Oh, that just sounds absolutely sublime. Ooh, maybe we can have another crusade, where we go invade the Middle East in the name of God. And since we're on the side of God, we can even take stuff that doesn't belong to us!
Well sure, I mean the First Crusade to take back the holy land from Muslim conquerors was a completely justified campai- waaaiiit a second! Is that sarcasm? D'OH! As if keeping this country how it was intended is the same as leading an Inquisition or any other analogy that makes no sense.
Keep your magic book out of the government, please.
Oh that's nice. So are the Declaration and Constitution magic documents? Seriously, I was never so crass about this topic, even back when I was an atheist.
I don't care what you believe in, but forcing your morals down our throats by way of law is fascism, plain and simple.
That's... not what fascism is at all. Fascism is a socialist ideology that in fact advocated secularism and the removal of God from the public square. I don't know why it is, but ever since WWII ended, people seem to use the word "fascist" to describe anything they disagree with or don't like.
Maybe our government was created with Judeo-Christian values in mind, but there's a reason that there's no mention of God in any of the founding legal documents (and no, the Declaration is not a legal document).
First you say founding documents, then legal documents. Which do you mean? The Declaration of Independence isn't a "legal" document in that it doesn't establish any laws, but it's still a founding document- it is what followed the Lee Resolution which was law passed by the Continental Congress. So, yeah, God is mentioned. God is mentioned five times in the Declaration of Independence. Actually, the Declaration is law because it's included as part of the Organic Laws forming US code.
Our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, mentions God in Article XIII.
The Constitution also mentions God. "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Even then, what purpose would there be to include God in the Constitution at length since the Constitution is nothing more than a social contract, a pact amongst the people and states? The Articles of Confederation counts as a constitution and was our first, and it does indeed mention God.
Another "founding" document is the Northwest Ordinance. This too mentions the importance of God in Article 3.
You want "historical significance?" Here's some: America was founded partially because Britain was trying to cram the King's version of Christianity down its peoples' throats. Government-sponsored religion is exactly what this country was founded to prevent.
"America" (as you put it) being founded and the United States being founded are two different things. You're talking specifically about colonial America, specifically the Puritans. It was the Puritan pilgrims that came to the America's due to persecution by the English. And yet, they were not persecuted for being nonreligious, now were they? They were persecuted for their radical religiosity. The Puritans established a *very* Christian society in the colonies. Even today, secularists use Puritanism as an insult for "ultra-Christians." It doesn't support your argument for secularism to refer to the Puritans being victims of religious discrimination, considering they ended up establishing one of the most religious societies in American history, if not a near theocracy.
You do at least acknowledge an important part of history though, even if for the wrong reasons. All of the colonies in America had their own unique beginning, except the Carolinas which were once one territory but split over inter-fighting. The
Virginia/Jamestown Colony was founded in part to spread Christianity/English Protestantism. The
Massachusetts Bay/Plymouth Colony was established solely because of religion. The Puritans fled England because they were persecuted for their literal interpretation of the Bible. Biblical literalists. These were the Mayflower people.
New Hampshire was also founded by Puritans. They in effect established their religion into force with the Cambridge Agreement until it was revoked by the British.
Maryland was formed as a home for all Christians, and eventually Catholicism.
Connecticut/New Haven/Saybrook Colony was specifically founded because of religion. It was founded by Congregationalists/Puritans that left Boston, Massachusetts because they didn't think it was religious enough there. They didn't think Massachusetts Puritans were Puritan enough.
Pennsylvania was the home for the Quakers.
Rhode Island/Providence Plantation Colony was founded by Puritan/Baptist separatist lead by Roger Williams for religious freedom. Roger Williams was a theologian. He also established one of the first churches in America.
New York/New Netherland/New Amsterdam established the Dutch Reformed Church. New Amsterdam, now New York City, was home to many Jews as well.
New Jersey was settled by Congregationalists, Puritans, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, Quakers and many others.
Delaware was first founded by Scandinavian Lutherans and Dutch Reformed. The
Carolinas once one territory, then split over conflict, were founded with Anglicanism and the Church of England. Many dissenting denominations cemented their authority in the colony/colonies due to the church's weak hold. And lastly,
Georgia, the Australia of the Thirteen Colonies was a place of freedom for Protestant Christians and Jews.
