Let's take a look at this one folks... Stop me when I'm wrong

DKClassen wrote "Let's not forget our country was not founded on socialist liberal principles to which ptownrob is speaking of, it was founded on conservative christian principles."

Well, I don't think anyone would disagree that this is one of the "God, guns & Gays" issues used to demonize anyone conservatives-calling-themselves-christians see as Un American (Liberals, Gays, Intellectuals, Hollywood, etc.)

First Problem: Supporters of this statement are virtually unanimous in saying that the Constitution is not a "Living Document." It does not change unless amended, and thus any law made outside its structure is both invalid and an insult to our founding fathers

With apologies to the colonial Spanish Florida, in the period of 1620-1776, Conservative Christianity- for that matter, mainstream Christianity consisted of what the Roman Church instructed, which had NOTHING to do with democracy, equality, or pulling oneself out of one's situation for a better life.

The Puritans, who represented a rather RADICAL form of Christianity, had no interest whatsoever in protecting the rights of anyone but themselves, but created the first "democratic" form of self-governance and communal sharing of goods and services. Very radically socialistic that was- the stronger and better-off providing for the sick or weak (and there were many), but still allowing each to make his own fortune.

The Dutch, and founders of New York, which became the model of capitalism for us, and the world, were only interested in making money. A noble enough cause, but hardly based in Conservative Christianity.

The Pennsylvanians were founded on principles of extreme religious tolerance-something quite unique in the Colonial world of Conservative Christianity. In fact, even today, the traditions of Quakers, Mennonites and other meetinghouses are demonized as being un-American because of their extreme Deist, pacifist and non-"Christian" nature.

The Virginians, who are arguably the most influential of our Founders, espoused no literal acceptance of the Biblical Text, and avoided a strong Christocentric theocracy in favor of giving homage to "The Deity" who was, in their world-view, a benevolent Christian image figure, if a "figure" at all. None of them speaks of a Second Coming, Rapture, Literal Creation or any other restrictions on human freedom that present-day conservative-fundamentalists claim is the bedrock of our nation.

Conclusion: Our founding fathers represent a diverse Christian-Deist movement founded not on Conservatism, but rather on beliefs that in their time were radical- politically, ethically and socially. They were "revolutionary." If the Constitution has not evolved since its adoption, then the claim of some super powerful Judeo-Christian conservative ethic does NOT exist in it from its origins. IT WAS ADDED TO (ACCRETED) AS TIME PASSED.

Second Problem: There are as many Judeo-Christian "beliefs" that are anathema to our society that to the Founders as may have been positives. Slavery? Women as Chattel? White Supremacy? Land-Owning Supremacy? Clearly, our concept of Judeo-Christian values has evolved since the writing of the Declaration and the Constitution.

Third Problem: There were even more Judeo-Christian Values that the Founders kept out of their own lives, to secure their own fortunes: Divine Right of Kings? Religious Infallibility? The Biblical mandate for the Hebrews to slaughter all who stood before them? The imminent return of some All Conquering Judge? Polygamy (except the Mormons, God Bless 'Em!)?

Fourth Problem: The founding Fathers built clearly NON Judeo-Christian privileges for themselves, both Federally and by Sovereign State that are anathema to J-C Values, beginning with the legalized discrimination and persecutions of the very "Judeos" that modern fundamentalists would claim the Founders honored. We institutionalized slavery, not just in the Constitution, but through our criminal law system which prohibited slaves from learning to read, permitted murder without trial for escaped slaves, etc.

While there very well may be some aura of attempting to seek to harmonize the founding of this great nation upon the BENEVOLENT gifts and wishes of a BENEVOLENT God or Being, there is clearly no documentation that the Deity these very progressive, forward-thinking white male property-owners appealed to is anything like the Judgemental, Angry, Wrathful God that "conservative" Christians call values today.

SO where does all this Christian intolerance and chest-thumping evolve from? Well, sorry to let out the secret folks, but it's appearance on the American funadmentalism, firmly rooted in Calvin, Wesley and Whitehead- was a strong reaction AGAINST the Enlightenment movement that was the underpinning philosophy of the United States. It did not have any strong influence untiul nearly one hundred years after the Revolutionary War

In other words, Fundamentalism is in it's very core ANTI-American, at least if you consider the original Constitution and Declaration to be non-living documents.

