The GOP Is More Diverse 'By Far'

The Republicans will have a chance to demonstrate their love of diversity by supporting planned immigration reforms. That will be their moment of truth.

Conservatives believe wholeheartedly in legal immigration. Ronald Reagan gave a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants in 1986. Many did not go through the process, and the real reason it did not work was because those who knowingly employed illegal immigrants (which was horrible for them) were not held accountable, as they were supposed to be under the law. What we need is reform in our bulky, unwieldy process to become an American citizen.

"diversity" does not trump the Law, Maks. In fact, it has no meaning, or use, a'tall.

Wake up.

Basically, I agree the process is unwieldy. How would deal with the people here already? Could you see sense in a period of amnesty to give people some time to formalize their arrangements? I think conservatives would benefit from supporting comprehensive reforms that were sympathetic to their plight.

@Mark

"diversity" does not trump the Law, Maks. In fact, it has no meaning, or use, a'tall.

Wake up."

Snap out of it Mark, I never said it did.

Actually, are you saying diversity has no use?

As far as for those who are here....? They should be identified. Give them a path, like Reagan, but actually follow the process. I think it is not in the best interest of the Dems to penalize employers who enslave these people. I have a friend (well, the husband of a friend, I do not care for him) who owns an apartment building. He brags that 13 Mexicans live in one of the flats. He gets paid in cash every month and threatens to call authorities if they bother him. These people have no rights! But, the left has no vested interest in having a process, because now they get to talk about how racist the right are for daring to request documentation. They get the vote that way, that is what it is about. That is always what it is about.

Sorry about the rambling... ;-) Blame the vino.

Not sure about the "diversity has no use" but of course it does. That is why America rocks. Melting pot.

"The Republicans will have a chance to demonstrate their love of diversity by supporting planned immigration reforms." - muks

That's exactly what you've said. Snap out of it.

I'll blame the Vino, alright, young Lady!

Diversity is nonsense. The word ITSELF is used to segregate.

Diversity is not a "value"...diversity simply is.

@Mark

""The Republicans will have a chance to demonstrate their love of diversity by supporting planned immigration reforms." - muks

That's exactly what you've said. Snap out of it."

Again Mark, that statement doesn't imply that I'm saying diversity trumps the law.

@Renee

I think the Democrats do have an interest in the process. Obama received widespread support from Hispanics, Romney threw it away IMO, with his self-deportation rhetoric. Hispanics are traditional social conservatives and would have supported Romney in far greater numbers if would have developed a policy that reflected some interest in them.

"Sorry about the rambling... ;-) Blame the vino."

New Zealand vino has come a long way, I don't blame you! It's 4pm here and I'm about to head out and catch the high tide at 7 off French Island, having a few beers no doubt ;)

"That is why America rocks. Melting pot."

I agree wholeheartedly.

New Zealand vino = Fabulous. But no corks!!

There is something very satisfying about a cork.

That sounds weird. LOL, after I read it. heehee

That self-deportation stuff was way overblown. Think of what he was saying in context... and than have a satisfying cork!

Of course it does, Maks. Their intent (Leftists) is to circumvent the Law. And put MILLIONS, who are already in line, in a spot of bother for doing what is Right...obeying the Law.

Think about it.

Renee! Haahahaaaa!!! You sassy Girl!

Yes, I suppose; when you think about it...there could be something very satisfying about a cork... ;]

seriously! The whole "pop" thing! In NZ, it is simply an "unscrew". Not as much fun.

..I should think not! (heh-heh-he...)

You gave the following line from the Declaration of Independence as applying to all Americans:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

That is good, but do Republicans accept those words? It says "all men are created equal". Does that include women? Or are women suppose to stay home and raise children?

Are illegal immigrants equal under the law, or can the police throw away the Constitution when handling them?

Isn't marriage an element in the pursuit of happiness? So why are leading Republicans opposed to same-sex marriage?

