Sitting on the sidelines is learned behavior…..it didn’t take long to teach YOU….which shows you have some sense…….and the “spinning description” is quite entertaining…..

Now all you have to do is provide a consistent explanation about what you “imagine” the goal or agenda might be……for the spin…….

GALT,
Oh but an explanation would destroy the suspense, now wouldn’t it?

No suspense involved………how could there be, since the only thing you would
accomplish would be to demonstrate that you have no explanation……..and that just makes you typical of those who have gone before……..and you imagine that this site
represents sort of “sacred ground” where you are safe from intruders and exempt
from any requirement to engage or attempt anything resembling a consistently logical argument.

Granted most of the “intruders” do not present much of a challenge because they allow themselves to be distracted and are often drawn into the mindless rhetoric of the irrelevant……….which descends into the incoherent babble that is the “norm” for
those conditioned to respond to a specific mantra which can not tolerate any
challenge that suggests a self examination of their particular understanding may be
the most productive application of whatever reasoning skills they may possess.

Unfortunately, those tactics do not work when one is forced to deal with fundamental
propositions where no distraction is possible……….and the deconstruction of language
can not be relied on to obfuscate the lack of logical foundation upon which most of
the attempted arguments rest.

I suppose that under the circumstances, you should be commended for simply posturing
a claim which you can not support………rather than choosing to descend to the childish
level of response that is common here……..

It may be possible at some point for you to realize that I am not interested in that level of
engagement and that in order for us ( homo sapiens ) to establish a often claimed
goal of “common cause” will require finding the actual “common ground” from
which reasonable logical construction can proceed.

While this seems simple………there is no evidence to support that assumption and much
of the problem rests with the undeserved reverence for “ideas” that while having historical
significance…….and are useful in understanding motivational concepts at the time they were offered………they have no valid purpose with regard to our present situation, since our empirical knowledge has completely destroyed any possibility that these assumptions
could be either true or useful……….

This problem is further compounded by the fact that empirical knowledge has increased
to exponential levels………and at such a rapid pace in the last century, that it has exceeded both our ability to both comprehend its significance or adapt to the REALITY
that has been revealed………and this is true for those who have actually experienced
the benefits and have access to the information…….in a world where most live in both poverty and primitive conditions……

The exercise here today ( which has been underway for sometime ) involves a simple
adjustment to understanding, and has met with pointless resistance regarding a
“self evident” truth whose denial is pointless. Yet this denial persists because once
it is acknowledged……..it poses threats to other “historical ideas” which can no longer
be defended……..yet can not be abandoned even though they are inherently destructive.

There are consequences for this choice, and they will not be pleasant…….

be happy to….with the exception that I don’t do spin……and I have no clue to what you are referring……..

As a P.L.F. most of the things that concern you A.L.F.s are inconsequential and beneath notice………

BTW……P.L.F.s are not the enemies of A.L.F’s, you all manage way more self destructive behavior amongst yourselves……..than we could ever hope to achieve…….

But if you are willing to elucidate?

Galt says: As a P.L.F. most of the things that concern you A.L.F.s are inconsequential and beneath notice………

Strange, but you seem to spend a great deal of time and effort noticing, and arguing against that which you consider to be of no consequence…

Are all P.L.F.’s as confused as you?

My apologies…….I missed your nonsense post above……do you comprehend?

And for Jay……..no argument has been necessary…. where do you see an argument?

That which is self evident requires no argument and citing that which is inconsequential
is simply a statement of fact……..

Here’s something for you……The Folly of Fools…….

It would seem that deception and SELF DECEPTION are built into the basic coding structure of life forms…………for a purpose.

This does not conflict with “self evident” natural law that actually exists……

But there is no way it can be claimed as a product of an “intelligent designer”……

BTW I am not just a P.L.F. I am a e.i.P.L.F………you are an w.i.A.L.F.

It is impossible for a P.L.F. to be confused……..

Heathen, you have spun out…

Hear Hear!

Well cawmun, apparently you know very little First off, to throw out the argument (simple strawman) about being perfect is besides the point and is simply a diversion. Using this logic and axe murderer that has killed hundreds is the same as someone who gets mad and yells at his wife at times. Secondly, the ‘logic’ I used is not very complicated, and is pretty scriptural. God would rather us be hot or cold, but when we profess to know him, and use His name if vain, it’s bad news. Also, I am making a very simple point – to judge democrats for not including God in their platform while including God in your platform while condoning murder and theft (and at the same time thinking you are better), is a very big problem. The fact that you don’t see this, and that you take the time to argue against it, is quite possibly an indication of your current state. I am not trying to imply that the democrats are good or better – that is not the point. Both parties are on two wings of the same bird at this time – warmongering, civil liberties destroying, statist monopoly men supporting den of thieves – period. Peace.

I notice you are great at posting your opinions but leave no ability for anyone to reply to you…is that by design or just cowardice?
-CC.

If I am a strawman for endorsing the word of God over that which you deem important,then call me scarecrow.
I dont usually make my Chrostian faith the subject of one of my arguments,however I think that once you try me and my knowledge on thhe matter,you wont find me as easy prey as you think I be.
Cheers!
-CC.

Seems you were able to reply easily enough………..were you complaining about not being able to make any “cents” in your response? Inflation is a b*tch……2 cents, caw man, common or otherwise, doesn’t go far……..

Don’t get me wrong………I shall defend your right to speak idiotically to the DEATH…….
I also reserve my right to point out you ARE an “idiot”……

Fortunately……the need to do so doesn’t really come up much ……..mostly it’s “self evident”!

Cawmun.. no, I was not trying to leave out the ability to reply.. as you should have noticed, I replied to your comment, which doesn’t give a reply link.. just like your reply to mine does.. I am not attacking you personally, and have no need to compete or challenge your thinking or lack thereof.. I think it speaks for itself without my help. Peace.

Cawmun, my ‘strawman’ comment was in reference to your ‘who is perfect’ point, which is a strawman argument and beside the point.. not a personal attack on you.. I think if you take what you believe about the Bible, and understand the heart of my point (more dangerous to misuse God’s name than to leave it out), check it with scripture, you will probably agree.. Peace.

A familiar twist of the truth so often found on this site. I just viewed this clip which I assume is what you were referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY

President Obama was not blaming the troops but the tactic being used. AND he is proposing a better strategy for our troops to get the job done.
At least he is taking his role as commander seriously. Does Romney even understand that he would command the military? He does not seem to put much thought into it.

Neither one has addressed the bogus 16 trillion-dollar-debt, Doc. I find that much more disconcerting than the issue of stream-lining our imperialistic endeavours abroad. Try as we might to point out the differences between the two simpletons, the fact of the matter is, there are no differences between the two establishment-puppets. The one that is the most willing to put his shoulders to the task of maintaining the plantation, and its status-quo, will be the one elected, while the rest of the nation sings “Swing low, sweet chariot”!

“perversion and murder (gay marriage and abortion)”

Situational “morality.” It isn’t up to our government to establish or even enforce any particular religion.

Shucks, looks like the right is advocating a christian version of the Taliban.

Rob

Gotta love the liberal mindset, “Situational morality…” Miriam-Webster defines morality as “a doctrine or system of moral conduct ” Morals are a system, they cannot be situational. Acknowledging gay marriage is the current administration’s act of establishing their religion inspite of the beliefs of all other religions. To acknowledge the laws of nature and stand for traditional marriage is not an establishment of relgion.

The Laws of Nature? Are those in a book somewhere? How will those gerbils know how to act when they can’t read?

“Laws of Nature and Natures God”
Homosexuality defies the primary law of Nature, Sustainability. Homosexuality is therefore, by defination “Unnatural”, Egro: A Preversion of Nature
Galt! Gerbils have no need to read, they do not violate Natures Laws, only man does that!

I failed to respond to the Murder issue. These same proponants of Abortion as a form of Birth Control, would, on the other hand, cause someone to go to prison for destroying an Eagle Egg, because” it indangeres the future of the species” ! Seems thay are far more concern with an Eagle than with a Human! If it is wrong to destroy an Eagles egg, how much more so is it to destroy a Human egg?

So obviously you know what to do with your Gerbils,right?
They are still made,male and female,so that they can breed.If you cannot respect the laws of God,then surely you can respect the design by which the individual species function,correct?
Nope.
You have to inject your own system of ideals and then call them what you will.
Then you wildly accuse others of not understanding your system of facts as you see them represented.
Even evolution has male and female design represented in its tenants.
But when you choose to leave certain parts of design out,and consider that they only matter in the context of your explaination of things,you are promoting confusion.
So when I wonder what the hell you are talking about,then you accuse me of being stupid.
You misrepresent facts in order to cause confusion in others,and then turn and accuse them of doing what you have just done.
And you expect others to see your facts as valid?
Is it any mystery then when they view you with contempt?
The only thing that this post contains that is actually contemptuous,is that I am attempting to convince the delusional that they are such.
Cheers!
-CC.

The Laws of Nature are determined by nature…….not what a particular species deems them to be……..if it can be DONE…….it can’t be unacceptable to the Laws of Nature.

BTW Rumsfeld missed the “known unknown’s”……..which is sh*t you don’t know you know but really do……….of which your post is a perfect example……….and why most christian’s
are hypocrites……..

I will admit right off the bat Patriot I am an agnostic. I do not believe in god. As such I believe that we can do good without god. And I believe our country was founded not on christian principles but on republican principles which are principles of all religions not just Christianity. I believe Christianity and god play a role but I do not believe they are central to our nation. I believe our basic rights are self evident, not given by god.

Jeremy, I certainly respect your position. We will all find out one day who was right.

Agnosticism is a specific position which rests on two points 1.) no evidence exists for god and 2.) Certain concepts are “unknowable”…….which is the word root gnostic nullified by the A. in addition to a god or creator, these concepts also include the Absolute, eternity, infinity, etc.

Atheism is a denial of the existence of “an intelligent creator” based on the fact that “no evidence” exists for one, and because the burden of proof always rests on the positive assertion, since it is not logically possible to prove a negative…….

As for what is “self evident” regarding the fact of your existence is that, you have the unalienable right to continue to attempt to survive…….and so does a virus, so it is not
a particularly exclusive right……..which other life forms already understand……but homo sapiens seem to have forgotten……….

The difference between humans and germs is we have the capacity for choice and reflection. We have the ability to make changes and improve our situation. All living things have a right to life. What makes humans what they are is not their abilities, its their choices.

You are absolutely correct Jeremy…….every other life form operates in accordance within it’s basic programming instruction set adapting as best it can to the challenges presented by it’s circumstance and present environment………..to succeed is to continue, to fail means extinction.

Only homo sapiens have chosen to disregard this self evident condition……..

How does it feel to be more ignorant than a GERM?

“Are you NOT ENTERTAINED? ”

Join the P.L.F.s it is the only SANE choice!!!!!!

Sorry Galt, but i must respectfully decline your most generous invitation to accompany you on your cruise to Gilligan’s Island. I hope you understand…?

It wasn’t an invitation…..but if you are seeking an island DavidH might have just the
von mises link for you………although I hear the fish aren’t very co-operative.

That’s the funniest thing you said yet.

You can’t prove me wrong.

Now you sound like a little kid.

“Doc Sarvis,”

AS AN ATHEIST, I BELIEVE A CHILD CAN BE RAISED BY “god-fearing” PARENTS. THEN, AS AN ADULT, BE ABLE TO THINK FOR HER-/HIMSELF IN REFERENCE TO A BELIEF IN DEITIES.

HOWEVER, I DO NOT BELIEVE A CHILD CAN BE RAISED IN A SPECIFIC FAITH, THEN – AS AN ADULT – CHANGE TO ANOTHER FAITH. WHEN THAT PERSON ASKS HER-/HIMSELF WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE ORIGINAL FAITH, THE ONLY ANSWER IS BECOMING AN ATHEIST. WHEN A BELIEVER BEGINS TO QUESTION DOCTRINE, THAT QUESTIONING “GOES TO THE HEART” OF WHETHER THAT PERSON HAS A TRUE BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF DEITIES.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF IN THE EXISTENCE OF DEITIES, THIS QUESTIONER’S ONLY OPTION IS ATHEISM.

