23 Oct 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is my opinion as well. Jefferson was known to sometimes voice certain opinions just to spite other people.
I have no problem with TJ's problems with the Bible. He had an acidic, nearly counter-productive intellect at times. It offered him more turmoil than it ever did rest.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Oct 13
Originally posted by SuzianneCouldn't agree more.
"a tactic to appeal to the religious"
Oh, really? It's my understanding that the type of wording in the Declaration was how most would-be Americans in the colonies felt at that time. It wasn't just an appeal to a segment of the population, it was the thinking of a vast majority of the population. It's just a good thing that the representatives to the ...[text shortened]... tal Congress got something right. Ditto the attendees to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
But I'll add back the following in bold: "For the rest, it may have been a tactic to appeal to the religious, or wasn't worth arguing about.
I am speculating on what made any non-theists/non-deists among the signers accept the wording. If there were any such signers, then as you say, they understood that most colonists would like that wording.
23 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsDon't misrepresent it like that.
Well it does mention "our Lord" which is obviously a reference to Jesus.
The Instructor
The only mention of "our Lord" was at the end of the document, where it says "in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven". So yes, it is a reference to Jesus, but it has no actual meaning of anything but what year it was.
This was common wording in legal documents of that time.
23 Oct 13
Originally posted by JS357I would count such signers as very few indeed. Like maybe one or two. Maybe.
Couldn't agree more.
But I'll add back the following in bold: "[b]For the rest, it may have been a tactic to appeal to the religious, or wasn't worth arguing about.
I am speculating on what made any non-theists/non-deists among the signers accept the wording. If there were any such signers, then as you say, they understood that most colonists would like that wording.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSince you've obviously had a brain aneurysm, let me spell this out for you. The Constitution supersedes the Declaration of Independence. Any relevance the latter may have to the content of our republic is irrelevant. The Constitution trumps it in all respects. Grampy Bobby's OP, therefore, is likewise irrelevant, and no further consideration need be given to it. If you want to talk about what the nation should or shouldn't be, then you don't start off by trumpeting on about the Declaration of Independence. You start with the Constitution.
Since its purpose is self-evident, why do you avoid limiting your comments to the purpose of the thread? Why, instead, do you bring an unrelated topic into the conversation?
Speaking of ignoring parts, why have you ignored the question posed by OP?
And lest you think you've won some inferior point, I will comment on the original draft[hidden]http:// ...[text shortened]... e God of creation?
My comment: they certainly were serious students of history, weren't they?
There, that's clear enough that even a halfwit like yourself should be able to grasp it. But I don't doubt that your wounded pride will compel you to keep blathering on in your semi-coherent fashion.
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by SuzianneWell, it might not have any meaning to you and your liberal evilutionist atheist buddies, but I believe it meant a lot to our God fearing founding fathers.
Don't misrepresent it like that.
The only mention of "our Lord" was at the end of the document, where it says "in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven". So yes, it is a reference to Jesus, but it has no actual meaning of anything but what year it was.
This was common wording in legal documents of that time.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI'm not going to get into a headcount of nontheistic signers. I'm OK to be inclusive of whoever you are willing to acknowledge. A dispute over the theological positions of the signers isn't worth while.
I would count such signers as very few indeed. Like maybe one or two. Maybe.
Originally posted by RJHindsI swear, Ron, do you have any coherent thoughts at all?
Well, it might not have any meaning to you and your liberal evilutionist atheist buddies, but I believe it meant a lot to our God fearing founding fathers.
The Instructor
All I've seen suggests you live in a fairytale land of your own making.
No wonder you're a republican tool.
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by rwingettMaybe as far as the law goes.
Since you've obviously had a brain aneurysm, let me spell this out for you. The Constitution supersedes the Declaration of Independence. Any relevance the latter may have to the content of our republic is irrelevant. The Constitution trumps it in all respects. Grampy Bobby's OP, therefore, is likewise irrelevant, and no further consideration need be given t ...[text shortened]... ubt that your wounded pride will compel you to keep blathering on in your semi-coherent fashion.
The DofI was relevant for its time. Think of it as a "letter of intent". It shows the mind of the founding fathers at that moment in time. It is relevant to compare it with the Constitution in order to see exactly how they sketched out their ideals, and to what extent they were successful.
In this way, even the Articles of Confederation are relevant, considering how it stood in the gap between "intent" and "law", and shows a continuum of effort towards our constitutional republic.
Originally posted by JS357When breaking away from England back in the day, it was good for morale to imagine that the Master of the Universe was on your side. Of course, many found it sufficiently comforting imagining a Master of the Universe exists at all, and continued to bow to a king who for his part claimed the Master of the Universe was on his side.
Here is a pretty good answer from Yahoo answers: "The point of the Declaration of Independence was to say why the colonies were leaving England; to say what justification they had to essentially commit what was seen as treason, and explain why it wasn't treason."
