July 4, 1776 - July 4, 2011

Ladewig said:
Yes. It is magnificent. My first question is why you didn't highlight any of the magnificent parts?

How could they be so stupid as to think slavery was compatible with a Divine Creator? [not a rhetorical question]

<snip>
As for my opinion on faith in God in general, my answer is: It depends. The faith that drives people to open soup kitchens, to give scholarships to poor students to attend private schools, to found charity hospitals and clinics, to advocate for the rights of the oppressed, to give comfort to the marginalized, to create a sense of community - that is a good thing. <snip>
Click to expand...

You don't need to believe in God to do any of there things.
 
Jude.. why is it "their Creator" and not "the Creator"? Why is it "Nature's God" and not "God" or "Jesus"? Also, when you talk about God, which one are you referring to?


"That was then. This is now. Surely, we are so much smarter now."

Smarter, maybe. More educated, definitely.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
The FFs were deists, theists and agnostics. Nice mix and the reason imo for the (non) establishment clause. Expunging faith as a de-facto requisite for public office would be nice. Don't really much care about a person's personal superstitions as long as I don't have to follow them.
Click to expand...
I thought this is in the Constitution.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I've never liked it. They didn't properly source their Enlightenment philosophy, and didn't back up their "self-evident" ideas, thus setting the tone of college papers to this day.
Click to expand...
Actually, the ideas and the format of the Declaration of Independence are much older than the Enlightment. A striking parallel is the Dutch 1581 Plakkaat van Verlatinghe (and article comparing them).

Anyway, happy birthday USA!
 
MontagK505 said:
You don't need to believe in God to do any of there things.
Click to expand...

Yes! You are right.

Still, there are large numbers of people who would not do those things except for their faith. And while I do not have numbers at hand, I suspect that the number of faith-based hunger programs rivals, if not exceeds, the number of non-faith-based, non-governmental hunger programs.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
The FFs were deists, theists and agnostics. Nice mix and the reason imo for the (non) establishment clause. Expunging faith as a de-facto requisite for public office would be nice. Don't really much care about a person's personal superstitions as long as I don't have to follow them.
Click to expand...

MontagK505 said:
I thought this is in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

de facto versus de jure.
The law says no religious test may be used. We are still decades away from electing an un-closeted atheist to the office of president.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
de facto versus de jure.
The law says no religious test may be used. We are still decades away from electing an un-closeted atheist to the office of president.
Click to expand...

Thanks for expressing it more precisely.
 
JJM 777 said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

What did they think about women back then, when writing this? I know the word "men" could theoretically mean humans generally, but it didn´t back then, not in a context of political rights.
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson who wrote that owned upwards of 700 slaves, one of whom he got pregnant on no less than six seperate occaisons, still, it does say created equal, then goes quiet about their futures
:p
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
de facto versus de jure.
The law says no religious test may be used. We are still decades away from electing an un-closeted atheist to the office of president.
Click to expand...

No religious requirement per se, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for people to not vote for you because of your religion, or lack thereof.
 
I could probably find some documents of Isaac Newton writing on the medical benefit of leeches or some other presently discredited medical practice.

Do we think we're smarter than Newton in dismissing leeches?:p
 
Foster Zygote said:
The Declaration of Independence is not "the founding document" of the United States of America. It is a piece of political rhetoric, not a legal document. The actual founding document of the USA is the Constitution of the United States and it contains no mention of deities at all other than the traditional dating convention.
Click to expand...

^This x1000.

The DoI was a middle finger to the British. The Constitution was how the country was to be run.
 
JJM 777 said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

What did they think about women back then, when writing this? I know the word "men" could theoretically mean humans generally, but it didn´t back then, not in a context of political rights.
Click to expand...


The Founders were quite prolific; do yourself a favor and read what they meant when writing the Declaration, Preamble, and Constitution.
 
Beerina said:
No religious requirement per se, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for people to not vote for you because of your religion, or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

Yes! You are right. People can choose to vote on whatever basis they wish.

The topic at hand was how to respond to:
JudeBrando said:
Do you believe that expunging their faith from the nation, as much as reasonably possible, would make for a better nation?
Click to expand...

I assumed that Resume was suggesting that it might be nice if the nation did decide (not by law or edict but by choice) to expunge faith from the voting booth. I will confess that I was making a wild-assed assumption there, because I have no idea who or what the antecedent is in JudeBrando's phrase "expunging their faith."
 
The DoI basically said "Y'all brits are over there and us 'mericans are over here. You got no rights to tell us what to do." The USA wasn't founded when it was signed.

In fact, 13 countries with names like "Virginia", "Delaware", and "Maryland" were created. Many of the residents of those states/countries had a fear of, and wanted to remain independent of, any large centralized government. The Articles of the Confederation was the first attempt to create a single country. They wanted a weak federal government, but the federation created by the AoC was too weak so it was replaced with the current constitution.

All three documents were pretty incredible and forward-thinking for their time. The fact that one of the three (specifically the one that has no real legal standing) mentions god or a creator in a general sense does not mean that our nation was founded by bible-thumping christian fundamentalists.

Also, the founding fathers were simply some of the few educated and well read men of their time. They are not the prophets of america. The idea of them as divinely inspired is a relatively new idea. As an example, this statue of Washington depicting him as a greek god was ridiculed when it was first unveiled. http://www.smithsonianlegacies.si.edu/objectdescription.cfm?ID=66

I've wondered, since the British government didn't recognize the US as a country until 1856 did they just consider us a bunch of colonies they weren't paying their taxes?
 
Cavemonster said:
I could probably find some documents of Isaac Newton writing on the medical benefit of leeches or some other presently discredited medical practice.

Do we think we're smarter than Newton in dismissing leeches?:p
Click to expand...

you can find modern academics writing on the medical benefit of leeches, theres no need to go back in time for that as medicinal leeches are an important part of some surgeries
http://www.biopharm-leeches.com/info_leeches.html
:D
 
thaiboxerken said:
Oh, it's wrong. It's just not illegal.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, a persons religious beliefs can be useful as a judge of character or intelligence. Take the former Governor of Alaska, I regard her particular variant of Christan belief to be full bore fruit-loop.
 
Perhaps, but I don't think a lack of religious belief is useful to judge a person's character or intelligence.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Perhaps, but I don't think a lack of religious belief is useful to judge a person's character or intelligence.
Click to expand...

No but it would suggest not believing in the supernatural.
It's hard to imagine an atheist believing in ghosts, faeries or evil spirits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom