Should God's Law be the Law of the Land?

[varelse]

We care about them because they gave us the greatest, most free nation the world has ever known.

Top 10 Countries

rank country overall change 1 Hong Kong 89.3 -0.6 2 Singapore 88.0 0.5 3 Australia 82.6 -0.5 4 New Zealand 81.4 -0.7 5 Switzerland 81.0 -0.1 6 Canada 79.4 -0.5 7 Chile 79.0 0.7 8 Mauritius 76.9 -0.1 9 Denmark 76.1 -0.1 10 United States 76.0 -0.3
Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country

1. 
   Norway 0.955 (
   
   )
2. 
   Australia 0.938 (
   
   )
3. 
   United States 0.937 (
   

Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




1 countries and territories were included in the 2005 Quality of Life Index.[1]
Rank Country or territory Quality of Life Score
(out of 10) 1

Ireland 8.333 2

Switzerland 8.068 3

Norway 8.051 4

Luxembourg 8.015 5

Sweden 7.937 6

Australia 7.925 7

Iceland 7.911 8

Italy 7.810 9

Denmark 7.797 10

Spain 7.727 11

Singapore 7.719 12

Finland 7.618 13

United States 7.615http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index


So ignoring your idiotic blind nationalism and moving right along....

A nation in which the people were intended to govern themselves

Only land-owning White males. That's called an aristocracy...

Those who tried to change that were mostly socialists of various sorts

 

[JakeStarkey]

Also the 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble were a compromise to avoid giving any religious authority license to use the Constitution to impose religious doctrine on anybody as well as protect religion from any coercion by the federal government. But it clearly referred to the wording of the Declaration of Independence that they, to a man, saw as the justification and purpose of the U.S. Constitution:



Further, almost all preambles to state constitutions begin with gratitude expressed to God for their liberties, and the very few who word it some other way manage to work that into to the body of the Constitution.

We cannot exclude that reverence for God and that understanding of rights given by God as being the core foundation of what this country was intended to be. And any who would take that understanding of God out of the equation are those who pave the way for us to return to bondage under government authority that will assign us the rights that we may have and can just as easily take them away.

It is my belief that God is still in his heaven and the supreme law of the land whether or not the people believe that or understand that or appreciate that. And we ignore it at our peril.

Still no mention of the Christian god.


"And any who would take that understanding of God out of the equation are those who pave the way for us to return to bondage under government authority that will assign us the rights that we may have and can just as easily take them away".

You're hoping to re-write and re-define the clear intent of the FF's. They knew that religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards themselves and poorly disposed towards competitive belief systems. We don't have to assume their intent -- even if they were Christians (and some of 'em were), the intent is clear: the state is precluded from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Hence, the First Amendment.

Yes, the Founders intended that the people be governed by no pope and no monarch, hence the First Amendment that was to ensure the right of the people to govern themselves in matters of religion. Almost all of them were Christians however.

George Washington: "While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

John Adams: "Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
.--Adams to the officers of the 1st brigade of the 3rd division of he militian of Massachusetts, 11 October, 1798

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
--Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.

Thomas Jefferson: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

John Hancock: "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
--History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.

Benjamin Franklin, who acknowledged some doubts but embraced the concepts of Chrsitianity: "Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

"That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;

"But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."
--Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790.

Samuel Adams: "And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

James Madison: "A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest while we are building ideal monuments of Renown and Bliss here we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven."
--Written to William Bradford on November 9, 1772, Faith of Our Founding Fathers by Tim LaHaye, pp. 130-131; Christianity and the Constitution — The Faith of Our Founding Fathers by John Eidsmoe, p. 98.

James Monroe: "When we view the blessings with which our country has been favored, those which we now enjoy, and the means which we possess of handing them down unimpaired to our latest posterity, our attention is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence they flow. Let us then, unite in offering our most grateful acknowledgments for these blessings to the Divine Author of All Good."
--Monroe made this statement in his 2nd Annual Message to Congress, November 16, 1818.

John Quincy Adams: "The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made 'bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God' (Isaiah 52:10)."
--Life of John Quincy Adams, p. 248

Benjamin Rush: "The gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations!"
--The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, pp. 165-166

Alexander Hamilton: "I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
--Famous American Statesmen, p. 126.

Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
--The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii

I can go on and on and on with verifiable evidence of the faith of those men who forged this great country. The Atheists do their damndest to make them unbelieving "Deists", but they weren't. Which is why they held full blown worship services in the very halls of Congress believing that to be good and worthy so long as attendance was completely voluntary.