So yes, many people fled England and Europe because of persecution, but it was so they could establish societies and colonies where their religions prevailed. In many cases they were more religious and observant than the English. No, the Founders and Framers didn't want to prevent government-sponsored religion. They promoted it. Almost all of the colonies and states had established religions before, during, and after the revolutionary period. None of the Founders saw any conflict with that fact and the First Amendment either. That's because there's meaning behind the Establishment Clause, which is that the Congress will not empower one denomination over all others especially through a nation-wide church as was the case in England where one Church ruled over the whole country. State religion in America was fine though.
And you want to force us all to abide by your Christian morality structure because you claim it's the ideal that our government was founded upon?
No, I want the people this country was founded for not to lose sight of the historical significance their faith has had in making and governing this land. You might not realize it, but you're not the majority. In fact, you never have been and more than likely never will be. This country was founded on the Bible before anything else. Christians conquered, settled, and preserved this great land. For over four hundred years this land was pursued and settled for Christians, by Christians. The Bible was the original textbook in America. School sessions were held in Churches. Many founding fathers were sons of clergymen or were themselves preachers. The first colonists came to spread the kingdom of God and Christendom
Give me a break. The only reason Christianity had anything to do with the creation of our government was because nobody had any idea of a morality structure WITHOUT Christianity at the time. A flawed structure is better than no structure, I suppose.
The Founding Fathers disagree, I suppose-
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~John Adams
"We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" ~John Adams and John Hancock
"
Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation,
none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus." ~Thomas Jefferson
" He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all." ~Samuel Adams
" God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this.
I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."
"
The excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." ~Benjamin Franklin
"Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson." ~John Jay
"It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves." ~Samuel Johnston
The idea to separate the government into three branches was, according to Madison, inspired by the Biblical passage of Isaiah 33:22. "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us."
"
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon 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
I could make a book with these quotes. This is a percentage of a portion of quotes from the Founders regarding religion's role in government and the founding of this republic. I could go on and on for pages. I don't think you can really argue that the Founders didn't have any idea of different systems, considering that well, they openly acknowledged those other systems and rejected them. Of all systems of all societies of all the world, modern or ancient, this system was the best.
You forgot the corporate lobby groups buying out politicians to make their own laws that can essentially render any passed referendum, which is the last real bastion of true Democracy in our government, completely useless. I agree with your proposal that we are a "federal republic," because we're sure as hell not a democracy anymore. Every election, we get to "choose" between socialist candidate and fascist candidate, both of whom often clearly have undiagnosed mental health issues. So much for the warnings against a two-party system and electing candidates who want to be in government.
Oh God. I don't know when exactly it took place, but some time in our history people started getting offended by lobbying. Lobbying is good. Lobbying is a part of freedom. Lobbying is protected in the First Amendment. Americans have the right to influence their representatives. That's the whole point of elections- to put in power those that represent our views and carry out our wishes. Lobbyists represent the First Amendment's clause defending the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It goes back to the Magna Carta. Representatives are called representatives for a reason. Somehow because someone has a lot of money and a successful business they're some corrupt bogeyman corrupting the system by wanting politicians that produce favorable business conditions.
I do agree that moreso than before we're facing socialists in moderate/liberal clothing. However I don't see why you'd make the distinction between socialists and Fascists. Fascists are socialists. The only difference between a Communist and Fascist is over the issue of sovereignty. Fascists are nationalists; Communists are internationalists. "Socialist" contains within it all those totalitarian ideologies and systems.
As for the luxury tax issue you discussed earlier, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree. I don't like a lot of government controls on the economy, but luxury taxes are one of the few that I've actually supported (though they do need to be lowered). I believe that all I said, however, was that if marijuana was legalized, it should be taxed, not that it should be taxed highly. Let's say we don't tax it at all; the benefits are still there. It could be a boon to the economy; the tobacco industry employs thousands of people in our country, perhaps millions. Who's to say that a marijuana industry isn't just what we need to get out of this poor economy?
I disagree with almost all taxes. Especially on "luxuries." I wish the Sixteen Amendment was repealed or at least altered to prohibit "progressive" taxation. The Fair Tax is something I've been reading into as well. I'm still making the case against using taxing a new product for government's sake. And it is for the government. You don't stimulate the economy by taxing anything, now do you? If anything, legalizing and taxing it would limit whatever potential it has. And you're using the tobacco industry as an example when the government is up their metaphorical back ends with taxes and regulation? All you'd be doing by legalizing pot is creating another cog in the wheel of government bureaucracy. There is no point, and the benefits you propose don't reasonably exist.