Are non-Christians equal to Christians? Then why are Republicans still trying to get Christian doctrine introduced into public classrooms and national events?

I joined the Republican party in the late 1950's when it was moderate and unified. By contrast the Democratic party was split wide open between liberals from northern states, and conservatives from the south. Today the Republican party is dominated by the conservative south, and the Democratic party is more unified.

Thanks for your comment, Richard. Yes, "All men are created equal" applies to women, as well. In fact, these words were used to justify the end of slavery. As far as illegal immigration, see my response to Maks above.

What in HELL is the matter with you, Dick?

Ah. A bit less subtle than I, but much better at getting straight to the point.

I was borne 'subtle.' ;]

Thomas Jefferson, who penned the Declaration of Independence owned slaves, as did many of the men who signed it. For several years, women were denied the right to vote, or to own property, and are still denied equality. Therefore blacks and women were not part of the documents original intent.

You didn't answer the question about whether illegal immigrants should be granted equal civil rights. Nor did you answer the question about whether gays and lesbians are entitled to the pursuit of happiness through marriage.

As far as illegal immigration goes, my Indian ancestors tried to put a stop to that years ago.

What in HELL is the matter with you, Mark?

Richard, the spirit in which you are delivering your questions shows me that you have a chip on your shoulder. We should learn from the past, KNOW history, and recognize where we have come. The founding documents were key in justifying the end of slavery, as I said. I am very sorry if your ancestors were wronged centuries ago. We are here now, and we should work together to make a better world. Dwelling in the sins of our forefathers is not helpful, and is actually quite sad.

Slavery was not introduced by the founding fathers - it had been in America for well over a century by the time the founding documents were conceived. Many of the founders abhorred slavery, but since it was such a supported practice, intertwined with the economy and since the slaves themselves were vulnerable to external forces, many advocated for a "gradual abolition", but an abolition was required as not only did the practice conflict with the founding documents, but the practiced conflicted with Christianity. How can I say this? Simple. I read their words.

Some of the founders complained that slavery was an evil pushed onto the colonies by King George.

For example, Thomas Jefferson said, "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . ." sadly, it was removed from the draft of the declaration. He also stated, "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other."

Nal,

I made that "original intent" remark because Republicans frequently bring that into play when attacking Supreme Court decisions. E.g. in Roe v. Wade Republicans will argue that the right to abortion, or the right to privacy are not part of the original intent of the Constitution. Therefore, I am pleased to see that you do not hold to the "original intent" argument.

Historically, you will find that the Tanny Court, which was dominated by justices who owned slaves used the "original intent" argument in their Dred Scott decision as proof that the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence did not consider blacks to be equals.

Again, I am happy to see that you recognize that the founding fathers were diverse in their opinions, and that "original intent" differed among the different individuals who voted on and signed the documents.

The worse event in Republican history was when Strom Thurmond of South Carolina switched from being a Democrat, to the Republican party. From 1880 until Thurmond's switch, the south had been solidly Democrat. With the constant support of civil rights actions, more southern Democrats found it easy to follow Thurmond's lead and become Republicans, until today, the south primarily Republican.

Strom Thurmond was an exception not the norm. The ideas espoused by progressive ideology have not changed. Consider Progressive heroes Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Both crazy racists, yet hailed (still) by the left. As party trumps race, the sins of those on the left. You bring up Roe V. Wade. Margaret Sanger was also a crazy nasty racist, who wanted to eliminate the black population.

The idea that all of the racists in the Democrat party magically switched is ridiculous. Consider what is said Despite the fact that the history of the Democratic Party has always been racist, the history is diminished, ignored and rewritten. Consider the Democratic Party Website, which FALSELY states:

"For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights."

Well, which one is it? Did the parties switch, or didn't they??

Yes, there were a few founding fathers who were ok with the status quo, but most of them abhorred slavery.

