U.s. Founding fathers

[MMI]

I don't buy that. Washington could exercise control when he wanted to: e.g. the Militia Act 1792.

"Old Boy Network" is a term frequently used over here - generally referring back to the public/private schools the men in power went to ("Old Boys"). But what I'm reading is that the routes to power here and there are very similar, despite one being a monarchy and the other a republic.

(Btw, for the avoidance of doubt, a public school is not the same thing as a state school over here. A public school is a school established with a charitable purpose (to educate the rich and privileged) while a private school is a business enterprise (educating the less well-connected) for profit.)

[steelish]

Basically, our Founding Fathers believed that rights come from God...no matter what religion you follow. Think of this:

If you allow men to grant rights, slaves will ALWAYS be a part of life. Natures law does not create slavery and Natures God abhors it.

[Thorne]

Natures law does not create slavery and Natures God abhors it.

Sorry, steelish, but I have to disagree. Virtually EVERY culture ever has had one form of slavery or another. And virtually EVERY religion has condoned it.
Leviticus 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."
Leviticus 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Leviticus 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

There are others.

Quran 24:58 "O ye who believe! Let your slaves, and those of you who have not come to puberty, ask leave of you at three times (before they come into your presence)."

It was not the churches who freed the slaves in America, but MEN and WOMEN! Using the LAWS of men. Most churches in the US fought against the repeal of slavery, just as they fought against equal rights for Blacks and for women, just as they fight now against equal rights for gays. And as they have done in the past, when those rights are eventually granted the church leaders will beat their chests and loudly proclaim that it was GOD'S will that those rights be granted. Hypocrites!

Also, speaking of nature, there are some (at least one, anyway) species of ants which take other ants as slaves and force them to work. Nature is harsh and unforgiving.

[DuncanONeil]

"Most churches in the US fought against the repeal of slavery,"

The how do you reconcile that by the time of the Civil War all of the North had eliminated slavery?

[MMI]

Perhaps the most interesting group of Loyalists were enslaved African-Americans who chose to join the British. The British promised to liberate slaves who fled from their Patriot masters. This powerful incentive, and the opportunities opened by the chaos of war, led some 50,000 slaves (about 10 percent of the total slave population in the 1770s) to flee their Patriot masters. When the war ended, the British evacuated 20,000 formerly enslaved African Americans and resettled them as free people.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/13c.asp

Looks like Freedom came from the so-called tyrants!

[steelish]

Thorne, people have a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 12 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch.

[Thorne]

People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin.

And yet, one verse I quoted above seems to say just that:
Leviticus 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."
That sounds like ethnic slavery to me.

And let's not forget Deuteronomy:
20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

So it sounds OK to enslave your enemies, if they surrender, or kill the men and enslave the women and children if they resist.

In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

This sounds like typical apologetics. "They LIKED being slaves! They WANTED to be slaves. So that made it all right!"

The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

Slavery is slavery. No matter what kind of ribbons and bows you try to dress it up with.

And the religious arguments for and against slavery are nothing new.

The first edition of Domestic Slavery was published in 1846. It is a monograph compilation of correspondence, presented initially in serial format, between two significant Baptist leaders, Francis Wayland and Richard Fuller. Wayland, president of Brown University, argued against the biblical validity of slavery, and Fuller, Baptist pastor and South Carolina native, argued that slavery was indeed biblically valid.

As with most of the Bible, it is so filled with contradictions and vague assertions that anyone can "prove" anything they wish simply by cherry-picking those verses which agree with their point. As I have done myself.

[MMI]

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society.

I found that to be a very interesting comment. I had never considered that the Bible's only purpose was to show believers how to find their way through the evils of this world without becoming corrupted, and that it had no real intention of eradicating evil at all. I supposed it had a much broader purpose.

All God's laws must now be looked at in this way. Reading Exodus or Deuteronomy, you will find no reference to how society should be governed or how nations should interact; He clearly foresaw that He could leave those tasks to the likes of Marx and Machiavelli. Instead, God chose to point the way for an individual to save his soul, without necessarily even contributing to the society he lives in.

It seems to me, therefore, that governments and other organs of society (the Church?) have no place in God's plans and that He does not endorse any country's nationhood or its constitution, whether written or not. So much for the divine right of kings! Is it appropriate, therefore, for countries to require specific religious observances to be carried out - e.g., a daily act of worship in schools?

(Maybe this part of the thread should be moved to Religion?)

[steelish]

It seems to me, therefore, that governments and other organs of society (the Church?) have no place in God's plans and that He does not endorse any country's nationhood or its constitution, whether written or not. So much for the divine right of kings! Is it appropriate, therefore, for countries to require specific religious observances to be carried out - e.g., a daily act of worship in schools?

(Maybe this part of the thread should be moved to Religion?)

This is where the idea of separation of church and state comes in. Governments and other political agenda groups have no place in God's plans and should not be involved in churches...but that doesn't mean that religion and faith has no place in Government. As to required specific religious observances such as a daily act of worship being carried out in schools...to what are you referring? The Pledge of Allegiance is not an act of worship. That was the only daily required ritual in school while I was growing up.