It also said that the rebellious colonies were open for business, so potential trade arrangements need not be involve England.
It's all seems terrifically silly when you mull it over whilst stuck in traffic.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Oct 13
Originally posted by SuzianneThere's a lot of Google results on both sides of this question, but many of the sources are themselves advocates for one side or another.
I would count such signers as very few indeed. Like maybe one or two. Maybe.
But
http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm
seems to be a balanced view because the author says "I am a subscriber to the Apostles' Creed (I've had a "subscription" since second grade). I would love to document that the most prominent Founding Fathers were orthodox Christians."
He finds it to be complicated, in that there is little evidence that the founders were orthodox Christians, but then again you might not be considered orthodox by some who post here.
25 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneIt just so happens that the Republicans are the best of what we have to choose from right now.
I swear, Ron, do you have any coherent thoughts at all?
All I've seen suggests you live in a fairytale land of your own making.
No wonder you're a republican tool.
The Instructor
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by Suzianne"It wasn't just an appeal to a segment of the population, it was the thinking of a vast majority of the population."
"a tactic to appeal to the religious"
Oh, really? It's my understanding that the type of wording in the Declaration was how most would-be Americans in the colonies felt at that time. It wasn't just an appeal to a segment of the population, it was the thinking of a vast majority of the population. It's just a good thing that the representatives to the ...[text shortened]... tal Congress got something right. Ditto the attendees to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
"The question I have had for some time is whether this will continue through the entire cycle of Bondage, Spiritual Faith, Courage, Liberty, Abundance, Selfishness, Complacency, Apathy, Dependence, then starting over with Bondage; or whether concerned and knowledgeable individuals can somehow halt the decline and keep us from going into a new period of bondage.....? Thread 156064 Thanks, Suzi. This referenced thread provides an Outline of The USA Historical Cycles.
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by rwingettSince you've obviously had a brain aneurysm...
Since you've obviously had a brain aneurysm, let me spell this out for you. The Constitution supersedes the Declaration of Independence. Any relevance the latter may have to the content of our republic is irrelevant. The Constitution trumps it in all respects. Grampy Bobby's OP, therefore, is likewise irrelevant, and no further consideration need be given t ...[text shortened]... ubt that your wounded pride will compel you to keep blathering on in your semi-coherent fashion.
Wutchewtalkinbout Willis?
Ah, the richness of the well-placed jab which is enhanced greatly with the knowledge that not only did your opponent not see it coming, neither do they understand what hit them!
let me spell this out for you.
Haven't you been spelling everything out, for everyone, all the time?
That's what I've been doing since I first got on here!
The Constitution supersedes the Declaration of Independence.
Oh. My.
"Supersedes" it? How, exactly?
The Constitution
first of its kind
is the structural foundation of law and separation of its governing body for the country.
The DoI is the statement made by the colonies to justify the war for separation it waged a year prior to its appearance.
They are two separately considered entities with the former sometimes being interpreted by the latter, but otherwise distinct and totally different both in intent and content.
One lists grievances while the other establishes the rule of law to be employed for the nation.
The Constitution emphatically does not set aside the DoI, as it simply follows as a natural result of what the DoI established; namely, here's why the US will be a separate nation
insert DoI here
and hereinsert the Constitution
is how that nation will be governed.
Any relevance the latter may have to the content of our republic is irrelevant.
Either woefully uninformed and belligerently ignorant, this statement clearly reveals a near-complete lack of perspective. The DoI
as as has the Bill of Rights
has been used repeatedly to help interpret the intent of the Constitution since the latter's inception. Why? Because the DoI shows original intent of the framers of the established nation and its subsequent actions. The DoI contains statements and sentiments which--- to this day--- continue to inform/remind us on the basics of human rights.
Like the Constitution, the DoI
both firsts
has become the conceptual cornerstone for many of the countries which followed the same path toward independence from their ruling parties.
There, that's clear enough that even a halfwit like yourself should be able to grasp it.
What is clear is that you are a troll. Whether or not you believe what you wrote is of speculation: one can only hope that a person possessed with the ability to read, write and form conceptual statements is not as bereft of these truths as you make yourself out to be.
But I don't doubt that your wounded pride will compel you to keep blathering on in your semi-coherent fashion.
It's not a wounded pride which compels me to respond to you.
It's pity.
25 Oct 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Since you've obviously had a brain aneurysm...
Wutchewtalkinbout Willis?[hidden]Ah, the richness of the well-placed jab which is enhanced greatly with the knowledge that not only did your opponent not see it coming, neither do they understand what hit them![/hidden]
let me spell this out for you.
Haven't you been spelling everything out, ...[text shortened]... -coherent fashion.[/b]
It's not a wounded pride which compels me to respond to you.
It's pity.[/b]
😴