|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Political Matters > Is the Constitution a "living document" |
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
24HourNut Administrator  aka Frank
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "The wording in the DOI is quite revolutionary and interesting. Despite what many believe or interpret, it purposefully, and in a highly unusual way for its day, amazingly generic." It's specifically non-Christian and avoids Christian terms speaking in Deist and Freemason terms. Care to show me an example of something not generic but Christian instead? We don't need any more evidence for the factual nature of my statement then the words of the DOI itself. YOU don't but others do. Others like evidence by the chief architect about what they feel the authority in the Constitution (not DOI) is based upon. Why is it if you are always so right you always have such a problem providing direct and specific evidence from the Founders themselves, yet me, who you feel is so wrong so often, can produce lots of work of the Founders agreeing with me? I am in-line with the Founders. Period. Why else would Adams' Defense, as well as other words by Adams and other key Founders, cause you to run and avoid acknowledging it?
 The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"It's specifically non-Christian and avoids Christian terms speaking in Deist and Freemason terms. Care to show me an example of something not generic but Christian instead?" You continue to push this fabrication in spite of the fact that the DOI was written during a time when 90% of the population identified with some form of Christianity, the Bible was almost universally used as a text to teach English, history and morality, and nearly everyone would have understood the words God, Creator and Universal Judge to mean the God of the Bible. Sorry, you don't get to reinterpret after the fact what the DOI means based on your 21st century view of society and what the word "God" means today in our society. "I am in-line with the Founders. Period." Period, not quite. You want to put a 21st century pluralistic twist on the meaning of the DOI. You might be able to pull this off on those that haven't read a history book other then the sanitized, PC stuff being taught in public schools day but not here.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator aka Frank
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "It's specifically non-Christian and avoids Christian terms speaking in Deist and Freemason terms. Care to show me an example of something not generic but Christian instead?" Care to look at what Jefferson himself said about the DOI he worked on? Of course you don't! You can't hold up to direct evidence by those who know better than either of us why they wrote what they wrote. You don't like evidence that compelling against you so you have to dismiss or ignore it. But it's still there. Please show me one instance of Christian-specific terminology. Whoops, you can't. You have to use the "but most people thought this and that" as if that somehow magically erases the unprecedented and purposeful non-Christian language. Your positions always require two things: 1 - avoiding specific and direct evidence by the key Founders themselves 2 - pretending or minimizing how revolutionary and unprecedented they were and how that is why we see what we see today You can't show me clearly Christian specific language because the Founders who worked on the Constitution, super aware of religious minority abuse and discrimination which was still going on along with slavery by the Christian mob, didn't want to condone or facilitate that. You can't show me Christian-specific language in a day where such language was standard in many ways because that was one of the ways the Founders changed the tone of things. There is an atypically generic non-Christian language being used, regardless of how you try to deny it. Anyone who studied it knows this unusual language was purposeful. You like to minimize and pretend it isn't, but that's your problem. The obvious Deist/Freemason veins the Founders blood often pumped is evidenced by the language in the DOI. It lacks Christian specific language for the reasons the Founders said it does. But you don't want to look at what the Founders themselves, who worked on the Founding documents, had to say about it, right? Thomas Jefferson, Mr DOI himself, seems to agree with me. You are at odds with his position, as usual. Let me guess. You don't want to look at what Jefferson said because it doesn't fit with your agenda, right? It would be just a "quote" and so we can dismiss his actual position, right? That is what you always wind up doing. So what do you think Adams' problem was in the Defense of the Constitution - was he wrong, drunk, what? Both Jefferson and Adams take positions that I support. You, however, are not in-line with them. If you are so correct, you should be able to show me how their position supports your claims. You can't, but I can. Isn't that interesting? You want to put a 21st century pluralistic twist on the meaning of the DOI. You might be able to pull this off on those that haven't read a history book other then the sanitized, PC stuff being taught in public schools day but not here. So then we should be focusing on what the Founders THEMSELVES said about it, right? Talk is cheap, let's see evidence - let's see a work by Adams or Jefferson specifically about the DOI or Constitution that contradicts anything I've said.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Care to look at what Jefferson himself said about the DOI he worked on?" Would you care to read the DOI and study the historical context in which it was written? Of course you wouldn't because to do so rather then pulling isolated quotes out of context would be too much work for you. You'd rather pull quotes out of context and superimpose your 21st century, anti-religious view on the issue. As for avoiding specifics, I've quoted the DOI specifically. What it says is God give men rights and freedoms which governments are established to protect. That concept is VERY specifically stated in the DOI. As for what the Founders had to say you can review all the prior quotes made by the Founders and posted in prior threads regarding the religious foundation of our laws and government. We should focus on ALL that the Founders said AND the historical context in which they said it. You chose to conveniently ignor or minimize the meaning of the words in the DOI, the historical context AND the other things the Founders say on the issue since they are they don't fit your anti-religious bias.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator aka Frank
