Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh.....why did some families fornicate with their first cousins?
History.
Here is what is true. Two of the top founders.
1. Thomas Jefferson - CUT every page relating to the miracles of JC out of the Bible - it's call the Jefferson Bible - look it up (you probably won't because it would undermine your world view).
His statements on religion are SO strong that you will winch. He says the priest is the ENEMY of liberty. He says we are in the age of Science and Reason.
"In 1804, Jefferson began piecing together his own version of the Gospels from which he omitted the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus, divinity, and the resurrection of Jesus – among many other teachings and events"
"Jefferson was most comfortable with Deism, rational religion, and Unitarianism"
"Jefferson sought what he called a "wall of separation between Church and State"
I won't even get into what he said about organized religion.......
2. Ben Franklin - if you want to know how far BACKWARDS we have come, look at Franklin. He was NEVER EVEN ASKED about his "faith" during his entire political life. When he was older, someone wrote to him and asked him if he thought Jesus was the "Son of Man" (Divine- Miracles, Virgin Birth, etc.).
His answer?
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire,
I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes,
and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity;
though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble."
----Ben was a funny guy, so he is saying he doesn't think about it but will die soon anyway and it will all be settled----to my knowledge he hasn't returned and told us anything.
This is fantastic in itself - can you imagine a pol today who doesn't profess (fake or real) "faith"?
More Jefferson:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent"
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
I think the above makes most of it clear. Obviously, having been English (most of them) they came from a Empire (unfortunately) rooted in Monarchy and a "State Church". So to say they were "Christian" is like saying we know electronics work. But they rejected ALL the evangelism, orthodoxy, organization, miracles, etc. for belief in SCIENCE AND REASON AND LOGIC.
I wish we could say the same for "Christians" today, but when they write Jefferson out of school books for not being a believer that shows their real scheme.
So, you don't think Christians believe in "science, reason, and logic?" Amazing we were able to ever accomplish anything, isn't it?
Texas has wrote him out in favor of "real christians" and you better believe Texas is proud of their slave heritage. The same books also changed the history of the Civil War and talk about slavery as a job and how well the slaves were treated.
It's proof positive of Jefferson's creed that they (conservatives) are so scared of his liberalism.
It's folks like you making this happen, IMHO - now we are going to have to go many generations into the future and fall further and further behind the rest of the world as we practice voodoo instead of science.
There are a lot of lies and half truths that have been circulated about Jefferson and some of the other founders for many decades by people who reject God and have an interest in banning all mention of God and the Bible from all public forums. You are obviously one of those people.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 09-29-2017 at 02:38 PM..
No one said they did. That's not the point and never has been . But the fact that one decided to do so in no way means that others are legally required to recognize your "marriage". That is my point you refuse to accept, even though you cant refute it. Your "marriage" has no societal standing. You get what benefits the law allows you to create through separate legal contracts, and then depend upon societies good will for others, and just flat out don't qualify and cant create certain other benefits beyond these that legally married people receive. All of which are automatically conferred to a legal marriage, without dispute or unnecessary legal contracts.
The thread is about Todd arguing that rights are bestowed by the government. I have shown where that is not true.
The thread is about Todd arguing that rights are bestowed by the government. I have shown where that is not true.
LOL. Not even close, dude. Bottom line, if the government says you don't have a certain right, you dont have it. End of story. I don't like or support that fact, but it is what it is, realistically.
His statement there did not mean what you seem to be alluding to. He wrote that in reply to someone that wanted the federal government to step in to stop one of the states from implementing a state religion. Something that was legal. He stated that the federal government could NOT do that.
It was a brilliant answer. He said, "what I think is really irrelevant as we all will soon enough find out for ourselves". Would I be wrong to assume you believe him to be wrong?
I've not seen where Jefferson has been written out of school books unless perhaps the argument was that he was a slave owner.
His statement in his letter to the Danbury Baptists was not intended to mean what it has been taken to mean by people who have an interest in keeping all mention of God and the Bible out of the public forum. However, a study of the origin of our Constitution, which has its roots in hundreds of years of English history, reveals the root of the "Establishment Clause" is "The 1100 Charter of Liberties" which stated, as to the Church, that The Holy Church of God will be free from the hand of Government. (King Henry I) The so-called establishment clause was to guarantee, like the Charter of Liberties, that the Government would not interfere with the Church. It was to protect the church from the hand of government, and to also prohibit the government from naming one church the only recognized Church, as had been the Church of England. That is the historical context of the First Amendment's "establishment clause," and the guarantee of religious freedom.
Well Government has a ton more to do with rights than God. Even if you're in that practice of believing in imaginary friends that's not even controversial. I mean, just assume your imaginary friend is in fact real. How many rights did people have in 1200 A.D.? Basically none. It's only after the stranglehold of the real imaginary friend's mouthpiece, the Catholic church, started being taken away that government was able to establish these "inalienable rights." I mean, you might have always had the right even if the imaginary friend's mouthpiece did not acknowledge it in theory. Without government that theoretical right means nothing. Go tell someone in Sudan about how they have the same rights you have.
Magna Carta was infinitely more important to said rights than God.
His statement in his letter to the Danbury Baptists was not intended to mean what it has been taken to mean by people who have an interest in keeping all mention of God and the Bible out of the public forum. However, a study of the origin of our Constitution, which has its roots in hundreds of years of English history, reveals the root of the "Establishment Clause" is "The 1100 Charter of Liberties" which stated, as to the Church, that The Holy Church of God will be free from the hand of Government. (King Henry I) The so-called establishment clause was to guarantee, like the Charter of Liberties, that the Government would not interfere with the Church. It was to protect the church from the hand of government, and to also prohibit the government from naming one church the only recognized Church, as had been the Church of England. That is the historical context of the First Amendment's "establishment clause," and the guarantee of religious freedom.
I don't disagree there but the restrictions at the time only applied to the Federal government.
As I've pointed out all along, the ratification did not give us our rights.
Correct. The Founders and Framers believed and the Constitution assumed our rights to exist. If you read the Federalist Papers, it provides the arguments for and against the "Bill of Rights." It was argued that if our rights were specifically listed, that some (as we are seeing today) would assume those rights were granted by government, and not inalienable. Others insisted that they must be affirmed, and in the end, that side won out. So, the Bill of Rights affirms, rather than grants those rights.
This is abundantly clear in the wording of the Second Amendment, which states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The phrase, "shall not be infringed," assumes that the right pre-exists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
