This was a big milestone for the TEA Party, because it finally established what they as a collective movement agreed upon. This was based on 500,000 votes. All along, they were waiting for April 15th, tax day, to make this official. So this, IMO, deserved its own thread. The KISS principle actually works very well in the real world and should be applied to the Federal Government--as the Constitution intended. The Fed. Gov. needs to really focus on the Constitutional requirements and leave it to the States to do the bulk of the entitlement issues. If a person does't like a states entitlement policy, they can move to another state. The Fed. Gov. should be focusing more on national security, ensuring the Bill of Rights applies to all Americans, regulating and being a watchdog of industries to make sure the common people are not taken advantage of. However, I am sure there are other issues that are in the grey area as to whether it should be in the scope of the Fed or local government--these issues can be discuss on a itemized basis. If by "they", you mean the TEA Party group and its sympathizers, it really doesn't matter what they think--its who they support in office that we need to be really concerned about. Otherwise, if by "they", you are referring to the conservatives (Dem.'s or Rep.'s) in office that they support-- the following election cycle will have a chance to get rid of those that strays from these the core conservative principals. Also, this is a basic conservative platform since the founding of our country--which Bush lost sight of. First, let me address this in a boarder sense. The statement of "liberties are inherent, not granted by our government." is referring to Universal Christian principals that have dictated what liberties are afforded to ALL people-by our Creator. It is not the role of ANY government to dictate what liberties it can pick and choose to provide to its people--the reasoning being that if a government can mandate a liberty, then it also mandate them away. For example, slavery cannot stand up to the universal Christian principal that all men are created equal--therefore, when confronted by the Civil Rights movement with respect to our Bill of Rights (which was based on universal Christian principals--it really had no leg to stand on.) What some people tend to forget is that slavery has existed on this earth for many, many thousands of years--and is not exclusive to African American history. Now, I wil more specifically addressing each of your specific points: Concerning Moral Liberties: Of course, moral liberties are mostly legislated by conservatives. Liberals, by definition, are very loose on what they consider immoral--they basically take universal Christian principals out of the equation. If they claim that they do have the same morals standards as everyone else, then by definition are not really liberals--they are moderates or conservatives. I realize the liberals are not advocating opening the flood gates of immoral mandates. In fact, I am for giving gay couples a lot of the legal benefits and ALL of the "protection" from hate crimes and such afforded to all Americans--the main deviation I have is official status of "Married". Why? I basically stand on moral Christian principals on the Sanctity of Marriage as a legal AND spiritual binding between one man and one woman. No reason to debate this issue further--I am not trying to change anyone's mind on their view of marriage. On Abortion: Read this and you will understand why I will leave this to another topic. http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162 My stance is that once you open the Pandora box of leaving what should be considered moral restrictions in social policies to those that have no universal Christian principals, then where does it ultimately lead us as a nation? Please don't answer this, it was just a rhetorical question. Political Liberties: They have not officially done it, YET. However, the liberals are doing their best to pass the Fairness Doctrine which is a direct aim to put a choke hold on conservative talk radio and its popularity. Also, there is basically only one conservative voice on TV--Fox News--and look how much effort Obama administration has tried to marginalize them. The were even kicked out of the press conferences--ironically liberal media came to their support and Obama had to back down. Also, let's not overlook the general media's full out efforts to painting the TEA Party and anyone with conservative ideology as nothing but racists. Most of the posters in D&D has bought into this misrepresentation of the TEA Party hook, line and sinker. Maybe, they would benefit from visiting your Facebook group and learning a bit more about the lies the media feeds us. With 15-20 million people out of work in America, Obama needed to learn from Clinton' slogan. "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!" He has been focusing his political capitol on his personal Progressive Agendas and now the current public consensus is that he will deal with the economy as side issue. He is basically seen as out of touch with what's going on regular working folks. The American people in every poll told Obama to drop HCR, until we turn around the economy first. His most likely next agenda will be to focus on CAP&TAX and thus ensure that his approval numbers get progressively worse--pun intended. There is no one that will deny that CAP&TAX will send even more American jobs overseas. Also, the jobs he is creating are mostly in the public sector, i.e. growing government, and not in the private sector. Obama does not even try to hide the fact that he is pushing future large government contracts to be preferential towards unions based companies. This combined with the fact that the president of SEIU has visited the White House more than any other person--only confirms that he mainly focused on Progressive agendas--instead of that of the moderates in his party. There was a place for unions in this country at one time and still could be on a very limited basis--but they are really making it hard for the USA to compete with the rest of the world. This is one of the main reasons, a lot of the manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. Now, Obama is making Unions even stronger because they were one of his biggest supporters and thus making it even harder for American companies to compete in the future. Basically, based on the points above, Obama is now "seen" by the majority of the American public as just expending the vast political capital the American voter gave him to mainly pay back the special interest groups that funded his candidacy. He is no longer seen as really trying to revive the economy--despite his rhetoric to the contrary.
