[General Battuta]

That I leave to the philosophers. But keep your faith to yourself; it is, after all, a personal matter. Leave it out of the government and the lives of others. Heaven will be your reward, after all.

And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]

GOOGLE-FU

[Liberator]

Whatever I'm done arguing.

The goal was to separate the Government from religion so that people would not have to worry about someone telling them how, who or what to worship.

[General Battuta]

Yeeeep. That was the goal.

[Blue Lion]

Wait, then what are we arguing about?

[karajorma]

Liberator claimed that America was founded on Christian values. As Kosh proved that many of the founding fathers were Deists that seems like nonsense. Liberator claimed that reading Federalist Papers would prove him right and refused to provide any specific quote or explanation of how. Blue Lion said that he has read them and that they don't prove Liberator right. Liberator continued to fail to provide any proof of how the Federalist Papers prove he's right which probably means that they don't (or that he doesn't remember them very well and is bluffing).

That's my Tuesday morning before caffeine summary of the thread.

Karajorma i have a question (just hopping that you can save me from the research): The majority of changes in reference with Magna Carta took place before or after the palace stoped being a political power in UK?

Wikipedia has a nice table of when each clause was repealed.  It did hold for much of Britain's history admittedly.

[Blue Lion]

Reading the Federalist Papers looking for simple pithy quotes is almost pointless. It is a massive piece of works designed to garner support during the ratification. The idea that these papers somehow say "we should have the Constitution because that's what God wants" is disingenuous. The debate was Federalist/Anti Federalist. Religion would have almost no bearing on the issue.

[Kosh]

The goal was to separate the Government from religion so that people would not have to worry about someone telling them how, who or what to worship.

Which doesn't sound like it was being founded as any sort of christian nation.

Liberator claimed that America was founded on Christian values. As Kosh proved that many of the founding fathers were Deists that seems like nonsense. Liberator claimed that reading Federalist Papers would prove him right and refused to provide any specific quote or explanation of how. Blue Lion said that he has read them and that they don't prove Liberator right. Liberator continued to fail to provide any proof of how the Federalist Papers prove he's right which probably means that they don't (or that he doesn't remember them very well and is bluffing).

That's my Tuesday morning before caffeine summary of the thread. Big grin

I've got a shorter one:

[Liberator]

I'm done arguing politics/soical issues with you guys.  You are all so much smarter than me that you make me look like an ant contemplating string theory.

I'm sorry to have wasted your time all these years.

[Herra Tohtori]

An argument isn't just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

It is true that the US constitution relies heavily on values and moral principles that we like to bunch together as values of "western civilization", which mainly include a lot of freedoms and define crimes as something that limits other people's freedoms or causes damage to others.

However, these are not just christian values, they are common sense.

True, the values and ethics of western civilization have been influenced by Christianity, but calling the values of Western civilization "christian" values is a gross oversimplification no matter what values US constitution was based on.

If I understood your claim correctly, Liberator, you were saying that US constitution is based on western civilization values (being part of the western world), which are christian values, so therefore US constitution is based on christian values.

By same logic you could say that Hitler's Third Reich was based on christian values, because it was part of western world and western world's values are permeated by christian values...

For obvious reasons, no one with any common sense is going to actually try to use that argument and expect to be taken seriously (although I'm certain it has been used by those without common sense...). However, structurally it is the same as your claim. Assuming I interpreted your claim correctly.


Even less compelling claim is to say that the US constitution was divinely inspired. An argument like that is inherently impossible to falsify and therefore I could make the same claim about this message - and if I were a deist, it would actually be a valid statement by definition... also known as tautology, and meaningless considering that everything would be part of the divine nature, whether it has a consciousness of it's own or not. But no more of that...

[peterv]

Wikipedia has a nice table of when each clause was repealed.  It did hold for much of Britain's history admittedly.

Thank you very much 

[Kosh]

I'm done arguing politics/soical issues with you guys.  You are all so much smarter than me that you make me look like an ant contemplating string theory.

I'm sorry to have wasted your time all these years.

It's unfortunate that you choose to base your views on ignorance, but that's your choice.

[General Battuta]

Well, let's at least be kind -- the man actually conceded an argument, which is more mature and intelligent than many people on HLP can manage.

I respect that.

[maje]

Does this positively affect regular citizens while they wait to see if things turn out ok? How many years does a market correction take and what do you offer the people who have to sit and watch and hope their livelihoods don't go up in smoke in the meantime?

