The Oklahoma Supreme Court rules against 10 Commndment monument

[Sam]

So you don't defend the faith on line. You just attack Christians. And not just me.

Stop making bad apologetic arguments, then. As I wrote to you before, I find bad arguments for Christianity much more damaging to the faith than bad arguments for atheism. So you're probably going to get push back for 'em when you haul them into Civics and try to use them to impose religious beliefs on the population writ large.

But what you are saying is not historical. The Founders did not want a State Church (federal state church) but they certainly did give preference to the Christian religion. I mean we had Sabbath laws and school prayer until the early 1960s. Yes, leftist courts broke faith with with the Constitution and historical precedent. So what?

If that's "what the founders wanted", rather than what the culture of the day had established, then they did a pretty bad job of writing the Constitution. You can whine about "leftists" all you want ... the fact that the Constitution does not allow the preference of one religion above others is now a closed subject. Opposition from would-be crusaders or jihadists won't change that.

[shunyadragon]

Yet Adams also said this:



http://founders.archives.gov/documen.../03-06-02-0208

So according to Adams it was the Principles of Christianity that were key to Independence, and that these principles were eternal and immutable.

Adams is referring to general principles, and not the religion of Christianity. These general principles were acknowledge as pretty much universal with other religions and humanity in general. The Treaty of Tripoli was passed by Congress and signed by the President.

[seer]

Stop making bad apologetic arguments, then. As I wrote to you before, I find bad arguments for Christianity much more damaging to the faith than bad arguments for atheism. So you're probably going to get push back for 'em when you haul them into Civics and try to use them to impose religious beliefs on the population writ large.

Then why not dazzle us all with your defense of the faith? And I'm not making an apologetic argument here - just pointing to history.

If that's "what the founders wanted", rather than what the culture of the day had established, then they did a pretty bad job of writing the Constitution. You can whine about "leftists" all you want ... the fact that the Constitution does not allow the preference of one religion above others is now a closed subject. Opposition from would-be crusaders or jihadists won't change that.

Actually the Constitution says not such thing. This clause had one major goal:

The Establishment Clause addressed the concerns of members of minority faiths who did not want the federal government to establish a state religion for the entire nation. The Baptists in Virginia, for example, had suffered discrimination prior to the disestablishment of the Anglican church in 1786. As Virginia prepared to hold its elections to the state ratifying convention in 1788, the Baptists were concerned that the Constitution had no safeguard against the creation of a new national church

.

We did not establish a national Church were everyone was compelled to join. This had nothing to do with what the states could or could not do. And having the Ten Commandments in a court house does not compel any man to worship against his wishes. Or join a national Church.

[seer]

Adams is referring to general principles, and not the religion of Christianity. These general principles were acknowledge as pretty much universal with other religions and humanity in general. The Treaty of Tripoli was passed by Congress and signed by the President.

No Shuny, they were the general principles of Christianity. And no, we did not establish a national Christian church.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, they were the general principles of Christianity. And no, we did not establish a national Christian church.

General principles are general principles, and not the Ten Commandments. There is nothing in the writings of the Founding Fathers to Indicate that the Ten Commandments themselves form the foundation of the American Law. The Treaty of Tripoli is very specific.

[Sam]

Then why not dazzle us all with your defense of the faith?

Someone who seeks to dazzle others in defending or proselytizing the faith is doing it wrong, even wronger than someone who believes bad arguments are good.

Why don't you simply stop trying to denigrate or call into question others' faith?

As I've said repeatedly, I view the constitutional question of preferencing religious symbols on public grounds to be closed. Barring a contradictory SCOTUS ruling in the future, I see no reason to entertain the argument that explicitly religious displays should be placed by the government on government property. If you want to rage against that, enjoy that. Considering your downright hostile and nativist views regarding immigrants, I'd say there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to public displays of the Christian faith.

[seer]

General principles are general principles, and not the Ten Commandments. There is nothing in the writings of the Founding Fathers to Indicate that the Ten Commandments themselves form the foundation of the American Law. The Treaty of Tripoli is very specific.

Well I already proved the connection between English common law, and the Bible, and English common law with US state law. Never mind the clear, integral and historical role the the Christian religion played in the Founding of this nation. The Ten Commandments simply encapsulate that historical fact.

[seer]

Someone who seeks to dazzle others in defending or proselytizing the faith is doing it wrong, even wronger than someone who believes bad arguments are good.

Why don't you simply stop trying to denigrate or call into question others' faith?

Like I said Sam, you never defend the faith on these boards - as a matter a fact you are always in conflict with other Christians. Why is that?