And it was those men who gave us a freedom of religion such as the world had never seen, and who gave us the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most innovative, most creative, most benevolent nation the world had ever seen.

I think it is wise to consider that if they believed in God's law being the supreme law of the land, that we should at least consider that.

All of them were religious, and most were Christian: Jefferson and Franklin, from the list above, were not. TJ believed Jesus the most perfect man and his moral teachings sublime but believed in none of the magic world of Christianity: miracles, virgin births, resurrection, etc. Franklin was, being very kind, a form of polytheist who believed in demi-urges and so forth.

 

[peach174]

Why do people care about the FF? Are we North Korea now, to be ruled over by dead demigods whose opinions or whims are to be held as divine law?

The FF also has slaves, and several of them had children with slave women, refusing to free the woman or the child. They also grew hemp and carried out ethnic cleansing against the natives. A number were Freemasons and quite anti-church and several were known to belong to the Hellfire club. They never knew television would exist and they settled personal disagreements by shooting pistols at eachother. More than one of these things is now illegal.

Do we believe in self-governemnt, or government of the living by the long-dead? Washington and Jefferson are neither gods nor prophets and their laws were and are merely the opinions and solutions of men- White landed gentry from 200+ years ago, specifically

Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to end slavery.
Fourteen owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Johnson, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington.

Many wealthy Northerners owned domestic slaves: Franklin later freed his slaves and was a key founder of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. Jay founded the New York Manumission Society in 1785, for which Hamilton became an officer. They and other members of the Society founded the African Free School in New York City, to educate the children of free blacks and slaves. When Jay was governor of New York in 1798, he signed into law a gradual abolition law; fully ending slavery as of 1827. He freed his own slaves in 1798

I think that we should start growing hemp again. Hemp is not the same in strength as marijuana is. You can't get high on hemp.
You can make paper,clothes,rope many things can be made from hemp.

It is still self government just as it was back then.

 

[varelse]

I wasn't self-government at the time. Most people had no say in the government and no right to vote.

 

[Foxfyre]

We care about them because they gave us the greatest, most free nation the world has ever known.

Top 10 Countries

rank country overall change 1 Hong Kong 89.3 -0.6 2 Singapore 88.0 0.5 3 Australia 82.6 -0.5 4 New Zealand 81.4 -0.7 5 Switzerland 81.0 -0.1 6 Canada 79.4 -0.5 7 Chile 79.0 0.7 8 Mauritius 76.9 -0.1 9 Denmark 76.1 -0.1 10 United States 76.0 -0.3
Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country

1. 
   Norway 0.955 (
   
   )
2. 
   Australia 0.938 (
   
   )
3. 
   United States 0.937 (
   

Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




1 countries and territories were included in the 2005 Quality of Life Index.[1]
Rank Country or territory Quality of Life Score
(out of 10) 1

Ireland 8.333 2

Switzerland 8.068 3

Norway 8.051 4

Luxembourg 8.015 5

Sweden 7.937 6

Australia 7.925 7

Iceland 7.911 8

Italy 7.810 9

Denmark 7.797 10

Spain 7.727 11

Singapore 7.719 12

Finland 7.618 13

United States 7.615http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index


So ignoring your idiotic blind nationalism and moving right along....

A nation in which the people were intended to govern themselves

Only land-owning White males. That's called an aristocracy...

Those who tried to change that were mostly socialists of various sorts

If you admire other countries more than you admire the USA, I suggest that you move to one of them. Also the Constitution was indiscriminate in who was entitled to unalienable rights. For purposes of administration, yes the male head of household was initially given the vote as the most practical way for the will of the people to be expressed, and there is a sense of justice involved in those who paid taxes being the ones to determine who would be given power to assess them.

As the country grew and the social dynamics began to change, that system was deemed unjust, however, and we have evolved into a one adult citizen, one vote system.

Again we can criticize a culture that did things differently 200 years ago, but those same people would almost surely look with horror on our current culture and condemn it royally and with justification. We can also see evidence that a free people, given liberty to work out the problems and shortcomings, will find ways and adopt policies to make things better.

It is unfortunate that we now have people who would abolish or diminish the very freedoms that allowed that to happen, who would dismiss God and religious faith as much as possible, and who seem determined to return us to bondage under an increasingly authoritarian central government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

People would prefer to live in the USA today than in the new nation of 1787.

