So that convention...

[buckethead]

on the one hand, a nigger, and on the other, a Mormon.

How, I ask you, did it ever come to this?

Primarily due to people like you

[Gene]

When I was growing up, the US used to be a proud nation. It did the things we all dreamed of doing, and it did them better than anyone else.

It put men on the moon, if you believe it happened, which it almost certainly didn't, but it faked it first, which is a victory of sorts.

Douchebag Euro-Wanker.

[Chessman]

by the "Creator."

Textual criticism would be a good thing for you to read up on sometime.

Creator was chosen, instead of God (the word and idea of God, namely a Judea-Christian God, existed even back then, you know...), specifically because the term Creator was inherently non-specific in terms of deities or belief systems.

Given that over 90% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were religious, and Christian, the meaning was understood.

There you go.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=News ... d=5243#fn1

The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.

[FRKCTL]

by the "Creator."

Textual criticism would be a good thing for you to read up on sometime.

Creator was chosen, instead of God (the word and idea of God, namely a Judea-Christian God, existed even back then, you know...), specifically because the term Creator was inherently non-specific in terms of deities or belief systems.

Given that over 90% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were religious, and Christian, the meaning was understood.

There you go.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=News ... d=5243#fn1

The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.

thirty five of the delegates to the constitutional convention were also lawyers. this may be why there are no constitutional prohibitions for coveting, taking the lord's name in vain, making graven images or why punishments are not meted out to the third and fourth generation progeny of offenders.

Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "theistic rationalism".

Gregg L. Frazer, The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution (University Press of Kansas; 2012)

[Protobuilder]

Obama has taught us that GWB wasn't as bad as we thought.

The fuck?

The two aren't even comparable. The Bush administration fucked this country over ROYALLY.

Agree on the latter point but Obama has continued most of Bush's mistakes and passed him on the violation of civil liberties for Americans.

I read Obama's books and like his values - it's just that he seems more concerned about legacy and image than substance. At least Bush was willing to lose skin for things he believed in. Obama is the technology President because he has an iPad.....but hasn't done anything to improve the infrastructure in the country that would allow citizens in most of the US to remain competitive with the rest of the world. He is the "gay marriage" President but won't stand up to actually support it outside of interviews and sound bytes.

Bush was a wolf but a wolf in wolf's clothing.

Obama feels like a number one draft pick that you thought would be a hall-of-famer but ends up being a solid guy you can use here and there - not terrible though you hoped for more.

[Protobuilder]

I agree. I never would have thought that Bush2 and Obama would be tied for worst with Carter IMO. I'm willing to take the chance on Romney because he has a lifetime of accomplishments that mostly worked out well, and from what I'm learning he's never been a rabid ideologue in his actions. I feel certain that Obama will be a disaster and have a gut feel that Romney won't, so the scales tip to the Repugs, but I kind of hope the Dumbos keep the Senate.

Why the fuck isn't Romney actually running on his accomplishments? The US is having economic problems. He has a history of running successful businesses. The saving of the Salt Lake Games is admirable. His social record is something that most moderates could support.

Compare that to his current platform. Why the hell are social issues the top issue?

His record is what I would want in a candidate. His current campaign makes you wonder if you have to entirely sell out to reach the top of the ticket.



H

[Holland Oates]

He was a moderate republican until he ran for president. Then he want bat shit crazy far right to appeal to the old guard and the mouth breathing bubbas. McCain did the same shit.

[DrDonkeyLove]

I agree. I never would have thought that Bush2 and Obama would be tied for worst with Carter IMO. I'm willing to take the chance on Romney because he has a lifetime of accomplishments that mostly worked out well, and from what I'm learning he's never been a rabid ideologue in his actions. I feel certain that Obama will be a disaster and have a gut feel that Romney won't, so the scales tip to the Repugs, but I kind of hope the Dumbos keep the Senate.

Why the fuck isn't Romney actually running on his accomplishments? The US is having economic problems. He has a history of running successful businesses. The saving of the Salt Lake Games is admirable. His social record is something that most moderates could support.