Depends, the Recession of 1921-23 took about a year to resolve and the government didn't intervene all that much.

Why is it when CEOs get rich by quasi legal or ethical means it's all a part of capitalism, but if the people do it, it's theft.

The Federal Government does not equal the people.  The federal government allowed for the bonuses to be paid by including language in the bailout bill.  The "people" got screwed by their public servants who are to serve in the public interest.

Getting angry at the CEOs for being greedy is like expecting wolves not attack a flock of sheep.  It is simply the nature of the animal.  Now understand, that this isn't some moral justification bull****.  Knowing that some CEOS will inevitably take the path of the "bad guy", government comes in as the "good guy" and says it will "right the wrongs of the evildoers".

However, it turns out the "good guy" isn't as good as it claims it is, allows for the "bad guy" to do more things that pisses off the people, then claims it didn't know anything, then retracts and says it did.  Either the "good guy" is just another "bad guy" with a false moniker and is outright lying to the public, or is grossly incompetent and easily manipulated by the "bad guy".  Either way, the people are getting screwed.  So, what's worse, the bad guy we all know about, or the "bad guy" pretending to be our "good guy"?

Despite what most politicians claim, their subservience lies with those who fund their election campaigns, party lines be damned.

[Mika]

Sir Doctor sir said:

This is impossible. Earth has a finite volume of resources. Simple application of basic mathematics is enough to see that finite resources can't support growth infinitely.

I think you have missed the conservation laws in that train of thought. Also, same resources can be utilized in a different way to provide more growth.

Oh, I think they are now negotiating about exporting Finnish bank system model to Central Europe. Let's see how far that goes. The downturn here in the 1990s was basically what happened now in US.

One comment for US readers also: the rationale behind bailing out the dwindling companies is simply national security as far as I have understood it. Nobody seems to be willing to take the risk of letting a big company crash, as this could result in banking system losing all credibility, a nightmare scenario that everybody wants to avoid. The repercussions are unknown, China having the wildcard here.

The follow-up question (actually this is rhetorical) would then be how come that the companies have became so big that they can actually force capitalistic country to pay for their failures without being nationalized? I thought getting this kind of market share should be impossible in a capitalistic system, as there should always be competition! And not nationalizing the company seems even more weird, surely capitalist would like to have some return for his money?

Bottom line is that both systems are fundamentally flawed for the same reason: not taking into account the human behavior and assuming that the law will be uphold with utmost integrity.

What it comes to taxes, I gladly pay my share for education, welfare and healthcare, as these are stabilising agents in the society. My only requirement for each of these institutes is that they really function. And they seem to be functioning, there is basically no gun crime around here, nor do I see homeless people around. Healthcare we can discuss, but that's another topic and internal business of Finland - though I have heard similar comments from elsewhere in Europe also.

Why is the progressive tax system is seen in a such bad light? Yeah, you could say it punishes the most innovative people, but then again the system seen in US seems to punish those who don't earn much money to me. Unfortunately, these people are just as required in the society as those innovative guys (actually even more, without them there is no basic functionality in the society); they make all the things actually happen.

The funny thing is that I have gone through the same discussion elsewhere in the internet back in 1998 I think...

Mika

[Scotty]

Liberator claimed that America was founded on Christian values.

It very much was.  It was not, however, founded as a Christian state.  Several of said values are found in various laws and regulations of the then fledgling country.  For example, making illegal  murder, stealing, and perjury (the 5th, 7th, and 8th commandments, respectively).

On a side-note (not sure about on-topicness at this point):  Separation of Church and State was enacted to keep the church from taxing people, since I'm fairly sure that taxes can only be levied by congress (not any business or individual).

On-Topic again!

Why is the progressive tax system is seen in a such bad light?

Because at times like the height of the Vietnam war the top tax bracket was paying 90% taxes.  Flat taxes encourage more spending at nearly all levels affected.  Personally, I would support a 15% flat tax.  Think of how much more money would be pumped into the economy by people from most if not all 'levels' of income.

[maje]

Oh boy, this whole deal about America being a Christian nation really gets me going, so first thing I'm going to do is go through the religions of some of the Founding Fathers.

