How about future generations of the Founders ? As opposed to those who arrived after the founding ?
The phrase "The People of The United States" does not limit to only the founders, or perhaps they may have phrased it "We, The Founders of The United States". Anyhow, Jefferson and his committee had written that "all men are created equal", nothing about when they arrived here.
At this point, who gives a crap about guessing what the "founders" meant?
They are dead, and we are now responsible for carrying out and evolving this experiment...to form a more perfect union.
Sorry...but they said we can have guns, and that's what makes us special in the civilized world.
At this point, who gives a crap about guessing what the "founders" meant?
They are dead, and we are now responsible for carrying out and evolving this experiment...to form a more perfect union.
How about future generations of the Founders ? As opposed to those who arrived after the founding ?
Your attention, please.
Anyone who can't trace their roots to the original 13 colonies before yesterday (March 4), 1789, please step forward and renounce your rights to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (if you have any).
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 5, 2024 - 11:24am
kurtster wrote:
Here ponder this in the meantime and tell me what you take the meaning of "posterity" to be in this context.
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
Future generations
** he responds warily, hoping to avoid going down another rabbit hole **
You seem to have found this video as instructive, leading you to do more research on Natural Law. I just see it as a screed.
Here ponder this in the meantime and tell me what you take the meaning of "posterity" to be in this context.
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
How's it going? I know you've had a lot of trouble keeping the video available, but just wondering if you've had a chance to consider what you think Natural Law meant to the founding fathers, and why is that important/appropriate today?
Checking in from work. Yeah, I'm going to see this one through. A lot to digest that actually interests me beyond just for discussion here.
Screed is a much nicer description than I was going to use.
I'm guessing that Kurt's explanation will take some time, and before I forget my thoughts/questions/comments I was hoping to receive enlightenment for...
Levin is a perfect example that if you say something that sounds intelligent to a group looking for confirmation, they'll hold you up as insightful. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is indeed king. Levin finishes with a patriot hug to Christianity in Arlington. After talking about the "higher law" of good and evil, he wraps the crowd in a flag and a cross and says "We earned the right to be on top". The country was founded by people "informed" of Natural Law, and if you doubt any of that, look at the Constitution.
The same group of people, who now "understand and support" the inherent "good" in natural law, want us to somehow believe that the coming election is a cage match of good vs. evil, support someone who:
- lies repeated, serially, and unrepentantly.
- embraces violence, anger, and generates fear directed toward anyone who questions him or his policies
- targets specific communities and nationalities to illicit fear and place blame
Wouldn't Natural Law embrace those who flee danger for the safety and security of the US?
Christianity is a blanket that angry, selfish, mean people wrap themselves in as some sort of armor against potential accusations and recrimination. Hold a bible, and you can abuse nearly anyone. If you're not sure, ask a priest.
If this election is about Right vs. Wrong, any suggestion that somehow Donald Trump is the heir apparent to the founder's Constitutional intentions is either stupid or selfish. Joe Biden is old and a poor option, but he'd be the unanimous choice of the founding fathers, their wives, and their slaves if it were based on moral interpretation of right and wrong.
"I don't really like the guy, but I agree with his policies." MAGA
I think both sides are struggling with plenty of cognitive dissonance...which leads to a lot of the anger.
Screed is a much nicer description than I was going to use.
I'm guessing that Kurt's explanation will take some time, and before I forget my thoughts/questions/comments I was hoping to receive enlightenment for...
Levin is a perfect example that if you say something that sounds intelligent to a group looking for confirmation, they'll hold you up as insightful. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is indeed king. Levin finishes with a patriot hug to Christianity in Arlington. After talking about the "higher law" of good and evil, he wraps the crowd in a flag and a cross and says "We earned the right to be on top". The country was founded by people "informed" of Natural Law, and if you doubt any of that, look at the Constitution.
The same group of people, who now "understand and support" the inherent "good" in natural law, want us to somehow believe that the coming election is a cage match of good vs. evil, support someone who:
- lies repeated, serially, and unrepentantly.
- embraces violence, anger, and generates fear directed toward anyone who questions him or his policies
- targets specific communities and nationalities to illicit fear and place blame
Wouldn't Natural Law embrace those who flee danger for the safety and security of the US?
Christianity is a blanket that angry, selfish, mean people wrap themselves in as some sort of armor against potential accusations and recrimination. Hold a bible, and you can abuse nearly anyone. If you're not sure, ask a priest.
If this election is about Right vs. Wrong, any suggestion that somehow Donald Trump is the heir apparent to the founder's Constitutional intentions is either stupid or selfish. Joe Biden is old and a poor option, but he'd be the unanimous choice of the founding fathers, their wives, and their slaves if it were based on moral interpretation of right and wrong.