Horton,,,honk on ,,,but let us give you ,et al some sense from the Book that is being played out RIGHT NOW ,,,by King Jesus regarding the one page book of Obadiah…
First off let us turn you question around just a little “when the old folks die off are you going to be the people King Jesus referred to at Matthew 7:22–24???
Now, the so called Democrats and some others have rejected King Jesus, so , King Jesus will reject them as called out at Matthew 21:41–46…
What does this have to do with Obadiah ? the people that are going to be destroyed at Obadiah 1:18 are , primarily the people located in the state of Israel,,,they are the lineage of Esau Edom,,, they ARE NOT Jews,,,because,,,King Jesus said that at Revelations 2:9
and at Revelations 3:9,,, when King Jesus writes some thing twice one chapter after the
other ,you can be assured it’s “”True”"…
What We have been telling people for years now is that according to The Bible AND World conflicts , in Our opinion Obadiah is only months away ,but, NO one knows the exact day or hour , BUT, many know the season … And, when Obadiah happens it will
effect the whole world… At that time , the other Ob’ dude won’t be able to wipe his A O…
So, heathen Horton , honk on and watch and see IF The Bible is correct or If Charlie is goofy…………….Meantime……….
Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation………

“Charlie,”

SIR, WHEN I THINK ABOUT YOU, I VISUALIZE AN EIGHTY-FIVE-YEAR-OLD MALE SITTING ON HIS FRONT PORCH IN A ROCKING CHAIR, READING THE Bible.

“Charlie,” IN YOUNGER HOUSEHOLDS, THERE IS NO Bible IN THE HOUSE. SO, WHO – OUTSIDE OF, OLDER PEOPLE – WILL BE READING THE “Scriptures” YOU QUOTED?

“Charlie,” WHY ARE YOU SO OBSESSED WITH, “Acts – 2:38?”

Horton,,, Can anyone build a house without a foundation ??? why??? The Law of Gravity demands the house be resting on something … That something IS the foundation…
Science , what is it ? Who created it?…. Can you answer these question with logical ,understandable answers ?…
Now, how does the above tie in with The Bible? Well “Acts 2:38″ is the foundation for anyone that wants the Favor of King Jesus Christ ,,,without Acts 2:38 one CANNOT become a “Spirit” filled Christian,,,Why? because , King Jesus and His Key Man , Peter , said it at Acts 2:38,,,but,
you say Paul also said it , but, Paul does not have the “Rank” with King Jesus that Peter has,
because Paul was not given the Keys to The Kingdom as Peter was at Matthew 16:19, so ?…
Acts 2:38 IS, the only single one verse Scripture , that gives Salvation and The Gift of The Holy Spirit, all in just one verse, IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE…
Now is Acts 2:38 a “Special” verse? YEP! , it’s simple , it’s short , it’s sets your foundation in The Solid Rock of King Jesus Christ … Does it get any better ? NOPE! , then why not go with the best???… Meanwhile,,,,,,,,,
Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing … Acts 2:38 is salvation …

“Charlie,”

SCIENCE IS TANGIBLE AND REAL; RELIGION IS INTANGIBLE AND FAKE.

This is nothing but a revised form of the same idiotic nonsense spouted by Atheists, and other nincompoops in 1960! Remember,” If we elect Kennedy the Pope will rule the Country”
The Congress, the People, and the Constitution are in place to prevent that! Thankfully, or Obama would have us even further under the gun!

The Constitution doesnt say that a party cant establish a religion.
It says that congress shall establish no religion.
You use incorrect motive,and fallacy to establish your ideals,then turn and accuse others of inapproriate behavior.
What does that say about you?
It says that by no means can anyone trust what you assert.
So go ahead and shout from your soapbox.
But remember that those of us who know what the document says,dont need you to remind us of something it doesnt say.
Cheers!
-CC.

For the Functionally Illiterate………seriously, can any of you people comprehend what you read? The proper label is P.L.F.! and “atheist” is way too weak a description…….

