Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
13 years ago
What do we value?
Why do we value it?

I must say this, even though it will probably get both Tripp and Twinkie mad at me. I've never much cared whether the founders were deists, theists, any more than I've cared whether they were porcupine farmers. The whole debate strikes me as miscast.

The question is not whether the republic was founded on God or not; the question is whether the founders got the rules right. And whether we've followed their rules when we should and not followed them when we should.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the U.S. Constitution is set up to be vague. It's short. And its greatest pieces of genius -- its limitation of legislative power by enumeration, its first ten amendments focusing on limiting the state's power -- ensures that future generations must spend a great deal of effort in interpretation.

And, inevitably, a big part of that interpretation becomes "what did the Founders mean?"

Which naturally tempts us into thinking, "well, if we want to know what the founders meant when they said "X" in the Constitution, then we need to know what the individual founders' essential moral, religious, political beliefs were.

But that's where we go wrong. In figuring out what the Constitution says, we're not looking for what the founders as individuals believed about God. We're looking for what they decided collectively about how to constitute a nation and its government. Some of the founders were likely deists, some were likely theists, and some, like Thomas Paine, were undoubtedly atheists.

But the Constitution was decided upon at the intersection of beliefs, not as the union of beliefs. When Madison, et al, were writing the thing, they wrote not just for those who thought the same as they did about religion, politics, etc., but for those who thought differently.

The "intent of the founders" that matters in Constitutional interpretation is that intersection of beliefs. And the intersection of beliefs simply can't be reduced to this or that broad "-ism". Sorry, but the founders did not all share the same ideology, either religiously or politically.

What God wanted, what God "ordained" for them, these did enter into the calculation for some of them. But not for all, and not all in the same way.

The "religion clauses" in the Constitution were a reaction to specific historical experience (the "Established" Church of England, Test and Corporation Acts, 39 Articles, etc.). Attitudes toward non-Christian faiths, to the extent they entered the Constitutional calculation at all, were shaped by several hundred years of interaction between Christian and non-Christian that were, to be frank, very, very different than the interaction of the last 100-150 years.

It's another reason why the genius of Madison, et al, is so profound. Madison and the others didn't know how the world would change, but they knew that the world would change. They weren't just concerned with the specific abuses and usurpations of George III that Jefferson listed in 1776. They were wary of how the evolution of society would offer new opportunities for abuse and usurpation. So they designed the Constitution -- or tried to, anyway -- in a way that said "you can do this, and nothing else. If you want to do something else, then you have to amend the Constitution."

They may never have contemplated the modern nanny state, but they were well aware of the historical possibilities of centralized power and its dangers -- they knew of the history of France and Spain and Portugal, of Venice and Genoa, of the great Asian and North African empires. They also knew of the worries of majoritarianism: many of them feared, as much as did the Tories of England, the possibilities of democracy on the Paine-ite model.

And so they put together a Constitution that was designed, not to grant power, but to limit it. The separation of powers that we all heard about in school between the three branches, and the separation of powers between federal and state that, alas, too few of us learned about -- both of these were to limit power. And, most importantly, they limited the law-making power of the central state via enumerated powers in Article I and the Tenth Amendment.

They wrote the Bill of Rights, not to protect us from bad individuals, but to protect us from the exercise of state power.

Unfortunately, they didn't fully understand how the combination of majoritarianism and economic power-seeking would emasculate those limitations. They didn't understand how easy it would be for a majority to shift the burden of proof to those asserting freedom and away from those claiming a "need" to restrict it.

And they didn't predict how the majority view would come to be that "rights are civil rights, coming from the state". Whether the founders believed that certain rights came from God, from our nature as human beings isn't really important. What's important is that they believed that certain rights (life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness, as it were) existed wholly apart from state action. Unfortunately, very few of us today (and for this I blame our teachers and elders) believe this. We believe that rights are created through political and state action. "Civil rights".

The right to travel is NOT a privilege. It is a fundamental part of "pursuing happiness". And just as the technology of travel changes, so too does how we wish to pursue happiness. It is neither the state's function, nor should it be in the state's power, to decide how we do so unless we wish to do so in ways that inhibit another's freedom. Without the ability to travel in the technology of the day we have the choices of feudal serfs tied to the land of their lords.

And it is not OUR burden to show there is no inhibition. It is the state's burden to show that there is. Or should be.

As for freedom of religion, freedom from religion, etc. The right is against the state telling us how to practice. The right is against the state telling us how to practice if we want to politically participate. Had we not corrupted ourselves into thinking that the state is our nanny, to thinking that the state's function is to solve all our problems, to regulate everything and anything that our fellow citizens might do, 99.90% of the debates over establishment of religion would be moot. If we had not made ourselves so damned dependent on state funds for everything from education to consumer protection to etc etc etc, we wouldn't have to worry about whether those funds also go help support this religion over that one, or religion over atheist practice.

Too many changes have been made the wrong way. Too many changes have been made by legislation, by improper delegation of both constitutional and legislative functions to bureaucrats and agencies, by improper acquiescence in executive orders. Today's constitution lives and on its face looks like the original, but it no longer matches either the wisdom or the spirit of the Founders'. We might as well be living by the Code Napoleon. Or the collected writings of Jeremy Bentham.

Bah.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
13 years ago


I must say this, even though it will probably get both Tripp and Twinkie mad at me.

