| Author | Message | ||
     Buellkowski |
That Divine Providence is cited by the Founders as the basis of our natural rights is unquestioned. That the Founders' invocation of Divine Providence was somehow an unequivocal endorsement of Christianity as the source of our rights is doubtful, IMHO. | ||
| Blake |
>>> That the Founders' invocation of Divine Providence was somehow an unequivocal endorsement of Christianity as the source of our rights is doubtful Straw man. | ||
| Fb1 |
| ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Actually yes, it is free. Given how little it costs, the school eats it. Huh, what kind of f'd up logic is that? Do you think you're the ONLY person receiving free tuition? | ||
| Fb1 |
[Source: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/david-limbaugh/2012/ 02/28/christian-conservatives-guard-religious-libe rty/] | ||
| Buellkowski |
Blake, I was addressing your straw man response to Aussie2126's post. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The school may be able to absorb the cost of one person and spread that cost across the tuition of those who pay full boat, but what happens, Fright, when all receive the "free" tuition you seek for all? | ||
| Boltrider |
free = hidden cost, paid for by someone. | ||
| Froggy |
Pretty much. Only about 300 people are eligible for it, and less than a dozen actually take advantage of it.
That would be a glorious day. I wouldn't mind my taxes going up to cover tuition to get more people into public universities. Perhaps it is just the extra job security  | ||
| Pellis |
I wouldn't mind my taxes going up to cover tuition to get more people into public universities. http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?feature=player_ embedded&v=5u03KAcEbEo#%21 | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I wouldn't mind my taxes going up to cover tuition to get more people into public universities Which do you believe to be a larger number, your tax increase OR the price of tuition by itself? Do you believe "more people into public universities" will cause tuition prices to increase or decrease? Do you believe more people with a college degree will make having a degree more valuable or less valuable? I understand based upon where you work asking about more people in college is like asking Tony Montoya how he feels about the war on drugs, but think through the WHOLE picture not just your small corner | ||
| Guell |
I wouldn't mind my taxes going up to cover tuition to get more people into public universities i wouldnt mind more americans going to tech schools, or getting into manual labor instead of sitting on their buts in a college. | ||
| Blake |
Buellkowski Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - 05:45 pm: Blake, I was addressing your straw man response to Aussie2126's post. My post to which you refer asserted nothing at all contrary to your contention, "that the Founders' invocation of Divine Providence was somehow an unequivocal endorsement of Christianity as the source of our rights is doubtful", so what point of mine were you intending to address remains unclear. It was a lengthy post. A quote might be helpful. | ||
| Aussie2126 |
<<<<<Back to America's founding though. An honest person cannot ignore the profound role of belief in G-d and the teachings of the Bible in the founding of America (see aforementioned Biblical teaching of separation of civil govt from religion). Simply read our nation's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence. Then the preamble to our Constitution, and then the Bill of Rights. When an honest person reads those documents, it becomes crystal clear from what basis our unalienable rights are bestowed. Nowhere does the Constitution say: "The United States is a Christian Nation", or anything even close to that. In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea that the power to rule over other people comes from god. It was a letter from the Colonies to the English King, stating their intentions to seperate themselves. The Declaration is not a governing document. It mentions "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence"-- but, that's the language of Deism, not Christianity | ||
| Aussie2126 |
(Message edited by aussie2126 on February 28, 2012) | ||
| Fb1 |
  | ||
| Oldog |
KEEP EM COMING FERRIS! | ||
| Pkforbes87 |
Froggy.. wtf. I too am getting a college education on someone else's dime, but I'm not foolish enough to think that it's free. I could look at it as being paid for by tax payers, or paid in advance by me for serving 6 years active duty. Either way, the fact that I don't see a bill doesn't mean it's free. | ||
| Fb1 |
KEEP EM COMING FERRIS! Roger that, Oldog!
