When the brilliant Founders wrote the first Amendment, freedom of religion

[blue_pearl_85]

did not apply to slaves, whose marriages marriages were contingent upon their 'owners' not selling them to separate owners.

The Founders were very forward-thinking people, for a homogenous group of 18th century propertied men. But they didn't have all the answers, even to some questions that we see as obvious, in retrospect. Justify your positions from your ethics, not from authority.

This shit is not difficult.

 

[eyer]

This shit is not difficult.

Really?

'Cause it reads like you're sort of grunting a bit there...

 

[KingOrfeo]

did not apply to slaves, whose marriages marriages were contingent upon their 'owners' not selling them to separate owners.

Well, of course not. The freedom of anything did not apply to slaves. Doesn't mean the FFs were mistaken in valuing freedom; just means their understanding of it was imperfect.

 

[Byron In Exile]

just means their understanding of it was imperfect.

Lol...!

 

[fgarvb1]

The history of slavery covers slave systems in historical perspective in which one human being is legally the property of another, can be bought or sold, is not allowed to escape and must work for the owner without any choice involved. As Drescher (2009) argues, "The most crucial and frequently utilized aspect of the condition is a communally recognized right by some individuals to possess, buy, sell, discipline, transport, liberate, or otherwise dispose of the bodies and behavior of other individuals."[1] An integral element is that children of a slave mother automatically become slaves.[2] It does not include historical forced labor by prisoners, labor camps, or other forms of unfree labor in which laborers are not considered property.

Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution.[3] Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations as slavery depends on a system of social stratification. Slavery typically also requires a shortage of labor and a surplus of land to be viable.[4] David P. Forsythe wrote: "The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom."[5]

Slavery is no longer legal anywhere in the world.[6] Mauritania abolished it in law in 1981[7] and was the last country to do so – see Abolition of slavery timeline. However, the number of slaves today is higher than at any point in history,[8] remaining as high as 12 million[9] to 27 million.[10]


more... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Back in the day, snail darters didn't have any rights either. Darter gotta spawn.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You really didn't limit us enough when you asked the question. Since it applies differently to each thing and since you mentioned slavery people are focusing on it even though it's not the point at all. The point is the Founding Fathers didn't see into the future. Which is true and far to often ignored.

 

[KingOrfeo]

As for what our Founders did mean by "freedom of religion," such as it was:

In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:

As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity 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.

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."

 

[eyer]

Our Godless Constitution

...Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God.

The very last words of the Constitution read (and I quote):

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 and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

So, technically, when anyone insists the "Constitution makes no mention whatever of God", they are correct...

...it's only Jesus Christ who is alluded to by all those signers immediately following his shout-out.

My thoughts on "religion" and "Christianity" are easily found with a simple search of this Board, so only the brainless can accuse me of having any bias on this point, and I don't point the above out for any other reason than it is a certifiable fact (as the C certifies itself)...

...unfortunately for those much, much less accountable though, the founders and framers - as a whole - were continuously clear in their reliance and reverence for "God".

Sadly for the truth, they and others (especially American "Christians") have never matured philosophically and theologically enough to understand...

...God don't do "religion".

 

[blue_pearl_85]

You realize the year-numbering system that used for centuries in the West, A.D., literally translates to "Year of our Lord"? Calling it A.D. is as much mentioning God as it would be mentioning the Ptolmaic dynasty to note that the Constitution was written in Philadelphia.

This is not stupid: it's frankly deliberately obtuse.

 

[unregistered]

 

[MatthewVett]

Get the fuck out and find a region of the world you like better.

Get the fuck out of the West. We use Ab Urbe Condita here. None of this Middle Eastern Anno Domini bullshit. It's almost like Christianity wasn't the first thing that ever was, huh...

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Get the fuck out and find a region of the world you like better.

If it's high numbers we're going for, this is the year 5773 on the Jewish calendar.

 

[blue_pearl_85]

If it's high numbers we're going for, this is the year 5773 on the Jewish calendar.

I am aware--I heard the shofar.

 

[Squibbs]

The very last words of the Constitution read (and I quote):



So, technically, when anyone insists the "Constitution makes no mention whatever of God", they are correct...

...it's only Jesus Christ who is alluded to by all those signers immediately following his shout-out.