Slavery was accepted as the norm and would not be easy to overturn. Before the founding fathers, there was little effort to stop slavery. The national attitude was one of "meh" since slavery was a mainstay and helped the economy.

That all changed with the Revolution, the “Father of the American Revolution”, was against slavery (Samuel Adams) and helped to change the tone of a nation. Some of the founders complained that slavery was an evil pushed onto the colonies by King George.

For example, Thomas Jefferson said, "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . ." sadly, it was removed from the draft of the declaration. He also stated, "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other."

Joseph Reed, Revolutionary Officer; Governor of Pennsylvania "Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind."

Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, "But to the eye of reason, what can be more clear than that all men have an equal right to happiness? Nature made no other distinction than that of higher or lower degrees of power of mind and body. . . . Were the talents and virtues which Heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges? . . . No! In the judgment of heaven there is no other superiority among men than a superiority of wisdom and virtue."

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution "Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all."

From Benjamin Franklin, (1773) lamenting that the British government wanted slavery, even as America opposed it...". . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed."

John Quincy Adams, July 4th, 1837 "The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself."

Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, lamenting Georgia, North and South Carolina's continued support for slavery: "Even the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever."

Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration "Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty."

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution: "Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law"

John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration: "It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power."

John Adams, US President, Signer of the Bill of Rights, in a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley (1801) "...my opinion against it has always been known, and my practice has been so conformable to my sentiments that I have always employed freemen, both as domestics and laborers, and never in my life did I own a slave. The abolition of slavery must be gradual, and accomplished with much caution and circumspection. Violent means and measures would produce greater violations of justice and humanity than the continuance of the practice."

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution (1772) "I am glad to hear that the disposition against keeping negroes grows more general in North America. Several pieces have been lately printed here against the practice, and I hope in time it will be taken into consideration and suppressed by the legislature." and "That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the political creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. . . . [We] earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery – that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage and who . . . are groaning in servile subjection."

Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Senator from Maryland, State Senator in Maryland "Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil."

John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of Pennsylvania, "As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage."

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration, "Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men." and "The commerce in African slaves has breathed its last in Pennsylvania. I shall send you a copy of our late law respecting that trade as soon as it is published. I am encouraged by the success that has finally attended the exertions of the friends of universal freedom and justice."

John Jay, President of Continental Congress,  "That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part."

Noah Webster, Responsible for Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution "Justice and humanity require it. Christianity commands it...pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right."

George Washington "that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people who are the subject of this letter, in slavery. I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it -- but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, & that is by Legislative authority: and this, as far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting."

**Note: The photo in this article is of Founding Father John Jay, who presided over the Continental Congress (1778-79), served as an Ambassador to Spain and France, co-authored the Federalist Papers that advocated for our Federal Constitution, and became the original Chief Justice U. S. Supreme Court. He was also a devout believer and an ardent abolitionist. (and one of my new heroes)

I wrote the article about the founding fathers, I did some research on that one ;-)

but the practiced conflicted with Christianity.

Careful here. I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where slavery is condemned. Slavery was an accepted practice during those times and was tolerated by Jesus even to the extent of Him saying to obey your masters. Do a little more research before you make statements like this.

I am not defending slavery. I think it is abhorrent. All I am doing is pointing out the facts.

mm, this was based on the views of the Founding Fathers. According to the comments above, they believed slavery conflicted with Christianity.

I know that, but belief is not the same as fact.

Thanks, mm. Frankly, the interpretation by the founders, who were mostly Christian (whether they were right or wrong), is what changed the world. And I am okay with that ;-)

Reneee
I don't know how this got centered upon the founding fathers and slavery. I only pointed out that slavery was accepted. Which it was. Some were opposed, and some were not. Thomas Jefferson put statements against slavery into the Declaration, but they which were voted out by other members of the Second Continental Congress.