[Thorne]

that doesn't mean that religion and faith has no place in Government.

I disagree. Religion certainly has no place in government. Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities. Keep the religion in church, where it belongs.

As to required specific religious observances such as a daily act of worship being carried out in schools...to what are you referring? The Pledge of Allegiance is not an act of worship.

If it's not an act of worship, then we shouldn't have any problem with removing the phrase, "under God." Or maybe we can change it to "under Allah" or "under Shiva" or "under Zeus". Each week we could change the term so that all religions were included. Think the Christian right would go for that? After all, it's not an act of worship, for crying out loud!

Teaching our kids to place their hands over their hearts and recite the pledge is no different than teaching them to make the sign of the cross and recite the Lord's Prayer. It's a blatant act of worship. It only differs in who, or what, you are worshiping.

[steelish]

If it's not an act of worship, then we shouldn't have any problem with removing the phrase, "under God." Or maybe we can change it to "under Allah" or "under Shiva" or "under Zeus". Each week we could change the term so that all religions were included. Think the Christian right would go for that? After all, it's not an act of worship, for crying out loud!

Teaching our kids to place their hands over their hearts and recite the pledge is no different than teaching them to make the sign of the cross and recite the Lord's Prayer. It's a blatant act of worship. It only differs in who, or what, you are worshiping.

lol. "Under God" can mean anything to anyone. To a Native American it might be Nature itself, to another, it might be Jehovah to yet another it might be Buddah. It makes no difference so long as your faith promotes goodness and generosity to your fellow man.

[DuncanONeil]

Quote Originally Posted by steelish View Post
that doesn't mean that religion and faith has no place in Government.


I disagree. Religion certainly has no place in government. Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities. Keep the religion in church, where it belongs.

I think you are talking apples and oranges here!

[DuncanONeil]

If it's not an act of worship, then we shouldn't have any problem with removing the phrase, "under God." Or maybe we can change it to "under Allah" or "under Shiva" or "under Zeus".

"God" is less exclusive than any of the other names you mention.

[MMI]

As to required specific religious observances such as a daily act of worship being carried out in schools...to what are you referring?

Section 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (UK legislation) states, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

[steelish]

Section 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (UK legislation) states, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure if you were referring to something in the US. That answered the question.

[Thorne]

Section 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (UK legislation) states, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

At least they don't tell you who to worship. I assume they wouldn't be against the worship of Satan?

[MMI]

This sounds like typical apologetics. "They LIKED being slaves! They WANTED to be slaves. So that made it all right!"

Yes, I think it does - in some cases anyway. People did choose to sell themselves into slavery, not to fulfill any kind of desire or yearning, but to avoid a worse fate, such as poverty and destitution. There are also instances where people of great accomplishment and ambition chose enslavement in order to attain wealth and power, and I believe that several important characters in history became slaves voluntarily and rose to great heights in China, Persia, Rome and many other places.

(I cannot avoid the temptation to use this post to promote a little scratching at http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...91-Young-Slave.)

[steelish]

See there, it's all in the way you look at and interpret a sentence. To me it was the entire point.

[Thorne]

My POINT was that the pledge places allegiance to the FLAG above allegiance to the Republic. I have no qualms about pledging allegiance to the Republic, but I don't feel I owe any allegiance to a symbol. It would be tantamount to pledging allegiance to one's avatar.

[steelish]

My POINT was that the pledge places allegiance to the FLAG above allegiance to the Republic. I have no qualms about pledging allegiance to the Republic, but I don't feel I owe any allegiance to a symbol. It would be tantamount to pledging allegiance to one's avatar.

Not necessarily. The flag is not placed ABOVE the Republic. The flag REPRESENTS the Republic. Besides, allegiance to one's avatar means allegiance to the person for which it stands. The symbol has to mean something, it has to stand for something. The flag is a symbol that stands in place of the Republic, a form of government. It gives people a visual reference...a reminder, if you will. I simply find it hard to equate it with an object that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. You're saying it's the same as pledging allegiance to a pair of dirty socks, or a basketball, or a used paint brush. That is ridiculous.

[Thorne]

Not necessarily. The flag is not placed ABOVE the Republic. The flag REPRESENTS the Republic.

No, the wording is clear: I pledge allegiance TO the flag... AND to the Republic for which it stands.

Besides, allegiance to one's avatar means allegiance to the person for which it stands. The symbol has to mean something, it has to stand for something.

I agree, but it does not have to mean the same things to different people. And the symbol itself is not interchangeable with the thing, or person, it represents.