These are the signers of the Constitution of the United States of America:

Abraham Baldwin - Congregationalist / Episcopalian
Richard Bassett - Methodist
Gunning Bedford, Jr. - Christian Freemason / Presbyterian
John Blair - Presbyterian / Episcopalian
William Blount - Presbyterian / Episcopalian
David Brearly - Episcopalian / Christian Freemason
Jacob Broom - Lutheran /  Old Swedes Church
Pierce Butler - Episcopalian
Daniel Carroll - Catholic
George Clymer - Quaker / Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton - Presbyterian / Episcopalian
John Dickinson - Quaker / Episcopalian
William Few - Methodist
Thomas Fitzsimons -  Roman Catholic
Benjamin Franklin - Presbyterian / Christian Deist (*NOTE)
Nicholas Gilman - Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham - Congregationalist
Alexander Hamilton - Presbyterian / Episcopalian
Jared Ingersoll - Presbyterian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer - Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson - Presbyterian / Episcopalian
Rufus King - Episcopalian / Congregationalist
John Langdon - Congregationalist
William Livingston - Presbyterian
James Madison - Episcopal
James McHenry - Presbyterian
Thomas Mifflin - Lutheran
Gouverneur Morris - Episcopalian / Non-Denominational Christian (*NOTE)
Robert Morris - Episcopalian
William Paterson - Presbyterian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney - Episcopalian / Non-Denominational Christian (*NOTE)
Charles Pinkney - Episcopalian
George Read - Episcopalian
John Rutledge - Episcopalian
Roger Sherman - Congregationalist
Richard Dobbs Spaight - Episcopalian
George Washington - Church of England / Episcopalian
Hugh Williamson - Presbyterian
James Wilson - Presbyterian / Episcopalian

Even if one includes non-signers, you're still getting Christianity as the dominant religion.

Okay, I have (*NOTES) on some of these because wikipedia is either vague or just doesn't outright mention what denomination a person is, so I just put Non-denominational Christian (though more accurately, Protestant as they were certainly not Roman Catholic).

Franklin is a little bit of an enigma in that he seems to have gone from a more orthodox Christianity to Deism, to his own personal belief which seemed more of a liberal Christianity rather than any specific sect.

It should also be noted that Deism in the 18th century was an offshoot of Christianity that while questioning the more superstitious and mythological aspects, held to a Christian morality.

Thomas Jefferson I would argue is a Christian Deist or Unitarian (which is still rooted in Christianity), John Adams a Unitarian, Thomas Paine, probably closer to the modern definition of Deist (though he fiercely detested many Christian doctrines).

In terms of America being founded a Christian nation?  Well, it depends on how you define your country.  If you define America solely by its government and not its dominant culture or religion, than yeah, I suppose you could argue that it wasn't a Christian nation.

However, when you take a look at the populace being something like 90% Protestant and the general sense of ethics and culture of the people, it's very hard to say that the country wasn't Christian in its character.  We had chaplains, swearing on the Bible, references to the 10 Commandments, school prayer, etc.

Furthermore, the root cause of the Pilgrims having left England was so they could practice a more biblical form of Christianity without fear of being persecuted, (which has a lot to do with the influencing the inclusion for freedom of religion in the first amendment, as well as historical significance for Americans in general).

[Kosh]

For example, making illegal  murder, stealing, and perjury (the 5th, 7th, and 8th commandments, respectively)

And yet those can be found in non-christian countries too. That is simply called "common sense". Plus perjury is not completely the 8th commandment since it only applies to very specific circumstances.

Even so, many of the freedoms we have are most definately not christian.

On a side-note (not sure about on-topicness at this point):  Separation of Church and State was enacted to keep the church from taxing people, since I'm fairly sure that taxes can only be levied by congress (not any business or individual).

I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.

[Liberator]

I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.

Kosh, you have been around some really rotten Christians if you have that view if them.  Were/are they're not nice people that were Christians? yes  Are the majority of Christians like those few?  not really no

[BlueFlames]

Kosh, you have been around some really rotten Christians if you have that view if them.  Were/are they're not nice people that were Christians? yes  Are the majority of Christians like those few?  not really no

An institution can be rotten, even when the vast, vast majority of its membership is not.

[General Battuta]

I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.

Kosh, you have been around some really rotten Christians if you have that view if them.  Were/are they're not nice people that were Christians? yes  Are the majority of Christians like those few?  not really no

Same could be said of most groups....

But he didn't talk about his own opinions there. He discussed historical fact.