Do you think that was the founders' intent of this clause, to allow the state to do anything not expressly forbidden? That runs counter to the 10th amendment, which states exactly the opposite. Most of us balance our budgets by spending only what we have, it's not impossible. Taxation is not the only way. If I were a proponent of an entitlement state, I would determine the revenues available and distribute wealth accordingly. The system we have now sets some arbitrary amount of entitlements and then hopes to find some combination of taxation/printing/borrowing to obtain the necessary revenue. It's beyond dumb. I agree the word length is arbitrary, but the principle is sound and a line has to be drawn somewhere. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vGIfbAt8voU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vGIfbAt8voU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Again, are you comfortable with that interpretation, which makes state power virtually unlimited? I do want to kill those programs, but I think what this is referring to is the federal mandates as to what level of care we are all required to have. The fact that the state doesn't administer it is irrelevant, they still control the content. If the mandates are unaffordable, a public option and eventually single payer is the natural progression. Don't need a study, its basic economics, if you lived in a bubble you wouldn't know how much a good or service (like health care) should be valued at, you lack information. Likewise, the state can't set reimbursement rates or procedural costs with any kind of accuracy, even if they could, circumstances are constantly changing and they couldn't keep up. Market forces allow goods and services to be properly valued. It's how a gas station attendant can figure out what price to set his gas at despite not having access to the millions of pieces of information that determine the market value. It's like the Soviets trying to set the price of bread, it led to bread lines. I'll believe it when I see it, but if it comes to pass that we start drilling in new places offshore, good for Obama. Horsetrading in earmarks is how large bloated omnibus spending bills get passed. It's also how politicians generate campaign cash. The relative value of the earmark is not the issue. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bNij_WFf8Ho&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bNij_WFf8Ho&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Although, your thread is full of lies--I get the jist of what you are trying to say. Please refer to my POST # 39 to address the issues you basically brought up in this tread. I have full intention of responding to counter-arguements of merit in my threads. It just takes a lot of time and I have stated many times over that I will eventually try to get to as many as I can. Don't worry, once I deem the discussions are just resulting in the same revolving arguments--I will not waste any more of my valuable time rehashing them to death. Of course, anyone that feels they have already reached that stage with my posts, then feel free to use the features available on the BBS to resolve it.
Ding ding ding. If there was a single investigative reporter left in America, it would make a nice article, the flooding of the interwebs with paid parrot hacks.
So it was voted on by .18% of the population. What a mandate! This is pure crap. You know, I know it...everybody on the BBS knows it. "universal Christian principals" are not what I want our laws based on since - you know - we are not a theocracy. That is what separates us from the Taliban. Also, it is for government to decide what liberties our Creator gave us that we cannot exercise. Our Creator gave us the ability to kill our fellow man. Certainly you are not suggesting that it is an afront to God for government to ban us from exercising that God given ability. More on upstanding Christian principals as the basis for our nation to follow... Bull. You either understand nothing about our history or you are telling lies. Which is it? Practically all of the wealthy slave owners in the 1800s were self avowed Christians. Slavery did not stand not because of Christianity...but because the Union soldiers landed more bullets than the confederacy. Be not fooled on this. Also, it was Christian leaders in this country that brutalized the Native Americans and took the land. They rationalized it by stating that the natives were "heathens" or "savages." The idea was that they were somehow lesser...not human. You obviously have a very romanticized notion of the role Christianity played in the history of our nation. The quote you stated "all men created equal" was written by Thomas Jefferson...from Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Religion The religious views of Thomas Jefferson diverged widely from the orthodox Christianity of his day. Throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, biblical study, and morality. He is most closely connected with the religious philosophy of Deism, and Unitarianism. He is reported to have said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." You have no idea what you are talking about. I devised this post after doing less than 5 minutes of simple research using Google. Put a little thought behind your posts. Because we are NOT a theocracy. Geez! The state has no bearing on a spiritual union. That is the province of the Church. The Church has no bearing on a legal union. That is the province of the State. Your definition seems not to square with the First Amendment. Not allowing homosexual couples to enjoy the legal protections for property acquired that heterosexual couples share seems to not square with the Equal Protection Clause. The State should not be in the marriage business. Marriage is a religious sacrament. The State recognizes legal unions between people. There should be a State cognition of the same legal union for homosexuals that exists for heterosexuals. If a Church wants to recognize gay marriages, that is up to that Church...not the State.