 

[Flopper]

I find it interesting that Christians who are in the majority in the US, would suggest that the laws of their God should be imposed on all and yet they condemn Muslims in other countries for doing exactly the same thing. I find this extremely hypocritical, but hypocrisy and and Christianity have always been bedfellows.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I find it interesting that Christians who are in the majority in the US, would suggest that the laws of their God should be imposed on all and yet they condemn Muslims in other countries for doing exactly the same thing. I find this extremely hypocritical, but hypocrisy and and Christianity have always been bedfellows.

Christians are human, just like Muslims, and thus are imperfect.

 

[varelse]

If you admire other countries more than you admire the USA, I suggest that you move to one of them.

So the FF should have just joined the Iroquois Confederation instead of trying to change the system and make things better?

Women should have all left the country instead of demanding suffrage here?

Self-governance means changing-or destroying- the government as needed to express the Will of the nation. You either believe in that or not.

I've never met a single person who truly believes their own crap about the 'law of god'. How many of you really want mandatory abortions?

 

[Foxfyre]

If you admire other countries more than you admire the USA, I suggest that you move to one of them.

So the FF should have just joined the Iroquois Confederation instead of trying to change the system and make things better?

Women should have all left the country instead of demanding suffrage here?

Self-governance means changing-or destroying- the government as needed to express the Will of the nation. You either believe in that or not.

I've never met a single person who truly believes their own crap about the 'law of god'. How many of you really want mandatory abortions?

The Founding Fathers intended that the U.S. Constitution would provide the structure of a nation that would allow the indepdent states to operate independently and also as one nation. The rights of the people were secured and they were otherwise to be left alone by the central government so that they could form whatever societies they wished to have and live their lives as they chose.

Now you can either understand that or choose to ignore it. You can bring ridiculous red herrings and straw men into it, as you did in your quoted post, and be entirely wrong, or you can try to understand what it was all about.

It's your choice.

 

[peach174]

We care about them because they gave us the greatest, most free nation the world has ever known.

Top 10 Countries

rank country overall change 1 Hong Kong 89.3 -0.6 2 Singapore 88.0 0.5 3 Australia 82.6 -0.5 4 New Zealand 81.4 -0.7 5 Switzerland 81.0 -0.1 6 Canada 79.4 -0.5 7 Chile 79.0 0.7 8 Mauritius 76.9 -0.1 9 Denmark 76.1 -0.1 10 United States 76.0 -0.3
Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country

1. 
   Norway 0.955 (
   
   )
2. 
   Australia 0.938 (
   
   )
3. 
   United States 0.937 (
   

Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




1 countries and territories were included in the 2005 Quality of Life Index.[1]
Rank Country or territory Quality of Life Score
(out of 10) 1

Ireland 8.333 2

Switzerland 8.068 3

Norway 8.051 4

Luxembourg 8.015 5

Sweden 7.937 6

Australia 7.925 7

Iceland 7.911 8

Italy 7.810 9

Denmark 7.797 10

Spain 7.727 11

Singapore 7.719 12

Finland 7.618 13

United States 7.615http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index


So ignoring your idiotic blind nationalism and moving right along....

A nation in which the people were intended to govern themselves

Only land-owning White males. That's called an aristocracy...

Those who tried to change that were mostly socialists of various sorts

Economic freedom, Human Development and Quality of life is not the same thing as what America is, individual responsibility and self government and being free from a tyranical or Dicatorial type of government.

Whites were not the only ones who owned land.

Freed African Americans, especially in the North, were active participants in American society. Black men enlisted as soldiers and fought in the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Some owned land, homes, businesses, and paid taxes. In some Northern cities, for brief periods of time, black property owners voted. A very small number of free blacks owned slaves. The slaves that most free blacks purchased were relatives whom they later manumitted. A few free blacks also owned slave holding plantations in Louisiana, Virginia, and South Carolina.

Free African American Christians founded their own churches which became the hub of the economic, social, and intellectual lives of blacks in many areas of the fledgling nation. Blacks were also outspoken in print. Freedom's Journal, the first black-owned newspaper, appeared in 1827. This paper and other early writings by blacks fueled the attack against slavery and racist conceptions about the intellectual inferiority of African Americans.

 

[Foxfyre]

Our Founders wanted to make sure that government could never again interfere with or oppress religious freedoms or establish one Christian denomination over another as the religion of state to the detriment of all others.

Wrong. They wanted only to ensure the federal government didn't. The several states did exactly that since they were colonies, and the FF wanted to ensure each state could continue to do so without interference from each other.