My thoughts on "religion" and "Christianity" are easily found with a simple search of this Board, so only the brainless can accuse me of having any bias on this point, and I don't point the above out for any other reason than it is a certifiable fact (as the C certifies itself)...

...unfortunately for those much, much less accountable though, the founders and framers - as a whole - were continuously clear in their reliance and reverence for "God".

Sadly for the truth, they and others (especially American "Christians") have never matured philosophically and theologically enough to understand...

...God don't do "religion".

^^^Holy dumb shit, batman!

 

[Byron In Exile]

Anno Domini is Medieval Latin.

It's Classical Latin, too.

We no longer celebrate the founding of the City of Rome.

Some of us do, on Festivus.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

did not apply to slaves, whose marriages marriages were contingent upon their 'owners' not selling them to separate owners.

The Founders were very forward-thinking people, for a homogenous group of 18th century propertied men. But they didn't have all the answers, even to some questions that we see as obvious, in retrospect. Justify your positions from your ethics, not from authority.

This shit is not difficult.

I believe it is ethical for a majority of citizens to establish whatever form and substance of ruling authority they may desire. It appears to me that the founders of this country thought so too.

 

[blue_pearl_85]

I believe it is ethical for a majority of citizens to establish whatever form and substance of ruling authority they may desire. It appears to me that the founders of this country thought so too.

No, they did not. They believed it was ethical for a preponderance (not majority) of people meeting certain criteria (propertied, male, non-slave, educated, etc) to establish the substance of ruling authority, to include meta-authorative rules (that is, the rules about who is allowed to make rules/vote).

They did not believe in strict majority rule (hence the requirement for unanimity for the Declaration of Independence, and the supermajority requirements for Constitutional ratification, and bicameralism) and they did not believe that all people, or even all citizens, had equal say.

 

[eyer]

No, they did not. They believed it was ethical for a preponderance (not majority) of people meeting certain criteria (propertied, male, non-slave, educated, etc) to establish the substance of ruling authority, to include meta-authorative rules (that is, the rules about who is allowed to make rules/vote).

They did not believe in strict majority rule (hence the requirement for unanimity for the Declaration of Independence, and the supermajority requirements for Constitutional ratification, and bicameralism) and they did not believe that all people, or even all citizens, had equal say.

Wow...

...you make it seem like they intentionally chose not to frame the USA as a democracy.

Is that what your panties are all bunched-up about?

 

[njlauren]

Wow...

...you make it seem like they intentionally chose not to frame the USA as a democracy.

Is that what your panties are all bunched-up about?

The founders indeed deliberately made the US a non democracy, most of them feared it, they called it 'mob rule', John Adams, who Mass constitution (still in use) was the model for the US one, was built by a man who called New England Town meetings nothing more then frippery of the stupid.....it is also why we have checks and balances, it is why Sarah Palin and her 'Real Americans' are the very people they were operating against.

The whole framers argument has come down to another religious battle, where basically religious fundamentalists are trying to apply the same logic to the constitution, as if the writers of the constitution were gods themselves or the document were perfect, which it is not. A lot of things, including the infamous 2nd amendment, were left vague to allow passage, battles that could have been fought weren't. The founders were also wise in that they made amending the constitution hard, they wanted it to be a fluid document and didn't want what you see in places like California, where any motivated group can modify the constitution, often with not great results for freedom or liberty.

The one thing the founders knew? That the country would change, I can pretty much guarantee you that the brains behind the constitution, Adam's influence, Madison's words, Washington getting it through, all of them, knew the county would be very different in the future, and knew the constitution wouldn't as written be good enough. They could have left amending it easy, but didn't, instead left what we had, a document that grew and expanded by court decisions and by legislation, as time changed.

I am sure the GOP base would love to go back to the days of the founders, where white men ruled everything, blacks were slaves, indians were nobody, women were property, it is the ideal for most of the people in the hookworm and farm belt that make up that base, but it isn't what they envisioned, either.

 

[Byron In Exile]

No, they did not. They believed it was ethical for a preponderance (not majority) of people meeting certain criteria (propertied, male, non-slave, educated, etc) to establish the substance of ruling authority, to include meta-authorative rules (that is, the rules about who is allowed to make rules/vote).

If what you say were true, we'd still own slaves and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[eyer]

...

Subjectivity gets you hawt, huh?