P.S. The Law of Nature is and has been smacking you upside the head for some time now…………the “self evident one”….not your foolish, arrogant, interpretive fantasy.

and if you pray hard enough your CREATOR will answer you in the same manner with which all prayer’s are answered…….NO!

cawmun cents,
No, law does not prohibit the party from establishing a religious base, but why should they? Why imply that, despite the absence of a Federally sponsored religion members of the party will adhere to Christian doctrine?

Crediting God and building a platform with Him as the foundation does not establish a state religion. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence acknowledging God’s greatness and reflecting His love, allowing free will without mandating one specific denomination.

Patriot,,,,you think two words “their CREATOR” is a “foundation”?

or that whatever it was, was credited with the “endowment of ” “unsecured rights”…….

not a very reliable source or much of an acknowledgement……you might want to
check the building codes…….because as foundations go, this structural design
seems a bit limited?

The words noting that there is a CREATOR,would imply that they believed in a CREATOR,whether you do or not.
This would also imply that you(as someone who does not believe in a CREATOR,which by the way I am not accusing you of personally),cannot take the rights that the CREATOR gave to me away.Which is why congress can establish no religion,especially one that leaves the CREATOR out of the picture(am I getting through to you yet?)
So when you move to strike the CREATOR from the record,so that you can take the rights away that the CREATOR has given me,I take offense.
Then you turn and accuse me of inappropriate behavior by stating the”facts”as you see them represented(incorrectly I might add),and tell me that I have no right to establish that there is a CREATOR,In my politics.
So when you are asked why you leave God(that being who I understand is my CREATOR) out of your politics,you then become defensive because you think I am accusing you of being godless,when it is you,who chose to leave Him out of your politics.
Nobody has ever correctly asserted that politics and religion cannot go together,as viewed in the Constitution,there is no such line of demarkation,in that document.
It is those who choose to leave God out of their politics which assert to the undereducated that this is a principle of our founders,when clearly it was only stated in a private letter from one individual to another.
So get your”facts”straight.
Then form a cohesive argument.
Ohterwise,do us all a favor,and leave us out of your wrong decision making process,and let us continue to keep the CREATOR in mind when we use our correct decision making process.
But what do I know?
Apparently very little……
Cheers!
-CC.

It’s “their CREATOR”……..why not “our creator”?

And let’s check that endowment……

Your “unalienable right to life”…..in force for as long as you can maintain it, or until you are alienated from it…….

to liberty, which expires upon alienation!!!!

to the pursuit of happiness, which expires on alienation!!!!!!!!!

Feeling secure? Which leaves you with a “creator” who can’t or won’t secure what is supposedly unalienable……and a government who stepped up to accept the responsibility,
but really had no clue what was involved……..nor do the idiot’s who claim to believe them.

Faith in CREATOR’s or government’s doesn’t seem to be justified as likely to produce
any probable expectation of a positive return from an historical perspective……

but of course, THIS TIME THINGS WILL BE DIFFERENT.

Do you even realize Galt…..how insane you sound when someone actually reads what you are attempting to communicate?
I doubt it….
Cheers!
-CC.

Yes, I imagine that someone who actually understands that which is truly “self evident”
would appear “insane” to those such as yourself…….but as a e.i.P.L.F. I do not really concern myself with things of no consequence……..and I can’t think of anything more
inconsequential than your opinion on anything……FYI….life existed long before “sexual reproduction” entered the scene…….see Life Ascending: by Nick Lane

You might become a little less ignorant…..and won’t have to ask “But what do I know?”
at the end of every post……..

Galt, you ask “It’s “their CREATOR”……..why not “our creator”?” If you are half of the guru that you tell us you are, then you know the answer…it is proper english. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…”

As for your other question; “Patriot,,,,you think two words “their CREATOR” is a “foundation”?

Yes, the Creator is the foundation. He created heaven and earth and all that is therein. Good enough for me.

inclusion of the word they is not necessary………”that all men are created equal and are
endowed”………..works just as well……..and the equal part…….is just another piece of B.S………………….why is it that all these ‘self evident’ things………that you all claim to believe……….turn out to be “self indulgent hypocrisies”………

Accepting REALITY, saves a lot of time………then you might have a chance of making what you profess to believe in……..a potentially probable outcome since the foundational logic will actually be TRUE……..from which truly “enlightened self interest” becomes possible……….

