Our founding fathers were not conservative

[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.

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

You don't know much, lady, and you just demonstrated. I served my country because I want to serve my country, just as the men our country have done back to King Philip's War in New England. You don't have to honor my service, I agree, but you are acting stupidly with that type of talk.

 

[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.

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.

We are talking about the first country to separate church and state nationally in the world of the modern West. Don't even pretend that was a conservative action, nimrod.

 

[JakeStarkey]

T, you are no mainstream than is Hiter the secessionist. You crack me up when you drool like this.

 

[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)

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

What I don't understand is the split with what Liberalism once was and the night mare it has become. Anything at war with individual conscience has a big problem with the forces of creation. We are Witness, anything trying to corrupt that or manipulate it is not part of the solution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Let me put it this way, Mensa Boy: Do you know a lot of guys named Cecilie?

You might as well give up while you're behind, doofus. I think it's obvious just how much it matters what you believe or doubt about anything.

 

[Agit8r]

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.

What I don't understand is the split with what Liberalism once was and the night mare it has become. Anything at war with individual conscience has a big problem with the forces of creation. We are Witness, anything trying to corrupt that or manipulate it is not part of the solution.

Despite the freedom of conscience and homage, individuals are still obliged by the social compact to observe what Locke calls "duties they owe one another," or as Virginia's Declaration of Rights puts it:

"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; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

 

[Contumacious]

Yeah! Look at the quote! Patrick didn't want no LIBERAL[/COLORL crap! He wanted LIBERTY!

What Is Classical Liberalism?

by Ralph Raico

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism. Here we shall use liberalism to signify the classical variety."

.

 

[Agit8r]

Yeah! Look at the quote! Patrick didn't want no LIBERAL[/COLORL crap! He wanted LIBERTY!

What Is Classical Liberalism?

by Ralph Raico

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism. Here we shall use liberalism to signify the classical variety."

.

There was before that, another form of liberalism. What is called Rational Liberalism:

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."

http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html

Like terminology occurs over and over among the writings and speeches of the founding generation. They were--at least those who believed in the limits imposed by a written constitution--the rational sort of Liberals, rather than the English Whiggism that calls itself erroneously by the same name

 

[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 nothing like todays political system

 

[Neotrotsky]

Of course you are fakes...

Speaking of....

Jake you must be excited

30 more posts and you will top 15,000 posts on this board
with never once posting an original topic

Let me know when you cross that "threshold"
I know you can do it

Congrats !



Side note-
Did you know theocracies are a form of Statism?

 

[Intense]

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

What I don't understand is the split with what Liberalism once was and the night mare it has become. Anything at war with individual conscience has a big problem with the forces of creation. We are Witness, anything trying to corrupt that or manipulate it is not part of the solution.

Despite the freedom of conscience and homage, individuals are still obliged by the social compact to observe what Locke calls "duties they owe one another," or as Virginia's Declaration of Rights puts it:

"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; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Totally, Locke lived by two Great Commandments, Love God with All the Strength of Your Being, and Love Your Neighbor, Your Brother and Sister as Your Self. He also Established Non-Violent Civil Disobedience, accepting the Consequence, as a Tool of Protest against Injustice, where All Else Fails.

The Point that gets missed, here is more brought out in "The Emperor Has No Clothes". When you squash the Individual to bend to the will of Society beyond Reason, to the point that they prefer to to deny what they witness, for the sake of acceptance, you have committed a crime against the forces that govern creation. Part of the reason we are here is improve ourselves through cause and effect, through learning and knowledge. Another reason we are here is to Witness, and tell the honest truth about what we witness, from our own individual perspective, which we each possess separately. To mess with that for the sake of conformity, expediency, or anything else is a disservice to the individual and the group both, whether we see it or not. The Freedom to Speak the Truth. Unalienable Right. Our Obligation to Our Creator, takes Precedent over Everything Else. As a Christian or Jew, the First Two of the 10 Commandment's are Crystal Clear. When one needs to deny their faith or deny the truth as they witness it, or deny their Conscience to belong, it is not worth belonging.

 

[Agit8r]

What I don't understand is the split with what Liberalism once was and the night mare it has become. Anything at war with individual conscience has a big problem with the forces of creation. We are Witness, anything trying to corrupt that or manipulate it is not part of the solution.

Despite the freedom of conscience and homage, individuals are still obliged by the social compact to observe what Locke calls "duties they owe one another," or as Virginia's Declaration of Rights puts it:

"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; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Totally, Locke lived by two Great Commandments, Love God with All the Strength of Your Being, and Love Your Neighbor, Your Brother and Sister as Your Self. He also Established Non-Violent Civil Disobedience, accepting the Consequence, as a Tool of Protest against Injustice, where All Else Fails.