I see that you like to look at the American Revolution as a product of Christianity, but you are wrong. The revolutionary war was inspired by political discontent, not religious. No religious complaint is listed in the Declaration of Independence. The American Revolution was inspired by the political theories and philosophy which emerged out of the English Civil Wars (17th century) which ended in the rule of Cromwell.

Expressions such as "nature and nature's God." are from non-Christian philosophers following that period. The Bible never declares all men to be "born equal", nor does the Bible state that "all men are born with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are also from non-Christians,

Philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes saw government as a social contract between the people and government. That is why the Preamble state that the Constitution is established by "We the People," instead of following Romans 13:1 which says that government is established by God. (How could Christians revolt against an institution established by God?)

One outcomes of the English Civil wars was the establishment of an English Bill of Rights, which became the inspiration for the American Bill of Rights. Don't bother looking for freedom of religion or speech in the Bible.

The American Revolution was not a product of Christianity.

Thank you for your comment

I don't know how this got centered upon the founding fathers and slavery. Because you said "Thomas Jefferson, who penned the Declaration of Independence owned slaves, as did many of the men who signed it." It is a common way to bash those "old outdated white men," but history has been rewritten, and I though you may be interested to know that slavery was around and firmly established a century before they put pen to paper. For the most part, the founders were against slavery. When you dismiss them as being slaveholders, it says that perhaps you should consider what they were up against.

I see that you like to look at the American Revolution as a product of Christianity, but you are wrong. Huh? I said most of the founders were Christian. The father of the Revolution, Samuel Adams, was devout.

According to Ira Stoll's biography, Samuel Adams: A Life:

Samuel Adams used many biblical arguments to justify American independence. Stoll labels him "the archetype of the religiously passionate American founder, the founder as a biblical prophet, an apostle of liberty." As the "moral conscience of the American Revolution," Adams never lost sight of its "political and religious goals," which he saw as inseparably intertwined.

Stoll portrays Adams as a religious revolutionary who called for independence while many other American leaders still argued for reconciliation with Britain.

Most of the founding fathers wrote very little on religion. That was often in order to avoid conflict with Christians. Private writing often revealed something different. An example is the Jefferson Sylabus

While a prisoner in France, and facing death, Thomas Paine wrote Age of Reason which reveals him rejecting Christianity.

A more public statement was from James Madison who as governor of Virginia wrote Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in opposition to a proposed tax.

While a prisoner in France Thomas Paine wrote Age of Reason, which reveals that he was not a Christian. The book sold quite well, but Paine

Thomas Paine's also influenced the anti-slavery movement with writings such as African Slavery In America.

We also know that Benjamin Franklin was not a Christian, and there is evidence that neither George Washington nor John Adams were Christians.

Thanks, Richard. You are kind of all over the place. I said the founding documents were pivotal in ending slavery. I also said most of the founding fathers were Christian.

Do you dispute either of those statements?

Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees.

You mention John Adams and George Washington. Whether they were Christians or not, they must have at least respected Christianity.

George Washington
1st U.S. President

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
--Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.

"I said the founding documents were pivotal in ending slavery. I also said most of the founding fathers were Christian."

Don't let the number of founding fathers who held seminary degrees mislead you. At the time the only degrees universities granted law and religion.

The majority of the founding fathers may have been Christians, but Christianity had little to do with the founding of this country. As I pointed out previously, the philosophical basis for the American Revolution was based upon the writings of British empiricist philosophers who did not accept the Bible as a source of revelation. The most important of these philosophers were Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. If they can be labeled, they should be labeled as Deists.

John Locke is especially important because he was so widely read by the founding fathers. At the end of the English Civil wars Parliament became supreme. However, John Locke pictured a government with three equal branches: The Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. Locke saw a system of checks and balances between the three branches. This is the system which was implemented into the Constitution.

One of the faults with the Constitution is that it embeds slavery within it. John Locke himself was opposed to slavery, but it made it's way into the Constitution. Slavery is never refered to by name, but it can be seen:

Article I, Section 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Notice the words, and "three fifths of all other Persons". That refers to "slaves."

