U.s. Founding fathers

[MMI]

I don't buy that. Washington could exercise control when he wanted to: e.g. the Militia Act 1792.

"Old Boy Network" is a term frequently used over here - generally referring back to the public/private schools the men in power went to ("Old Boys"). But what I'm reading is that the routes to power here and there are very similar, despite one being a monarchy and the other a republic.

(Btw, for the avoidance of doubt, a public school is not the same thing as a state school over here. A public school is a school established with a charitable purpose (to educate the rich and privileged) while a private school is a business enterprise (educating the less well-connected) for profit.)

[steelish]

Basically, our Founding Fathers believed that rights come from God...no matter what religion you follow. Think of this:

If you allow men to grant rights, slaves will ALWAYS be a part of life. Natures law does not create slavery and Natures God abhors it.

[MMI]

Perhaps the most interesting group of Loyalists were enslaved African-Americans who chose to join the British. The British promised to liberate slaves who fled from their Patriot masters. This powerful incentive, and the opportunities opened by the chaos of war, led some 50,000 slaves (about 10 percent of the total slave population in the 1770s) to flee their Patriot masters. When the war ended, the British evacuated 20,000 formerly enslaved African Americans and resettled them as free people.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/13c.asp

Looks like Freedom came from the so-called tyrants!

[Thorne]

Natures law does not create slavery and Natures God abhors it.

Sorry, steelish, but I have to disagree. Virtually EVERY culture ever has had one form of slavery or another. And virtually EVERY religion has condoned it.
Leviticus 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."
Leviticus 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Leviticus 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

There are others.

Quran 24:58 "O ye who believe! Let your slaves, and those of you who have not come to puberty, ask leave of you at three times (before they come into your presence)."

It was not the churches who freed the slaves in America, but MEN and WOMEN! Using the LAWS of men. Most churches in the US fought against the repeal of slavery, just as they fought against equal rights for Blacks and for women, just as they fight now against equal rights for gays. And as they have done in the past, when those rights are eventually granted the church leaders will beat their chests and loudly proclaim that it was GOD'S will that those rights be granted. Hypocrites!

Also, speaking of nature, there are some (at least one, anyway) species of ants which take other ants as slaves and force them to work. Nature is harsh and unforgiving.

[steelish]

Thorne, people have a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 12 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch.

[Thorne]

People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin.

And yet, one verse I quoted above seems to say just that:
Leviticus 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."
That sounds like ethnic slavery to me.

And let's not forget Deuteronomy:
20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

So it sounds OK to enslave your enemies, if they surrender, or kill the men and enslave the women and children if they resist.

In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

This sounds like typical apologetics. "They LIKED being slaves! They WANTED to be slaves. So that made it all right!"

The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

Slavery is slavery. No matter what kind of ribbons and bows you try to dress it up with.

And the religious arguments for and against slavery are nothing new.

The first edition of Domestic Slavery was published in 1846. It is a monograph compilation of correspondence, presented initially in serial format, between two significant Baptist leaders, Francis Wayland and Richard Fuller. Wayland, president of Brown University, argued against the biblical validity of slavery, and Fuller, Baptist pastor and South Carolina native, argued that slavery was indeed biblically valid.

As with most of the Bible, it is so filled with contradictions and vague assertions that anyone can "prove" anything they wish simply by cherry-picking those verses which agree with their point. As I have done myself.

[MMI]

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society.

I found that to be a very interesting comment. I had never considered that the Bible's only purpose was to show believers how to find their way through the evils of this world without becoming corrupted, and that it had no real intention of eradicating evil at all. I supposed it had a much broader purpose.

All God's laws must now be looked at in this way. Reading Exodus or Deuteronomy, you will find no reference to how society should be governed or how nations should interact; He clearly foresaw that He could leave those tasks to the likes of Marx and Machiavelli. Instead, God chose to point the way for an individual to save his soul, without necessarily even contributing to the society he lives in.

It seems to me, therefore, that governments and other organs of society (the Church?) have no place in God's plans and that He does not endorse any country's nationhood or its constitution, whether written or not. So much for the divine right of kings! Is it appropriate, therefore, for countries to require specific religious observances to be carried out - e.g., a daily act of worship in schools?

(Maybe this part of the thread should be moved to Religion?)

