Absolutely. The majority of the founders were against slavery - even many who were slave owners. The constitution is an anti-slavery document. The three-fifths compromise was about represenative power in the U.S. HoR. The unalienable rights of all men of all faiths and creeds are proclamed in the declaration and the constitution.[/quote]
If they owned slaves, they clearly weren’t all that against slavery.[/quote]
No, that’s not clear at all. I suggest you actually read about the period in question. I know you’re smarter than all the founding fathers and you’ve got a better constitution/bill of rights you figured out yourself and all that. But you really need to actually know something about a subject before you can develop an opinion worth expressing.[/quote]
One thing is clear: They didn’t work tireless to end slavery.
My contention is that the US is not a Christian nation, instead a secular nation full of Christians.
[/quote]
What works have you read on the period in question? I’m sure your contentions are based on a great deal of study right?[/quote]
I have not read anything from this period except the founding documents. Unfortunately I am unable to study every topic I would like more information on and rely on people who have and have given reliable information on the past. That’s how I formed my opinion.
Let me guess, you’re pulling this card because you studied something related to this topic in university?
Anyways here’s why:
There will be no religious test for public office or trust - article 6
1st amendment - You have free reign over your conscious
Read Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli - The government in any sense isn’t founded on the Christian Religion. It was debated and unanimously approved without any controversy or complaint about the language.
In 1786 Patrick Henry submitted a proposal to fund the the teaching of Christianity in schools. Virginians rejected this proposal and instead they passed the act for establishing religious freedom. This act which prohibits tax funding for religious institutions and religious test for public office was supported by Evangelicals who feared (as they were a minority to Episcopalians) government intrusion upon their right to practise their religion. The language in this Virginia act was the foundation for the religious test for public office and the 1st amendment.
Many times language was attempted to be introduced to show deference to Jesus Christ and every time it was voted down.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
ANd also SM said only Jefferson and maybe Franklin were non-Christians, which is untrue.
[/quote]
No, I said they were the only deists of which I am aware.[/quote]
Ok.
Since you didn’t know that, you could look into reading Thomas Paine’s book Age of Reason. I haven’t read it myself just know of it.
"The Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology is a deistic pamphlet, written by eighteenth-century British radical and American revolutionary Thomas Paine, that criticizes institutionalized religion and challenges the legitimacy of the Bible, the central sacred text of Christianity. Published in three parts in 1794, 1795, and 1807, it was a bestseller in the United States, where it caused a short-lived deistic revival. British audiences, however, fearing increased political radicalism as a result of the French Revolution, received it with more hostility. The Age of Reason presents common deistic arguments; for example, it highlights what Paine saw as corruption of the Christian Church and criticizes its efforts to acquire political power. Paine advocates reason in the place of revelation, leading him to reject miracles and to view the Bible as an ordinary piece of literature rather than as a divinely inspired text. It promotes natural religion and argues for the existence of a creator-God.
I have not read anything from this period except the founding documents. Unfortunately I am unable to study every topic I would like more information on and rely on people who have and have given reliable information on the past. That’s how I formed my opinion.
Let me guess, you’re pulling this card because you studied something related to this topic in university?
[/quote]
No. I’m not pulling a card. I seriously wanted to know what you base this stuff on. And now I know - nothing; something someone told you.
Why what?
Yes…
Yes…
I never said the government is “founded on the Christian religion.” I said it’s founded on the concepts of God-given unalienable rights and natural law.
What has that got to do with anything? I already made the point myself.
You talking about Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom? None of that means anything. Jesus isn’t mentioned in the Declaration, Constitution or Bill of Rights either.
No. I’m not pulling a card. I seriously wanted to know what you base this stuff on. And now I know - nothing; something someone told you.[/quote]
I’m basing my opinion on experts who have studied this stuff. Believe it or not, you rely on experts too. If any of my facts are incorrect feel free to point them out.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why what?[/quote]
Are we not debating on whether the US is a Christian Nation and whether that was what the founding fathers had intended? That’s what I’m arguing, that the US is not a Christian nation and the founding fathers never intended it to be .
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I never said the government is “founded on the Christian religion.” I said it’s founded on the concepts of God-given unalienable rights and natural law.[/quote]
On the first page you wrote
So the United States is a Christian Nation, but its institutions aren’t founded on the Christian religion? How did you get to Christian Nation from the Constitution and Bill of Rights if the Christian god is never explicitly mentioned?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You talking about Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom? None of that means anything. Jesus isn’t mentioned in the Declaration, Constitution or Bill of Rights either.[/quote]
It’s to show that the US was never meant to be a Christian Nation. Had they wanted it to be, they would’ve put it into these documents when the ideas where discussed and debated. So yes it does mean something.
One thing is clear: They didn’t work tireless to end slavery.