Fundamentalists condemned the liberalism enshrined in our founding fathers' ideologies precisely because the Enlightenment driven Founder's did not acknowledge: 1.) The Literalism of the Bible, 2.) the Virgin Birth, 3.) the Return of the Messiah in Judgement 4.) God's grace as the only means to salvation. 4.)The literalism of Jesus miracles.

This movement did not even "exist" until the latter 1800's- under the auspices of revivalist and Dispensationalists Dwight L. Moody (1837 – 1899), Arthur Tappan Pierson and British preacher and father of dispensationalism John Nelson Darby (1800 – 1882). While all of this backgorund information is off the internet, one only has to step back and think about what the HISTORY of traditional "Conservative Christian" values were:

1.) Support for Slavery, under the guise of State's rights. These states's rights trumped the "inalienable rights" of the Decelaration when slavery was the issue

2.) Support Racial Segregation and Discrimination as part of "God's Plan"

3.) The subjugation of women, under the guise of "traditionalism" in the home-itself nothing more than an extension of the biblical concept of women as chattel

4.) Protests against allowing marriage between the races as destroying the purity of the races which God Himself established

5.) "temperance" - The Forced Prohibition of alcohol based on nohting scriptural except an obscure line in the obscure Book of Joel, but rooted in those same fundamentalist thoughts as the others. George Washington was the U.S. largest distiller of Whiskey and Sam Adams a legendary brewer. What part of the Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Constitution justifies tee-totalling?

So this is just the tip of the iceberg. Even the supporters of modern conservative christianity would not say that the movement "Popped up" pvernight. It has a history- an undeniable history- which can trace its roots through those original (Though now largely discarded) beliefs. If conservative Christians awant to somehow claim that they are the bedrockof the Constitution, which I have argued they are not, they they must also acknowledge the subsequent stones built upon it- Support for slavery, segregation, subjugation of women, and the like. It cannot be had both ways.

I would maintain them, that not only is America NOT built on "conservative Christian" values, it is in fact anti-American in its foundation and core.

My basic belief is that extremist on either side are dangerous..both liberal and conservative ! We seemed to have lost the middle ground somewhere and while many want their PARTY to be in power, I will welcome anyone with a D or R if they come to the middle in some fashion !!!

Having said that.....the rant that started this thread brought back a quote from President Obama's "hero" (Yes that is my word but he in both of his books and it is chronicled studied this man and idolized him)...and the quote from our President's icon as a beginning to his book that President Obama used to hone his skills....

“From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

Saul Alinsky...Rules for Radicals

And the point of all of this is.....what?

I can agree that the colonists were the social liberals of their time. However, when one compares the colonists' societal and religious beliefs to the platform espoused by the social liberals of today, there is considerable difference. Much of today's liberalism and behavior was considered 200+ years ago by those liberal colonists as pagan, hedonistic and blasphemous. That may not be a popular feeling, but it is accurate.

The USA is a unique entity. It's actually 50 separate nation states (and a couple trust territories) which collectively established a legal entity (the federal government) which would handle relations with outside nations, provide for a common defense, and several other items best handled by virtue of economy and logic by a central party. However, the originators of this collective did not want all state authority absorbed by this central party, as each of the states wanted to maintain local control over most societal matters. That's why the 10th Amendment to the Constitution is so important, as is does limit the federal government from becoming all-powerful regarding local society.

The freedom of travel and resettlement by the populace throughout the 50 states blurs the fact that states are indeed "nations" which can and do exercise dominion and control over many of life's matters. States - not the fed - control laws regarding everything from who can marry and when, what constitutes education, temperance, drivers licenses, and so many other things.

Has this state's rights situation resulted in different laws and practices among the states for doing many things? Sure it has.

So, if the voters of State Alpha wants to redefine societal rules per its 10th Amendment authority, that's their choice. If any of the citizenry of State Alpha relocate to State Bravo which operates under different societal rules, then those folk are bound by the rules in effect in State Bravo, whether they like it or not., and it does not matter if what they are doing was legal in State Alpha.

So, if a resident of MA does not like the laws of FL or anywhere else regarding any issue within State's Rights per the 10th Amendment, there is no one forcing any MA resident to relocate to FL. Or vice versa. I think the gun laws and tax laws of MA and MD are lunacy, but when I'm there I abide by them. And I know the Federal government has no authority (thank God!) to infringe on those gun laws and tax laws, either in MA, MD or FL.