[MMI]

This sounds like typical apologetics. "They LIKED being slaves! They WANTED to be slaves. So that made it all right!"

Yes, I think it does - in some cases anyway. People did choose to sell themselves into slavery, not to fulfill any kind of desire or yearning, but to avoid a worse fate, such as poverty and destitution. There are also instances where people of great accomplishment and ambition chose enslavement in order to attain wealth and power, and I believe that several important characters in history became slaves voluntarily and rose to great heights in China, Persia, Rome and many other places.

(I cannot avoid the temptation to use this post to promote a little scratching at http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...91-Young-Slave.)

[steelish]

It seems to me, therefore, that governments and other organs of society (the Church?) have no place in God's plans and that He does not endorse any country's nationhood or its constitution, whether written or not. So much for the divine right of kings! Is it appropriate, therefore, for countries to require specific religious observances to be carried out - e.g., a daily act of worship in schools?

(Maybe this part of the thread should be moved to Religion?)

This is where the idea of separation of church and state comes in. Governments and other political agenda groups have no place in God's plans and should not be involved in churches...but that doesn't mean that religion and faith has no place in Government. As to required specific religious observances such as a daily act of worship being carried out in schools...to what are you referring? The Pledge of Allegiance is not an act of worship. That was the only daily required ritual in school while I was growing up.

[Thorne]

that doesn't mean that religion and faith has no place in Government.

I disagree. Religion certainly has no place in government. Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities. Keep the religion in church, where it belongs.

As to required specific religious observances such as a daily act of worship being carried out in schools...to what are you referring? The Pledge of Allegiance is not an act of worship.

If it's not an act of worship, then we shouldn't have any problem with removing the phrase, "under God." Or maybe we can change it to "under Allah" or "under Shiva" or "under Zeus". Each week we could change the term so that all religions were included. Think the Christian right would go for that? After all, it's not an act of worship, for crying out loud!

Teaching our kids to place their hands over their hearts and recite the pledge is no different than teaching them to make the sign of the cross and recite the Lord's Prayer. It's a blatant act of worship. It only differs in who, or what, you are worshiping.

[MMI]

As to required specific religious observances such as a daily act of worship being carried out in schools...to what are you referring?

Section 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (UK legislation) states, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

[steelish]

Section 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (UK legislation) states, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure if you were referring to something in the US. That answered the question.

[steelish]

If it's not an act of worship, then we shouldn't have any problem with removing the phrase, "under God." Or maybe we can change it to "under Allah" or "under Shiva" or "under Zeus". Each week we could change the term so that all religions were included. Think the Christian right would go for that? After all, it's not an act of worship, for crying out loud!

Teaching our kids to place their hands over their hearts and recite the pledge is no different than teaching them to make the sign of the cross and recite the Lord's Prayer. It's a blatant act of worship. It only differs in who, or what, you are worshiping.

lol. "Under God" can mean anything to anyone. To a Native American it might be Nature itself, to another, it might be Jehovah to yet another it might be Buddah. It makes no difference so long as your faith promotes goodness and generosity to your fellow man.

[Thorne]

lol. "Under God" can mean anything to anyone. To a Native American it might be Nature itself, to another, it might be Jehovah to yet another it might be Buddah.

And to an atheist it's simply paying homage to a magic man (or woman) in the sky. It has no basis in reality, and it would be just as valid to declare the US to be one nation under leprechauns.

It makes no difference so long as your faith promotes goodness and generosity to your fellow man.

And that can be done without forcing said faith down the throats of everyone else in the country. Faith is a personal experience, not a community requirement. And while I can see plenty of good and generous people of faith around, I have seen damned few religions which are good and generous to anyone other than their own kind. And religions tend to use people's faiths to turn them against those who are different.

[Thorne]

Section 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (UK legislation) states, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

At least they don't tell you who to worship. I assume they wouldn't be against the worship of Satan?

[steelish]

And to an atheist it's simply paying homage to a magic man (or woman) in the sky. It has no basis in reality, and it would be just as valid to declare the US to be one nation under leprechauns.

If those leprechauns are what creates your sense of humanity and decency, then go for it.

And that can be done without forcing said faith down the throats of everyone else in the country. Faith is a personal experience, not a community requirement. And while I can see plenty of good and generous people of faith around, I have seen damned few religions which are good and generous to anyone other than their own kind. And religions tend to use people's faiths to turn them against those who are different.

