The Oklahoma Supreme Court rules against 10 Commndment monument

[seer]

Thomas Jefferson was raised as an Anglican, but was influenced by English deists such as Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury.

https://www.monticello.org/site/rese...igious-beliefs

Regardless, the record is clear. Jefferson and the other founding fathers excluded from the Constitution the establishment of Christianity as the preferred or natural religion of the USA.

Just so we are clear, your claim that Jefferson was a Deist was false.

The Treaty of Tripoli, namely: “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” was subject to a multi-review process at the time and was never queried or resisted by any member of the government.

Did Adam's believe that Christian principles were key to Independence? Yes or no?

If the religious underpinnings of the USA were already “laid out”, as you assert, then the Constitution conspicuously failed to “secure these rights in law”. It doesn't contain one single reference to Christianity.



Regardless, Adams’ views on US governance are clear: “Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone,without a pretence of miracle or mystery…are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.”

- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)

Did Adams and the other founders believe our rights came from God - yes or no?

[Roy]

Black slaves were definitely not equal... more like 3/5ths of a person according to the fifth sentence of the constitution, and definitely didn't get to enjoy "Liberty" of any kind.

What? Where does the Constitution say that blacks were 3/5ths of a person?

I suspect it's in the fifth sentence.

Here it is:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

So black slaves counted as 0.6 people for the purposes of determining representation, and seer is not only ignorant (I already knew this and I'm not even American) but incapable of following the most explicit of references.

Roy

[seer]

I suspect it's in the fifth sentence.

Here it is:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

So black slaves counted as 0.6 people for the purposes of determining representation, and seer is not only ignorant (I already knew this and I'm not even American) but incapable of following the most explicit of references.

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.

The 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.

[Roy]

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.

Counting 3/5 of a subpopulation is exactly equivalent to counting each member of that subpopulation as 3/5 of a person.

No-one said blacks/slaves were 3/5 of an actual person - that would be stupid - only that they were counted as such in the US constitution, rather than being treated equally.

[seer]

Counting 3/5 of a subpopulation is exactly equivalent to counting each member of that subpopulation as 3/5 of a person.

No-one said blacks/slaves were 3/5 of an actual person - that would be stupid - only that they were counted as such in the US constitution, rather than being treated equally.

No it's not. Not counting a whole population tells us nothing about the individual, they are not subdividing the individual, but the whole population. - The Constitution does not say that slaves or Indians are only 3/5 of a person. Period.

[Roy]

Counting 3/5 of a subpopulation is exactly equivalent to counting each member of that subpopulation as 3/5 of a person. ...

No it's not. Not counting a whole population tells us nothing about the individual, they are not subdividing the individual, but the whole population.

facepalm.jpg

[Bill the Cat]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7951[/ATTACH]

He's still right.

[Sam]

He's still right.

Um, no ... Starlight's claim was:

But that principle was self-evidently false at the time it was written and everyone at the time was well aware of it: Black slaves were definitely not equal... more like 3/5ths of a person according to the fifth sentence of the constitution, and definitely didn't get to enjoy "Liberty" of any kind.

seer's response was in no way a refutation of Starlight's point, which was that the "self-evident truth" of equality was not shared, in any pragmatic sense, by the majority of the nation's founders. This would be true even if slaves had been counted as a whole person since the point was to increase the political power of slave-owners by virtue of their "property". The slaves themselves were not represented.

[seer]

Um, no ... Starlight's claim was:

seer's response was in no way a refutation of Starlight's point, which was that the "self-evident truth" of equality was not shared, in any pragmatic sense, by the majority of the nation's founders. This would be true even if slaves had been counted as a whole person since the point was to increase the political power of slave-owners by virtue of their "property". The slaves themselves were not represented.

I agree that they were not given rights. But the whole 3/5th thing was not about them being 3/5th of a person.

[Sam]

I agree that they were not given rights. But the whole 3/5th thing was not about them being 3/5th of a person.

As others have noted, being counted as 3/5ths of a person was demonstrative that black slaves were not treated as equals.

That's the point being made. If you quibble about whether they were 3/5ths of an individual vs. 3/5ths of a local population, you're missing or obscuring the issue.

[seer]

As others have noted, being counted as 3/5ths of a person was demonstrative that black slaves were not treated as equals.

Of course they were not treated as equals, but that is not what this is addressing. Slavery was already a fact.

That's the point being made. If you quibble about whether they were 3/5ths of an individual vs. 3/5ths of a local population, you're missing or obscuring the issue.

I'm not quibbling - it is a fact, this is not about deciding if a slave is only 3/5 of a person. It's about counting population for legislative purposes.

[Sam]

Of course they were not treated as equals, but that is not what this is addressing. Slavery was already a fact.



I'm not quibbling - it is a fact, this is not about deciding if a slave is only 3/5 of a person. It's about counting population for legislative purposes.

If your point being made is that the nation was founded on the "religious principle" that all men are created equal (good luck demonstrating that to be a religious principle even across time for a single major religion) and the counter point is that the nation was actually, opposed to rhetorically, founded on policies and beliefs that contravened that religious principle, well, then you're in the soup.

[seer]

If your point being made is that the nation was founded on the "religious principle" that all men are created equal (good luck demonstrating that to be a religious principle even across time for a single major religion) and the counter point is that the nation was actually, opposed to rhetorically, founded on policies and beliefs that contravened that religious principle, well, then you're in the soup.

Sam, of course this nation was founded on a religious principle, that is a historical fact. But principles have no inherent power - men can and do ignore them, or only give them lip service.

[Sam]

Sam, of course this nation was founded on a religious principle, that is historical fact. But principles have no inherent power - men can and do ignore them, or only give them lip service.

Your choice in the matter, then, is that the majority of the founding fathers did not share this principle (and so it is wrong to say that the nation was founded upon it) or that the majority of the founding fathers, though they shared this principle, decided that it was not worth acting upon or enforcing, showing the principle's inclusion to be rhetorical at best and hypocritical at worst.

Neither helps your case that the government should therefore allow religious monuments to decorate government property or buildings.

[seer]

Your choice in the matter, then, is that the majority of the founding fathers did not share this principle (and so it is wrong to say that the nation was founded upon it) or that the majority of the founding fathers, though they shared this principle, decided that it was not worth acting upon or enforcing, showing the principle's inclusion to be rhetorical at best and hypocritical at worst.

They may have been hypocritical, but to deny the Declaration as the founding document is just silly. Men often hold principles that they don't live up to - I'm sure that truth even applies to you.

Neither helps your case that the government should therefore allow religious monuments to decorate government property or buildings.

No, again, though the claim in the DoI is not necessarily Christian (though there is a connection through Blackstone's writing), my point is that the Christian religion had a powerful and integral role in the founding of this nation - from the Pilgrims onward. And deserves a historical place and recognition - even on state property.

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html