So, while we have federal laws that do apply to the USA population on some things, we will never have federal laws that apply to the USA population on everything. And we can still live in relative harmony because we all, as voters, can tailor the local environment to almost anything we want it to be within the context of the US Constitution as tempered by the 10th Amendment.

What's so bad about that?

William Bradford
• wrote that they [the Pilgrims] were seeking:
• 1) "a better, and easier place of living”; and that “the children of the group were being drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses [in Holland]“
• 2) “The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"
The Mayflower Compact (authored by William Bradford) 1620 | Signing of the Mayflower painting | Picture of Compact
“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…”

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ 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” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations. "A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“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.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“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.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

James McHenry – Signer of the Constitution
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

The three branches of the U.S. Government: Judicial, Legislative, Executive
• At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.


I can go on and on and on and on....

please clarify just exactly what the point of this thread is supposed to be. I don't want to second guess what appears to be a weighty subject. I am just not sure what it is!

BTK

Ptown, you have finally popped your cork. I usually don’t bother to read anything so long but a glance showed so much bull…, lies and misstatements that I gad to read it. I will do the best that I can to steer you straight. (no pun intended)

I do not agree with either you or DKClassen. This nation was founded by men who were for the most part, deists. They believed in a supream being but may have had several views. It was not founded on Christian principles but on Judeo-Christian ethics in part.

Next, I disagree. I do not understand how you can put gays on an equal footing with God and guns as far as our founders were concerned. Where out founders were conservative was in the amount of power allotted to the central government. It was their intent that the central government would provide for the common defense and not a lot more. The bill of rights was inserted in order to limit government and protect the people from the government.

(First Problem) You state this accurately but I do not see how it is a problem. The constitution was not intended to be changed at a whim but it could be amended for serious and sincere reasons. The oath of office for most elected officials, including the president is to defend the constitution, not the president.

The Catholic church had little influence in the founding of America other than to force the protestants to settle in the new world to get away from the “Church.”

The Puritans started out as communists but this almost killed them all. It failed as soon as people learned that they would be fed even if they didn’t work. The second year they were allowed to keep the product of their efforts to barter with others. This saved them.

Second Problem: These things have all been changed through amendment.

Third Problem: Blah Blah Blah. Is there a point?

Fourth Problem: Based on Judeo-Christian principles not Created with them.
Slavery was the way of life of the time. Blacks in Africa sold captives as slaves. Blacks in America owned slaves. Again, Changed through amendment.

Skipping comment on the rest of your hate speech, why do you live here. There must me many nations that live up to your ideals. By the way, why don’t you name a few of those wonderful places for us?

Yoda

Originally Posted by billethkid

please clarify just exactly what the point of this thread is supposed to be. I don't want to second guess what appears to be a weighty subject. I am just not sure what it is!

BTK

Lemme know when you figure it out or get an answer. The posts are geting longer and longer with more archaic quotes than I can keep up with.

Yoda:

I believe the Yoda image is copywrited, surprised the admins haven't busted you for breaking the laws of this great land of ours.

Now THIS is what I think this forum should be about. When members address an important subject or issue, research it and present intelligent, well-written, cogent arguments for their conclusions, we can all learn from their efforts.

Hear, Hear to you all!

Just another opinion, but I have never read such dribble and stupidity. I can't even guess what would allow people to have such excess time to think, believe, post such insane ideas. Take it back to Provincetown and let that place soften your brain cells some more. Real scary to think people have such twisted ideas.

Now let the diatribe really begin.

This nation was founded by men who were for the most part, deists.

Better do some research. A lot of their own writings would disagree with that.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Better do some research. A lot of their own writings would disagree with that.

Perhaps I was too specific. Most believed in God, a God or the equivalent thereof.

Yoda

Hi Folks-

FYI, I started the thread by copying a statement from Dklassen (sorry for the earlier incorrect address) from the "out of touch" thread: "Let's not forget our country was not founded on socialist liberal principles to which ptownrob is speaking of, it was founded on conservative christian principles. That's why we have become in such a very short time the most prosperous and generous nation in the world."

Yoda then speaks he does:

"I do not agree with (sic) either you or DKClassen. This nation was founded by men who were for the most part, deists. They believed (sic)in a supreme being but may(sic) have had several views. It was not founded on Christian principles but on Judeo-Christian ethics in part."