You seem to have found this video as instructive, leading you to do more research on Natural Law. I just see it as a screed.
Screed is a much nicer description than I was going to use.
I'm guessing that Kurt's explanation will take some time, and before I forget my thoughts/questions/comments I was hoping to receive enlightenment for...
Levin is a perfect example that if you say something that sounds intelligent to a group looking for confirmation, they'll hold you up as insightful. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is indeed king. Levin finishes with a patriot hug to Christianity in Arlington. After talking about the "higher law" of good and evil, he wraps the crowd in a flag and a cross and says "We earned the right to be on top". The country was founded by people "informed" of Natural Law, and if you doubt any of that, look at the Constitution.
The same group of people, who now "understand and support" the inherent "good" in natural law, want us to somehow believe that the coming election is a cage match of good vs. evil, support someone who:
- lies repeated, serially, and unrepentantly.
- embraces violence, anger, and generates fear directed toward anyone who questions him or his policies
- targets specific communities and nationalities to illicit fear and place blame
Wouldn't Natural Law embrace those who flee danger for the safety and security of the US?
Christianity is a blanket that angry, selfish, mean people wrap themselves in as some sort of armor against potential accusations and recrimination. Hold a bible, and you can abuse nearly anyone. If you're not sure, ask a priest.
If this election is about Right vs. Wrong, any suggestion that somehow Donald Trump is the heir apparent to the founder's Constitutional intentions is either stupid or selfish. Joe Biden is old and a poor option, but he'd be the unanimous choice of the founding fathers, their wives, and their slaves if it were based on moral interpretation of right and wrong.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 5, 2024 - 6:20am
kurtster wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... Right ?
I heard nothing that conflicts with this. He says he is against official state sponsored religion, no religious preferences.
Where do you find him in conflict with the Establishment Clause ? Are you saying that we should be an Atheist State and not even acknowledge a higher power or order despite the Declaration of Independence ?
He only referenced the free expression of religion in those 2 minutes. I listened again: He did say it is not just the free expression of Christianity, which does seem to be an acknowledgment that there should not be a state religion.
He says that but the primary point of his 17-minute clip seems to me to be that America is a Christian nation. To me, he is saying: There is no official state religion, but we all know this is a Christian nation and it should remain so, that those suggesting otherwise are leading us down a path to tyranny and totalitarianism. In those last two minutes, he again rails against those talking about âwhite privilegeâ and âChristian nationalismâ and sees those as attacks on Christianity and America itself. He then shows footage of tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery while noting that the vast majority have crosses on them and those buried underneath those tombstones are almost all âwhite Christian menâ without whom we would not have a country.
You seem to have found this video as instructive, leading you to do more research on Natural Law. I just see it as a screed.
How's it going? I know you've had a lot of trouble keeping the video available, but just wondering if you've had a chance to consider what you think Natural Law meant to the founding fathers, and why is that important/appropriate today?
You're beleaguered, everyone else is predictable puppets, okay, but did you ever give any hint as to what might be worth so much time that anyone not named Kurt would sit still for it?
Edit: Watched the bulk of it and you're right, it's somewhat compelling, but after all of that, he swings and misses or avoids the point: It's not just freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion and/or government guided by Christianity (which is the religion the founders might cudgel us with). That the founding fathers couched everything they wrote in the religious terms of the day, doesn't mean they always assumed we'd be a "Christian nation." He seems to imply that.
After being shouted at by Levin more times than I can remember, you're braver than me. I do like to hear his takes, from time to time - so long as he avoids the shouting. Channel-changers for me remain shouters and those anchors/hosts who talk over guests / talkover debaters. And of course, also to be heavily shunned are the DJs who talkover tunes either intro or extro. They're the worst of them all!
I did make it part way through that vid, but also was put off by him reading from his own book. And he's always got a new book coming out, once a year or so. Also, this particular subject matter isn't on my radar. I leave it for actual Americans to joust with - and you're all doing well with that. Though I'm also of the opinion there are much more important issues that should be being debated, in the run up to a Nov election.
I was wondering how or where I would place this video. I guess this is as good a place as any ...
I caught this walking by and ended up watching the first 17 minutes of the show. I didn't see anything after that point and have nothing to say about it. But if it is possible to get past the messenger and listen to the message all the way through before jumping to any premature conclusions this may end up being germane to the debate we are attempting to have.
.
I cannot get this to embed for some reason.
Here's the youtube link.
Gone. I'll look for it later.
try this one. The show starts at 1 minute into it.
