Our founding fathers were not conservative

[bigrebnc1775]

according to Merriam Webster, the word conservative [noun] dates to 1831

Conservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



so thank you for agreeing with my original statement

This part of the discussion is not about being liberal conservative Christians or anything else. You claimed they, or at least those that opposed big government, or some of the founders where Humanist. I am still waiting on you to prove your point. After you have done this we can discuss the conservative part.

so thank you for agreeing with my original statement

You haven't a clue what century the 17oo's is in do you?

I was pointing out the absurdity of your argument. We exist in the here and now, therefore we can use whatever vocabulary we please to describe anything. Various others already have, as they have described our founders as "conservative." A term that only existed for the last three years of James Madison's life (after the other founders had already passed)

I was pointing out the absurdity of your argument.

Whats absurbed is that you are trying to use a word by todays meaning which meant something totally different during the period of time that you are trying to use it for.

We exist in the here and now, therefore we can use whatever vocabulary we please to describe anything.

OK, But we are talking about 18th century men, They were then and that is what we are discussing.

Lets play word assiocation
What does birthday suit mean?

Various others already have, as they have described our founders as "conservative." A term that only existed for the last three years of James Madison's life (after the other founders had already passed)

You need to read some of my other post. I have said thery are neither liberal or conservative. They are nothiung like todays political system

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nor were any of them followers of Christianity. But what the hay since when has the truth set anyone free in this country?

Truth? To say the above^^^^^ and mention the word truth in the same sentence is very dishonest to say the least.

Perhaps you should read something other than Flash cards on the subject. If you can find anything anywhere in any history book, autobiography, biography or other treatise on the subject of the founders of this nation which provides valid undisputed proof that any of those men were Christians - please do so. I am eager to read what you believe proves your point.

Let me get you started - Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights - needless to say he was also integral to the writing of the Constitution - so here are couple of things he had to say on the subject of religion, generally, and Christianity, specifically.

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone. Letter to John Adams.

I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter being worshiped by many who think themselves Christians. Thomas Jefferson - 1789.

Hardly the words of a devout Christian, now are they? No doubt a prime reason why the First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion thereby making separation of church and state the law of the land.

America was most definitely founded by men who believed in God. However none of them were Christians and I can find many accounts backing that up. The greatest thing about the truth is that no matter what you do with it - it is still the truth.

Starting with your subtitle:

Of course Jesus Christ wasn't a Christian, in the sense that a "Christian" is a follower of Christ, and one cannot be one's own follower. Duhhh.

Second of all, Thomas Jefferson was NOT integral to the writing of the Constitution. He wasn't even in the country at the time, you smucking moron. He was acting as minister to France at the time.

"Because Jefferson served as minister to France from 1785 to 1789, he was not able to attend the Philadelphia Convention. He generally supported the new constitution despite the lack of a bill of rights and was kept informed by his correspondence with James Madison."
"The United States Constitutional Convention[1] (also known as the Philadelphia Convention,[1] the Federal Convention,[1] or the Grand Convention at Philadelphia) took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." - Wikipedia (Yeah, I know, I normally don't like Wikipedia as a source, but in this case, the information is so widely-known and available, it's not worth the effort of looking for another citation.)

I'm glad to hear that you believe that simply because you can list a bunch of highly selective quotes from ONE MAN, that tells us everything we need to know about the religious beliefs of the HUNDREDS of men who belong to the group known as our "Founding Fathers". It confirms my initial impression of you as a anaerobic puddle of sludge and puts to rest any concerns I might have had that I was misjudging you.

If you can find "many accounts" for your assertion that none of our Founding Fathers were Christians, as you claim you can, please do share with us. Because right now, you're not just batting zero. You haven't even left the dugout.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All it means is that you've forced Fakey into his spider hole...only to lick the wounds suffered...and regroup in his doctrine of Dipshittery.

I know it's just a dream that junior will one day become a man.

And he will somehow earn the pay of the idiots that sent him to USMB.

Well, leftists ARE fond of giving people money just for breathing in and out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I notice that nobody acknowledged that our founders (or at least those who supported a limited government) were humanists, regardless of their religious denomination o_0

Two questions: "Humanist" meaning what, in your opinion? Why SHOULD anyone have mentioned it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hamilton contradicts himself several times regarding the allocation of power in a general and then specific sense. He is consistent in his view here only in that hiis writings support whatever HE wants to be able to do at the time.

Given that you can quote Hamilton making both sides of the same argument indictates that his words here are useless.

Madison's interpretation of the clause is, however, consistent within his other writings. There's no sound reason to accept the Hamiltonian construct over the Madisonian, other than you, like Hamilton, want the government to be able to do whatever you want it to do.

Hey, genius, while you're analyzing the meanings in people's writings, perhaps you could give a quick once-over to my post and then explain to me how you came to the insulting and egregiously incorrect assumption that I 1) agree with Hamilton OR the dimwit I was responding to, or 2) have any desire for "the government to be able to do whatever I want it to do.

In future, please try to refrain from responding to people until you have at least SOME ******* clue what they actually said. Thank you so much in advance for your expected increase in English competence from this moment forward.

Grow up, son.

At least I, unlike you, have matured to the point where I know the difference between boys and girls.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know it's just a dream that junior will one day become a man.

And he will somehow earn the pay of the idiots that sent him to USMB.

