- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 5,768
- Reaction score
- 2,932
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
The deists stories aren't even proven, except for atheists and others who don't want to acknowledge that most of our founders were Christian.
Diests were present within the founding group even though some might have called themselves Christians in name only. Surely you are not arguing that Jefferson was not a deist.
You started using the term deists, and you did it for a reason; as most do. They don't want to acknowledge the existence of Christian thought in the founding of our country's politics. Deist was a term used during the Enlightenment, and basically you don't see it any other time. It's still Christian based, unless you want to try to sell us on the idea that Jefferson Bible was based on Islam?
Yeah, like your very liberal self.You brought up Christianity in order to destroy the influence of deism in the enlightenment period. Like Dan Barton, some Christians desperately want to link any progress made by mankind to Christianity while treating the horrors of that religion like a forgotten uncle. Christian thought had virtually nothing to do with the DoC or the Constitution but some persist as you seem to do here. Believe whatever you want, I could care less. History is not dependent upon a common understanding by observers 230 years later.
Yeah, like your very liberal self.
"[FONT="]We hold [U][B]these truths[/B][/U] to be self-evident, that [B][U]all men are created[/U][/B] equal, that they are endowed [U][B]by their Creator[/B][/U] with certain unalienable Rights..."
[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#555555][FONT="] And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
The Declaration of independence declares that humans were "created" and states a reliance on "divine Providence." Isn't that a violation of the separation of church and state? [/FONT]
I know exactly what you mean and mostly agree with you. I guess I am just trying to explain the mental gymnastics Jefferson and many others went through to justify their actions when their words were diametrically opposed. They were complex men to say the least. If you think about it, this is why it is almost impossible to use original intent as the basis for interpreting the law today. If you followed original intent to the letter, you would have to force the government to redefine what terms meant in order to modernize them. For instance, to Jefferson the word "freedom" meant X, to us it might mean "x+y". An originalist would force you to use X and then amend the constitution to add y. Thanks for the conversation, it's nice to talk to someone that knows the history.
A clarification, if I may. An "originalist" does not care about "intent." Originalists really could not care less what Jefferson or anyone from the era "intended."
I am unsure what you mean by this comment. Perhaps you agree with me that originalism is merely a ruse to impose modern opinions upon the law by using an opinion of what intent meant to men that lived 230 ago. Or perhaps you think that originalism is not concerned with intent which is wrong at least as far it is does not describe the way they sell it to others.
Or perhaps you think that originalism is not concerned with intent which is wrong at least as far it is does not describe the way they sell it to others
as far it is does not describe the way they sell it to others
I do not believe "originalism is merely a ruse." Originalists are not concerned with and neither do they obsess over what someone "intended" or their "intent."
No, I am very much right! Originalists, such as Scalia, Barnett, Solum, do not care for intent. Original intent is derided by Originalists. Scalia devotes some ink in his book, "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," to repudiating original intent and any focus upon intent.
I have no idea what you are referencing but Originalists sell Originalism to others as the method of looking for the "reasonable, public meaning" at or near the time of ratification. Originalists are not "selling" intent.
I realize that you are just trolling but I'll bite. The Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is neither establishment nor prohibiting the free exercise."[FONT="]We hold [U][B]these truths[/B][/U] to be self-evident, that [B][U]all men are created[/U][/B] equal, that they are endowed [U][B]by their Creator[/B][/U] with certain unalienable Rights..."
[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#555555][FONT="] And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
The Declaration of independence declares that humans were "created" and states a reliance on "divine Providence." Isn't that a violation of the separation of church and state? [/FONT]
I think you are confusing textualists with originalists. Scalia started out as an originalist but realized after being on the bench that it just did not work so he adopted an new way of looking at the law called "textualism". Originalists did concern themselves with original intent. Heller is a great example of that....
If you want to see what a person believes, look at how they live their life every day. Look at what they do and not at what they say. His life says the words about all men are created equal and have certain rights was nonsense. Jerrferson kept slaves - some 100 of them and denied them their rights that the Creator gave all men.
Why don't you quit this fake historian bull**** about Jefferson not believing in what he wrote. The point of Jefferson's work is the people who do believe in it have worked to make it more true. We get you rail against it as a way to nullify anything in the constitution to your political advantage and then quote it vociferously when its something you believe in deeply. You are a historical hypocrite because you want to use your beliefs in Jefferson to make people less free.
You make me sick because its all so very fake and self serving for you.
"[FONT="]We hold [U][B]these truths[/B][/U] to be self-evident, that [B][U]all men are created[/U][/B] equal, that they are endowed [U][B]by their Creator[/B][/U] with certain unalienable Rights..."
[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#555555][FONT="] And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
The Declaration of independence declares that humans were "created" and states a reliance on "divine Providence." Isn't that a violation of the separation of church and state? [/FONT]
Did we really have to ask this question? Which snowflake out there thinks that somehow a display of the Declaration of Independence is all of a sudden unconstitutional?
I see the personal attack upon me but I fail to see the denial that Jefferson kept 600 people in condition of slavery as a complete denial of their humanity and in the so called equal rights that he claimed ALL MEN have.
None. It’s a strawman constructed by those who believe in government sponsored religion.
I criticize your ****ty posts. His words were an ideal, and one that has been strived for. Because a man is imperfect doesn't mean everything he does is invalidated.
If that were the case, you would be a black hole of invalidation. We all would.
Joko want a government sponsored religion?
Ummm could you try that again? Either you made a typo or used some non-standard English. Either way, I don’t know what you meant.
More with your personal petty attacks.
You judge a man by the totality of the way he lives his life. One day in a life does not determine his history.
Jefferson did not even believe in some of the stuff he wrote. It was a lot of hype and he knew it.
Why don't you quit this fake historian bull**** about Jefferson not believing in what he wrote. The point of Jefferson's work is the people who do believe in it have worked to make it more true. We get you rail against it as a way to nullify anything in the constitution to your political advantage and then quote it vociferously when its something you believe in deeply. You are a historical hypocrite because you want to use your beliefs in Jefferson to make people less free.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?