In what way would they be “overrun”, and why? :dubious:
You’re forgetting that code words were in regular use even back then, and even today some users of code words don’t even realize it.
Back atcha. Now, perhaps you can tell us why you think institutionalizing unequal representation is worth preserving today.
Sorry, you need to check your fallacies at the door. You’re drawing conclusions from thing I’ve said that do not necessarily follow.
Nope, not what I said. I said that Jefferson adhered to the teachings of Jesus. I also pointed out the stuff he had a problem with. Please read again.
That’s correct. Good thing that is not my argument then. Whew.
:rolleyes:So, if I can show you a date from that era not written in that form, will you concede the point?
Ahem. Emphasis mine. Note the lack of an “s” after “God”:
Notice the lack of an “s” here, too:
Wait—are you really trying to say that the teachings of Jesus do not say that all men are created equal? Really?!! REALLY! Sorry, chum, you are completely and utterly wrong. And I have better things to do than correct such flagrant and astounding ignorance. But here are a few quick drops in the hopes that they will increase your thirst for facts:
John13:16—Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
Mark 12:31—The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Mathew: 25:41—They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.’"
Because some of the tenets of Christianity were born out of Judaism. For instance, the belief in one, and only one, all-powerful God. This really isn’t as hard as you’re making it out to be. As I’ve said numerous times, I do not practice ANY religion, but that doesn’t blind me to the facts.
You know, this is turning into a major hijack on a very interesting subject. You can have the last word if you’d like.
:rolleyes: Sigh. The (southern states, agrarian and less densely populated), didn’t want the northern states (big cities, manufacturing) to have all the say in the country. There was a proposition that the 13 colonies would become one large country. And the many factions each had their own interests. Do you think that odd? Do you think there should have no compromising? If that were the case, do you think all the states would have agreed to form the USA?
I see no reason what Someone should spend 2 or 3 days a week working for the government when another needs to work only one. It’s simply unfair. But I’d be happy to have poorer people contribute with labor instead of work. But is you believe that we’re all equal under the law, then we all need to contribute “equally” in some way. Also, the tax code is just plain out of hand.
No, we can still have—and should have—federal standards and testing. And if there is standardized testing, who cares what else they teach after they get down the reading, writing, math, science?
Come on, this is ridiculous. You act as if there are not a butt load of laws in place now that weren’t back then.
I’d say that if many corporations find it beneficial to operate overseas due to the tax code, it’s too high. Theory goes out the window and is replaced with the real world situation.
Surely, you are aware that there are right-to-work states, right? The Minimum Wage discussion is a more com[plicated one. But it was just discussed here not too long ago.
Look up the phrase “The Tyranny of the Majority”. Also read up on the history of the United States and why it broke away from England and what informed the constitution.
The states at the time were worried about a federal government taking power away from them. They were also worried about more populous states essentially writing federal laws that benefited them against the interests of the smaller states. Thus the Senate was created and the constitution written to ensure that the majority of economic decision-making was the domain of the states and not the federal government.
I’m really surprised that you don’t understand this issue, as it’s at the core of civic debate and history. There have been many occasions in the past where distant regions have been basically by run central powers against their wishes - even if they technically have the power to vote. Without the protection of some kind of regional limitations, it’s far too easy for a populous section of the country to loot the less populous areas or to force them to conform to the demands of the distant majority.
This has nothing to do with racism or slavery or conservatives vs liberals. If you can’t think about American politics without seeing it through the lens of race and partisanship, it might help you to study other countries and how they’ve attempted to resolve these problems. Suffice it to say that the issue of regional representation vs simple majority voting is a core issue of civic policy, and if you get it wrong it can break up your country or it can lead to tyranny.
I’m saying that the phrase “Judeo-Christian” is nonsensical as applied here. If there is anything “Judeo-Christian” about the founding of America, there’s certainly nothing “Judeo” but not “Christian”… so the word “Judeo” adds nothing but a handy political nod.
No he didn’t, at least not all of it. He may have adhered to some of it, but then, so do I. I’m not a Christian in any sense of the word.
He had a problem with some of what Jesus taught. As do I.
Then why did you mention it?
If you can show me that the phrase “in the year of Our Lord” was not used in secular documents, then yes I would.
That certainly doesn’t necessarily imply ‘one and only’.
And notice the word “Nature”, which pretty strongly seems to imply a different sort of deity than the Biblical one.
While there are phrases in the Bible (like these) that are at least sort of close to “all men are created equal”, there are also many, many phrases that say the opposite. At the time, Christianity, especially in America, was not even close to unanimous in a teaching close to “all men are created equal”, or that all men have inalienable rights like liberty. Considering that we could find phrases in the Koran that are just as close as the ones you mentioned, it’s no more accurate to say “all men are created equal” is inspired by Christianity than to say it’s inspired by Islam.
And on top of this, the Declaration states explicitly that these truths are “self-evident” – they do not come from some other document like the Bible.
And the facts are that the phrase “Judeo-Christian” was not used until a few decades ago. You’re right, this isn’t that hard. Your argument is that the USA was founded on Christian principles. You’re using the phrase “Judeo-Christian”, but there’s nothing “Judeo” about your argument that’s not also “Christian” – so the only purpose of that phrase that I can think of is a political PC nod.