I'm willing to give the Tea Party some credit for putting together a guiding statement of principles but this seems half baked, somewhat juvenile and if actually followed one that would likely cause more problems than it solves. As usual some of the other posters have already stated what I would say but just to throw in a few of my own comments. In the abstract this isn't necessarily bad but who decides what those liberties are? You have freqently brought up Christian principles and values but what about those of us who aren't Christian? How does the enforcment of Christian values be compatible with moral liberties when those liberties are circumscribed a particular religious based morality? The problem with this statement is that it is somewhat contradictory. To accomplish the first part of the statement there is going to be a necessary use of power over the marketplace and economic decisions of individuals. IN fact the commerce clause specifically empowers the federal goverment to exercise power over the marketplace and economic decisions of individuals. I agree that in general the market economy has done a good job of improving material progress, social is questionable, but at the sametime though this statement strikes me more as a generality rather than a statement of principle. There has never been a true free market in the US, or any other country with a functioning government, and I strongly doubt anyone in the Tea Party would actually want a completely unfetterred market. As Gladiator Rowdy pointed out unecessary per Article I Section 8 and one that is like to end up being a waste of time. I understand why though this is brought up as Tea Partiers seem to have this belief that Congress is constantly acting unConstitutionally there already is a recourse to address that called the judicial branch. Something like this strikes me as pandering to a misinformed view of the government. I don't agree with this but at least this is a substantive and specific stance regarding policy. I don't think this is likely to happen but again at least a specific policy proposal. The first part is fine as a policy proposal but replacing the IRS code with a code that is no longer than the US Constitution seems like a childish solution and /or a numerological fixation on a number that has no meaning other than happenstance. I mean do you really think that the Founders felt there was some magical signifigance in 4,543 words? Do you think they intentionally worded the Preamble just to get to that number? Again if someone feels that something the government is doing is unconstitutional the solution already lies with the judicial branch. What this is proposing would likely end up being a boondoggle itself and a distraction in regard to actually governing. FIne in the abstract but in the case of a war or some other emergency would you still stick with that limit? I agree that spending does need to be controlled but we've seen with the states where statuatory limits have caused a lot of problems. As other posters have noted no government run health care plan has been passed. That is already being enacted. Sounds good to me but not likely to be passed. Even Ron Paul has used the earmarks. This statement is problematic when compared to the other statements. COnsider that the contract recognizes that the government is responsible for defending the country but also calls for a balanced budget. We are in the midst of two wars that has largely been paid on credit. If we are to repeal all tax hikes it is going to be very very difficult, if not impossible, to fight wars while maintaining a balanced budget without those tax hikes even if we cut out other discretionary spending. Second there is no such thing as "death taxes". NO one is taxed for their deaths. Estate taxes on the contrary are taxes made on the transfer of wealth per estates. If these were death taxes then the deceased would be taxed. As they saying goes you can't take it with you and the dead are not taxed unless like the Ferengi on Star Trek you believe that you live on in your possessions. There is no such thing as a "death tax"
I'm sure GladiatorRowdy can ably respond back but there were a few things here that I can't resist asking and commenting about. First off as someone who works in architecture and having also worked in engineering and public policy I like the KISS principle but there are plenty of situations where the KISS Principle doesn't work in real world. Second, can you show me where in the Constitution it says that was what the Constitution intended? "Universal Christian Principals" is an oxymoron as being Christian already states that such principles are sectarian by nature and therefore not universal. Also by following Christian principles though you are already stating for government to dictate what liberties to pick in choose. IN this case Christian principles. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that government cannot mandate moral liberties and then demand that they enforce a particular morality. Since you have been talking about economic liberty why shouldn't workers unionize to maximize the benefits they can get for their labor? Isn't that the free market for people to try to get the most that they can for the work that they do? Perception though isn't necessarily reality as most economic indicators seem to point to a stabilization or even a recovery of the economy.
