Headlines that don't merit their own entry

WATCH: #HimToo: Neil Patrick Harris Recalls Proposition From Whoopi Goldberg When He Was A Mid-Teen

Democrats agree to confirmations of 15 Trump judges

Sometimes I Just Go Full Potato

I Won’t Support An Elizabeth Warren Presidency While She Appropriates My Identity

We’re Not on the Brink of Civil War. Here’s Why.

How Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Finally United The Right Under Trump

Six Months Later, People Are Finally Realizing That FOSTA Actually Is Putting Lives At Risk

Top Ten Alternative Media Sites BANNED on Facebook and Twitter

First They Came for Alex Jones — We Told You We Were Next — We Were

What Sears’ Bankruptcy Says About Amazon’s Future

Tags: #MeToo ∙ Neil Patrick Harris ∙ Whoopi Goldberg ∙ radical progressives ∙ hate ∙ bullying ∙ rules ∙ society ∙ anarchy ∙ consequences ∙ Elizabeth Warren ∙ liar ∙ Civil War ∙ Brett Kavanaugh ∙ right ∙ Donald Trump ∙ FOSTA ∙ Facebook ∙ censorship ∙ banned ∙ Amazon ∙ Sears

At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it--all sought to avert it. While the inaugeral [sic] address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissole [sic] the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Tags: Abraham Lincoln ∙ 1865 ∙ Civil War ∙ slavery

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Hillary Clinton ∙ election ∙ Broward County ∙ sheriffs ∙ banking ∙ free checking ∙ goverment ∙ Amazon ∙ Civil War ∙ Trump campaign ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ progressivism ∙ geoengineering ∙ climate control ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ Rod Rosenstein ∙ human progress ∙ newspapers ∙ machine learning ∙ markets

❝❝Let me point out that tax exempt status is at best a "devil's trade." In exchange for the tax deduction, the organizations (and sometimes the officers) lose their political voice and the IRS gets itemized lists of what was donated and who donated it.

There's also the small bit that if there are tax deductions, then by definition taxes are too high.

However, “Religion cannot be allowed the coercive power of government. Government cannot be allowed the moral justification of religion.”

---

The 1st Amendment doesn't deal with subsets. The incredibly ironic bit is the history of churches in American politics, particularly the abolitionist movement.

I didn't say it was a complete list, I said it was an itemized list. It is enough to find "known associates" though.

Tax deductions are evidence that taxes are too high. It's also evidence of diverting capital, taking it away from unapproved activities and moving it towards approved activities. There's more, but it involves a long examination of progressive tax systems and it won't add anything but noise to our conversation.

---

Abraham Keteltas, Samuel West, Jonathan Mayhew, Peter Muhlenberg, and Samuel Cooper were just some of the colonial era ministers. In England for a while, the American Revolution was called the Presbyterian Revolution because so many Presbyterian pastors were involved.

But the abolitionist movement and the American Civil War was when things really got going. Look at names like John Todd, Joshua Leavitt, Benjamin Bradford, Luther Lee, and Samuel Salisbury. Without these men and their churches, the abolitionist movement would never have blossomed. Christians aren't perfect and I am certainly a critic. But it took British and American Christians to end the slave trade, they deserve credit for that.

The 1950s-1960s civil rights movement was heavily rooted in churches, especially in the American south.

As I said, the tax exempt status is a "devil's trade" intended in large part to silence churches.

---

I provided examples which at the very least would have violated the propaganda restrictions of the Johnson amendment if it had been in effect then. Yet those are a valued part of American history and important benchmarks in religious freedom.

A little further examination would have shown that American churches and synagogues have traditionally called politicos out on bad ideas and bad behavior.

---

It's not about "prophesy of the pulpit." It's about moral authority. Ideas like liberty, revolution, and slavery were talked about during worship. In those days more than anything else including the press, worship is where those ideas were set out in detail by men who made their living communicating well and clearly. I admit it's a part of history that is often overlooked, but it exists none the less.

Take a closer look. The Johnson amendment covers both endorsement and anti-endorsement, intervening in political campaigns is prohibited. It also limits lobbying, propaganda, and other political activity.

Pagans of all people know what a bad idea it is when a politico wraps themselves in the flag and waves holy writ as justification.

