Wonttakeitanymore

Our government was based on biblical principles pal

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Actually, it was based on common principles shared by most religions, since they couldn't agree on which of their Christian sects should have priority in the Republic. The idea that Catholics in Maryland could agree with the Puritans in New England is preposterous.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

<sigh> Once again, attacking the messenger and not the message. Projection is the hallmark for those that cannot answer with facts to prove their point.
To expand somewhat on this whole issue, we have to look at our own human nature. We prioritize our goals and ambitions based on where our basic requirments lie. Those (in order) are: self, family, group (tribe), and nation. This was evident in the Scottish tribes that fought the Romans in England. They feuded amongst themselves until the Romans came along, then banded together to fight the common enemy off, and once the battles were over, promptly resumed raiding and feuding with each other. Priorities escalated and deescalated depending on common goals.
Sports fans are another example of tribslidm, in that they have no actual connection to the team, but are fervent in their 'fandom' of their chosed group in ritualize warfare.
Religion is no exception. It is almost always an 'us vs. them' as being the only way to salvation. 'They' are any group or sect that doesn't believe as you do, and your tolerace for them is probably minimal.
As you may suspect, this carries over into racial, cultural, and political realms. Our viewpoint is the only one that is right, and we're going to stick with it, regardless of whether it would work for the common good of the society or not. All it takes is a charismatic leader that amplifies the fears and grievances of their followers to create a theocracy or dictatorship which never has good outcomes for the vast majority of its citizens.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

I am, in fact, a constitutional scholar, and the "vast amounts of pre-organized material" I posted is absolutely relevant to the subject at hand.
Not at our nation's founding, nor throughout our history until the present has any attempt been made to establish the United States as a theocracy.

The only way such an idea could have been introduced would be an Article V amendment proceeding - propose, v**e, then ratify by 3/4ths of the states.

However, just over 100 years ago, a foreign political philosophy opposed to our constitution and alien to our American way of life was introduced into American politics by a r****t, anti-constitution democrat president. Under the guise of the "Democrat Party", signified by a Jackass, and led by power hungry control freaks, this alien philosophy advanced.
Now look at the s**t hole we are in.

Right now, as things are de-progressing and taking our world to hell, I have become a very dangerous Christian.
And, I am not alone. Word up,
"I would rather stand with God and be judged by the world,
than to stand with the world and be judged by God."

Good vs Evil, baby, that's the name of the game.

IOW, the Creator and Ruler of this universe is gonna win this fight.
God gets especially angry when secular humanists, atheists, sexual d*****ts and other assorted perverts start messing with His children.

Like sacrificing millions of them in their mother's womb,


or indoctrinating them with totally confusing ideas about their gender and sexual orientations.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that d******n which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, wh**ever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which p***es itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

Did America Have a Christian Founding?
Abstract: Did America have a Christian Founding? This disputed question, far from being only of historical interest, has important implications for how we conceive of the role of religion in the American republic. Mark David Hall begins by considering two popular answers to the query—“Of course not!” and “Absolutely!”—both of which distort the Founders’ views. After showing that Christian ideas were one of the important intellectual influences on the Founders, he discusses three major areas of agreement with respect to religious liberty and church–state relations at the time of the Founding: Religious liberty is a right and must be protected; the national government should not create an established church, and states should have them only if they encourage and assist Christianity; and religion belongs in the public square. In short, while America did not have a Christian Founding in the sense of creating a theocracy, its Founding was deeply shaped by Christian moral t***hs. More important, it created a regime that was hospitable to Christians, but also to practitioners of other religions.

How The Bible Inspired The American Founding From The Beginning
The following essay is part of The Federalist’s 1620 Project, a symposium exploring the connections and contributions of the early Pilgrim and Puritan settlers in New England to the uniquely American synthesis of faith, family, freedom, and self-government.

martsiva

Your previous post proves nothing!! I have challenged you to show where any religion is taking over our government and you did not reply!! Show us where any theocracy is showing in our government!! Point out where it is even beginning!! Point out where Christian Nationalists have entered our government!! Many religious groups post flyers!!

martsiva

Show us where there is suppression of minority v****g!! Show us what rights have been taken away from the L***Q or t***s individuals!! It is the rights of parents that are being taken away when their children are being exposed to either one of these programs without their consent or are being intimidated by the presence of the FBI for objecting to it!! Where has prayer been imposed in public schools??

martsiva

NO - it was based on the natural laws of God that are in the Holy Bible and which is what the Founding Fathers embraced!! Arguments between Catholics and Puritans took place in the 1600s - long before the Revolutionary War and the establishment of this country!!

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Not being a masochist at heart, I'll no longer try to persuade those who are totally set in their ways, and object vociferously to anything that doesn't agree with their viewpoint. This will be my last post on OPP. I wish you well, even if I believe that you all are dead wrong. There's no point in my continuing.
Those with closed minds will not change them. "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."
There are those who will be glad to see me go ... so be it.