I agree. I do not follow any organized religion. I do, however, believe there is a greater force at work; whether it is nature itself or God. That being said, I do not find the Pledge of Allegiance to be offensive. Simply saying it does not make me a bad person. Nor does it make the person standing next to me a bad person.

[Thorne]

If those leprechauns are what creates your sense of humanity and decency, then go for it.

No, what creates my sense of humanity and decency is my inborn sense of humanity and decency. I believe in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I allowed myself to behave inhumanely towards others then, in all honesty, I would have to admit that it was all right for them to behave inhumanely towards me. The idea that morality comes from some super-faerie has been thoroughly falsified.

I do, however, believe there is a greater force at work; whether it is nature itself or God.

That is faith, a personal thing, and everyone is entitled to have their beliefs. That does not necessarily mean that what you believe in is true for anyone but you.

That being said, I do not find the Pledge of Allegiance to be offensive. Simply saying it does not make me a bad person. Nor does it make the person standing next to me a bad person.

I'm not implying that it does. And I don't find it offensive either. I just find the idea of pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth to be rather silly.

[steelish]

I'm not implying that it does. And I don't find it offensive either. I just find the idea of pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth to be rather silly.

The Pledge of Allegiance is to the United States of America...NOT a piece of cloth. The "piece of cloth" is symbolic of the U.S.

[Thorne]

The Pledge of Allegiance is to the United States of America...NOT a piece of cloth. The "piece of cloth" is symbolic of the U.S.

Actually it's to both. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...."

And I agree, it is a symbol. An effigy. It's not a holy relic, it's a piece of cloth. It can have many meanings to many different people. To a soldier in battle it may be a sign of pride and courage. To a frightened tourist overseas it can be a sign of safety and acceptance. To an enemy soldier it is a sign of evil and hatred. But regardless, it is still just a piece of cloth, and I do not owe it any allegiance. To the nation, yes. To the leaders, perhaps, if they have earned it. (Not so much, lately.) But to the flag? Sorry, no.

[DuncanONeil]

"Had George Washington accepted the kingship of America, he would have had greater powers than the British King George, in all likelihood. "

Isn't that a guess?

[DuncanONeil]

"Most churches in the US fought against the repeal of slavery,"

The how do you reconcile that by the time of the Civil War all of the North had eliminated slavery?

[DuncanONeil]

Quote Originally Posted by steelish View Post
that doesn't mean that religion and faith has no place in Government.


I disagree. Religion certainly has no place in government. Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities. Keep the religion in church, where it belongs.

I think you are talking apples and oranges here!

[DuncanONeil]

If it's not an act of worship, then we shouldn't have any problem with removing the phrase, "under God." Or maybe we can change it to "under Allah" or "under Shiva" or "under Zeus".

"God" is less exclusive than any of the other names you mention.

[DuncanONeil]

And to an atheist it's simply paying homage to a magic man (or woman) in the sky. It has no basis in reality, and it would be just as valid to declare the US to be one nation under leprechauns.

Only if you say it!

[steelish]

Actually it's to both. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...."

And I agree, it is a symbol. An effigy. It's not a holy relic, it's a piece of cloth. It can have many meanings to many different people. To a soldier in battle it may be a sign of pride and courage. To a frightened tourist overseas it can be a sign of safety and acceptance. To an enemy soldier it is a sign of evil and hatred. But regardless, it is still just a piece of cloth, and I do not owe it any allegiance. To the nation, yes. To the leaders, perhaps, if they have earned it. (Not so much, lately.) But to the flag? Sorry, no.

But you just admitted the flag is a symbol (and not a holy symbol). A symbol of safety and acceptance. A symbol of pride and courage. A symbol (to the enemy) of evil and hatred. But you do not say what it symbolizes to you. What does it symbolize that generates such apathy?

[Thorne]

I think you are talking apples and oranges here!

I am indeed. Keep the apples out of the orange basket. And vice versa.

[Thorne]

But you just admitted the flag is a symbol (and not a holy symbol). A symbol of safety and acceptance. A symbol of pride and courage. A symbol (to the enemy) of evil and hatred. But you do not say what it symbolizes to you. What does it symbolize that generates such apathy?