Well, leftists ARE fond of giving people money just for breathing in and out.

I wish somebody would give me money for making you fakes on the far far right look absolutely stupid every single day. The GOP wants your votes, but it does not need you talking in public making the party look stupid.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And he will somehow earn the pay of the idiots that sent him to USMB.

Well, leftists ARE fond of giving people money just for breathing in and out.

I wish somebody would give me money for making you fakes on the far far right look absolutely stupid every single day. The GOP wants your votes, but it does not need you talking in public making the party look stupid.

first you must show proof someone is faking then you can make that claim. I am tried of teaching you these kind of things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course you are fakes. You pretend to know what you are talking about. I am glad you are following my suggestions in posting. Good for you. There is hope.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course you are fakes. You pretend to know what you are talking about. I am glad you are following my suggestions in posting. Good for you. There is hope.

Excuse me? Your suggestions? Runaway jake runaway .

 

[Intense]

Much of the War of Independence was indeed conservative in preservation of those rights. However, the separation of church and state protected by of a barrier to a nationally established religion was the first such national law in the nations of the West. That was undoubtedly liberal.

Not even close Jake. Let me give you a clue. Liberalism is at war with Conscience. Liberalism is at war with the Individual. Liberalism is about collectivism, group think, consensus, relative morality. Compare that to this. Our Obligation to our Maker, in matters of Conscience. takes precedence to our obligation to Society. Both Conscience and Unalienable Rights are an Offense to the Liberal Mind. The Collective Mind is threatened by what it can't control. Follow the Link, study the complete document.

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

 

[California Girl]

And he will somehow earn the pay of the idiots that sent him to USMB.

Well, leftists ARE fond of giving people money just for breathing in and out.

I wish somebody would give me money for making you fakes on the far far right look absolutely stupid every single day. The GOP wants your votes, but it does not need you talking in public making the party look stupid.

You are representative of all that is wrong with your party. It is why your party will change - or it will die... You are the people that Rdean complains about. Remember one thing Jake... It ain't your party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Much of the War of Independence was indeed conservative in preservation of those rights. However, the separation of church and state protected by of a barrier to a nationally established religion was the first such national law in the nations of the West. That was undoubtedly liberal.

Not even close Jake. Let me give you a clue. Liberalism is at war with Conscience. Liberalism is at war with the Individual. Liberalism is about collectivism, group think, consensus, relative morality. Compare that to this. Our Obligation to our Maker, in matters of Conscience. takes precedence to our obligation to Society. Both Conscience and Unalienable Rights are an Offense to the Liberal Mind. The Collective Mind is threatened by what it can't control. Follow the Link, study the complete document.

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

Intense, you truly don't understand classical liberalism, then, and I will leave it at that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's your opinion, your entitled to it, and I served many years so that all of us can have our opinions without fear.

 

[California Girl]

That's your opinion, your entitled to it, and I served many years so that all of us can have our opinions without fear.

Bullshit. You served because it made you feel important. It made you feel like you were 'somebody'. You aren't.

 

[The T]

That's your opinion, your entitled to it, and I served many years so that all of us can have our opinions without fear.

Bullshit. You served because it made you feel important. It made you feel like you were 'somebody'. You aren't.

He's an attention whore. He must be one boring-ass person. And besides? Who would want to be friends with a fraud?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Much of the War of Independence was indeed conservative in preservation of those rights. However, the separation of church and state protected by of a barrier to a nationally established religion was the first such national law in the nations of the West. That was undoubtedly liberal.

Not even close Jake.

Indeed. Religious freedom was a basic right of an Englishman; to seperate the church and the state was nothing but a step to further guarantee that freedom.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Conservative" in what sense?

In that their impetus for the revolution was to preserve what they had, specifically, the Rights of Emglishmen, that had been eroded over the 10 or so years prior.

"MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for and that without having recourse to the harsh ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice"
-- Thomas Paine; from Common Sense (1776)

Yes. I do wonder - how do you think that applies to what I said.

 

[The T]

And he will somehow earn the pay of the idiots that sent him to USMB.

Well, leftists ARE fond of giving people money just for breathing in and out.

I wish somebody would give me money for making you fakes on the far far right look absolutely stupid every single day. The GOP wants your votes, but it does not need you talking in public making the party look stupid.

We so-called fakes on the so-called far right are mainstream Fakey...and it's like putting a bee in your bonnet.

It pisses you off. GOOD.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey, genius, while you're analyzing the meanings in people's writings, perhaps you could give a quick once-over to my post and then explain to me how you came to the insulting and egregiously incorrect assumption that I 1) agree with Hamilton OR the dimwit I was responding to, or 2) have any desire for "the government to be able to do whatever I want it to do.

In future, please try to refrain from responding to people until you have at least SOME ******* clue what they actually said. Thank you so much in advance for your expected increase in English competence from this moment forward.

Grow up, son.

At least I, unlike you, have matured to the point where I know the difference between boys and girls.

Given your infantile behavior thus far, I doubt that very much.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, leftists ARE fond of giving people money just for breathing in and out.

I wish somebody would give me money for making you fakes on the far far right look absolutely stupid every single day. The GOP wants your votes, but it does not need you talking in public making the party look stupid.

We so-called fakes on the so-called far right are mainstream Fakey...and it's like putting a bee in your bonnet.

It pisses you off. GOOD.

Psst...
Don't feed the troll.