Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes

[mattskramer]

Everything you said which also reflected values some brought from the Old World. Remember that it was British slave ships that transported the slaves to the New World and it was mostly black Africans who captured the slaves in the African bush and jungles and delivered them to the slave traders.

I am guessing that most of the descendents of those black Africans and those slave traders no longer support a concept of slavery either.

There is no civilization on Earth that doesn't have a really seamy history when that history is judged by 21st Century morality. So the trick is to judge people within the morality of THEIR day, not our day. And we judge ourselves by the morality that has evolved out of our experience together over all the centuries of our history and heritage.

Yet, don’t you support “original intent”? Aren’t you suggesting that we interpret the Constitution and treat America the way that our founding fathers wanted America to be treated? Supposedly they wanted America to be a “Christian Nation” or at least a “God fearing” nation. You supply us with quotes from our founding fathers. Yet, you provide excuses for them when I point out other things about them. Don’t you see the double standard? If times have changed and understanding have changed with respect to slavery and suffrage, couldn’t times and understandings have changed with respect to America needing to be a Christian or “God fearing” nation? It is not logical to have it both ways.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yet, don’t you support “original intent”? Aren’t you suggesting that we interpret the Constitution and treat America the way that our founding fathers wanted America to be treated? Supposedly they wanted America to be a “Christian Nation” or at least a “God fearing” nation. You supply us with quotes from our founding fathers. Yet, you provide excuses for them when I point out other things about them. Don’t you see the double standard? If times have changed and understanding have changed with respect to slavery and suffrage, couldn’t times and understandings have changed with respect to America needing to be a Christian or “God fearing” nation? It is not logical to have it both ways.

They DID want America to be a Christian nation. They SAW America as a Christian nation. But they realistically understood that Christianity was expressed in diverse ways among those first Americans and they didn't want the Federal government to have any power to dictate what any person must or must not say or believe about anything. So you have the First Amendment which protects religious belief and expression, speech, thoughts, ideas, hopes, dreams from any interference of any kind by the federal government.

Even among themselves in their day, some were persuaded by the empassioned arguments of others, and many came to change their perceptions about other things over time. But their morality and how they viewed the world in their day should determine how we judge them now. If they had lived in our day, I think all would still be most impressive individuals, but they would certainly see at least some aspects of moral virtue differently than they did in their day. I believe they all would still support America being a God-fearing nation that embraces Christian values I believe because I think they would still see our unalienable rights as being ordained by God and the best way to live our lives is to live it based on Christian principles.

And the First Amendment would protect their different view of morality now just as it did then, and not one would suggest that anybody should be required to be a Christian or any other manner of believer in God.

The original intent of the Constitution was to ensure and protect the unalienable right of people as pertains to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The wording was carefully crafted to ensure protection of those unalienable rights and it has withstood the test of time.

The regulatory parts of the Constitution to ensure the practical order and interaction of society and provide a means to enforce the principles embodied in the Constitution were of course designed to change as society changed so a process to amend the Constitution was also included.

It is a remarkable document and there is no reason to think that the original intent of the Founders re broad principles is any less practical today than it was then.

 

[mattskramer]

They DID want America to be a Christian nation. They SAW America as a Christian nation. But they realistically understood that Christianity was expressed in diverse ways among those first Americans and they didn't want the Federal government to have any power to dictate what any person must or must not say or believe about anything. So you have the First Amendment which protects religious belief and expression, speech, thoughts, ideas, hopes, dreams from any interference of any kind by the federal government.

Even among themselves in their day, some were persuaded by the empassioned arguments of others, and many came to change their perceptions about other things over time. But their morality and how they viewed the world in their day should determine how we judge them now. If they had lived in our day, I think all would still be most impressive individuals, but they would certainly see at least some aspects of moral virtue differently than they did in their day. I believe they all would still support America being a God-fearing nation that embraces Christian values I believe because I think they would still see our unalienable rights as being ordained by God and the best way to live our lives is to live it based on Christian principles.

And the First Amendment would protect their different view of morality now just as it did then, and not one would suggest that anybody should be required to be a Christian or any other manner of believer in God.

The original intent of the Constitution was to ensure and protect the unalienable right of people as pertains to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The wording was carefully crafted to ensure protection of those unalienable rights and it has withstood the test of time.

The regulatory parts of the Constitution to ensure the practical order and interaction of society and provide a means to enforce the principles embodied in the Constitution were of course designed to change as society changed so a process to amend the Constitution was also included.

It is a remarkable document and there is no reason to think that the original intent of the Founders re broad principles is any less practical today than it was then.

I’m saying that we should not base things for America on original intent. They wanted (intended) slavery in America. They wanted more land to be taken from the Indians. They wanted to deny women the right to vote.