BTW, I have to give you points for that phrase "prophesy of the pulpit." It's poetic if not exactly accurate in this case.

---

You're right, that part of the law is seldom enforced. I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

So here is my next question. If the law as it exists is so potentially prone to abuse even as it is not enforced, why does the Johnson amendment exist?

My theory is that it was one of Johnson's infamous deals. In the early 1950s, the modern civil rights movement was just getting started, but the split was already there. It's a little inaccurate, but I call the two sides the MLK side and the Malcolm X side. Later the Malcolm X side was dominated by the Black Panthers, but that part of the story isn't necessary for our discussion here.

The MLK side wanted to work within the system making sure that existing law was enforced. The Malcolm X side relied on direct confrontation to create radical change and separate from the US if necessary. There was rivalry between the two sides, and at the time no one was sure which side would dominate. Johnson saw the potential need for what today we would call the nuclear option. As long as everything proceeded peacefully, the government would never need to use the stick. Meanwhile, everything was nicely registered and reported to the government, "just in case."

It wasn't the first time the IRS was used to monitor Americans and it wouldn't be the last.

---

You're right. I should have said existing Constitutional law, that was my mistake.

That wasn't the only operational difference, but it certainly was one of the most important. Bryan Burrough points out in Days of Rage that some "blacks" were disappointed as more moved north and they didn't instantly get more of what they felt had been denied them.

Existing state and local law in the south supported segregation, most Federal law did not. It varied in other states, not so much in the West but heavy in union states. When Truman reversed Wilson's segregation of the armed forces, the writing was on the wall.

---

Under what part of the 1st Amendment is Congress granted the power to regulate free speech?

Under what part of the 1st Amendment is Congress granted the power to regulate religion?

Yet the Johnson amendment does both.

Which tax argument? The fact that deductions mean that taxes are too high? Or that government uses a progressive tax code to encourage some behaviors and discourage others?

Can you show that either argument is BS?

---

Actually it does.

The perception in America is that you are not a "real" church unless you have tax exempt certification. Just like a few years back when conservative groups were having problems getting 503 certification, most people don't want to give money unless they know that the IRS is not going to audit them. The easy path is to do what the government tells you to do. That is not necessarily the right thing. Once a group has the certification, they are bound by the regulations if they wish to keep the majority of their donors. Those regulations are subject to change at any time, and have gotten more restrictive since the Johnson amendment was passed.

Every dollar that the government collects in taxes reduces individual purchasing power. Regardless of what some experts will tell you, the economy is driven by the individual buying goods and services and not by government regulation. More money, more purchases (or savings). Less money, more credit, less purchases and less savings.

Even if you think that only the "rich" pay higher taxes, that means less money for things like jobs, equipment, and expansion. That means less economic growth.

The second order effects of special taxes can be even worse. A few decades ago, Congress put out a luxury tax on high end planes, yachts, high end boats, and cars. All those industries took a major hit. Building and storing yachts and high end boats still haven't recovered.

It gets worse. Thanks to payroll withholding and "standard" deductions, the government effectively gives itself no-interest loans from your money. Multiply that by a hundred million or so and you get into some serious cash.

These are examples from taxes. I haven't discussed currency manipulation (inflation) or spending.

---

"Surely by your argument, there should be no tax exempt organizations at all, because the very existence of them proves taxes are too high."

Yes.

At the very least, no tax exempt organizations would mean fewer bureaucrats to monitor compliance and regulate.

"Government money goes back into the community and absolutely does stimulate economic growth."

It does that by displacing private investment. Private money wants a return on investment, which means maintaining facilities and periodic upgrades. Except for corporatism, companies stay in business by making their products better, cheaper, and more available.

"The rich actually mostly sock money away…"

Um, no they don't. There isn't a money vault or a stuffed mattress, smart people put their money to work. Some buy stocks, some buy bonds, some invest in companies. Unless the money earns a higher yield than the rate of inflation and the tax rate, it's worth less.

"…and pay LOWER taxes than the rest of us…"

According to the National Taxpayer Union Foundation, in 2014 the top ten percent of income earners paid 70.88% of the income tax. The top fifty percent of income earners paid 97.25% of the income tax.