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "Care to look at what Jefferson himself said about the DOI he worked on?" We are talking about the language of the DOI. The language someone wrote. Thomas Jefferson would know the most about the language. Of course you agree. But are saying that Jefferson's position on the language he worked on is not an extremely important piece of evidence in deciding why he used the language he used? Why would an author's views about their own work and language not be great evidence about why that language was used? Answer: when it doesn't fit your religious agenda.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"We are talking about the language of the DOI. Yes, and I don't need Thomas Jefferson to explain that very plain language to me. The DOI was written in words that common men could understand. It doesn't take a degree in government or theology to understand these simple but profound words. Your problem is you've got to go through all sorts of twisting and turning to get these words to mean what you want them to mean with your 21st century, anti-religious bias. This is precisely why you pull quotes out of historical context to attempt to modernize and sanitize the meaning of the DOI. NOT! The DOI sets the foundation on which our laws and government are built. The Constitution rest on the fundamental LAW expressed in the DOI, that God has granted to all men rights and freedoms which governments are established to recognize and protect. Period, end of story.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator aka Frank
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "We are talking about the language of the DOI. You have it backwards. TODAY that language is commonplace but back then it was unusually generic and distinctly freemason or deist in nature. In the context of that time it was notably lacking Christian specific language. That purposeful effort was in-line and overlapped by their other unprecedented and revolutionary postions and work. That is why I have evidence of the key players expressing that very thing and you have ZERO direct and specific evidence to negate it. All you have is vague feelings and what the mob thought, as if we already don't know that the Founders went against what the mob, masses, and clergy thought, wanted, were doing or trying to do. I will stick with the authors of these documents and stay in line with them. You are out of line with Thomas Jefferson on the DOI and out of line with Adams on the Constitution. At some point you may want to ask yourself why your positions always require dismissing direct and specific evidence by key Founders. You may want to ask yourself why, if you are so right, the key Founders on those documents clearly do not agree with you. You are being shamefully silly when you act as if we should disrespect and disregard an author's own position as to why he used the language he used, when discussing the use of their language.  It must suck to go around acting like your opinion is correct while having to dismiss things in an absurd manner to an absurd degree. I can only imagine that the reason you do this is because your religious agenda or calling overpowers common sense in these matters. Dismissing Jefferson and Adams on their own language? Pretending they didn't purposefully go against what the current majority was doing or was used to? Ridiculous.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: The DOI sets the foundation on which our laws and government are built. The Constitution rest on the fundamental LAW expressed in the DOI, that God has granted to all men rights and freedoms which governments are established to recognize and protect. The DOI does not set the foundation on which our laws and government are built. That's what the Constitution does. The difference is non-trivial. As I said before, the DOI does one thing and one thing only: declare independence. It's a rhetorical document, not a legal one. It no more legally bound the United States to the concept of a creator than it did to the concept that "all men are created equal" -- which as we all know, wouldn't be enshrined in law for almost another 200 years. If you want to know about the philosophical framework the framers were working in, read Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, philosophers that the framers drew upon heavily. Locke, in particular, promoted separation of church and state. (c.f., A Letter Concerning toleration). Granted, Locke's idea of toleration is much different from what we know of today (in that he didn't think tolerance should be afforded to Catholics or atheists), but even there, his reasons were more or less pragmatic: He believed atheists couldn't be held to a vow, oath, or promise, and he believed that Catholics held more allegiance to the Pope than to the state (which may have been a reasonable assumption for the time).
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator aka Frank
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jefferson didn't even accept Christianity. "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, the Supreme Being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." (Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.) His distaste for organized religions, especially Christianity, is well known. While the Declaration of Independence contains references such as "Nature's God", "Creator", and "Divine Providence", the "omission of any reference to Jesus Christ, or to the specific God of Christianity or of the Bible is far more significant than the inclusion of generic words that were consistent with non-Christian deistic beliefs. Thomas Jefferson has been described as "an Enlightenment rationalist who believed that 'the alliance between church and state' produces only evil, and that a wall of separation must be maintained." His God was most certainly not the intervening Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to announce to the world the reasons why the colonists were seeking to sever their connection to Great Britain. It was a work of propaganda, not a body of statutory law. It was purposefully generic in langauge because religious freedom for all was key to the Founders. That is why that religious baloney, especially Christian specific, was not included in the Constitution. It is inherently against the effort to best secure religious freedom for all, including the minorities authors like Jefferson were so painfully aware of, to favor a particular religion like that. Pointing out what the mob wanted or understood does not equate to why certain language was used. Language was very important in all the founding work, and purposeful. You can't just say "oh well, most thought that anyway." That is not the discussion, what many might have understood, either way. The discussion is that special language was used and reviewed, and all lines of evidence, including the author's own words, point to religious freedom being paramount. That is why you have the unusual non-Christian, Deist/freemason language being used, and why no mention of God in the Constitution, and unprecedented leashings of organized religion from their work. All the other stuff, is you talking about the slave-owning discriminating Christian mob that was not doing things in line with the principles of freedom and equality since God issued instructions on how to beat the hell out of your slave or kill your family if they are non-believers. So, I am not twisting or using modern anything, THEY, the FOUNDERS, had the position I am taking. THEY explain why they did things differently and used the language they used. In THEIR context at THAT time, they took a position against what you are saying now. We should go by them, not you or your organization that Jefferson mocked left and right, Pmh.