The Law of Nature does not recognize “rationalized self interest” as valid………even if
YOU believe it’s good enough……….and the universe writes no epitaphs and couldn’t care less.

Bad news, God was already there. It is our willingness to acknowledge Him that we bring to the table.

Most of our Founders clearly disagree Robert, as they do with almost everything you post!
” We’ve staked the WHOLE FUTURE (emphasis added) of American civilization not on the power of Government, far from it! We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity….to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God” James Madison
“We have no Government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion! Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is inadaquate for the government of any other” John Adams
Before anyone goes off on a “your a radical Christian” rant, you need to know that I am a Diest and therefore hold NO belief in the Judeao Christian God! What I am not is an Historical Revisionist! Those who deny the Christian intent of our Founders are either disingenuous or ignorant!

You mean Deist? as in some some acknowledgement of a cause with no
further involvement?

You do know that the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with Christianity?
Nor does the Bible……..? ( except as a prequel )

Or that the understanding of people in 1776 and later as to the scope and nature
of the planet and the universe, was both limited and primitive?

That when you use the term christian……as it applies both then and NOW……
it is essentially meaningless…….

Yes we know Galt ! Up was not truly up back then nor was down, down! The Earth didn’t revolve around the Sun! One didn’t get into economic trouble by spending too much and they couldn’t get out of debt by spending less! The Sun didn’t rise in the East, nor did it set in the West!
Everything is “Relative” , inother words, it means what ever the he!! you say it does! I’ve seen the Progressive Platform!

Good for you….I haven’t seen it, nor am I interested…….us P.L.F.s are like that…..

as for the earth revolving around the sun, that only started in circa 1619 w. Kepler,
and Newton who shows up in 1687……..who begins to penetrate the REALITY…..of what IS……….

Still, since you failed to actually respond……..( yes I know at PLD ” labeling” is considered superior choice since the ability to reason logically from facts is not available to those
whose willful ignorance must be maintained )

I am somewhat curious as to what value reverence for historical ignorance serves…..

christian nation……….more like alcoholic nation……..tavern attendance far exceeded
church attendance……….and on a daily basis……….you might want to visit one soon, Ted

Get in touch with the “real american’s”…………know any good Deist prayer’s……helps
with the selection of football squares………..at least that’s the rumor.

Four freedoms: The first is freedom of speech and expression – everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of everyone to worship God in his own way, everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want . . . everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear . . . anywhere in the world.–Franklin D. Roosevelt U.S. President

Laus Deo
Semper Fi

Actually,,,the Constitution forbids the establishment of a Federal religion. It does not mention anything about a State religion.

14th ammendment took care of that.

What religion does the word God refer too?. There are many that use the word God. Ever look at your money, it says In God We Trust.

Kinetic1,
Perhaps you should go to this website and do a bit of reading. May I suggest you learn as much as you can about the “Black Robe Regiment”. Whether you agree or not it would give you a more historically factual information source pertaining to the Christian faith in relation to our nations founding. http://brr.wallbuilders.com

Kinetic1 says, ““Why would the founders leave the name “God” out of our founding document? It was necessary to do so since, as is often the case differing beliefs between the various Christian religions were creating rifts throughout the colonies.”

I don’t know where you got that assumption from, but it’s most likely pure speculation. Mention of the Deity would have had no effect one way or the other on the squabbles going on in the states, for two reasons: (1) they were all Christian denominations to begin with (and would have had no problem with the mention of God), and (2) the Ninth and Tenth Amendments underscored the severely limited role of government in citizens’ lives anyway.

You imply that the Founders would have been willing to depart from their strict separation doctrine in all other areas of individual life except religion, but did not do so simply to prevent a row. That is patently false, and the First Amendment is ample testimony to it. The injunction against the Federal government’s establishment of a religion was but one of several sacrosanct areas within which the Feds were prevented from meddling.