Compare that to his current platform. Why the hell are social issues the top issue?

His record is what I would want in a candidate. His current campaign makes you wonder if you have to entirely sell out to reach the top of the ticket.

I can't begin to imagine why he isn't running on his record. I read in an article by Kathleen Parker yesterday that he's given and raised millions of dollars for charity and worked as governor of MA for free (*joe biden snorts). Perhaps he's just biding his time.

Social issues seems to be what gins up the chimps and gets them all hopping about in their cages anxious to fling feces. A campaign is chimp central so that's all that I can think of. Maybe our short attention spans will keep it in mind if he lets loose with that stuff in October.

[FRKCTL]

I agree. I never would have thought that Bush2 and Obama would be tied for worst with Carter IMO. I'm willing to take the chance on Romney because he has a lifetime of accomplishments that mostly worked out well, and from what I'm learning he's never been a rabid ideologue in his actions. I feel certain that Obama will be a disaster and have a gut feel that Romney won't, so the scales tip to the Repugs, but I kind of hope the Dumbos keep the Senate.

Why the fuck isn't Romney actually running on his accomplishments? The US is having economic problems. He has a history of running successful businesses. The saving of the Salt Lake Games is admirable. His social record is something that most moderates could support.

Compare that to his current platform. Why the hell are social issues the top issue?

His record is what I would want in a candidate. His current campaign makes you wonder if you have to entirely sell out to reach the top of the ticket.



H

campaign professionals learned long ago that the majority of voters tend to vote for social issues over their own economic interests. romney's fortune came from buying troubled companies, breaking them up and selling off the parts. in other words, he got rich by impoverishing the class of folks whose votes he needs. That takes a little sleight of hand.

[dead man walking]

in romney's circle, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is accomplished by slipping your foot into a tasseled loafer.

[Turdacious]

Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "theistic rationalism".

Gregg L. Frazer, The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution (University Press of Kansas; 2012)

If that's true (I haven't read it)-- it certainly doesn't support athiest notions that many around here ascribe to the founders and the Constitution.

[FRKCTL]

Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "theistic rationalism".

Gregg L. Frazer, The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution (University Press of Kansas; 2012)

If that's true (I haven't read it)-- it certainly doesn't support athiest notions that many around here ascribe to the founders and the Constitution.

it certainly doesn't support the christian nation notions a few around here subscribe to either.

[dead man walking]

mormonism didn't exist when this country was founded. therefore according to an originalist reading of the constitution, mitt romney is an atheist.

[buckethead]

Turd, who has "atheist notions" of the founding fathers? To me, the point is "establishment of a religion" - any religion - Christianity included. I think it is silly that people say the Founding Fathers created a Christian nation. Either they did and we should correct their error or they didn't and we should get overt religious symbols and rhetoric out of governance. I cannot see how that is an assault on religion in general or anyone's freedoms in particular.

[johno]

I never said the Constitution defers to Christianity, but that Christian thought strongly influenced it. The Constitution defines the rights that the Declaration says are given by the "Creator."

the declaration has no force of law. it was a letter to king george.

You make a great argument. Against a position I didn't take.

where in the constitution are there any christian ideas specifically referenced as such?

You missed it the first time:
All Men are Equal before God -> All Men are Equal before the Law.

*****

What do you think the dominant philosophy/religion of the time was? If the Constitution was repugnant to that, how did it gain widespread acceptance?

Did you know that a number of states had official religions when the First Amendment was ratified?

United States of America
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[5]
...
All current State constitutions do mention a Creator, but include guarantees of religious liberty parallel to the First Amendment. The constitutions of eight states (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) also contain clauses that prohibit atheists from holding public office.[7][8] However, these clauses were held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with the religious test prohibition in Article 6 Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

The Church of Hawaii was the state church of Hawaii from 1862-1893.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

It's not that the US was founded AS a Christian nation; it WAS a Christian nation at the time of the Founding, in that the orientation was largely Christian, by an enormous majority.