Embezzling money hurts the economy, which hurts people.
Ah, this is the argument against drugs. Except replace "economy" with "community" and people with "society."
No, stealing affects a person's well-being and deprives them of goods. But they're not actually harmed.
Drunk driving kills people.
Drunk driving *can* kill people. We still arrest and ticket drunk drivers who are pulled over. Killing while drunk driving or manslaughter is a different offense than drunk driving. The point is a law that prevents an undesirable situation and punishing bad and dangerous behavior.
Cheating on taxes hurts the government, so make of that what you will.
I think we all will.
Refusing the draft hurts the people doing the fighting, as taking a conscientious objector position will help save the lives of others who choose to fight.
I'd like to hear the logic behind this seemingly contradictory explanation. Either way you're not serving and someone is going to fill your spot. The only difference is the legality. Honestly a military functions better without drafts. The point is about service. Everyone has a duty to lay down their life for their country, to defend the land that defends their liberty. It's civic duty.
Prostitution objectifies women, but may help prevent rape, so that's hard to decide.
...what? Maybe the rape of the ones selling their bodies, but not clean women.
Lying under oath may hurt whoever is on the other side.
More like affect the outcome of a legal decision or ruling, which are an important factor in how our legal system effectively operates and rules on the laws of our land. A legal system can not work if those it is for is abused, corrupted, and made dysfunctional.
Slander and libel hurt peoples' images.
In other words, their feelings. Which is wrong to protect. The idea is that destroying one's image or viewed character ruins their livelihood, disrupts society and lives, and is damaging to a virtuous society.
Election rigging hurts an entire nation.
"Hurts a nation." Like "hurting" society?
Illegal immigration hurts the economy, which hurts people.
It "hurts" their well-being. In any case the point is defending national sovereignty, which is honestly an extension of society. The nation is formed through a social contract (constitution) between societies and people. When a nation's sovereignty is violated, its people and society are affected.
So only two or three of those don't hurt people.
None of them hurt people. They're nonetheless threats to liberty and civil society. The future of a strong society depends on a strong, moral, and virtuous people. And you don't get there by legalizing all kinds of evil behavior.
"Virtue" and "morality" are ambiguous;
Maybe for some people. I however am not a moral relativist. I believe something is either right or wrong, black or white with no gray in between.
homosexuality is something that is tolerable now, but was demonized for centuries, and pedophilia is something that's demonized now, but was tolerable for centuries. Upholding "morality" shouldn't mean upholding your version of morality, which is why we need to make laws that make our lives better, not ones that force one group to live by another group's rules. If we take into account peoples' rights, we can make assumptions about the previous "morally ambiguous" actions. Homosexuality doesn't invade anyone's rights (though rape does), so that should be legal. Pedophilia almost always invades a child's rights, so that should be illegal. Strangely enough, our government actually seems to have gotten it right there. Maybe they can do that more often.
Actually both are tolerated, just not accepted. I still think both are wrong, and changes in popular opinion aren't what guide my moral compass. My morality comes from the same source as the Founders of this land.
Anyway, Agent Cobalt, I don't think I'll touch the whole "Judeo-Christian principles" thing in this thread, since that's a point of contention that would take us far beyond the issue of drug laws. But can I just ask you this, out of curiosity - if your attitude towards drug regulation is that it should be free to be decided by individual state legislatures (correct me if I'm wrong, I just assumed this based on what you said), why do you support the legalization of hemp? Or are you just saying that if it was voted upon in your state/county, you would support it?
My point was actually, if I'm remembering the source post about legislature you mean (I've made a couple), I believe the point was that US drug policy is very complex, containing every level of government down to state and local government. As for hemp, it's not a drug. It's a cash crop that was banned alongside marijuana as a way to stop its spread and growth. The decision however harmed farmers, businesses, and so on. It was also dumb in retrospect because hemp doesn't have enough THC to get you high and the drug dealers don't want hemp because breading hemp with pot will yield weaker potency and devalue the drug. Nobody would plant the two near each other because the plant hemp would "infect" the drug stockpile so to speak. I vote for legalizing hemp if on the ballot. People make the case that pot will help the economy. I disagree. Hemp would help the economy. Hemp would challenge other businesses and provide competition in a free market. "Take that, paper industry! I don't have to worry about pages in my hemp Bibles turning yellow!"