I'm willing to say that there is a problem with the Constitution as there is some conflict between the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause. I believe the Founders understood that such things conflicts would arise which is why they established a Judiciary and amendment process. In this sense the Constitution has been necessarily vagues since part of the genius of the Founders was that they knew they couldn't foresee every circumstance. Most of us aren't responsible for fighting wars, legally bound by entitlements have to rely upon votes to maintian our position as head of the households. For that matter most of us also take out loans. In fact if as consumers we didn't rely on credit our economy would grind to a halt. While I don't agree with how entitlements are set they are not arbitrary and the amount of entitlements are set basd on many factors. So you are fine in this case with an arbitrary figure? I don't know if you are a Tea Partier or not but consider many Tea Partiers are in the movement, like the Thumbs, is that they want to protect Medicare and are worried about cuts to it in the health care bill. Regarding the mandates the problem though with the current situation is that there is already a mandate for hospitals to provide care and an unfunded mandate at that. Hospitals cannot legally or ethically refuse emergency medical care whether the patient can pay or not. In this case the costs are passed onto other patients, charitable foundations and or the taxpayers. While in principle I can see how the mandates are an imposition on absolute liberty there is no practical way of addressing paying for anything remotely approaching universal health care without them. What a lot of people fail to realize is that the status quo is already a public option by default as the cost of the uninsured who go to emergency rooms is already bourne by the public. That's fine for things like Lasik surgery but how do you determine what is the market price for an emergency procedure? If I have a punctured lung can I shop around for the best price for patching my lung?
First, we must define on what is meant by "Universal Christian Principals". This often misunderstood to mean that our founding fathers wanted this nation to be a solely Christian Nation. This is not what the founding fathers intended nor is it what I am claiming. For example, one universal Christian principal is that anyone has the freedom to worship any Deity that they want. Also, by "universal", all that is being conveyed is that no particular denomination of Christianity is being favored--just general principals presented in the Bible. Everyone who has even a cursory knowledge of history realizes that tyranny will ultimately result from a theocracy. And no, the Crusaders were not following universal Christian principals. They used is as an excuse to conquer other nations. Christian theocracies were guilty of tyranny in the past and Muslim theocracies are guilty of this still to the present day. No one should be forced to become a Christian period, much less in our Nation. I am not claiming to be a historical scholar and I will admit that I am fairly new to these types of debates on the founding documents. Therefore, I will present two sides to this issue in a slightly unorthodox way and everyone can decide for themselves. Again, it's a bit crude, but I think it gives both side a fair shake. These are two books that I have been hearing about a lot lately addressing this subject matter. For the argument that our Founding Fathers used universal Christian "Principals" to guide there thought process in creating the founding documents read, "America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations by William J. Federer (Coppell, TX: Fame Publishing, Inc.)." This book contains over 2,100 quotes from nearly 700 sources highlighting America's Christian heritage. Since, I have read part of the quotes but not the whole book as of yet, but I recommend reading all the reviews of this book on Amazon. Why? It's great feedback from many people that have read the book and provide feedback-pros and cons. http://www.amazon.com/Americas-God-Country-Encyclopedia-Quotations/dp/1880563096 For the other side, read (I am sure most you have already read this one and use it as you basis of argument) "The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness" http://www.amazon.com/Godless-Constitution-Against-Religious-Correctness/dp/039331524X Again, I have not read this yet, but I recommend reading all the customer reviews of this book on Amazon. One of the main criticisms of this book that keeps coming up is that it contains no footnotes and the authors claim it is for the general reader and not for scholarly study. So, basically the main difference between the two sources is that one is 2,100 quotes from nearly 700 sources highlighting America's Christian heritage and let's the reader decide what the founder were thinking. The other is, based on what I have learned about this book, that this book is basically two PhD's (from Cornel) "interpretation" of our founding fathers thinking with no footnotes and almost no credit given to the perspective of opposing views. Even in middle school, we could never get away with providing zero footnotes or sighing of sources. Also, any argument to the contrary of what they say is immediately labeled as "right wing crap"--which reminds me a lot of this board, LOL. Of course and most reasonable people, I will be biased towards the words that came directly from the founding fathers original writing more than some liberal professors interpretation of what our founding fathers were thinking. The following is from someone else that has put some serious time researching this subject and his reasoning and summary best summarizes exactly the way I feel towards this subject. He starts off with just a small sample of the quotes from the founding fathers and ends with a exact summary of my viewpoint on this subject. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_religion_mean_to_our_founding_forefathers Here are the quotes: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. (George Washington, father of our country) Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society. (John Adams, second President) Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. (Charles Carroll of Carrollton, signer of the Declaration of Independence) It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. (John Adams) The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. (John Quincy Adams, sixth President) Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature. (Benjamin Franklin, signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence) If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by Him....Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants. (William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania) It is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's. (William Penn) If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be; If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy, If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will; If the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end. (Daniel Webster, early American Senator) Lastly, our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits. Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens. (Daniel Webster) If we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity. (Daniel Webster) Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers. (Fisher Ames, framer of the First Amendment) The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. (Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence) We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism. (Benjamin Rush) No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. (Thomas Jefferson) Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. (John Jay, founding father and America's first Supreme Court Chief Justice and Co-Author of the Federalist Papers) To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruptions of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism. All efforts to destroy the foundations of our holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them. (Jedediah Morse, father of American Geography) Benjamin Franklin Morris was a notable American historian, who in 1864 wrote "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States." In this book, he states: These fundamental objects of the Constitution are in perfect harmony with the revealed objects of the Christian religion. Union, justice, peace, the general welfare, and the blessings of civil and religious liberty, are the objects of Christianity, and always secured under its practical and beneficent reign. The state must rest upon the basis of religion, and it must preserve this basis, or itself must fall. But the support which religion gives to the state will obviously cease the moment religion loses its hold upon the popular mind. This is a Christian nation, first in name, and secondly because of the many and mighty elements of a pure Christianity which have given it character and shaped its destiny from the beginning. It is preeminently the land of the Bible, of the Christian Church, and of the Christian Sabbath....The chief security and glory of the United States of America has been, is now, and will be forever, the prevalence and domination of the Christian Faith. Education is useless without the Bible. (Noah Webster, father of public education in America) The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts. (Noah Webster) Listen to what others have to say on the subject. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), French philosopher and Statesman who visited America during the American Revolution observed: Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live. There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the outward duties of religion with fervor. Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. Everyone interested in Church/state issues should read Alexis de Tocqueville's work, "Democracy in America. " A significant portion of this work is dedicated to the religious element of early American life. Supreme Court Justice Brewer is not one of our founding fathers, however, his statements show that for over 100 years it was common knowledge that religion played a very important role in government. On February 29, 1892, in the case of "Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States," Justice Josiah Brewer, wrote the following. Justice Brewer also wrote a book in 1905 called "The United States: A Christian Nation." In his book, Brewer states: We classify nations in various ways. As, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallic, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation-in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. I encourage you to see for yourself that our founding fathers were not only a deeply religious people but they understood that good government, liberty, and happiness could only last with a firm religious foundation. They believed that when religion is removed from government, you remove the only lasting and meaningful reference point for morality and without morality, government will degrade and collapse into tyranny. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, put it this way: By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. What about Public Education in America? In 1828, after working 26 years writing "An American Dictionary of the English Language," Noah Webster, the father of public education in America wrote in the preface of this great work: In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed....No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. The New England Primer The New England Primer was the first textbook ever printed in America. It was used to teach reading and Bible lessons in our schools until the twentieth century. Introduced in the Boston public schools in 1690, the New England Primer was a required textbook from which every first grader learned grammar and spelling. The book opened with the following prayer: HOW glorious is our heavenly King, Who reigns above the Sky! How shall a Child presume to sing His dreadful Majesty! How great his Power is none can tell, Nor think how large his grace: Nor men below, nor Saints that dwell, On high before his Face. Nor Angels that stand round the Lord, Can search his secret