PS - I'm not a Christian - I just don't buy the atheist/agnostic revision of history. And don't partake of Anti-Christian Hysterical KoolAid.

[kreator]

Turd, who has "atheist notions" of the founding fathers? To me, the point is "establishment of a religion" - any religion - Christianity included. I think it is silly that people say the Founding Fathers created a Christian nation. Either they did and we should correct their error or they didn't and we should get overt religious symbols and rhetoric out of governance. I cannot see how that is an assault on religion in general or anyone's freedoms in particular.

I don't think it was founded as a Christian nation but I don't see why the need to remove overt religious symbols and rhetoric? I think adding things in to government that are overly religious would be a violation of the Constitution, but if something has existed historically there is no reason to remove it. If there were some display of the Ten Commandments in some state house that's been there forever then why remove it now? It's not restricting anyone's freedoms nor is it establishment of state religion. Unless you also want to rename all the cities in our country named after British cities as well because those are part of history that is no longer ours as well...
Now on the other hand, forcing some state house to install some Ten Commandments tablet in 2012 would be wrong.

[johno]

if something has existed historically there is no reason to remove it. If there were some display of the Ten Commandments in some state house that's been there forever then why remove it now? It's not restricting anyone's freedoms nor is it establishment of state religion.

We must to respect everyone's heritage. Except our own.

[FRKCTL]

All Men are Equal before God -> All Men are Equal before the Law.

Where in the Constitution is this God-Law formula? The Constitution is a secular document. It starts out with" We the People..." not "God". Certainly Christians and Deists and a couple of Papists were in the mix producing it, but thinking that religious belief was their primary source of legal inspiration is a mistake. Religious Neutrality is one of the distinguishing features of the Constitution.

[johno]

All Men are Equal before God -> All Men are Equal before the Law.

Where in the Constitution is this God-Law formula?

Another Straw Man argument.
I say, "Philosophical basis," and you ask, "What legal formula?"

Nearly as stupid as denying the English origin of our legal system, then asking, "Where in the Constitution does it say that?"


Out.

[Turdacious]

Turd, who has "atheist notions" of the founding fathers? To me, the point is "establishment of a religion" - any religion - Christianity included.

See DMW's silly post above yours for the atheist notions.

I think it is silly that people say the Founding Fathers created a Christian nation. Either they did and we should correct their error or they didn't and we should get overt religious symbols and rhetoric out of governance. I cannot see how that is an assault on religion in general or anyone's freedoms in particular.

Ok, under your idea-- what are just laws based on? Or are they mere laws and social norms?

[Turdacious]

All Men are Equal before God -> All Men are Equal before the Law.

Where in the Constitution is this God-Law formula? The Constitution is a secular document. It starts out with" We the People..." not "God". Certainly Christians and Deists and a couple of Papists were in the mix producing it, but thinking that religious belief was their primary source of legal inspiration is a mistake. Religious Neutrality is one of the distinguishing features of the Constitution.

You're thinking the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. Even there, the idea was pushed by the Baptists, who didn't like the idea of religion requiring state sanction.

[Turdacious]

One of Thomas Jefferson's accomplishments, written and pushed during one of his more religious moments:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Virginia_ ... us_Freedom

[Blaidd Drwg]

No one here denies that this country has a long history of xtian belief. What the smart ones are arguing is that the core of our government and legal system sets those beliefs aside and derives their structure and history from common law not "god's law" and derive their power from the consent of the governed, not god.


This is what makes America great. The GOP's fetishistic obsession with revising this is what makes their social platform so repugnant.

[Turdacious]

No one here denies that this country has a long history of xtian belief. What the smart ones are arguing is that the core of our government and legal system sets those beliefs aside and derives their structure and history from common law not "god's law" and derive their power from the consent of the governed, not god.


This is what makes America great. The GOP's fetishistic obsession with revising this is what makes their social platform so repugnant.

Coming from a guy who derides the religious as believing in a 'sky pixie'-- it's a little hard to take you seriously on this.

[Blaidd Drwg]

So...,suck it up. I'm deadly serious.