Thank you 
Considering the use of “Creator” and “Nature’s God”, it’s reasonable to conclude that the Declaration of Independence was at least partially inspired by Deism.
But there is absolutely nothing about the D of I (or any other founding document), that is Christian (or “Judeo”) but not also Deist – and there are indeed parts, like “Nature’s God”, that are Deist but not Christian.
The two conservatives who have responded have mostly described their legislation without predicting its effects. (19th century America is often used as a paradigm.)
Nitpicks:
I’d be happy to leave abortion up to each state, but might support the idea of an abortion amendment … if only women were allowed to vote on it. However, I’d hate to see a precedent where a wide variety of questions are submitted to such national plebiscites.
Most U.S. foreign aid is military related. Aid to fight hunger or malaria is a niggardly pittance.
(The conservative obsession to privatise Social Security is misplaced.)
Ever read The Handmaid’s Tale?
Begging the question.
Please. :rolleyes: You’re in no position to give lectures about American history or its meaning.
Etc. for several paragraphs. More specifically, the slave states feared a federal government that had the ability as well as the will to abolish slavery. The rest was all code, as it is today. But even today, not all users of code, which is what the rest of your post consists of, even recognize it. Every single one of the code words you’ve used, about the “interests” of local government, had its origins in the protection of slavery. Every one. That’s it. There are many fine texts on the subject if you are interested in ignorance-fighting.
The evidence is that I understand it far more thoroughly than you do, thank you. You really do need to learn more about the history of slavery in the US if you plan any more lectures on the subject.
Do you know what rationalization is?
Unfortunately for your claim, whose ignorance is exceeded only by its condescension, the US history on slavery, particularly in how it defined our founding as a state, is unique. Pretending that wasn’t the issue at all is not helpful to anyone’s understanding, and is particularly crippling to your own.
“Tyranny” - that word again. :rolleyes: No, being in the minority on a democratic decision does not constitute “tyranny”. That’s another code word you first need to recognize is code before you use it again.
Yes, the slave states had a strong interest in not permitting the federal government to be strong enough to abolish slavery, but they did have a strong interest in gaining the benefits of being in the same country as large economic-engine states.
And you know what those were, don’t you?
Was that a serious question? It’s not always easy to tell with you.
Now: You were asked why, as a self-described conservative, you support unequal representation even today. Do you have something more cogent to offer than some vague handwaving about factional interests, which by definition you wish to be treated unequally? Do you want the government to be of/by/for something other than the people, and if so, what and why?
Have you thought this through at all?
Based on what I have seen, conservatives get whatever they want… until the tapes are released.
Really? So you’re saying the Great Compromise was designed to give New Hampshire proportionally more votes than Virginia? Could you explain how that worked?
You’re problem is that you’re assuming that slavery was not only an issue, but THE issue. It certainly was not the latter and probably wasn’t even the former. You have to remember that slavery was a fact of daily life. It got very little notice until the Quakers made an issue of it. But when the concept of forming one country came up, that was hardly a mainstream issue. You seem to forget that most of the north had slaves into the 1790s. And even as they became “free states” there was noting like universal desire to end slavery through all the states. In fact, the invention of the cotton gin in 1794 created a huge demand for cotton from The South. Most in The North were interested, like families during all times, becoming more prosperous. The fact is (regrettably) that for most people in the colonies slavery was a fact of life, part of the times they lived in.
Honestly, I think you’re involved in a bit of revisionist history, and ascribing to people in the 1770s and 1780s knowledge and sensibilities that they simply didn’t broadly have. Remember, plenty of the Northern states allowed slavery during the push to ratification of the Constitution.
Well that’s not what I said. But I’m not sure where New Hampshire, specifically, stood on the issue, but it would make sense that any smaller state would advocate for more power rather than less. No? Do you assume differently. Know differently. Tell me, what do you think was the purpose of the compromise. Why did it come up and how did that states align?
The big state/little state divide wasn’t just about slavery, or even primarily about it. Some people seem to suggest in this threat that it was the southern slaveholding states who sought a legislature where every state had the same representation and it was the northern ones that wanted states to have a proportional one, when, in fact, the “Proportional” congress was proposed by Virginia, and the “each state gets one vote” congress was proposed by New Jersey.
The small states weren’t concerned that the Federal government would get rid of slavery so much as that their interests as states wouldn’t be respected and that they’d lose their independence; the needs of their people disregarded by the population as a whole.
The old joke about democracy is that it’s two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, and states like New Jersey, or New Hampshire, and Delaware were concerned that, with a proportional representation plan, they’d be the sheep.
Precisely. And thanks for the info about Virginia and New jersey. I didn’t know that.
That all men are created equal is hardly limited to “Judeo-Christian” belief - it also present in Buddhism at the very least.
And weren’t slaves explicitly allowed in the bible? Doesn’t that kinda throw the whole idea of “created equal” out the window?
Sadly, the environment seems sure to take a beating from the lack of regulation, and eventually the Cuyahoga burns again as industry returns the rust belt to it’s former glory. Potable drinking water becomes rarer and rarer as fracking and unrestrained dumping of pollutants into the ecosystem become the norm with nothing to prevent business from raping the environment.
Little Nemo has hit the nail squarely on the head here. And he has also pointed out why liberals hate conservative concepts like this; enabling people to be self-sufficient means that they are no longer dependent upon government.