Apathy? About my country? I think not. But I'll answer your question.

To me the flag symbolizes:
a people who rose up against tyranny to establish a new nation, where ALL men (and women) could be free.
a divided people who fought, brother against brother in a horrid war, but who eventually managed to triumph and prove, once and for all that ALL people are free.
a nation which, not once but twice, sent her sons around the world to fight tyranny and oppression and help her allies and neighbors, sending millions of men into England, France, North Africa, Italy, much of the Pacific, and on and on, without even THINKING of conquering those nations for her own.
a nation which, though caught by surprise, managed to get into the space race and place men on the moon! On the MOON, people! An alien world, even though it is right next door, and ONLY Americans have planted their flag. And yet, we do NOT claim it for our own!
a nation which welcomed millions of immigrants to her shores, including my great-grandparents, and made free peoples of them all.
but now, she is a nation in trouble, beset by greedy politicians and corporations, whose very laws are being trampled and demolished by drug dealers and other criminals.
a nation on the brink of collapse due to the destruction of her education system, once among the best in the world.
a nation under attack, from without and within, trying to be defended by a people who are more afraid of giving offense than in doing what is right.
a nation which still, despite more than 200 years of trying, can't seem to understand that ALL people, regardless of race, creed, color, or sexual orientation, have the same rights!

No, steelish. I am not apathetic. I am just plain scared. Because I don't think my nation can long survive the political, religious and racial assaults upon her and her people. Because our government is no longer of the people, by the people, for the people, but is now against the people.

That is what the flag symbolizes to me. Yet it is still only a piece of cloth, nothing more. Worth a few dollars in the local convenience store. It is a nation, a people, to whom I owe my allegiance, not a flag.

[DuncanONeil]

It was unresolved from the constitution, not in slavery itself, but in how much the fed govt could regilate states.

How was this question unresolved?

[DuncanONeil]

I am indeed. Keep the apples out of the orange basket. And vice versa.

"Religion certainly has no place in government." In this I disagree.

"Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities." But for this I agree.

But then I make a distinction between these two concepts!

[steelish]

Apathy? About my country? I think not. But I'll answer your question.

To me the flag symbolizes:
a people who rose up against tyranny to establish a new nation, where ALL men (and women) could be free.
a divided people who fought, brother against brother in a horrid war, but who eventually managed to triumph and prove, once and for all that ALL people are free.
a nation which, not once but twice, sent her sons around the world to fight tyranny and oppression and help her allies and neighbors, sending millions of men into England, France, North Africa, Italy, much of the Pacific, and on and on, without even THINKING of conquering those nations for her own.
a nation which, though caught by surprise, managed to get into the space race and place men on the moon! On the MOON, people! An alien world, even though it is right next door, and ONLY Americans have planted their flag. And yet, we do NOT claim it for our own!
a nation which welcomed millions of immigrants to her shores, including my great-grandparents, and made free peoples of them all.
but now, she is a nation in trouble, beset by greedy politicians and corporations, whose very laws are being trampled and demolished by drug dealers and other criminals.
a nation on the brink of collapse due to the destruction of her education system, once among the best in the world.
a nation under attack, from without and within, trying to be defended by a people who are more afraid of giving offense than in doing what is right.
a nation which still, despite more than 200 years of trying, can't seem to understand that ALL people, regardless of race, creed, color, or sexual orientation, have the same rights!

That is what the flag symbolizes to me. Yet it is still only a piece of cloth, nothing more. Worth a few dollars in the local convenience store. It is a nation, a people, to whom I owe my allegiance, not a flag.

It symbolizes all that to you, yet you still think of it as just a piece of cloth. A piece of cloth no different from your socks...or the dishcloth.

No, steelish. I am not apathetic. I am just plain scared. Because I don't think my nation can long survive the political, religious and racial assaults upon her and her people. Because our government is no longer of the people, by the people, for the people, but is now against the people.

I too, feel that same fear. How can any sane American NOT feel that fear? The horrible thing is the political, religious and racial assaults are coming from within...if they were being brought upon us by another country, America would most definitely band together and fight the assault. It's her own people doing the harm. But it's not the fault of religion. It's not the fault of politics. It's not the fault of race. It's the fault of the people themselves who use those things as weapons. Only by reaching out to one another with decent human kindness in our souls can we overcome this insanity.