Spending is not the same as taxing. Government at all levels has done a rotten job of maintaining facilities, much less upgrading them. Private ownership does wonders, as things like the Empire State Building show.

Government usually puts money aside for infrastructure and then diverts the money into more "essential" things. It's one of the oldest tricks in government accounting. Then more money is "needed."

What's more, government is a lousy judge of where to spend and what to spend it on. Just as one example, less than a handful of VA hospitals are worth it, but we keep tossing more and more money at the problem.❞❞

Tags: tax exempt ∙ devil's trade ∙ tax deduction ∙ political voice ∙ IRS ∙ religion ∙ coercive power ∙ government ∙ moral justification ∙ First Amendment ∙ capital ∙ unapproved activities ∙ approved activities ∙ progressive tax systems ∙ Abraham Keteltas ∙ Samuel West ∙ Jonathan Mayhew ∙ Peter Muhlenberg ∙ Samuel Cooper ∙ American Revolution ∙ Presbyterian Revolution ∙ abolitionist movement ∙ Civil War ∙ John Todd ∙ Joshua Leavitt ∙ Benjamin Bradford ∙ Luther Lee ∙ Samuel Salisbury ∙ churches ∙ Christians ∙ Johnson amendment ∙ synagogues ∙ politicos ∙ prophesy of the pulpit ∙ history ∙ National Taxpayer Union Foundation ∙ liberty ∙ revolution ∙ slavery ∙ worship

❝❝The argument is not over sexual practices but over who gets to call the shots. I disagree with you on this one.

Let’s leave aside the fact that “Judeo-Christian” excludes every person who is not a Jew or a Christian. Let’s leave aside the face that many Jews are offended by the notion of being lumped in with the Christians. Let’s even leave aside the point that “Christians” includes faiths such as Baptists, Mormons, and Catholics who are barely even on speaking terms with each other.

The real question is why should any group be in charge? Why should one morality have the force of law while others do not?

Competition keeps us honest. If you can’t convince people that your morality works without being backed by law, then you’re doing it wrong. “Do it our way or we’ll force you.” “Do it our way or The Officially Sanctioned Authority Figures will point guns at you.” “Do it our way or you’ll be tossed in jail.”

If you don’t like what they are doing, fine. They shouldn’t force you. But that means you shouldn’t force them either.

I’m a big believer in the family. That’s one reason I support the age of consent. I’m from my mom’s first marriage, and I have stepsibs including one from my stepdad’s first wife’s first marriage. I think that the family is the strongest thing is a society.

But people have to make the choice of their own free will and without coercion or it counts for nothing.

Virtue under threat is not virtue, it’s slavery.

---

I realize you and I are using atheist in different ways. I am no more an atheist because I don’t worship your god than you are an atheist because you don’t worship mine.

If I am reading this right, you want me to rally to your banner and fight in the name of your faith to establish your morality over all in a glorious victory. And then we’ll haggle over my crumbs later.

To which I reply KYFHO.

I think it was yesterday I was reading Limbaugh’s site. He tried to make the point that just because the Republican leadership were a bunch of wimps, that wasn’t a reason to vote Democrat to spite them. He was wrong. Either/or is not a choice, it’s a trap.

Freedom is what matters. If all we fight for is who gets to call the shots, then freedom has lost.

I will not exchange one overlord for another.

---

And if folks weren't pushing a "Judeo-Christian" rule system for everybody, it wouldn't matter.

We can agree on a public morality without making personal religion the governing factor.

---

This nation was founded by Christians, Deists, and others, but not on a Judeo-Christian basis. They borrowed from anything and everything they thought would work. And then they argued over it. For years and years they argued. They still goofed some things up. Slavery is the obvious example.

---

I didn't say anything about the worth of Judeo-Christians values, I just said that they weren't the paramount source of all that is good in our society.

If you reread everything I have said on this thread, you will not find one place where I criticized Judeo-Christian values.

I did say that people should choose for themselves whether to put Judeo-Christian values at the center of their lives. And I objected to anyone choosing those values for everyone else.

---

Again, my objections are not about Christianity.

It's about Christianity being the "default" choice.

As I said above, either/or is not a choice, it's a trap.

