Zone1 There is no "GOD", deal with it!

[Meriweather]

Until such time as you impose your will on others.

Not allowing others to practice their faith(s) freely an openly is the very definition of imposing one's will on others.

 

[Meriweather]

How so?

It takes us beyond the rule of man.

 

[Red Front]

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1

March 7, 1850

(In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."

Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."

Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.

“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "

So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

You can copy and paste all of that shit, but the reality is that they owned hundreds of slaves, hence they weren't champions of freedom. You can talk all about freedom, but if you own slaves, you're full of shit. You're a hypocrite.

 

[Red Front]

Not allowing others to practice their faith(s) freely an openly is the very definition of imposing one's will on others.

Who is trying to stop Christians from being stupid, brainwashed drones? Not me. If you want to be a Christian, go right ahead. This thread isn't arguing for the killing of Christians or banning Christianity or its adherents. This thread is challenging Christians to provide evidence for the existence of their god. That's it, nothing more.

 

[ding]

You can copy and paste all of that shit, but the reality is that they owned hundreds of slaves, hence they weren't champions of freedom. You can talk all about freedom, but if you own slaves, you're full of shit. You're a hypocrite.

Where do you think I copy and pasted that from exactly?

It's historical record. The founding fathers intended for slavery to perish and took steps towards ending slavery until the late 1820's when the Democratic Party reversed course and went against the intentions of the founding fathers. It's just history.

 

[Hellbilly]

Not allowing others to practice their faith(s) freely an openly is the very definition of imposing one's will on others.

So is trying to "civilize" the merciless Indian savages. Stealing children and torturing them in boarding schools. I have no problem with you praying to your white Jesus. Problem starts when you shove that shit down our throats.

 

[Red Front]

It takes us beyond the rule of man.

What do you mean by the "rule of man" and that your religion takes us "beyond" the "rule of man"? Elaborate, and explain. Don't play these games. Clearly define your terms.

 

[ding]

Who is trying to stop Christians from being stupid, brainwashed drones? Not me. If you want to be a Christian, go right ahead. This thread isn't arguing for the killing of Christians or banning Christianity or its adherents. This thread is challenging Christians to provide evidence for the existence of their god. That's it, nothing more.

That's fake news.

 

[Red Front]

Where do you think I copy and pasted that from exactly?

It's historical record. The founding fathers intended for slavery to perish and took steps towards ending slavery until the late 1820's when the Democratic Party reversed course and went against the intentions of the founding fathers. It's just history.

It doesn't matter, you can talk all you want about freedom, but if you own other human beings, you're not a hero of freedom. Blacks were considered subhuman and that was even written into the constitution until it was amended later.

 

[Red Front]

That's fake news.

You're fake news, ding-donkey. Donkey-ding ding.

 

[ding]

It doesn't matter, you can talk all you want about freedom, but if you own other human beings, you're not a hero of freedom. Blacks were considered subhuman and that was even written into the constitution until it was amended later.

The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) •

Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes … Read MoreThe...

www.blackpast.org

Very few people today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. That's because by the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party, the Democratic Party, which was founded in 1792, had become the majority party in Congress. With this new party a change in congressional policy on slavery emerged. The 1789 law that prohibited slavery in federal territory was reversed when the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Several States were subsequently admitted as slave States. Slavery was being officially promoted by congressional policy by a Democratically controlled Congress.

Missouri Compromise - Wikipedia

16th United States Congress - Wikipedia


The Democratic party policy of promoting slavery ignored the principles in the founding document.

"The first step of the slaveholder to justify by argument the peculiar institutions [of slavery] is to deny the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. He denies that all men are created equal. He denies that they have inalienable rights." President John Quincy Adams, The Hingham Patriot, June 29, 1839

In 1850 the Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or pay huge fines. The Fugitive Slave Law made anti-slavery citizens in the North and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law was sanctioned kidnapping. The Fugitive Slave Law was disastrous for blacks in the North. The Law allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery. 20,000 blacks from the North left the United States and fled to Canada. The Underground Railroad reached its peak of activity as a result of the Fugitive Slave Law.

Fugitive Slave Act - 1850

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Wikipedia

Fugitive Slave Act

31st United States Congress - Wikipedia In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska act. Even though slavery was expanded into federal territories in 1820 by the Democratically controlled Congress, a ban on slavery was retained in the Kansas Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats vastly expanded the national area where slavery was permitted as the Kansas and Nebraska territories comprised parts of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. The Democrats were pushing slavery westward across the nation.