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"You have it backwards." Not "TODAY that language is commonplace but back then it was unusually generic." Wrong. The words God, Creator and the term Supreme Judge in Colonial times would have been understood to mean the God of the Bible. Today in 21st century American they mean many different things to many people. Not so when the DOI was written. "That is why I have evidence of the key players expressing that very thing and you have ZERO direct and specific evidence to negate it." Wrong again. I've got nearly 200 years of American history to back up my interpretation of the DOI, the words of the DOI itself AND quote after quote after quote by the Founders regarding the religious heritage of our nation. "Pointing out what the mob wanted or understood does not equate to why certain language was used." That "mob" you so quickly discount are "the People" referred to in the statement "we the People". They understood what the Founders intended by the words in the DOI. God is the God of the Bible, Creator is the Creator of the Bible and the Supreme Judge is the God of the Bible. It was the Bible, not the book of Mormon, not the Quran, not the writings of Confucious or any Masonic text that was universally used in the education of the colonial population. It was the Bible that Washington put his had on when he was sworn into office, etc, etc, etc. "You are being shamefully silly..." If you want to live under a cloud of ignorance on this issue that's your choice. Your name calling doesn't help your case. The facts of history expose how "silly" your argument is.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator aka Frank
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: TODAY that language is commonplace but back then it was unusually generic." Yes, I understand that. That can exist alongside and simultaneously with what I and the Founders claim. What I claim does not mean that the colonies didn't understand the language. You keep missing that so you simply just repeat what the mob would have thought. Instead of dismissing what the author themselves said about it, try understanding that their position does not require a lack of understanding by the People on that language. Of course people understood that to mean God, but the generic nature of the language used was very significant and unusual. For some reason you want to pretend that is not true.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian "The DOI does not set the foundation on which our laws and government are built. That's what the Constitution does. The difference is non-trivial." Wrong. The fundamental principle on which our laws and government were established are conveyed in the DOI. That fundamental principle (law) is that God gives man his freedom and certain inalienable rights. The Constitution doesn't GIVE us those rights. The Constitution gives instructions for how government is to recognize and protect those right. "As I said before, the DOI does one thing and one thing only: declare independence." And you'd be wrong again. The DOI does much more then declare independence. The DOI explains the source and nature of human rights and freedoms, it conveys the function of governments (to protect those freedoms and rights) and sets forth the conditions under which governments can be desolved. "It's a rhetorical document, not a legal one." First, you'd get major arguments from many quarter on the DOI being a rhetorical document. Second, in as much as the DOI expresses the fundamental law on which all other laws exist it is a legal document. It also expressed the legal reasoning behind declaring independence. For both reasons it is a legal document. "It no more legally bound the United States to the concept of a creator than it did to the concept that "all men are created equal" -- which as we all know, wouldn't be enshrined in law for almost another 200 years." Maybe not in the minds of 21st Americans but it did in the minds of 18th century Americans. Last edited on 06:04 pm by pmh1nic |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: Brian If the DOI did what you say it did, there wouldn't be slavery, because, y'know, "all men are created equal..." and all that. The DOI was a declaration of independence. At most, it laid out the principles of British law that King George was violating. Appealing to the DOI as if it contained actual law is simply blissful ignorance. It's a rhetorical document, not a legal one. pmh1nic wrote: "As I said before, the DOI does one thing and one thing only: declare independence." The DOI used the reasoning set forth by Locke in order to justify declaring independence, because giving a reason for declaring independence sounds so much better than saying, "Hey, King George! Go f*** yourself!" But the DOI doesn't contain any legal principles. If someone (oh, let's say...a slave) went into court in the 1780's and tried to use the DOI as part of a legal argument, they'd be laughed at, if not held in contempt of court for wasting the court's time. The principles of our laws and government are instead laid out in the preamble to the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Rights and governments are something agreed upon by men, not something granted from on high. If an omniscient, omnipotent being were to grant you a right, you'd better believe that no one, anywhere, ever would be able to infringe upon it. The rights we have as Americans were given to us by intelligent founders and the blood and sweat of countless generations. Pretending that these rights came from a deity cheapens that sacrifice. pmh1nic wrote: "It's a rhetorical document, not a legal one." You can repeat that ad nauseum (apparently), but it's not true. The DOI has no legal standing in the United States, or any other country. It's a rhetorical document, a formal declaration of separation from Great Britain. It speaks to us down through the centuries because of its eloquence and its aspiration towards high ideals (which again, took centuries to actually meet), but in terms of legal standing, it has all the relevance of a birthday card to my nephew. pmh1nic wrote: "It no more legally bound the United States to the concept of a creator than it did to the concept that "all men are created equal" -- which as we all know, wouldn't be enshrined in law for almost another 200 years." Even in the minds of 18th century Americans, "all men" didn' mean all men. There were still property and religious requirements for voting well after the signing of the Constitution (let alone the DOI).
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UsedToRide Original500© Member  ^^^That is LOVE!!^^^
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