| ||
| Blake |
Aussie,
Concerning Christianity, that is entirely a straw man. You continue arguing a point not contested. Not "deism", but rather "theism" informed our nation's founding. Deism rejects divine providence and any kind of active role for the deity in the ongoing affairs of men. It is a myth that most of our nation's founders were deists. A very few were. The vast overwhelming majority were theists, mainly Christians. You've been misled. The DOI is not mere letter of intent. It is our nation's birth certificate which clearly sets down the reasoning justifying our unalienable right to liberty and affirming its divine origination. What is the clearly stated foundation for our unalienable rights? No, not "Christianity", just plain G-d. When people give thanks for or recognize their blessings, from where do they understand said blessings come? Clearly blessings are understood to come from G-d, even more clearly so at the time of our nation's founding. So now with that understanding, reread the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and then the pre-amble of the Constitution. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles... Of what "foundation" do they write? Of what "principles" do they refer? For what reason was the Constitution created? One reason clearly stated was "... to secure the blessings of liberty..." From where does our liberty come? From where do blessing come? From men you say, from govt you say? No! Not in America. In America, our nations founders clearly recognized and affirmed that our blessings of liberty come from G-d. Period. Govt is only instituted by men to help secure said blessings of liberty, to defend them. "In G-d We Trust", our national motto, appearing on American currency since 1864. "One Nation Under G-d", in our pledge. Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty ... that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom Liberty, that unalienable right endowed by who? How might an American seeking to wipe recognition of G-d from our government not constitute a traitor to liberty? What did George Washington have to say on the matter? | ||
| Blake |
Back on topic... GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796 | ||
| Fb1 |
| ||
| Aussie2126 |
<<<<<"In G-d We Trust", our national motto, appearing on American currency since 1864. <<<<"One Nation Under G-d", in our pledge. The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an expression of loyalty to the federal flag and the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Christian Socialist Francis Bellamy (1855-1931) in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942.[1] The Pledge has been modified four times since its composition, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954. The idea of putting the phrase on U.S. currency was conceived by Salmon P. Chase, the U.S. Treasury Secretary under President Abraham Lincoln.[1] Chase wrote in an 1861 letter to James Pollock, then Director of the Mint in Philadelphia, that "no nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins."  4] Aspirations for the motto arrose surrounding the turmoil and heightened religious sentiment that existed during the Civil War. The Reverend M. R. Watkinson, in a letter dated 13 November 1861, petitioned the Treasury Department to add a statement recognising "Almighty God in some form in our coins." 5] However Treasury Secretary Chase did not submit the motto with the words "In God We Trust" until December 9, 1863.[1] The act approving the motto to be placed on the 1-cent and newly created 2-cent piece passed April 22, 1864.[5] This was followed in 1866 by the 5 cent nickel (1866–1883), quarter dollar, half dollar, silver dollar, and gold dollars.[6][7] An 1865 law allowed the motto to be used on coins.[8] The use of the motto was permitted, but not required, by an 1873 law. While several laws come into play, the act of May 18, 1908,[9] is most often cited as requiring the motto (even though the cent and nickel were excluded from that law, and the nickel did not have the motto added until 1938). Since 1938, all coins have borne the motto. On July 11, 1954, just one month after the phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance,[10] the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 84-140, which required the motto on all coins and currency. The law was approved by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, and the motto was progressively added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966. The pledge was written by a christian SOCIALIST and "one nation under God" was added in 1954? Not exactly a founding principle. In God we trust suggested by Secetary of the Treasury 86 years after the founding and not adopted as the motto till 94 years later. Also not exactly a founding principle. Neither one provides any proof that this nation was founded with Gods guidance or intervention. | ||
| Aussie2126 |
<<<What did George Washington have to say on the matter? "I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country." -- George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274, the "Magna-Charta" here refers to the proposed United States Constitution | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I don't know when we lost it, but we certainly still had it in 1860 Henry David Thoreau "The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run." " I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor." "A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone." "I learned this, at least, by my experiment; that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavours to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours." "Our life is frittered away by detail. An honest man has hardly need to count more than his ten fingers, or in extreme cases he may add his ten toes, and lump the rest. Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!" "Most men would feel insulted if it were proposed to employ them in throwing stones over a wall, and then in throwing them back, merely that they might earn their wages. But many are no more worthily employed now." "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is in prison." "I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived." | ||
| Fb1 |
| ||
| Blake |
It is important ... that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. | ||
| Aesquire |
I don't know when we lost it, but we certainly still had it in 1860 It has been a struggle since the beginning, but you can count the slow murder of liberty really getting going with the rise of marxism. ( AKA Progressivism, AKA Liberation Theology, AKA collectivism, etc. ) It gets down to if you believe Man a noble savage in his native form, capable of perfection, ( French revolution ) or flawed and needing rules to keep from excesses. ( American revolution ) | ||
| Aesquire |
As far as religion, G-d, etc go, yes, the "In God We Trust" came much later. The fundamental difference is, without quibbling over minor details, is that the Founders believed that your rights come from God, ( or nature, natural law, logic and/or common sense, etc. etc. ) NOT that God gives the King the Divine Right To Rule. We do not have rulers, ( ok, to be political, some Do believe they are rulers, and are not leaders, but who, and how, is for a different thread ) we have employees. WE chose who leads us, temporarily, and that process has been corrupted by the Party System as feared by Washington & company. Even so, despite the excesses sought and gained by men both evil and well meaning, ( yet still horribly wrong, you know what road is paved with good intentions ) the basic concept is that Man is imperfect, that men will seek power, and that the system we chose to live under must be designed to limit the power of men over another. Thus the power of Government should and must by limited by law and custom to avoid tyranny. The Founders would be appalled by the idea that the President could order the murder of a citizen without trial, or charges, or determine by fiat the worthiness of a group of people to protection of the Constitution, or not, at whim, for political gain. | ||
| Fb1 |
The Founders would be appalled by the idea that the President could order the murder of a citizen without trial, or charges, or determine by fiat the worthiness of a group of people to protection of the Constitution, or not, at whim, for political gain. Indeed.
|