They wanted to ensure that the people were free to form whatever sort of society they wanted while being restrained from denying anybody else their unalienable rights. So the people themselves WANTED those theocracies and that is why they formed them. Nobody was prevented from going where there were no such rules/laws imposed on them. Those who wanted no religion at all were also allowed to form a society reflecting that.

This is what some don't understand. Self governance allows us to form the society we want to have. Freedom means nobody can tell us that we can't have the sort of society we wish to have. So if we want a narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community, we should be able to have that. If we want a pretty much lawless town in its hellfire days, we should be able to have that.

The Founders knew that a free people would be far more likely to get it right with trial and error than would ever be accomplished via an authoritarian government.

 

[varelse]

they were otherwise to be left alone by the central government so that they could form whatever societies they wished to have and live their lives as they chose.

As long as they were White and they obeyed the Federal gov't. See: Whiskey Rebellion or any natives who are still alive.

This country is fundamentally no different than countless others today and in other times. Elites gain power and use it for their own purposes. Other elites with conflicting interest pursue own interests. The common man tries to make it in life and worry about himself and his family while the minority of elites with the means and time to do so worry about their own conceptions of what the world ought to be. Occassionally, when things get bad enough and circumstances are right, the masses rise up and demand change. The elites try to make as few changes as possible to keep them happy and usually it works. Occasionally it does not and a bloodbath ensues, after which the entire process starts over.

This happens within each ingroup and between different groups- classes, races, and populations, but that['s pretty much the gist of things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you admire other countries more than you admire the USA, I suggest that you move to one of them.

So the FF should have just joined the Iroquois Confederation instead of trying to change the system and make things better?

Women should have all left the country instead of demanding suffrage here?

Self-governance means changing-or destroying- the government as needed to express the Will of the nation. You either believe in that or not.

I've never met a single person who truly believes their own crap about the 'law of god'. How many of you really want mandatory abortions?

The Founding Fathers intended that the U.S. Constitution would provide the structure of a nation that would allow the indepdent states to operate independently and also as one nation. The rights of the people were secured and they were otherwise to be left alone by the central government so that they could form whatever societies they wished to have and live their lives as they chose.

Now you can either understand that or choose to ignore it. You can bring ridiculous red herrings and straw men into it, as you did in your quoted post, and be entirely wrong, or you can try to understand what it was all about.

It's your choice.

Your choice is obviously to ignore historical reality of the domination of the white race and males at the expense of all others.

 

[Foxfyre]

they were otherwise to be left alone by the central government so that they could form whatever societies they wished to have and live their lives as they chose.

As long as they were White and they obeyed the Federal gov't. See: Whiskey Rebellion or any natives who are still alive.

This country is fundamentally no different than countless others today and in other times. Elites gain power and use it for their own purposes. Other elites with conflicting interest pursue own interests. The common man tries to make it in life and worry about himself and his family while the minority of elites with the means and time to do so worry about their own conceptions of what the world ought to be. Occassionally, when things get bad enough and circumstances are right, the masses rise up and demand change. The elites try to make as few changes as possible to keep them happy and usually it works. Occasionally it does not and a bloodbath ensues, after which the entire process starts over.

This happens within each ingroup and between different groups- classes, races, and populations, but that['s pretty much the gist of things.

Okay I give up. You are obviously one who does not care about the fundamental principles involved but will continue to deflect to anecdotal situations that you try to make the issue. Again, it is unlikely many, if any, of those who founded and guided the development of this country were saints. They put their pants on one leg at a time like everybody else. And they got some things wrong just as we do now. And over time they fixed most of those things they got wrong, because they were allowed the freedom to fix them.

And THAT is the fundamental principle of freedom. The ability to be wrong as well as right. The ability to be intolerant as well as tolerant. The ability to be innovative as well as maintain the status quo. And the ability to correct our mistakes.

And the principle behind this thread as it pertains to those basic fundamental principles of freedom is whether God's law should prevail over all. In the Founders minds, almost to a man, they were absolutely convinced that if it did not, their great experiment would fail.

And I think that is true today as much as it was in 1787 when the Constitution was signed or 1788 when it became the document to create this great nation.

 

[varelse]

Economic freedom, Human Development and Quality of life is not the same thing as what America is, individual responsibility and self government and being free from a tyranical or Dicatorial type of government.

State of World Liberty Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[varelse]

They wanted to ensure that the people were free to form whatever sort of society they wanted while being restrained from denying anybody else their unalienable rights. So the people themselves WANTED those theocracies and that is why they formed them.

Then they should have been allowed to do the same thing at the federal level. Tyranny is tyranny regardless of scale. If it is wrong for one level of government to infringe upon someone's liberties, then it is wrong for another level of government to do the same.