The Point that gets missed, here is more brought out in "The Emperor Has No Clothes". When you squash the Individual to bend to the will of Society beyond Reason, to the point that they prefer to to deny what they witness, for the sake of acceptance, you have committed a crime against the forces that govern creation. Part of the reason we are here is improve ourselves through cause and effect, through learning and knowledge. Another reason we are here is to Witness, and tell the honest truth about what we witness, from our own individual perspective, which we each possess separately. To mess with that for the sake of conformity, expediency, or anything else is a disservice to the individual and the group both, whether we see it or not. The Freedom to Speak the Truth. Unalienable Right. Our Obligation to Our Creator, takes Precedent over Everything Else. As a Christian or Jew, the First Two of the 10 Commandment's are Crystal Clear. When one needs to deny their faith or deny the truth as they witness it, or deny their Conscience to belong, it is not worth belonging.

If our founders are to be considered "conservative" then the above should inform the sensibilities of AM radio hosts who call people a waste of oxygen, and the like, and the sensibilities of those who listen to them however. As Madison put it "Liberty disdains to persecute."

 

[beowolfe]

More revisionist history from the right. Next they'll want us to believe that the confederates were the victims in the civil war.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Let me put it this way, Mensa Boy: Do you know a lot of guys named Cecilie?

You might as well give up while you're behind, doofus. I think it's obvious just how much it matters what you believe or doubt about anything.

As previously noted, you're a waste of my time.
Your post, above, does nothing to change this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade[/B].

Yes. Classical American Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism have little in common.
The Founding Fathers were of the fomer, not the latter.

 

[Agit8r]

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade[/B].

Yes. Classical American Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism have little in common.
The Founding Fathers were of the fomer, not the latter.

True. But it has very little in common with modern Conservatism as well

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade[/B].

Yes. Classical American Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism have little in common.
The Founding Fathers were of the fomer, not the latter.

True. But it has very little in common with modern Conservatism as well

Moreso than liberalism.
If nothing else, as I have stated, they fought the revolution to preserve what they had, a trait of modern conservativism.

 

[Agit8r]

Yes. Classical American Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism have little in common.
The Founding Fathers were of the fomer, not the latter.

True. But it has very little in common with modern Conservatism as well

Moreso than liberalism.
If nothing else, as I have stated, they fought the revolution to preserve what they had, a trait of modern conservativism.

Yes. Because conservatives were so up in arms about Bush usurping their civil liberties

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. Because conservatives were so up in arms about Bush usurping their civil liberties

Red herring.
Concervativism is, among other things, a philosophy that acts to maintain traditional institutions and customs, and, at the most, allow only a gradual change in society. This describes the actions of the Fathers, who, at the most basic level, fought to preserve the rights that they, as Englishmen, had always enjoyed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Despite the freedom of conscience and homage, individuals are still obliged by the social compact to observe what Locke calls "duties they owe one another," or as Virginia's Declaration of Rights puts it:

"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; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Totally, Locke lived by two Great Commandments, Love God with All the Strength of Your Being, and Love Your Neighbor, Your Brother and Sister as Your Self. He also Established Non-Violent Civil Disobedience, accepting the Consequence, as a Tool of Protest against Injustice, where All Else Fails.

The Point that gets missed, here is more brought out in "The Emperor Has No Clothes". When you squash the Individual to bend to the will of Society beyond Reason, to the point that they prefer to to deny what they witness, for the sake of acceptance, you have committed a crime against the forces that govern creation. Part of the reason we are here is improve ourselves through cause and effect, through learning and knowledge. Another reason we are here is to Witness, and tell the honest truth about what we witness, from our own individual perspective, which we each possess separately. To mess with that for the sake of conformity, expediency, or anything else is a disservice to the individual and the group both, whether we see it or not. The Freedom to Speak the Truth. Unalienable Right. Our Obligation to Our Creator, takes Precedent over Everything Else. As a Christian or Jew, the First Two of the 10 Commandment's are Crystal Clear. When one needs to deny their faith or deny the truth as they witness it, or deny their Conscience to belong, it is not worth belonging.

If our founders are to be considered "conservative" then the above should inform the sensibilities of AM radio hosts who call people a waste of oxygen, and the like, and the sensibilities of those who listen to them however. As Madison put it "Liberty disdains to persecute."

Your argument is moot, and doesn't hold water.