Tell me, what would you do if someone insisted you had to abide by the morality of Confucianism? Would you not speak loudly and say that wasn't your choice?

---

I of course live in the United States where freedom of religion is the law of the land.

Not freedom of Judeo-Christian religion, not Judeo-Christian religion placed first, but freedom of religion.

The Founders were among the best educated and enlightened men of their time. Why do you supposed they chose to make it like that?

---

They did accept it.

It took a Civil War to stop it. And even then, Lincoln didn't begin the war with the idea to end slavery.

That came later.

---

Must have been some Brits.

The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. The Continental Congress adopted the Constitution in 1788.

---

First, I wasn't the one who started with the "Judeo-Christian" phrase, that was RSM in the original article. It's what started this.

Second (and this is the Really Important Bit), the Founders deliberately did not put religion in the Constitution. It's not because they did not have faith, it's because they believed one man should not dictate the faith of another. It has nothing to do with the merits of Christianity and everything to do with personal choice and responsiblity.

BTW, I don't read either Zinn or Maher. I think the last history book I read was Churchill's autobiography.

---

Still doesn't change the point.

You wouldn't want to live under the rules of another belief system even if it was a good system and was for everybody.

---

C'mon.

Your insistence that the Judeo-Christian basis is the only possible choice has made that point very clear.

---

DING!

I answered which makes it responsive.

You might ask yourself why you feel threatened by the merest possibility.

(P.S. I insist on better sound effects)

---

Pardon, but that's the point. If you put law a rung or two below your religion, you'll expect others to defer to your religion. Even if they don't share that religion.

---

Would you defer to my religion?

---

Should any nation embody a religion?

---

It doesn't matter. Under the terms that people on this thread have set, the religion is immaterial. It only matters if the nation has a basis in that religion.

No matter what yours may be, you must submit.

---

Most importantly, my religion doesn't require you to submit.

Neither does Christianity, despite what some say.

Even here on this thread, I'm not denouncing Christianity. I'm just telling Christians they can't use the precepts of their faith to rule another.

---

Some of them are good rules. Some of them are not.

My point is that one religion should never be considered The Moral Authority for a society. Morality is too important. We need to argue over it. Competition keeps us honest.

Once we say that The Moral Authority Religion is what tells the society that murder and theft are morally wrong, it's way too easy to say that TMAR says that this sexual partner is wrong, or that this fabric should never be sewn to that fabric, or that we should only eat from religiously approved diet.

---

I am totally for live and let live. It's the core of my most deeply held beliefs.

I really don't care about someone else's beliefs or politics unless they want to impose those on everyone else.

Going back to my original post on this thread, if the choice is between the absolute on the left side or the absolute on the right, I am going to pick freedom despite both.

I respectfully disagree with you on that.

---

I disagree. I think "free to choose" applies to more than just economics. I think ideas work best in a "free market" too.

---

"Given that, for example, I like the morality embodied in Judeo-Christian law…" But not everyone does.

"…and that we also know that other people would gladly choose anarchy by their own free will…" Oh? All others, or did you have a specific group in mind?

"it seems to me as if a stable culture does need to have reasonable, enforceable codified laws." I agree with the conclusion but not your reasoning.

"Which means that somebody's standard of morality has to set the bar." Yes.

"And I think that if you put to the vote which system of law would people prefer, Sharia law, Judeo-Christian or anarchy…" Why are these the only choices on the menu?

"…most Americans would say Judeo-Christian (given that a large component of that is "don't screw with me and I won't screw with you.")" I wish more people accepted "live and let live," I really do. I think Americans would accept it. But I don't think that's a substantial part of Christianity, especially as it is practiced today.

---

"Also, I think you confuse the practice of true Christianity with the practices of lying liars who lyingly claim to be Christian because it suits their lying agenda." Some are liars, yes. Some are devout Christians with the best of intentions.

"…the (Judeo-Christian based) Constitutional law as implemented originally for this Republic…" I'm sorry, but I have to stop you right there. It wasn't Judeo-Christian based. Look at the Constitution. Other than the date, there is not a single mention of Christianity. This was very unusual for any government document at the time. This was deliberate.