The flag is a symbol that stands in place of the Republic, a form of government. It gives people a visual reference...a reminder, if you will. I simply find it hard to equate it with an object that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

I never claimed it had no meaning. I agree that it DOES have meaning. But that meaning can be different to different people. Even people who honor this country, and believe in this country, don't necessarily see the flag as meaning the same things. And I, for one, don't see the flag as being so connected to this nation that disrespecting the flag would mean an attack on the nation. That's just ludicrous. The flag, itself, is a piece of cloth. It can be purchased almost anywhere. What it represents cannot.

You're saying it's the same as pledging allegiance to a pair of dirty socks, or a basketball, or a used paint brush. That is ridiculous.

If those items have meaning for you, then they can have as much symbolism, for you, as the flag. What if those dirty socks were all you had left of someone who died saving your life? Would they mean something to you? Maybe the basketball belonged to a child that is no longer with you. Some symbolism there, too. (Okay, you might have me at the used paint brush.) But that doesn't mean that your neighbor has to have the same respect for those dirty socks, or that basketball. It does not mean that he should be forbidden from washing or discarding all dirty socks without due reverence. And it does not mean he must pledge allegiance to those items.

All I'm really saying, though, is that the WORDS of the Pledge of Allegiance are just words, they are not sacrosanct. There was not always a Pledge of Allegiance. The words have changed in the last 120 years, and will likely change again as political winds blow around this country.

I have no problem with pledging my allegiance to this country, and to the people of this nation. I do not feel we owe allegiance to the politicians who run the country, though as elected representatives we owe them a certain level of respect and obedience. I also feel that, as Americans, we owe a certain level of respect to our flag, because of the nation it symbolizes. I do not feel we owe allegiance to that flag, however.

[steelish]

All I'm really saying, though, is that the WORDS of the Pledge of Allegiance are just words, they are not sacrosanct. There was not always a Pledge of Allegiance. The words have changed in the last 120 years, and will likely change again as political winds blow around this country.

How amusing that the article you link to says the very thing I've been saying: "The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches."

[denuseri]

Or perhaps like pledging allegiance to one's collar?

"I pledge allegiance to my Collar and to my Owner for which it stands, one slave under His whip, submissive yet spirited, with blowjobs and ass fucking for all."

[tedteague]

It's me again, the annoying guy
Here are 11 freedoms that the founding fathers criminalized after gaining independence
1. Non-marital sex
2. Homosexuality
3. Divorce
4. Dancing
5. Leisure (the typical weekend was 3 days, post-Revolution it was 1 day)
6. Children's Play
7. Gambling
8. Sports - they thought that Greece had fallen because of all the Olympics
9. Drinking
10. Racial Integration
11. Fashion
Freedom, hooray

[DuncanONeil]

Really!? The founding fathers? Or perhaps the individual states?

It's me again, the annoying guy
Here are 11 freedoms that the founding fathers criminalized after gaining independence
1. Non-marital sex
2. Homosexuality
3. Divorce
4. Dancing
5. Leisure (the typical weekend was 3 days, post-Revolution it was 1 day)
6. Children's Play
7. Gambling
8. Sports - they thought that Greece had fallen because of all the Olympics
9. Drinking
10. Racial Integration
11. Fashion
Freedom, hooray

[tedteague]

nope the actual leaders of the Revolution, John Adams especially
http://www.alternet.org/media/148518..._/?page=entire

[Thorne]

Interesting article, tedteague. I have to admit, I wasn't aware of how fun-loving the pre-Revolution populace was.

Just goes to show, though. The politicians have ALWAYS been more interested in controlling other people's personal lives. I especially liked, "Though the Founders did their share of the drinking in early America, in public they attacked the practice during and after the Revolution." Another case of "Do as I say, not as I do!"

[steelish]

nope the actual leaders of the Revolution, John Adams especially
http://www.alternet.org/media/148518..._/?page=entire

So your source of great wisdom on the founding fathers comes from the Huffington Post? Huh.

Try reading something written by an expert on the Founding Fathers. I know what you will say...biased opinion. BUT, David Barton became who he was (was shaped by what he found out) when he studied the founding fathers and began to collect original writings.

[Lion]

So your source of great wisdom on the founding fathers comes from the Huffington Post? Huh.

Try reading something written by an expert on the Founding Fathers. I know what you will say...biased opinion. BUT, David Barton became who he was (was shaped by what he found out) when he studied the founding fathers and began to collect original writings.

Huffington Post is clearly liberal. David Barton is an evangelical Christian minister who is a Texas Republican Politician. I imagine he is well versed in American history, but with his political activism, he clearly has a biased viewpoint. It seems less academic and more political in nature.

As for the 'expert' article: The quotes are sourced from secondary articles. As in there is no direct proof that the quotes are authentic or fabrications that have come about over the last 200 plus years. A simple google search for "David Barton Christian Nation" will show a lot of links that claim Barton has no real evidence of the quotes.

I don't see what's wrong with reading the Huffington Post for information about the founding fathers. Or watching Fox News for information on the economy, Obama's presidency, War, etc.

[tedteague]

what you posted was article talking about how chriistian the founding fathers were. that goes right in line with the article talking about how they forced chrisitan cirtues and values on the population