"Wade" wrote:



not at all. in fact, i think discussions or questions about this country being better or worse than it's intended roots are too abstract and esoteric to take very seriously. i simply took (and will continue to take) offense at the notion that a believer has a greater moral compass than a non-believer. that this country has become (is becoming?) something which has drifted from it's roots is because we have drifted from "God" is, in my opinion, incredibly insulting to all good people who do good things for the sake of humanity in general...without any "God" in their lives.

I agree with Twinkiegorilla.

bozz_2006 wrote:


Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
13 years ago
(shrug) ok.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
Are we still talking about God, or have we went back to the original topic? :shrug:
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
13 years ago
Well, Kevin, I _tried_ to link the two subthreads. 🙂
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Trippster
13 years ago
Twinkie,

I do not intend to throw anyone under the bus nor do I think I have. I do not understand how you feel personally offended. You don't have to agree with me and that is ok. You are certianly entitled to your point. However, apparently I am not entitled to my point without it being a personal attack on you. why is that?

Some of your post where you quoted me was not my thoughts but rather an excerpt from those in my research. It was comments of those far more educated in this area than I .

I feel that a large group of people (country, world) need transcending values. I feel that the base of this country was founded on christianity and that is why the doctine of this country has worked so well for so long. However, it is no longer that way. I don't think it is a coincidence.

Twinkie, don't take it as a personal afront. But let me ask you a question, why is it so emotionally alienating and offending to you? I think that deserves some examination from within.

The name Jesus creates more emotional reaction than any other name in history. I think it is because of what is at stake. Either one accepts him and (if he is who he says) gets the rewards or, they don't and suffer the greatest concequences of all time (once again, if he is what he claims).

So why such an issue with you?

If there is no God, there is no consequence for bad deeds that arent caught by police etc. However, with the belief of God comes the knowledge that he sees all and you will have to atone for your misdeeds when all is said and done. I think that is so important to civility.

I am tolerant fo your belief, why arent you of a differing view?
"Let Your Light Shine!"
13 years ago
please. now you're attempting to turn this around on me? as if i were the intolerant one? i've never thrown an entire culture of people under a bus for the sake of attempting to make a point. "you know why this country has gone to hell? it's the Jews. it's the atheists. it's everybody without a crucifix above their mantle." whether you like it or not--again--this is, in essence, what you said.

you really don't get how insulting you are being, do you? one need not call names to insult another. sometimes via omission of a word, sometimes via the logic of a phrase, sometimes the intention behind a phrase. in this instance you say "you are entitled to your point but i am not entitled to mine" and this is complete crap. sorry. but it is. if there are points here, again...you're missing them.

your point: this country was founded on Christianity. this country started out "good". therefore, this country was primarily good because it was primarily Christian. this also inherently includes then, the supposition that a Christian with God in their lives is a more morally & ethically sound human being. that this country has become less morally & ethically sound is because we have less Christians, or have moved away from Christianity.

my point: not only are you insulting everybody who is not a Christian, but you are being incredibly self-righteous and making a horrible judgment call against atheists, agnostics, and the secular world. my second point was that you are actually wrong about the founding of this country, but i agree that this is a different argument...one which can be proved through documentation (did you read the link i posted? probably not) yet not the thing which set me off.

these are not points where i say "chocolate is good" and you say "chocolate sucks" and both of us get to have an equally viable opinion. you are, whether you like it or not, patronizing everybody who does not adhere to your beliefs and placing yourself above them...because of those same beliefs (which is ridiculous, in my humble opinion...since religion is basically passed-down-indoctrination and all this usually means is you believe what's been told or taught to you without questioning it). and while you may be "tolerant" of my belief (i really have no proof of this, but i'll take your word) this does not exclude your self-righteous posturing. if you don't see it within yourself (most who believe in things believe also, that they are infallibly right--so it won't surprise me if you continue denying it) then i suggest you slow down and take a closer look within.

also: the idea that a country is more successful because of a reward-system--reminds me of the Spider Drawing Guy:

Permission Slip exchange 

You raise a valid point and I appreciate you pointing out my failings as a parent. Practising a system of ethics based on the promise of a reward, in your case an afterlife, is certainly preferable to practising a system of ethics based on it simply being the right thing to do.


I agree with Twinkiegorilla.

bozz_2006 wrote:


Zero2Cool
13 years ago
I've said it once, I've said it twice, I'll say it again. I believe that if our youth were to be better educated on how the nation became what it was today, accurately and with little to no bias that we'd as a whole appreciate our freedoms and "luxuries" more.

What do you think about that?
UserPostedImage
13 years ago

I've said it once, I've said it twice, I'll say it again. I believe that if our youth were to be better educated on how the nation became what it was today, accurately and with little to no bias that we'd as a whole appreciate our freedoms and "luxuries" more.

What do you think about that?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



lawlz. yes, Kev. i agree. i also agree that if our textbooks throughout our schooling had a more accurate and detailed account of history with less nationalistic pride and less exclusion of events which shed us in a poor light, we'd be a more educated and cultured country. 😉

I agree with Twinkiegorilla.

bozz_2006 wrote:


Zero2Cool
13 years ago
I agree about the textbooks. We're not a perfect nation and I think it gives others a sense of a need to be perfect. The think of 'hey our founding fathers were perfect, I have to be perfect too!'
UserPostedImage
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (8h) : Maybe
    Mucky Tundra (8h) : Yes
    Zero2Cool (10h) : No.
    Mucky Tundra (12h) : End of a Degu-era
    dhazer (12h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
    Zero2Cool (15h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
    Zero2Cool (16h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
    dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
    Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
    beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
    Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
    Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
    beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    Recent Topics
    3h / Around The NFL / beast

    8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.