The Constitution is not a religious tract but a blueprint for government. The Natural Law right to liberty had already been divulged in the Declaration, and the truth that it was the Creator who endowed this right needed no amplification in the Constitution.

To those who are historically literate, Jefferson’s statement regarding Natural Rights are the very foundation of the Constitution. As Lincoln said, the Constitution was created to adorn the “apple of gold” (Declaration), it was not the centerpiece.

Kinetic1 also said, “Having been raised Christian and as members of a mostly Christian community it is to be expected that they would frame our society around the moral beliefs shared by the majority, yet they purposely excluded the “God” (the name, not the broader idea) from the single most important document in our nation’s history.”

It can be argued that, in the absence of Jefferson’s statement of Creator-endowed rights, the Constitution is meaningless and has no moral authority. Abraham, Lincoln, in so many words, argued thus.

The Christian upbringing did indeed influence the Founders, as did the Enlightenment (and popularly Deist) movement of the day. But to say that we just got lucky that the Founders had rubbed elbows with Christian morality for their whole lives underestimates the profound influence it had on them.

Deism was around in many forms, and they didn’t all agree. Jefferson, however, was a Deist whose understanding of Christian morality was such that he revered Christ as a supremely good being. Jefferson was so impressed by Christ’s teachings that he excised all NT references to the miracles and “revealed,” supernatural aspect of the Gospels, and published the “Jefferson Bible.”

Thus, the VALUES of Christianity, not necessarily the supernatural aspect of it, and not simply because they were “the moral beliefs shared by the majority,” became the basis upon which we were founded.

This integral relationship between Christian values and the “worthiness” of the people to keep their new Republic was again and again touted by the Founders, and that’s undeniable. The state of affairs today, as we have turned out backs upon the VALUES that made us great, is evident.

Vigilant, outstanding!

I wonder how “manifest destiny” or the ‘enslavement or extermination of inferior races’ fits with the “values” that made us GREAT………..or “all men are created equal”…………?

Actions speak louder than words…….only the IGNORANT keep falling for the words!!!!!

My only regret as a P.L.F. is that the CREATOR you profess to believe in, is ONLY a FANTASY………simple death and oblivion is far too lenient.

We should all be respectful of each other’s fantasies, Galt. Don’t you agree?

No……but I will respect your unalienable right to fantasize……..provided you do no harm
in it’s attempted realization………DEAL?

Vigilant,
Agreed, it is the values, not the doctrine that is lacking in so many today. And yes, I agree that the name “God” would not have raised tempers in the colonies, but even the fact that they were all Christians does not negate the fact that they had deeply dividing differences, just as we see among the Christian faiths today.

In todays America, things aren’t so clear cut. Yes, the majority of Americans are Christians of one kind or another, but the number of people who belong to another religion, or none at all has grown to the point that referencing “God” in a political platform may be a cause of division. The fact that the Democratic Party did not choose to include God in the platform certainly does not exclude God’s teachings from the decision making of it’s members.

“The Constitution is not a religious tract but a blueprint for government. The Natural Law right to liberty had already been divulged in the Declaration, and the truth that it was the Creator who endowed this right needed no amplification in the Constitution.”
And here again we agree. The “rights” under natural law, concepts that were accepted long before Christianity’s roots are without question. This big brouhaha about the Democratic platform is nothing more than the Republicans, once again implying their religious superiority, and the Democrats fear that voters will believe it unless they God up.

GALT says that God is a myth,
But can’t tell the difference, to wit:
‘Twixt the real and ideal,
Check with Plato, you heel
It’s his points that you’ll not admit.

GALT says it’s just matter and stuff,
That God’s just ridiculous fluff;
That entropy rules
And no need for the fools
To counter with “that’s not enough.”

His pedestrian outlook’s so blind
That the answer he seeks he won’t find;
That the scientist now
Can only ask “how?”
But the “why” will not enter his mind.

A limited scope of the brain
Is GALT’s curse and recurring refrain,
So he builds a great wall
With no forethought at all
In this prison his mind will remain.

I agree, carrobin! It’s best that politician not take God’s name in vain. For once they are not being hypocrites. This is a good thing!