[/quote]
How is that clear? Someone told you it was clear?[/quote]
Gee it was legal for several decades after the founding of the country maybe?[/quote]
And you could have achieved it quicker? How would you have got the Constitution ratified with a federal anti-slavery clause? Just cut the crap raj. You have already admitted that you have read NOTHING about the founding of the country, the history of the colonies etc. You don’t have any idea what you are talking about. I can’t understand how you can hold strong opinions based on literally nothing. Dunning Kruger effect perhaps?
Are we not debating on whether the US is a Christian Nation and whether that was what the founding fathers had intended? That’s what I’m arguing, that the US is not a Christian nation and the founding fathers never intended it to be .
[/quote]
The fact that you are arguing about what the founding fathers intended when you have read NOTHING about the founding fathers and the early history of the colonies is beyond ridiculous. Can’t you see that?
Because literally ALL of the founding fathers were Christians, deeply religious, believed in God-given unalienable rights and natural law and enshrined these in the constitution. There is no “Christian” religion anyway. There’s dozens of denominations.
[quote]
It’s to show that the US was never meant to be a Christian Nation. Had they wanted it to be, they would’ve put it into these documents when the ideas where discussed and debated. So yes it does mean something.[/quote]
That’s a state constitution of the Virginian colonies. There were all sorts of bizarre state constitutions. Some even attempted to establish aristocracy/monarchy. That doesn’t mean the founders supported a monarchical government in America. You haven’t made any point.
In 1787 Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance Act forbidding slavery in the territory that would become Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin. This law proved to be of crucial importance to the end of slavery - Lincoln mentioned it frequently as a sign that the Founders opposed the expansion of slavery.
North Carolina would not ratify unless they were assured that “no regulations made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves.”
Although no Souther state abolished slavery there was broad agreement that slavery was wrong. Southern courts of law before the 1840’s generally took the position that slavery violates the natural rights of blacks. - Mississipi Supreme Court, 1818 - “Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature.”
So the constitution itself was used as a legal justification for abolitionism. In North Carolina, the state’s legislature denounced the state’s slave laws as “disgraceful to humanity and degrading in the highest degree to the laws and principles of a free, Christian and enlightened country.”
No they weren’t all Christians. Didn’t we already go over this?
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project.”
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.‘’ - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)
[quote]
That’s a state constitution of the Virginian colonies. There were all sorts of bizarre state constitutions. Some even attempted to establish aristocracy/monarchy. That doesn’t mean the founders supported a monarchical government in America. You haven’t made any point.[/quote]
It’s to point out that if they wanted to show deference to Jesus Christ they would have. If the founding fathers had intended to make the US a Christian Nation, why wouldn’t they have shown deference to Jesus Christ and specifically mention him in those documents?
Even after the fact there were several attempts to put Jesus into the Constitution and it failed.
One thing is clear: They didn’t work tireless to end slavery.
[/quote]
How is that clear? Someone told you it was clear?[/quote]
Gee it was legal for several decades after the founding of the country maybe?[/quote]
And you could have achieved it quicker? How would you have got the Constitution ratified with a federal anti-slavery clause? Just cut the crap raj. You have already admitted that you have read NOTHING about the founding of the country, the history of the colonies etc. You don’t have any idea what you are talking about. I can’t understand how you can hold strong opinions based on literally nothing. Dunning Kruger effect perhaps?[/quote]
So does the black slave in the box have inalienable rights?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In 1787 Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance Act forbidding slavery in the territory that would become Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin. This law proved to be of crucial importance to the end of slavery - Lincoln mentioned it frequently as a sign that the Founders opposed the expansion of slavery.
North Carolina would not ratify unless they were assured that “no regulations made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves.”
Although no Souther state abolished slavery there was broad agreement that slavery was wrong. Southern courts of law before the 1840’s generally took the position that slavery violates the natural rights of blacks. - Mississipi Supreme Court, 1818 - “Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature.”
So the constitution itself was used as a legal justification for abolitionism. In North Carolina, the state’s legislature denounced the state’s slave laws as “disgraceful to humanity and degrading in the highest degree to the laws and principles of a free, Christian and enlightened country.”[/quote]
And yet most of them owned slaves…The best you can get is they didn’t like it but tolerated it.
I never said the government is “founded on the Christian religion.” I said it’s founded on the concepts of God-given unalienable rights and natural law.
[/quote]
So did the black slave in the box also have god given inalienable rights?
I never said the government is “founded on the Christian religion.” I said it’s founded on the concepts of God-given unalienable rights and natural law.
[/quote]
So did the black slave in the box also have god given inalienable rights?
[/quote]
I never said the government is “founded on the Christian religion.” I said it’s founded on the concepts of God-given unalienable rights and natural law.
[/quote]
So did the black slave in the box also have god given inalienable rights?
[/quote]
