundation is going to pay her for?

I already agreed that the clerk violated the law and must accept what the legal system does to her. But why was she denied bail?

Hillary's violations of law will be evident soon. The FBI investigations will end her political career and possibly put her in jail. Patreaus went to jail for much less than what she has done.

 

[Redfish]

Wrong, the earlier posts were discussing the FACT that our constitution was based on Judeo/Christian principles and that founders recognized God as the giver of all good things.

Secondarliy we were talking about the morals and ethics of the time, and that they differ from the morals and ethics of today. Miley Cyrus and Beyonce would have probably been burned as witches in the 1700s. In the 1200s they would have been beheaded. Today they are "role models".

Please try to keep up with the thread before you butt in

This particular discussion related to the statement that God was directly involved in our winning the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Constitution

No it wasn't and it never was about that.
That was how it was twisted.
They don't understand the difference of having helping hand and direct involvement or direct writing.

My guestion was....Why would God get involved in a document written by a slaveholder and incorporating the institution of slavery into a new nation?

Because in those times the general belief was that slavery was an acceptable way of life. Again you are trying to judge the people of 1776 by the morals of 2015.

So God evolves? Hmmm....

No, but people do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please try to keep up with the thread before you butt in

This particular discussion related to the statement that God was directly involved in our winning the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Constitution

No it wasn't and it never was about that.
That was how it was twisted.
They don't understand the difference of having helping hand and direct involvement or direct writing.

My guestion was....Why would God get involved in a document written by a slaveholder and incorporating the institution of slavery into a new nation?

Because in those times the general belief was that slavery was an acceptable way of life. Again you are trying to judge the people of 1776 by the morals of 2015.

So God evolves? Hmmm....

No, but people do.

Well then too many people rely on arguing from the perspective of what did the founding fathers believe.