The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[bodecea]

They all share the same basic principles. But they do have different intepretations of scripture as I've already stated.

Slavery? Another red herring.

Tell that to the slaves.

What slaves?

Let's see...the slaves that existed in the newly formed United States of America at the time of the Founders and their founding "Christian principles"

You got other slaves in mind?

 

[bodecea]

ok, the original settlers came to this country so they could practice their religion freely. of course religion had a lot to do with the laws and regulations that were to guid this country.

Everybody seems to want to fight and can't see that most are arguing the same points, just stating them differently.

The original settlers did not have entirely pure motives. They wanted to be able to establish THEIR religion here without persecution from the Church of England and they did establish their own little theocracy being no more tolerant of other beliefs than was the Monarchy they left.

The Founders wanted no monarchy and no theocracy. They envisioned a nation in which the people would have their rights recognized, protected, and defended and then be free to govern themselves free of tyranny of dictator, monarch, feudal lord, totalitarianism, or authoritarian church. Our Constitution was brilliant in accomplishing that.

But if people are to be free, they must be free to have the sort of society they wish short of violating the unalienable rights of others. Therefore the Puritan and other little theocracies that existed at the time were allowed to exist because the people wanted them. That was the kind of society they wanted. And once the people came to realize that the theocracy was not the kind of society they wanted, they were just as free to dissolve them. Which they did within a single generation.

The Constitution, that gave such religious freedom to the Puritans, prohibited the Puritans from insisting that the Quakers or Roman Catholics or Calvinists in other colonies adopt Puritan rules and convictions.

It has been interesting to watch a people allowed to govern themselves to produce the most free, most innovative, most inventive, most productive, most prosperous nation the world had ever known.

We are now piece by piece chipping away at the foundations of that Constitutional principle to our detriment. I think too few Americans even understand it any more. And to me that is tragic.

How so?

 

[AllieBaba]

Tell that to the slaves.

What slaves?

Let's see...the slaves that existed in the newly formed United States of America at the time of the Founders and their founding "Christian principles"

You got other slaves in mind?

How do we go about asking them?

I thought perhaps you were referring to the the slaves maintained in Islam...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Tell that to the slaves.

What slaves?

Let's see...the slaves that existed in the newly formed United States of America at the time of the Founders and their founding "Christian principles"

You got other slaves in mind?

So you want me to tell that to the slaves that no longer exist.

You idiots will try anything to change the subject in a debate where you are clearly losing.

 

[TheBrain]

Tell that to the slaves.

What slaves?

Let's see...the slaves that existed in the newly formed United States of America at the time of the Founders and their founding "Christian principles"

You got other slaves in mind?

Psst you have already conceded that England was a theocracy at the time, slavery existed in England at the time. Slavery also existed in secular nations at the time. So PERHAPS slavery was simply an accepted institution by Christians and non Christians alike at the time.

You suck at this debate game. I know let's have a spelling contest............

 

[Foxfyre]

ok, the original settlers came to this country so they could practice their religion freely. of course religion had a lot to do with the laws and regulations that were to guid this country.

Everybody seems to want to fight and can't see that most are arguing the same points, just stating them differently.

The original settlers did not have entirely pure motives. They wanted to be able to establish THEIR religion here without persecution from the Church of England and they did establish their own little theocracy being no more tolerant of other beliefs than was the Monarchy they left.

The Founders wanted no monarchy and no theocracy. They envisioned a nation in which the people would have their rights recognized, protected, and defended and then be free to govern themselves free of tyranny of dictator, monarch, feudal lord, totalitarianism, or authoritarian church. Our Constitution was brilliant in accomplishing that.

But if people are to be free, they must be free to have the sort of society they wish short of violating the unalienable rights of others. Therefore the Puritan and other little theocracies that existed at the time were allowed to exist because the people wanted them. That was the kind of society they wanted. And once the people came to realize that the theocracy was not the kind of society they wanted, they were just as free to dissolve them. Which they did within a single generation.

The Constitution, that gave such religious freedom to the Puritans, prohibited the Puritans from insisting that the Quakers or Roman Catholics or Calvinists in other colonies adopt Puritan rules and convictions.

It has been interesting to watch a people allowed to govern themselves to produce the most free, most innovative, most inventive, most productive, most prosperous nation the world had ever known.

We are now piece by piece chipping away at the foundations of that Constitutional principle to our detriment. I think too few Americans even understand it any more. And to me that is tragic.

How so?

The federal government is being pressured to order more and more of the people's lives. Pressured to say what the people can and cannot have in the way of religious imagery, art, symbolism, custom, music, etc. etc. Pressured to change definitions, to support this, to boycott that, to allow this, to forbid that, etc. etc. etc. All this would have been anathema to the Founders who saw each group or community or state having unalienable rights to order whatever society they wished to have short of violating the unalienable rights of somebody else. It probably wasn't an issue for them, for instance, but they would say that a state that wanted 'gay marriage' should have gay marriage. A state that did not want to recognize 'gay marriage' should not have to recognize it. Ditto for abortion laws and religious customs, operation of public education, etc. etc. etc.