If the government was set up on the Biblical pattern, they would probably have made George Washington king. Don't laugh. Most countries at that time was ruled by kings.

I was just watching Barack Obama being sworn in as president. He took the oath on a Bible, but the Bible is not required. In fact, the Constitution does not even require that the President be a Christian or believe in God.

Article VII, paragrph 3
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Notice the line which begins, "but no religious Test shall ever be required . . ."

Does it really look to you like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were inspired by Christianity?

How about their words?

We are talking about the founding fathers as a whole, not just what a few men said. History is selective about which quotes are remembered. Following the Civil War, historians would not be likely to keep pro-slavery comments made by the founding fathers. Therefore what you find is not representative of the group.

On the other hand, actions speak louder than words, and we know that many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves, and we know that those slave owners were able to keep statements opposed to slavery out of the Declaration of Independence. Not long after that, slavery was embedded in the Constitution.

I found that first quote you gave by John Adams:

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book."

My question is, what type of government would that nation form?

Obviously it's government would be based on the Davidic monarchy. Religion would come under state control, slavery would be legal, and women would be treated as property. Concepts such as a Bill of Rights would be unknown to them.

"The majority of the founding fathers may have been Christians, but Christianity had little to do with the founding of this country" -

Freedom, endowed by our Creator, and Religion, had EVERYTHING to do with the Founding of this Nation. Whether they referred to themselves as Christians, specifically, is irrelevant.

Further, on your confusion over homosexuals, Sociopaths, and Marriage:

Marriage is a designation and a privilege, and defined by a Healthy Society. It is defined as 'that which is between a Man and a Woman;' and its purpose is not a narcissistic one, but for that which is best for a Healthy Society.

Nor is it merely about "love." Wake up. You have lived enough years to learn. Anything can be "loved." To state or believe that 'love' is the purpose or the result of Marriage, alone, is the statement or the belief of the fool. Nothing prevents any two Adults to enter into any Agreement, legally, that they so deem. But then, this is not about what two confused people may or may not share...this is about the intent to MOCK the Institution of Marriage...and to redefine it for narcissistic purposes.

History is selective about which quotes are remembered. So are you saying that pro-slavery quotes were "scrubbed"? Respectfully, Richard, that is weak - please feel free to review my sources. I did some research.

You keep repeating the founders had slaves argument. Again, slavery was around for a century before they were. Despite their abhorrence of slavery, they did not think it would be appropriate to end slavery overnight. What would become of the slaves?

As far as your comment about Adams, rightly or wrongly, he believed that Christianity was good, he said (again) "Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." You clearly have a prejudice of the bible and of Christians - I am not sure how you justify that.

Mark-John,

My statement was, "Christianity had little to do with the founding of this country." Christianity has nothing to say about the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

Mark-John,

"Freedom, endowed by our Creator, and Religion"? Where do you find that in the Bible? That is an idea taken from the enlightenment philosophers. The 17th and 18th centuries were also called "the Age of Reason" because philosophers preferred to dismiss revelation (i.e. the Bible) as a source of religious knowledge and rely upon the senses and reason. Out of that developed Deism, which accepted a creator, but not a personal god who involves itself with mankind. It is the ideas of men like Voltaire and John Locke who provided the philosophical basis for the American Revolution.

The definition of marriage is not written in stone. Over the years marriage has taken on different forms such as polygamy and polyandry.

Up until recently, women had few rights. There are still men in this country who insist that because the Bible tells women to obey their husbands, that the man can demand obedience, and has the right to beat his wife if she does not obey.

Things change. Marriage changes. Marriage is changing.

Renee,
I fully realize that slavery was around before the founding fathers. That is part of the problem. They grew up with slavery and had become accustomed to it. Change is difficult.