will; But they perform his heav'nly Word, And sing his Praises still. Then let me join this holy Train; And my first Off'rings bring; The eternal GOD will not disdain To hear an Infant sing. My Heart resolves, my Tongue obeys, And Angels shall rejoice, To hear their mighty Maker's Praise, Sound from a feeble Voice. The 1900 reprint of the New England Primer described, within its pages, the impact of the book by stating: The New England Primer was one of the greatest books ever published. ...It reflected in a marvelous way the spirit of the age that produced it, and contributed, perhaps more than any other book except the Bible, to the molding of those sturdy generations that gave to America its liberty and its institutions. Also contained in its pages were several prayers including the Lord's prayer, the Christian Creed, Bible verses, hymns, the Catechism, and of course lessons on grammar and spelling. This clearly shows, with out a doubt, that for over 200 years our schools and our government had no problem with prayer, hymns and Bible verses in our schools. Summary Let me make an important distinction here. I don't believe that our founding fathers were trying to form a Christian government or one that was run exclusively by Christians. Certainly not. They saw what could happen in the name of religion in Europe. Instead, what our founding fathers wanted was a government that was friendly to all religions and built upon the moral and ethical foundation of the Bible. The Bible provided the moral anchor without which government would become hopelessly lost in a sea of ideas and beliefs. They believed that government should not interfere in religion in any way, and because the government was built on a Biblical foundation, it should never turn its back on that foundation and always be supportive of it. Our founding fathers believed it was perfectly acceptable to teach the Bible and pray in our schools as they did for over 200 years. It was perfectly acceptable to acknowledge God by opening Congress and the Supreme Court with prayer as they themselves did. Our founding fathers would have applauded the phrase "In God we trust" on our money and "One nation under God" in our pledge of allegiance. There is no doubt that our founding fathers would have supported the placement of Justice Roy Moore's 2.6-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the state building in Alabama. They would have applauded each of these acts because none of these acts constitute the establishment of a church or a religion but simply acknowledge the religious foundation upon which our government was built. " I know many will want to immediately call BS on this, please remember that I am not trying to convince anyone that is non-Christian to change their minds on this subject. I am merely provide justification based on the direct words of the founder's on why I feel very confident on where I stand on this subject. Finally, I really don't have much more that I want to add to this topic. We will just have to respectfully agree to disagree.
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. - Buddha
I have to think this is the method of choice for BrotherFail. You other, more patient posters might be wise to take note of this posting behavior and lower your expectations as well dial back your "give a crap" meter when it comes to anything he says.
First, it’s not an article. It's just quotes from the founders of the constitution from a "book of quotes." It's not a argument to debate--these are just actual quotes that have sources. What part of this is difficult to understand? Are you denying that these quotes came from our founding fathers? Then that is definitely something to debate. Just read the book. It sites sources and can stand on its own. I only used the "summary" of another person’s opinion based on the research he did. I included it, because it only because it reflects what I believe also. I showed you two books that makes a case for opposite sides of the argument. One is just book of quotes from the founders and the other is a couple of liberal professors that provide their interpretation of what the founding father were really thinking--however they provided no sources in the book. So, what is it that you really want to debate on this topic? That the founder’s quotes were lies and a couple of professors interpretation of what the founders said is the truth? Just read the original quotes from the founders and make your own conclusions. This is why I said that there is not much to debate on this subject--unless you want to discuss specific quotes from the founders. Just make sure anything you quote is sourced.
I take it that you are part of the "2 % er’s": -- That are very optimistic about the future of this country? -- That believes we are currently headed in the right direction? -- That believes your kids and grandkids will have a better quality of life than you have now? -- That believes that nothing is broken in Washington and therefore no need to fix anything? If you answered NO to any of these question, then you need to be interested in the Contract—it’s your road map to get all these answers to turn into YES’s.
When they get a contract that isn't set on facing things that are imaginary like government run healthcare, or contradicting itself all over the place then maybe that is something to be interested in.
What people keep overlooking is that the contract was just some basic idea's that are common the Tea Party supporters. Notice, fringe element crap like "sending Obama back to Kenya" is NOT in there. This was not meant to be only humorous, but minorities need to know if racist doctrine is really part of the official contract—of course this would be a deal breaker for us. This is not a document reviewed by lawyers and was not meant to be a legal document. You can argue the technical contradictions, but the basic issues that need to be addressed are listed. For example, HCR as it has been passed, needs to be reevaluated and a new plan that is bipartisan needs to be passed--because it affects 1/6th of our economy. That is all that needs to be taken by that topic. Exactly, how we resolve these issues is up for debate by those that are supported by the conservative voters.