 

[peach174]

Yep, That is what has been taken away from us, states rights.
We have to get Government under control and get our states rights back.
One of George Washington's best saying was - a little bit of heaven here on American soil for everyone.
Not quoting exactly what he said but I am trying to get what he meant across to everyone.
Maybe Foxfyre knows the exact saying.

 

[Spoonman]

ok, the original settlers came to this country so they could practice their religion freely. of course religion had a lot to do with the laws and regulations that were to guid this country.

Some did...not all....not even the majority. And those that did often did so in order to set up their own religious tyranny.

yea, the others were escaping the long arm of the law

 

[Spoonman]

ok, the original settlers came to this country so they could practice their religion freely. of course religion had a lot to do with the laws and regulations that were to guid this country.

Everybody seems to want to fight and can't see that most are arguing the same points, just stating them differently.

The original settlers did not have entirely pure motives. They wanted to be able to establish THEIR religion here without persecution from the Church of England and they did establish their own little theocracy being no more tolerant of other beliefs than was the Monarchy they left.

The Founders wanted no monarchy and no theocracy. They envisioned a nation in which the people would have their rights recognized, protected, and defended and then be free to govern themselves free of tyranny of dictator, monarch, feudal lord, totalitarianism, or authoritarian church. Our Constitution was brilliant in accomplishing that.

But if people are to be free, they must be free to have the sort of society they wish short of violating the unalienable rights of others. Therefore the Puritan and other little theocracies that existed at the time were allowed to exist because the people wanted them. That was the kind of society they wanted. And once the people came to realize that the theocracy was not the kind of society they wanted, they were just as free to dissolve them. Which they did within a single generation.

The Constitution, that gave such religious freedom to the Puritans, prohibited the Puritans from insisting that the Quakers or Roman Catholics or Calvinists in other colonies adopt Puritan rules and convictions.

It has been interesting to watch a people allowed to govern themselves to produce the most free, most innovative, most inventive, most productive, most prosperous nation the world had ever known.

We are now piece by piece chipping away at the foundations of that Constitutional principle to our detriment. I think too few Americans even understand it any more. And to me that is tragic.

The good thing was here there was room to expand and you could sent those pesky lutherans and quakers to Pennsyvania or something.

 

[Spoonman]

Tell that to the slaves.

What slaves?

Let's see...the slaves that existed in the newly formed United States of America at the time of the Founders and their founding "Christian principles"

You got other slaves in mind?

well i was thinking sex slaves but I guess your refering to the cotton picking type

 

[bodecea]

Everybody seems to want to fight and can't see that most are arguing the same points, just stating them differently.

The original settlers did not have entirely pure motives. They wanted to be able to establish THEIR religion here without persecution from the Church of England and they did establish their own little theocracy being no more tolerant of other beliefs than was the Monarchy they left.

The Founders wanted no monarchy and no theocracy. They envisioned a nation in which the people would have their rights recognized, protected, and defended and then be free to govern themselves free of tyranny of dictator, monarch, feudal lord, totalitarianism, or authoritarian church. Our Constitution was brilliant in accomplishing that.

But if people are to be free, they must be free to have the sort of society they wish short of violating the unalienable rights of others. Therefore the Puritan and other little theocracies that existed at the time were allowed to exist because the people wanted them. That was the kind of society they wanted. And once the people came to realize that the theocracy was not the kind of society they wanted, they were just as free to dissolve them. Which they did within a single generation.

The Constitution, that gave such religious freedom to the Puritans, prohibited the Puritans from insisting that the Quakers or Roman Catholics or Calvinists in other colonies adopt Puritan rules and convictions.

It has been interesting to watch a people allowed to govern themselves to produce the most free, most innovative, most inventive, most productive, most prosperous nation the world had ever known.

We are now piece by piece chipping away at the foundations of that Constitutional principle to our detriment. I think too few Americans even understand it any more. And to me that is tragic.

How so?

The federal government is being pressured to order more and more of the people's lives. Pressured to say what the people can and cannot have in the way of religious imagery, art, symbolism, custom, music, etc. etc.

Wait...people aren't allowed to have those things?

Pressured to change definitions, to support this, to boycott that, to allow this, to forbid that, etc. etc. etc.

Pressured to boycott stuff? By the government?

All this would have been anathema to the Founders who saw each group or community or state having unalienable rights to order whatever society they wished to have short of violating the unalienable rights of somebody else. It probably wasn't an issue for them, for instance, but they would say that a state that wanted 'gay marriage' should have gay marriage. A state that did not want to recognize 'gay marriage' should not have to recognize it. Ditto for abortion laws and religious customs, operation of public education, etc. etc. etc.