Like Voltaire, John Adams believed that Christianity had its good side. But was he a Christian? Where did he call himself a Christian? Here are some quotes from John Adams which you may have missed:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm

Thanks, Richard - I don't know if he was a Christian - but it is clear that he respected Christianity ;-) That really is the beauty of the founding documents - they recognized that people should be able to practice any religion freely.

Richard, you've much to learn about God, His Word, and His influences upon His Creation.

I'm quite aware of the God-given brilliance of Locke, Hobbs, Montesquieu. You may start with the lack of Humility endemic within those, such as yourself, who place their Faith in 'Man.' They were hardly "secular humanists." Whether they were brilliant enough to know the source of their genius is irrelevant.

Voltaire was a fool.

God is not.

Whether the definition of Marriage is written in stone or no is irrelevant. It is amazingly infantile to believe that unless something is "written in stone," it does not exist.

Marriage is defined by God, and, in turn, by a Healthy Society; and, as such, is defined as 'that which is between a Man and a Woman." It is an unhealthy Society that attempts to define it otherwise.

Renee - "That really is the beauty of the founding documents - they recognized that people should be able to practice any religion freely."

I completely agree with you on that, but compare the 1st Amendment with the First Commandment:

Exodus 20:3
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The Bible attributes all the woes in Israel's history to failure to obey that commandment. There are Christian leaders today who claim the the problems in the United States are a result of falling away from God. Some Christian leaders predict that same-marriage will bring God's vengeance upon the U.S.

Freedom of religion is not a Christian concept.

Richard, thank you again for your comment - in America, it does not matter if you are Christian, and I guess you have the right to bash them, too. I don't think it is right, or fair. But it is also my right to feel that way. Again, although many of the founders were Christian, they recognized that the government should not have undue influence over how a person chooses to practice his or her faith. Conversely, religion should not have undue influence over the government. Why do you insist on criticizing it? Nobody is forcing you to be a Christian. Again, the beauty of America.

"Bashing Christians"? Where am I doing that?

I am pointing out historical facts. The American Revolution was not motivated by religion. Freedom of religion was not a Christian ideal. Several of the founding fathers (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, et al) were not Christians. Whether George Washington or James Madison were Christians is open to debate.

But Renee, I have enjoyed our discussion. Thank you.

This is not Christian bashing. This is merely stating facts.

You say nobody is forcing me to be a Christian. Yet various Christians groups have attempted to put organized prayer in schools, to put pressure on schools to teach "creationism", and to delete references to evolution in science textbooks. Other Christian groups have attempted to place religious crosses on government lands.

Today, numerous Christians are trying to force their definition of marriage upon those who wish to enter into a same-sex marriage.

In 1956 Cecil B. DeMille's movie The Ten Commandments was released. To promote the film, the studio made over a hundred monuments listing the Ten Commandments, and placed them outside of courthouses across the country. Several Christian groups loudly objected when these monuments were removed. Most of those Christians falsely argued that our laws were based upon the Ten Commandments.

I am not bashing Christians. I citing facts.

Sorry, Richard - it does come across that way to me - but the word was too strong. I should have used the word, "marginalizing". I think all of your concerns could also be directed at atheist groups - who oftentimes advocate active "mocking" of Christians. You say that the American Revolution was not motivated by Religion, yet you did not respond to the fact that the "Father of the American Revolution" was devout and used religion to justify his goal of breaking from the British. As I stated above, According to Ira Stoll's biography, Samuel Adams: A Life:

Samuel Adams used many biblical arguments to justify American independence. Stoll labels him "the archetype of the religiously passionate American founder, the founder as a biblical prophet, an apostle of liberty." As the "moral conscience of the American Revolution," Adams never lost sight of its "political and religious goals," which he saw as inseparably intertwined.

Stoll portrays Adams as a religious revolutionary who called for independence while many other American leaders still argued for reconciliation with Britain.