The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Kansas-Nebraska Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas–Nebraska_Act

Frederick Douglas believed that the 3/5th clause is an anti-slavery clause. Not a pro-slavery clause. Frederick Douglas believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document.

(1860) Frederick Douglass, “the Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?” | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

What Did Frederick Douglass Believe About the U.S. Constitution? | The Classroom | Synonym

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...onstitution_did_not_condone_slavery/page/full

And so did others.

In May of 1854, following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, a number of anti-slavery Democrats along with some anti-slavery members from other parties, including the Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Emancipationists formed a new party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights. The name of the new party? The Republican Party. It was named the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.

History of the Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia

Republican Party founded - Mar 20, 1854 - HISTORY.com

Republican Party - The Republican Party In The New Millennium

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Republican Party | PBS

"The Democratic Party had become the dominant political party in America in the 1820s, [30] and in May 1854, in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats, several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party – the Republican Party. [31] It was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. In an 1865 publication documenting the history of black voting rights, Philadelphia attorney John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.”

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

In 1856, the Democratic platform strongly defended slavery. According to the Democrats of 1856, ending slavery would be dangerous and would ruin the happiness of the people.

“All efforts of the abolitionists... are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people.” McKee, The National...Platforms, Democratic Platform of 1856, p.91

In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights. In effect, Democrats believed slaves were property that could be disposed of at the will of its owner.

Democrats on the Court announced that "blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it." Dred Scott at 407 (1856)

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia

The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Dred Scott Decision

Dred Scott

Dred Scott: Democratic Reaction

The Democratic Platform for 1860 supported both the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857. The Democrats even handed out copies of the Dred Scott decision with their platform to affirm that it was proper to hold African Americans in bondage.

2. Inasmuch as difference of opinion exists in the Democratic party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories, Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional Law.

6. Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

Avalon Project - Democratic Party Platform; June 18, 1860

The Republican platform of 1860, on the other hand, blasted both the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 and announced its continued intent to end slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans.

2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the states, and the Union of the states, must and shall be preserved.

5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehension in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as is especially evident in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas - in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons - in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of congress and of the federal courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest, and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power entrusted to it by a confiding people.

7. That the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

10. That in the recent vetoes by the federal governors of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted democratic principle of non- intervention and popular sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.
Republican Party National Platform, 1860


Republicans freed the slaves, Democrats in the North and the South fought against it.

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery was passed by U.S. House of Representatives with unanimous Republican support and intense Democrat opposition.

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support and 63% Democrat opposition.

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “Black Codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination.

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves.

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens, with 100% of Democrats voting no.

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens, where 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans.

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”.

 

[Red Front]

If you truly don't care about our beliefs, then it should not matter to you that they are practiced openly.

Just as anyone can practice their stupid religion openly, atheists can likewise express their objections to your stupid shit.

 

[ding]

Just as anyone can practice their stupid religion openly, atheists can likewise express their objections to your stupid shit.

Not if you, hobelim, breezewood, Hellbilly, Donald H et al had your way.

 

[Auld Phart]

As I just pointed out, the most secular countries on our planet, are the most civil, with the lowest crime rates. Hardly anyone in our prison system identifies as an atheist. The atheist population in American prisons is estimated at .07%, less than 1%. The prisons are full of god-believers.

looks good to the parole board.

 

[Hellbilly]

Not if you, hobelim, breezewood, Hellbilly, Donald H et al had your way.

What is my way, exactly?

 

[Meriweather]

This thread is challenging Christians to provide evidence for the existence of their god. That's it, nothing more.

As I explained in another thread: Spirituality is beyond the physical world. Demanding evidence is the same as demanding straw be spun into gold. Straw and gold are two different elements, and so are the physical and the spiritual. There.is.no.evidence. What we have is testimony and lives that are richer due to expanding into that which is spiritual.

Lives are often richer by pursuing education. The same holds true for those of us pursuing what is spiritual.

 

[Red Front]

Very few people today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. That's because by the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party, the Democratic Party, which was founded in 1792, had become the majority party in Congress. With this new party a change in congressional policy on slavery emerged. The 1789 law that prohibited slavery in federal territory was reversed when the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Several States were subsequently admitted as slave States. Slavery was being officially promoted by congressional policy by a Democratically controlled Congress.

Missouri Compromise - Wikipedia

16th United States Congress - Wikipedia


The Democratic party policy of promoting slavery ignored the principles in the founding document.