As I've said repeatedly, I view the constitutional question of preferencing religious symbols on public grounds to be closed. Barring a contradictory SCOTUS ruling in the future, I see no reason to entertain the argument that explicitly religious displays should be placed by the government on government property. If you want to rage against that, enjoy that. Considering your downright hostile and nativist views regarding immigrants, I'd say there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to public displays of the Christian faith.

Like I said, the establishment clause was meant for one thing - to prevent a national Church. A Ten Commandments monument does not in any sense violate that clause. And I'm not the least bit hostile towards legal immigrants. As a matter of fact, as a white guy, I'm the minority in my neighborhood which is largely Latino.

[Sam]

Like I said Sam, you never defend the faith on these boards - as a matter a fact you are always in conflict with other Christians. Why is that?

Respectfully, seer, you don't know what you're talking about. On many topics, this included. And I see no utility in defending my orthodoxy or orthopraxis to you.

[Mountain Man]

Right idiot, this does not say that a black man or slave is only 3/5th of an actual person, but that they would only count 3/5th of that population.

he Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years.

So thanks for making my point twit.

And the whole point was not to devalue blacks but to prevent slave owners from having a disproportionate amount of power in government affairs. It's actually a very shrewdly written law.

[Littlejoe]

The Treaty of Tripoli issued in 1797 makes it clear that the United States is in 'no way founded on the Christian Religion.'

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

© Copyright Original Source

The historical context of Article 11 are in dispute, this is an excerpt from a non Christian website:

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html

The text reproduced below is what was signed and ratified by the United States. An examination of the Arabic text, however, reveals that Article 11 does not exist in the Arabic text, at least not in the form presented in the English text. In the Arabic version, the text between Articles 10 and 12 is a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. State Department review of the translation in 1800 called it "extremely erroneous." An Italian translation of the Arabic done at the same time, as Italian was widely used in Tripoli, is much closer to the original Arabic. The differences in the key provisions of the treaty, however, are not significant.

© Copyright Original Source

Congress needing to pass the treaty to ensure safe passage of it's ships didn't change the document. However, later treaties completely left out this article and it's language.

source

[Sam]

And the whole point was not to devalue blacks but to prevent slave owners from having a disproportionate amount of power in government affairs. It's actually a very shrewdly written law.

To limitallowed slave owners a disproportionate amount of power in government affairs.

[Mountain Man]

To limitallowed slave owners a disproportionate amount of power in government affairs.

Surely you're not this ignorant and naive... or maybe you are.

A slave owner with 10 slaves effectively had 11 votes since there's no way he'd let his slaves vote contrary to him. The 3/5 compromise reduced the slave owner's influence without completely taking away the voice of the slaves.

Do you really not know this stuff? It's history 101... but maybe I come from a generation that actually learned history instead of the white washed fiction preferred by liberals.

[shunyadragon]

The historical context of Article 11 are in dispute, this is an excerpt from a non Christian website:

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html

The text reproduced below is what was signed and ratified by the United States. An examination of the Arabic text, however, reveals that Article 11 does not exist in the Arabic text, at least not in the form presented in the English text. In the Arabic version, the text between Articles 10 and 12 is a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. State Department review of the translation in 1800 called it "extremely erroneous." An Italian translation of the Arabic done at the same time, as Italian was widely used in Tripoli, is much closer to the original Arabic. The differences in the key provisions of the treaty, however, are not significant.

© Copyright Original Source

Congress needing to pass the treaty to ensure safe passage of it's ships didn't change the document. However, later treaties completely left out this article and it's language.

source

As far as I have been able to find in my sources. Congress passed the treaty, and the President signed it in 1797 English with Article 11 as worded. The web site referenced includes the original version as I cited. It is true that later treaties signed did change Article 11, and used it give clarification on slavery issues.

[Sam]

Surely you're not this ignorant and naive... or maybe you are.

A slave owner with 10 slaves effectively had 11 votes since there's no way he'd let his slaves vote contrary to him. The 3/5 compromise reduced the slave owner's influence without completely taking away the voice of the slaves.

Do you really not know this stuff? It's history 101... but maybe I come from a generation that actually learned history instead of the white washed fiction preferred by liberals.

You wrote that the intent was to prevent slave owners from a disproportionate amount of political power. Preventing a slave owner from having a disproportionate amount of power would necessitate that slave owners' political power did not exceed their own number. Allowing slaves to be counted as even fractional persons necessarily allowed slave owners disproportionate political power.

The compromise was so that slave owning districts did have as large of a disproportionate influence in the federal government than those groups wanted. Hence, a compromise. Not sure why a compromise that gave 'em over half of they wanted when the just representation was them getting nothing can be considered "shrewd."