I agree with Yoda 100% about this. It is our ethical foundations, in large part, that are based Judeo-Christian, and even more so on a Deist version of those ethics. Without upsetting ALL sides, I feel comfortable in saying that, by the numbers and the content, our founders were more infulenced by the Enlightenment concepts enshrined in the Masonic practices of the time. I'm not referring to the secret rituals, but rather guiding principles. My point about the three "G"s is absolutely NOT about the Founders, but rather about the strategy of present-day conservative christians to galvanize their base through motifs of fear, exclusion and hatred. Hence, (G1) only conservative Christians can worship God or fulfill his expectations for America correctly; (G2) only conservatives will protect your right to own firearms, and everyone else will simply take them from you and (G3) conservative christians will say that, "gay" anything, abortion, women holding jobs, single-parenting, evolution, and every other "liberal agenda" item makes THEM (the liberal-commie-pinko crowd) a threat to America. It's a contemporary reference, not meant to include the Founding Fathers.

I believe that anyone attempting to justify the founding of this nation, including the First Amendment, on "atheist" values is just as wrongheaded as conservative christians are. Clearly, virtually all of these men believed in some higher power, and that belief is most easily expressed through our Judeo-Christian imagery. Clearly the American image of "the Deity" or transcendence of the "Enlightenment" is not a many headed, multi-limbed Shiva, or a meditating Buddha.

But this Deity is also NOT Jesus arriving on clouds preceded by four horsemen bringing death and destruction; the Deity is not the scrubbed vision of a white women in blue robes acting as our only interceder to some wrathful God; the Deity is clearly not some ativistic/animalist/natural system of rituals and beliefs.

But I'd like to return to Dklassen's quotations of founding fathers and other notables about their religious beliefs. These quotes, more often than not, can be matched or even outmatched by the same individuals warning against the excesses of a particular religion, or any FORMAL religion being enshrined in our official documents. The Declaration is about Independence from a tyrant, not an affirmation of a religious doctrine. It is about proclaiming that the rights of men (white, male, blah,blah,), which had always been subservient to any royal monarchical system, are, because of this new Enlightened understanding of "Our Creator," now equal to all men. Not just elevated, or having rights, but equal to. Not just revolutionary in terms of breaking away from England, but revolutionary in its concept of what equality actually is.

Government gets its power from the governed- REVOLUTIONARY. ALL men are created equal- REVOLUTIONARY. NO organized RELIGION has any more influence within our government than does any other organized religion, the state shall not declare any religion superior to any other through official support, and freedom of all to worship in their own manner and choosing is a protected right- REVOLUTIONARY.


Personally, I'd believe that Dklassen's quotes of Jefferson- who just happened to be the author of the Constitution- reflect the general religious tenor of the Founders, and therefore their intent:

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“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.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Notice, Jefferson says a "real" Christian, in his opinion, follows the doctrines of Jesus. And as if we don't "get" that "coded" explanation, he uses the subsequent paragraph at one point: "that tend to all the happiness of man."

Notice, no mention of Pauline doctrines of intolerance, notice no flaming rhetoric about End of Days, Second Comings, Wrathful Gods, Horsemen, Beasts, etc. All things espoused as critical to the live of a Christian according to conservative christian dogma, but not to Jefferson, and not to the framers.

Whatever their personal beliefs, as one reads through the Federalist papers, or the letters of Madison (who wrote the bulk of the constitution), there is no 8,000 lb elephant of Christianity in the room. It just was NOT crucial to developing the nation's foundation, other than acknowledging that "rights" are based on something larger than himself or herself, larger than the government and definitely larger than some earthly monarch.

Steve Z writes: "I can agree that the colonists were the social liberals of their time. However, when one compares the colonists' societal and religious beliefs to the platform espoused by the social liberals of today, there is considerable difference."

Absolutely no argument here either. How many have stopped to think just how progressive those men would be today if they started a revolution today? What would be their political and religious leanings? The only comparable (yet wholly different) situation would be the downfall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Eastern Europe. We saw magnificent freedom movements in Poland, Hungary and Germany. But we also saw tribal barbarity in the former Yugoslavia, and currently see unresolved ethnic controversies throughout the former USSR.

I think the founders would be the intellectuals, the movers & shakers, the entrepreneurs and others. They would be young and financially independent. They would not be hung up on religion, race, or gender or sexuality. They would want a government that stays out of their personal lives, but protects them from outside hostilities- both domestic and abroad. I think they'd want a government that, in this world, provides for the common good, as well as the common defense, but that does nothing to inhibit the fair accumulation of property, goods and the pursuit of happiness.