"The first step of the slaveholder to justify by argument the peculiar institutions [of slavery] is to deny the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. He denies that all men are created equal. He denies that they have inalienable rights." President John Quincy Adams, The Hingham Patriot, June 29, 1839

In 1850 the Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or pay huge fines. The Fugitive Slave Law made anti-slavery citizens in the North and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law was sanctioned kidnapping. The Fugitive Slave Law was disastrous for blacks in the North. The Law allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery. 20,000 blacks from the North left the United States and fled to Canada. The Underground Railroad reached its peak of activity as a result of the Fugitive Slave Law.

Fugitive Slave Act - 1850

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Wikipedia

Fugitive Slave Act

31st United States Congress - Wikipedia In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska act. Even though slavery was expanded into federal territories in 1820 by the Democratically controlled Congress, a ban on slavery was retained in the Kansas Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats vastly expanded the national area where slavery was permitted as the Kansas and Nebraska territories comprised parts of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. The Democrats were pushing slavery westward across the nation.

The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Kansas-Nebraska Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas–Nebraska_Act

Frederick Douglas believed that the 3/5th clause is an anti-slavery clause. Not a pro-slavery clause. Frederick Douglas believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document.

(1860) Frederick Douglass, “the Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?” | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

What Did Frederick Douglass Believe About the U.S. Constitution? | The Classroom | Synonym

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...onstitution_did_not_condone_slavery/page/full

And so did others.

In May of 1854, following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, a number of anti-slavery Democrats along with some anti-slavery members from other parties, including the Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Emancipationists formed a new party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights. The name of the new party? The Republican Party. It was named the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.

History of the Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia

Republican Party founded - Mar 20, 1854 - HISTORY.com

Republican Party - The Republican Party In The New Millennium

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Republican Party | PBS

"The Democratic Party had become the dominant political party in America in the 1820s, [30] and in May 1854, in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats, several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party – the Republican Party. [31] It was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. In an 1865 publication documenting the history of black voting rights, Philadelphia attorney John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.”

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

In 1856, the Democratic platform strongly defended slavery. According to the Democrats of 1856, ending slavery would be dangerous and would ruin the happiness of the people.

“All efforts of the abolitionists... are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people.” McKee, The National...Platforms, Democratic Platform of 1856, p.91

In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights. In effect, Democrats believed slaves were property that could be disposed of at the will of its owner.

Democrats on the Court announced that "blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it." Dred Scott at 407 (1856)

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia

The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Dred Scott Decision

Dred Scott

Dred Scott: Democratic Reaction

The Democratic Platform for 1860 supported both the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857. The Democrats even handed out copies of the Dred Scott decision with their platform to affirm that it was proper to hold African Americans in bondage.

2. Inasmuch as difference of opinion exists in the Democratic party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories, Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional Law.

6. Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

Avalon Project - Democratic Party Platform; June 18, 1860

The Republican platform of 1860, on the other hand, blasted both the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 and announced its continued intent to end slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans.

2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the states, and the Union of the states, must and shall be preserved.

5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehension in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as is especially evident in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas - in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons - in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of congress and of the federal courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest, and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power entrusted to it by a confiding people.

7. That the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

10. That in the recent vetoes by the federal governors of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted democratic principle of non- intervention and popular sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.
Republican Party National Platform, 1860


Republicans freed the slaves, Democrats in the North and the South fought against it.

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery was passed by U.S. House of Representatives with unanimous Republican support and intense Democrat opposition.

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support and 63% Democrat opposition.

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “Black Codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination.

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves.

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens, with 100% of Democrats voting no.

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens, where 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans.

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”.

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

What is my way, exactly?

As near as I can tell it is militant atheism. Or am I reading you wrong?

 

[ding]

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Frederick Douglas believed that the 3/5th clause is an anti-slavery clause. Not a pro-slavery clause. Frederick Douglas believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document.

(1860) Frederick Douglass, “the Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?” | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

What Did Frederick Douglass Believe About the U.S. Constitution? | The Classroom | Synonym

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...onstitution_did_not_condone_slavery/page/full

 

[Red Front]

As I explained in another thread: Spirituality is beyond the physical world. Demanding evidence is the same as demanding straw be spun into gold. Straw and gold are two different elements, and so are the physical and the spiritual. There.is.no.evidence. What we have is testimony and lives that are richer due to expanding into that which is spiritual.

Lives are often richer by pursuing education. The same holds true for those of us pursuing what is spiritual.

All of that would be fine and dandy if the stupid, delusional beliefs of Christians didn't have a negative effect on government policy and on the lives of others, but it does. So I'm going to cure them of their brain disease.