Christianity was only one of many influences. It's amazing I even have to mention this when one house of the national legislature is called the Senate and the other has a ceremonial mace based on a Roman fasces.

E pluribus unum. The original motto of the United States, roughly translated into "one from many." Or as I prefer, "united we stand." It's not just the people, it's the ideas.

And it is not specifically or even mostly Christian.

---

And the first question is why didn't the Founders see fit to put it in the Constitution?

The second question is why are people offended when I point out that Christianity may not be the sole source of goodness in Western Civilization?

---

And would that Christian belief system be the Protestants or the Catholics? Perhaps the Quakers?

Since the idea of democracy predated the "Judeo-Christian" basis we might have to consider a few other things.

Your problem is that I won't acknowledge the "fact" that Christianity is primary source of Western Civilization and of the United States.

Which pretty much brings us full circle to my first post on this thread.

---

You know, since we've spent so much time on this thread about the Founders, I can't help but wonder if the Brits thought they were being "willfully obtuse."

I know people thought Bill Gates was "willfully obtuse" when he had this crazy idea about copyrighting software and building a company on it.

So it really depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

---

I'll let you in on a secret.

I try to treat people online as they have treated me. I'm nice until someone shows they don't deserve it.

For life in general, I have three rules.

THE GOLDEN RULE - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

THE SILVER RULE - Do for yourself at least as much as you do for others.

THE IRON RULE - Don't do for others what they can do for themselves.

---

I think the Founders made a wise choice. They didn't want an official religion but they didn't want to interfere with personal religion.

It ties into individual choice and responsibility. It's bottom up. The Founders wanted individuals to draw from their faith and influence the nation, not the faith to shape national law and policy and so rule the individual.

Most importantly they wanted people of faith to watch government closely.

---

I didn't say no codified laws.

I just said that I thought we could do public morality without enshrining a religious system as The Moral Authority.

While I agree that religion can be an excellent source of personal morality, I don't think it works on a cultural level if there are multiple faiths in that culture.

So we have to start from another basis.

---

But not Judeo-Christianity alone.

BTW, many Jews are really offended by that term.

---

And a lot aren't.

And they are still offended.

Are you accusing the Jews who dissent from your views of being anti-Christian and unAmerican?

---

I said,

"BTW, many Jews are really offended by that term."

I don't have to be a spokesman for the Jews to know that many resent the term "Judeo-Christian." It implies a continuity which is not recognized by their religion.

---

So apparently it's either/or. I have to accept that law only has a Judeo-Christian bias or we do without law?

We couldn't just sit down, find out what we and others agree on, and make laws based on that?

---

So if I disagree that American society had a "Judeo-Christian" basis and that all that is good and wonderful comes from the actions of enlightened Christians, I can take a hike?

It's not me you have a problem with, it's dissent.

You might want to think about that.

---

Take Daylight Savings Time, that's not moral, just annoying.

Why does a nearly microscopic flake of cannabis on the passenger seat cost someone their car but three "suitcases" of beer in the trunk doesn't?

Why can't you legally buy a high flow toilet?

---

Laws are not moral.

We should be arguing over them.

---

"And, like it or not, 51% of the humans will impose its vision of society and its morality on the remainder." Actually I'd argue that most of the Bill of Rights specifically forbids the Federal government from doing exactly that. Not to mention the other checks and balances built into the system. Originally when Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, it was supposed to balance the populism of the House of Represenatives.

"Like it or not, Judeo-Christian ethics and morality have stood Western Civilization and indeed the world in good stead for a long time." Except Western Civilization was never just Judeo-Christian. Nor were it's ideals and morality.

"Personal liberty is more than putting whatever you want into your mouth or finding some new way to excite your genitals." Except I was talking about freedom which implies responsibility. Especially in an American context.

"Again, I defy anyone to demonstrate a social system better at doing that while protecting the dignity of the individual better than those based upon a Judeo-Christian foundation." You mean other than the American one that I already showed was not based solely on that Judeo-Christian foundation?

ETA: Sorry, I missed an important one.

"You say, such choices should be made "individually" and without societal influence," Except I said without coercion, as in no use of force.

But if you adopt a religion's moral code into the law, we can't do that. It's not up to the people. It's up to the leaders of that religion.