Renee,

Most atheists do not belong to any group. They speak for themselves, when they are allowed to speak. Atheists are willing to allow Christians to practice as they want, but they strongly object to being forced to accept Christian teachings, and they are tired of Christians telling them that they are going to hell.

I do not dispute the fact that Samuel Adams was religious. What I dispute is the claim that the right to revolt against a tyrannical government originated with Christianity. The Bible is clear:

Rom 13:
13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment

1 Peter 2
2:13 Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme 2:14 or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. 2:15 For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good. 2:16 Live as free people, not using your freedom as a pretext for evil, but as God’s slaves. 2:17 Honor all people, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the king.

2:18 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are perverse. 2:19 For this finds God’s favor, if because of conscience toward God someone endures hardships in suffering unjustly. 2:20 For what credit is it if you sin and are mistreated and endure it? But if you do good and suffer and so endure, this finds favor with God. 2:21 For to this you were called, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving an example for you to follow in his steps.

Even John Calvin could not justify revolt against a tyrant, no matter how harsh the rule. Calvin did find an exception:

Acts
5:29 But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than people.

Thus, Calvin concluded that Christians could revolt against the government only if they were being forced to disobey God. As a Puritan, Samuel Adams would have been familiar with John Calvin's position on this. But Samuel Adams would also have been familiar with the English Civil Wars, and the philosophy of Hobbs, Locke, and Voltaire which followed. John Locke's book Second Treatise on Civil Government was well read in the colonies.

Thank you, Richard. Yes, many atheists, like myself, are respectful of other people's faiths, and do not encourage others to cherry pick biblical verses, without context, and interpret them in a way that Christians do not. Nor do they encourage people to mock and ridicule others for their faith, but many do. When you say, "they are tired of Christians telling them that they are going to hell," it does not ring true - do you hear that often? Do Christians often tell you that you are going to Hell?

It is Christians who are not respectful of other people's faiths. The final verses in Matthew has become known as "The Great Commission":

Matthew 28:
28:18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 28:20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Where is the respect for other religions in that statement? It is upon those verses that Christianity sent missionaries into other countries. In Mohandas Gandhi's autobiography he says that as a child he attended a Missionary school which taught him that Hinduism was merely myths. He believed that until he went to England and met Theosophists who showed him the truth in Hinduism.

I'm not cherry picking verses. I cited the applicable verses, and they called for obedience to the governing authorities, King or whatever. What part did I quote out of context?

I agree that now Christians do not believe in the divine right of kings, but we were talking about the period leading to the Revolutionary War when most countries in Europe were ruled by kings. The founding fathers had to justify their revolt. They could not find justification in the Bible, therefore they resorted to the writers of the the European Enlightenment.

Christians will tell you that our laws are based upon the Bible. That is ignorance. Where does the Bible say that "all men are created equal"? Where does the Bible say that governments derive their just powers "from the consent of the governed"? What does the Bible say about free elections? What does the Bible say about Freedom of Speech, or Freedom of Religion? Where does the Bible say "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Yet these are among the basic concepts upon which the country was founded.


As you can see, I am outspoken about my ideas on religion and democracy. I have taken positions in favor of same-sex marriage, in favor of women's rights, opposed to organized prayer in public schools, opposed to Christian crosses on public land, and opposed to creationism (aka "intelligent design") being included in science textbooks.

Naturally, those positions have angered numerous Christians, and Christians have often responded by telling me I was going to hell. I wonder why they

And I should mention, if someone would like to prove that the GOP is racist, allegations don't count.

I'm glad to see that you are not a racist, but Racism was the issue back in the 1950's and 60's. Today's issues involve other rights.

Richard, I am not sure if your are quite as much of a news junkie as I am, but I assure you, some of the puppet masters on the left make it their business, having nothing to do with reality and everything to do with keeping their power, to make baseless charges against the right, war on women, war on the poor, war on minorities...blah, blah, It is a lie.