So, let's talk of gay marriage. What do you do if one state allows legal gay marriage and a legally married gay couple wants to move to a state that doesn't allow it? What happens to the full faith clause in the Constitution? Does it stop at gay couples?

 

[bodecea]

ok, the original settlers came to this country so they could practice their religion freely. of course religion had a lot to do with the laws and regulations that were to guid this country.

Some did...not all....not even the majority. And those that did often did so in order to set up their own religious tyranny.

yea, the others were escaping the long arm of the law

Well, you also had the Proprietary Colonies like New York, New Jersey, North and South Carolina, Delaware, Virginia.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How so?

The federal government is being pressured to order more and more of the people's lives. Pressured to say what the people can and cannot have in the way of religious imagery, art, symbolism, custom, music, etc. etc.

Wait...people aren't allowed to have those things?

Pressured to change definitions, to support this, to boycott that, to allow this, to forbid that, etc. etc. etc.

Pressured to boycott stuff? By the government?

All this would have been anathema to the Founders who saw each group or community or state having unalienable rights to order whatever society they wished to have short of violating the unalienable rights of somebody else. It probably wasn't an issue for them, for instance, but they would say that a state that wanted 'gay marriage' should have gay marriage. A state that did not want to recognize 'gay marriage' should not have to recognize it. Ditto for abortion laws and religious customs, operation of public education, etc. etc. etc.

So, let's talk of gay marriage. What do you do if one state allows legal gay marriage and a legally married gay couple wants to move to a state that doesn't allow it? What happens to the full faith clause in the Constitution? Does it stop at gay couples?

The Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

 

[bodecea]

The federal government is being pressured to order more and more of the people's lives. Pressured to say what the people can and cannot have in the way of religious imagery, art, symbolism, custom, music, etc. etc.

Wait...people aren't allowed to have those things?



Pressured to boycott stuff? By the government?

All this would have been anathema to the Founders who saw each group or community or state having unalienable rights to order whatever society they wished to have short of violating the unalienable rights of somebody else. It probably wasn't an issue for them, for instance, but they would say that a state that wanted 'gay marriage' should have gay marriage. A state that did not want to recognize 'gay marriage' should not have to recognize it. Ditto for abortion laws and religious customs, operation of public education, etc. etc. etc.

So, let's talk of gay marriage. What do you do if one state allows legal gay marriage and a legally married gay couple wants to move to a state that doesn't allow it? What happens to the full faith clause in the Constitution? Does it stop at gay couples?

The Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

How do you think that will stand up to the Constitutionality test when compared to the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Wait...people aren't allowed to have those things?



Pressured to boycott stuff? By the government?



So, let's talk of gay marriage. What do you do if one state allows legal gay marriage and a legally married gay couple wants to move to a state that doesn't allow it? What happens to the full faith clause in the Constitution? Does it stop at gay couples?

The Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

How do you think that will stand up to the Constitutionality test when compared to the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV?

Very well.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

How do you think that will stand up to the Constitutionality test when compared to the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV?

Very well.

It restored states rights to the states actually in the matter of marriage. States have always been able to set the rules and regs re legal marriage and the federal government has properly stayed out of that. But because all 50 states recognize marriages performed in other states, they were in danger of having ambitious courts use some distortion of precedence to force all states to recognize such marriages. All the federal government did was give legal protection of a people's right not to recognize such a marriage. And it did not prohibit them from recognize such a marriage if that is what the people wanted. That has always been the intent of the Constitution: the people would have their rights secured and then they would choose themselves what sort of society they wished to have.

It further defined the traditional marriage as what the federal government would recognize related to regs and law pertaining to marriage in the tax code and related matters.

 

[bodecea]

The Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

How do you think that will stand up to the Constitutionality test when compared to the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV?

Very well.

We shall see eventually.

 

[bodecea]

How do you think that will stand up to the Constitutionality test when compared to the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV?

Very well.

It restored states rights to the states actually in the matter of marriage. States have always been able to set the rules and regs re legal marriage and the federal government has properly stayed out of that. But because all 50 states recognize marriages performed in other states, they were in danger of having ambitious courts use some distortion of precedence to force all states to recognize such marriages. All the federal government did was give legal protection of a people's right not to recognize such a marriage. And it did not prohibit them from recognize such a marriage if that is what the people wanted. That has always been the intent of the Constitution: the people would have their rights secured and then they would choose themselves what sort of society they wished to have.

It further defined the traditional marriage as what the federal government would recognize related to regs and law pertaining to marriage in the tax code and related matters.

So, my wife and I cannot file federal income tax returns as a married couple while we can in CA? How is that consistant application of the law?

 

[TheBrain]

How do you think that will stand up to the Constitutionality test when compared to the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV?

Very well.

We shall see eventually.

Why do you insist that although you don't have to be subjected to the morals of others, others should have to be subjected to your lack of morals?

 

[TheBrain]

?

When and where did that happen? Please quote and link...

who are you asking?