So would the founder's be thrilled about the state of our nation today. I'd say no. But would they say, "Let's just go back to the way it was.?" Again, I'd say no.

Steve notes: "Much of today's liberalism and behavior was considered 200+ years ago by those liberal colonists as pagan, hedonistic and blasphemous."

True, but I'd offer that many of the behaviors of the founders' would also be seen by the conservatives of the day (Torys, papists, Calvinists, etc.) as pagan, hedonistic and blasphemous as well.

Finally, I love this country as much (not more than, and not less than) anyone else. I will not buy the argument that criticizing the exploitation of three G's means that someone is unAmerican (Thus we return to the beginning of the previous discussion). The complex questions surrounding issues of Guns & God - First & Second Amendment- are not owend by conservative christians. The cross is not owned by conservative christians, and the flag is not owned by conservative Americans, yet somehow these "symbols" were deliberately co-opted by a very narrow slice of the angry and the fearful. The third "G" represents all the social liberalization in our culture- beginning with the end of slavery and following organically through desegregation, suffrage, keeping government out of women's decisions, public education, science, gay & lesbian equality, and hopefully, carrying right through to giving every American affordable, decent health-care regardless of their occupation.

For those of you who can't figure it out, I am a baby-boomer- I'll be 52 next month, so I fall right in the middle of the pack. I have always been proud to be an American, even if I have been ashamed at times of what some leaders have attempted to do in the name of the United States government.

I have volunteered and worked in politics since I was 16, and I proudly worked and fund-raised for federal, local and state candidates, according to our political system and my belief in what is best for this nation- sometimes against my own enlightened self interest. I also spent a successful career in the private sector and in religious organizations dedicating to helping the most frail, needy and least able to represent themselves in our nation.

Finally, I'd have to say I'm most proud of seeing America become respected again as the leader of the Free World, through reasserting her highest ideals. Those who are afraid of this world-view will demonize me, those who understand need no further explanation than what I've given.

Interesting....

While some of the projections of the founders in a rather idyllic light have a subjective view, those projections run counter to recorded facts.

On of the best sources for information about several of the founders, especially those who lived in or near Boston back then, can be found in the Kirstein Business Library (now part of the Boston Public Library system). As a kid I had to research a few of the more notorious and romanticized persona of the time, and Kirstein's records were not so "idyllic" in their portrayal. There were particular founders who owed small (and large) fortunes in back taxes, had outstanding debts of rather high proportions (under the then-standard of conduct), and thus had a financial stake (to include avoiding debtor's prison) in the revolution .

However the founders were in fact, whether they would condone the concepts of abortion, open homosexual relationships, euthanasia, gun control, or even a graduated income tax is pure conjecture. These were men who had one unifying trait - fear of a powerful, central government which could at whim change their immediate environment, forcing tacit acceptance of morality and behaviors they found personally reprehensible.

Liberalism is not the advocating of concepts of morality and behavior to the point where there is no longer any morality and all behavior is permitted. Liberalism is not against laws and definitely not for anarchy. Liberalism is to view all laws to the full extent of the writing, versus the enforcing of a law so tightly that unintended consequences occur.

Conversely, Conservatism is not the abolishment of all behaviors because they are "different" or unexpected. Conservatism views laws as specific and enforceable, and expects contrary behavior to occur only when the laws are amended by the citizenry. Anarchy is abhorred.

Neither Liberalism nor Conservatism condone outright scofflaw behavior, and both accept that local mores dictate local conduct. Both agree that society is evolutionary, and also the pace of that evolution difffers according to the will of the local voters. Both also try hard to influence those voters.

Again, this thread has been interesting....

Interesting and informative but is that what this website is really about? We are all blessed that we can say and read these things without fear of anyone kicking in our door because of what we do or dont believe. I thank the members of our armed forces past and present for preserving the right for us to say and read what you are talking about and I thank the teachers and clerics who taught us to compare the differences and be tolerant of all people. I do take offense however at the referance to the "white woman in blue robes ' as the only intercessor to Jesus. Whether you have faith in Our Lady or not is up to you and I dont question your beliefs.

You are lucky to have had the education you apparently must have had to be able to speak so profounly in comparison to my basic but deeply felt words.

Somebody give him an exlax.