Nobody was prevented from going where there were no such rules/laws imposed on them.

Like another country? Instead of going to war against the king?

Again, it is unlikely many, if any, of those who founded and guided the development of this country were saints. They put their pants on one leg at a time like everybody else. And they got some things wrong just as we do now.

As I said. Hence we should not pretend their writings or opinions are holy writ.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They wanted to ensure that the people were free to form whatever sort of society they wanted while being restrained from denying anybody else their unalienable rights. So the people themselves WANTED those theocracies and that is why they formed them.

Then they should have been allowed to do the same thing at the federal level. Tyranny is tyranny regardless of scale. If it is wrong for one level of government to infringe upon someone's liberties, then it is wrong for another level of government to do the same.

Nobody was prevented from going where there were no such rules/laws imposed on them.

Like another country? Instead of going to war against the king?

Again, it is unlikely many, if any, of those who founded and guided the development of this country were saints. They put their pants on one leg at a time like everybody else. And they got some things wrong just as we do now.

As I said. Hence we should not pretend their writings or opinions are holy writ.

This is the nature of federalism, and you can't get around it: two distinct separate organizations of government levels. In no way, shape, or form were the Founders going to impose national government standards on the states except specifically in the Constitution, such as taxation. In matters of religion, the states could do as they pleased, and they did.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do people care about the FF? Are we North Korea now, to be ruled over by dead demigods whose opinions or whims are to be held as divine law?

The FF also has slaves, and several of them had children with slave women, refusing to free the woman or the child. They also grew hemp and carried out ethnic cleansing against the natives. A number were Freemasons and quite anti-church and several were known to belong to the Hellfire club. They never knew television would exist and they settled personal disagreements by shooting pistols at eachother. More than one of these things is now illegal.

Do we believe in self-governemnt, or government of the living by the long-dead? Washington and Jefferson are neither gods nor prophets and their laws were and are merely the opinions and solutions of men- White landed gentry from 200+ years ago, specifically

What is important about the Framers was their intent, not specific aspects of their personal lives. And it was the intent of the Framers that there be separation of church and state, that no religion be acknowledged as a ‘state religion,’ and that no American be compelled to abide a given faith through the authority of government.

Of the many important principles of the Framers in this regard, was the principle that religious doctrine and dogma must not be codified in secular law, secular law that all citizens must follow and suffer punitive measures if indeed one fails to obey the law.

The Framers also understood the political power of religion, where religion can be used as a powerful political weapon against one’s opponents.

Justice O’Connor acknowledged the dangers of such a political weapon, and how conjoining church and state is indeed offensive to the Constitution:

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive [p688] entanglement with religious institutions, which may interfere with the independence of the institutions, give the institutions access to government or governmental powers not fully shared by non adherents of the religion, and foster the creation of political constituencies defined along religious lines. E.g., Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982). The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to non adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite message. See generally Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).

Lynch v. Donnelly

 

[Foxfyre]

They wanted to ensure that the people were free to form whatever sort of society they wanted while being restrained from denying anybody else their unalienable rights. So the people themselves WANTED those theocracies and that is why they formed them.

Then they should have been allowed to do the same thing at the federal level. Tyranny is tyranny regardless of scale. If it is wrong for one level of government to infringe upon someone's liberties, then it is wrong for another level of government to do the same.

Nobody was prevented from going where there were no such rules/laws imposed on them.

Like another country? Instead of going to war against the king?

Again, it is unlikely many, if any, of those who founded and guided the development of this country were saints. They put their pants on one leg at a time like everybody else. And they got some things wrong just as we do now.

As I said. Hence we should not pretend their writings or opinions are holy writ.

Who is pretending anybody's writings are holy writ? Who is doing anything other than using their writings as anything other than evidence of what they intended the Constitution and country to be?

You post Wikipedia articles as evidence for your opiinions. Is that holy writ?

You either appreciate a foundational principle or you don't. You either accept it for what it is or you attack it however dishonestly you choose to do that.

The point here is that freedom allows us to be wrong as well as right, ignorant as well as stupid, smart as well as dumb, choose well or choose poorly, and also affords us the ability to change our mind, do something differently, fix what's broken, correct what is amiss. If you do not allow people the ability to be who they are, there is no freedom.

And again, tying back to the OP of the thread, the Founders were of one mind that without religious faith and the morality that arises out of it, the Constitution would not work and we would lose the freedoms that it was intended to protect for us.