---

Not a weasel word.

Just a point again that Western Civilization did not begin and end with Christianity and Christian thought.

Some laws are not moral. For example, right now many police departments are partially funded by civil forfeiture laws.

Something like 40% of the Export-Import Bank's loans have gone to support one company, Boeing.

Not so very long ago, the Federal government decided that the U.S. should be forced to switch to the metric system.

---

"That immoral people have taken advantage of it doesn't discount the original intent."

Yeah, it kinda does. Your own religion has some interesting things to say about good intentions.

And no one has yet addressed my macro argument. The real question is why should any group be in charge?

You've all been so busy telling me how much the U.S. has a "Judeo-Christian" basis, not one of you has bothered to say why Christianity is a superior system.

I'm willing to work with people to get an acceptable set of laws. But the second you tell me it's Judeo-Christian based I will walk away. Not because I hate Christianity, but because I do want ANY religion given the force of law.

We need people of faith questioning government.

ETA: Pardon, that is my goof. that should read "…but because I do not want ANY religion given the force of law."

You two had me typing so fast last night that my hands couldn't keep up with my brain.

---

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to introduce the Ten Commandments.

Number One on the Hits List there doesn't apply to anyone not a part of that religion.

Unless you want to point a gun at my head until I put your god first?

Don't you see? I'm not attacking the Christian faith. I'm just saying you can't use the law to impose it on anyone else. Your choice is your choice, their choice is theirs.

---

Please tell me again how the Ten Commandments are the "fundamental principles of America."

Please tell me again how me NOT putting the "Judeo-Christian" morality above and beyond my own morality rejects American principles "because of their ethical monotheist origin."

It certainly seems that you have issues with every single American who does not embrace Christianity immediately and on your say so.

---

And you honestly believe that the Judeo-Christian basis is the only possible source of morality for the Founders?

How curiously limiting.

---

I called the Founders among the best educated men of their time. I pointed out that the deliberate omission of ANY god in the Constitution. And I told you they argued and debated for years to do the "right" thing even as they made the occasional mistake.

---

You're right. I'd walk away from the group. I wouldn't walk away from the issue.

You see, I have this thing about freedom…

---

" You wish to have morality without any consequence." I do not. If you'll check some of my previous posts on other threads, I usually stress choice with consequences.

"Western values have a Judeo-Christian foundation…" Among other things.

You did see the bit above where I stressed how important family was, didn't you?

---

I never said all systems are equal.

I said people should make their own choices. And if you can't convince people that your system is a good one except by using force, then you're doing it wrong.

---

No, it's a matter of agreeing on morality instead of saying "the Bible tells me this is good SO THIS IS WHAT WE WILL DO or else!!"

---

Then why isn't the Christian God specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

Why did it take a Cold War to (mistakenly) change the national motto to "In God We Trust?"

Why does the Constitution specifically forbid a religious test as a qualification for office?

Do you get the picture yet? You can be as Christian as you choose.

You just can't choose that OR any other faith for another.

---

Because government documents of the time routinely did put it in.

I keep telling people. This was not an accident. It was a deliberate choice. It was shocking. It stirred debate in the Continental Congress. It was unheard of.

---

Articles of Confederation.

You can find a copy at www.usconstitution.net, a very good reference site.

---

But it wasn't adopted as the national motto until 1956.

The Founders didn't do "givens," they liked to nail things down. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

---

Yep, I knew that. That's why I mentioned the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Actually if you examine the Constitution you'll find that broad framework has some very specific anchors.

Which makes the omissions all the more important.

---

Speaking of coinage, have you heard of the Fugio cent?

Designed by Franklin, one face had "We Are One" and the other face had "Mind Your Business."

---

Whole wars have been fought by Christians on both sides over that "objective morality."

Whatever the Divine perspective, human understanding is limited and very subjective.❞ class="ghoster">❞

Tags: Judeo-Christia ∙ Jews ∙ Christians ∙ family ∙ virtues ∙ faith ∙ Founders ∙ Deists ∙ Civil War ∙ Treaty of Paris ∙ Continental Congress ∙ Constitution ∙ defer ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Silver Rule ∙ Iron Rule ∙ offical religion ∙ dissent