 

[Shogun]

It is simply not true that the FFs intended for this nation to be a christian nation. Fox can rant on for the rest of her natural born life and this will still be the case. christians didn't invent the US. they didn't create democracy for damn sure. They have never been interested in widespread liberty unless THEY are the ones trying to be free. The FFs understood this and specifically sidestepped infusing christian dogma into the Constitution. Bible thumpers may disagree but, given their record on gravity, flat earth, heliocentrism, medicine and social domination their appeals fall short of convincing.

 

[mattskramer]

It is simply not true that the FFs intended for this nation to be a christian nation. Fox can rant on for the rest of her natural born life and this will still be the case. christians didn't invent the US. they didn't create democracy for damn sure. They have never been interested in widespread liberty unless THEY are the ones trying to be free. The FFs understood this and specifically sidestepped infusing christian dogma into the Constitution. Bible thumpers may disagree but, given their record on gravity, flat earth, heliocentrism, medicine and social domination their appeals fall short of convincing.

I see your point. Yet, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Foxfyre is correct in that the founding fathers intended for this to be a Christian nation. So what? The founding fathers were not perfect. Also, times and understandings have changed.

 

[Foxfyre]

I’m saying that we should not base things for America on original intent. They wanted (intended) slavery in America. They wanted more land to be taken from the Indians. They wanted to deny women the right to vote.

You cannot tie these 'wants' to the Constitution, however. Yes the vote was afforded to men because the man was the head of the household--a Christian principle by the way--and therefore the one delegated to chart the future of his family, his community, his nation. It was right for that time. When that point of view changed, the Constitution was amended accordingly and ratified by the States with little opposition.

There was nothing in the Constitution that condoned or authorized slavery any more than there is anything in the Constitution that authorizes cattle ranching or exploration for oil. Those were matters left to the States and the practices and laws of the individual states varied widely in their views of slavery and laws governing slavery. As I previously said, this was not unique to the Colonies but was a concept that had existed for all of recorded human history. There is not one of us living today who did not descend from societies that practiced slavery.

When it was determined that the majority of the people disapproved of slavery and this should be a universal principle rather than have states divided on the issue, the Thirtheenth Amendment was passed and again ratified with little problem. It was not that the Constitution was interpreted in a way that changed with changing social values. When social values change, the Constitution remains the same but with a necessary amendment attached.

Our ancestors did what people have always done for all of human history. They explored and migrated and established new societies throughout the New World. The Indians inappropriately resisted that on more than a few occasions, just as the Indians treated each other inappropriately by modern moral standards, but there is no way to deny that that the immigrating Europeans from Spaniards to Irishmen to Englishmen and all other areas did also treat the Indians unconscionably. Again this was not authorized by the Constitution but occurred out of the more temporal law and authority of the land. It was stopped by Fourteenth Amendment granting equal protection to all along with negotiated pacts and treaties with the various Indian Tribes and establishing each tribe as a sovereign nation.

The Constitution was not changed. It was amended to reflect changing moral values.

The Constitution can still quite adequately and competently be interpreted re its original intent plus the amendments added to reflect changing attitudes of the American people.

 

[Shogun]

I see your point. Yet, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Foxfyre is correct in that the founding fathers intended for this to be a Christian nation. So what? The founding fathers were not perfect. Also, times and understandings have changed.

and I would agree. The Constitution is a living document that was meant to be amended and judged according to the standing America. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin both understood the irony of their righteous claims and the social fact of slavery. They both understood that a different America would do what they simply could not in regards to abolition. I don't think that it makes one difference to the corpse of Washington that we clarify the fact that christians are not the dog pissing on the territory of America. Yet, We uphold a seperation of church and state because the founding fathers saw the direct result of such. Fought one off, you might say. This is valuable facts to have around when dogma junkies try so desperatley to inject their religion into the common politic. Look at ID. This is really no different than that.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not about interjecting dogma into it. It's about maintaining a moral constitution.

Morality and Christianity often are partners.

And remember, that although we are supposed to separate church and state,the constitution also protects our right to practice our religion, and adhere to our beliefs. The government does not have the right nor should it to shunt those beliefs aside just because there's a "separation". The left uses that separation to smother morality and bastardize the constitution, and that was certainly not on our forefathers' radar.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not about interjecting dogma into it. It's about maintaining a moral constitution.

Morality and Christianity often are partners.

And remember, that although we are supposed to separate church and state,the constitution also protects our right to practice our religion, and adhere to our beliefs. The government does not have the right nor should it to shunt those beliefs aside just because there's a "separation". The left uses that separation to smother morality and bastardize the constitution, and that was certainly not on our forefathers' radar.

Separation of Church and State was an invention never written into the Constitution. As previously posted the Founders had absolutely no problem with religious faith expressed anywhere. What they would not allow, however, is for the government to have any power to dictate what form that faith would take or how it would be expressed.

Again, Jefferson's 'wall of separation' was a metaphor to reassure the Danbury Baptists that they had nothing to fear from their government. There was no notion that the government needed protection from the Baptists or any other religious group.