Renee,

Prove your point. Tell me what the Republicans are doing for women. For the poor. For minorities.

Explain to me why you have not responded to my references about gay and lesbian marriage? If you hold that all men (and women) are created equal, and that they have a right to the pursuit of happiness, how can you deny gays the right to marriage?

Tell me what the Republicans are doing for women. For the poor. For minorities. I will tell you that conservatives (and not the RINOs that are only interested in their own power) want fiscal responsibility and limited government. Nobody I know wants to remove programs that can give a "hand up" for those in genuine need. But the way America is going is unsustainable, as just noted by the non-partisan GAO. The right wants to help Americans. All Americans. Period.

Now you tell me, Richard, What are the Democrats doing for women. For the poor. For minorities.

As far as your gay marriage thing. My personal belief is that civil unions (with every single benefit available to married couples) is a good compromise. Gay people have every right to be in a relationship than anyone else. As far as showing respect to Christians deeply believe in "traditional marriage," I very much respect their views, as I respect the views of gay people to have the right to pursue happiness like anyone else.

First, cutting spending and limiting government removes a lot of those programs which give a "hand up" to those in need.

Second, "Civil unions" are merely a rebirth of "separate but equal," which has been discredited in Brown v. Board of education. It is a refusal by people like you to see gays and lesbians as equals, and will only prolong the prejudice agains them.

Third, this is not a theocracy. Nobody is required to follow practices because of what what is found in the Bible.

Finally, In the traditional Christian marriage the wife is required to submit to her husband (Col 3:18) and is expected to stay home and raise children (1 Timothy 2:11-15.)

You can have your traditional Christian marriage, let's have equality in marriage.

Your utter confusion is apparent...and, you know nothing of the Christ.

Richard, I am waiting for the answer to the question:

What are the Democrats doing for women. For the poor. For minorities.

cutting spending and limiting government removes a lot of those programs which give a "hand up" to those in need. However, there is rampant waste. More people under Obama have gone on Social Security disability than have gotten jobs. The number of poor Americans has grown over the last four years, "despite a 30% increase" in spending onWelfare. The non-partisan GAO just called (again) federal spending is "unsustainable". What would you propose?

"Civil unions" are merely a rebirth of "separate but equal," So you are saying that gay marriage should happen in a church?

Nobody is required to follow practices because of what what is found in the Bible. Huh? What do you mean? I never said any such thing.

In the traditional Christian marriage the wife is required to submit to her husband (Col 3:18) and is expected to stay home and raise children (1 Timothy 2:11-15.)
I am not religious, Richard. Nor am I a biblical scholar. But I respect other people's faith and would very much appreciate it if you could do the same.

For one, the Democrats passed those programs, such as Obama's healthcare program, which the Republicans are so intent on cutting. The Democrats also support family planning and choice when it comes to abortion, while the Republicans are passing laws making it more difficult for women to get such help

It has been the Republicans who have tried to make prayer a requirement in schools, and insert creationism into science textbooks.

Your premises' are false on their face. You are deeply-confused. Deeply confused.

It is welfare that impoverishes. It is the Leftist who crushes the Human Spirit. It is the Human Spirit that overcomes, not gov programmes. It is the Truth that makes the Marxist and the Socialist squeamish. It is only the foolish who can be fooled by the foolishness that you've been fooled by.

You know nothing of Human Nature.

Richard, thank you again for engaging and for your civility. We are clearly on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I do appreciate your willingness to have a rational discussion. Oftentimes these types of conversations turn to insults and I am reassured that you do not resort to this.

ObamaCare may be helpful to the poor in theory, but it was never the right answer - there is no doubt that the healthcare industry needed fixing but not by adding more government intervention. If insurance companies were allowed to compete across state lines and if physicians did not have to pay for outrageous malpractice insurance, (note that during the debate in 2009, very little was discussed about trial lawyers) - yes, reform was needed. But ObamaCare will only lead to healthcare rationing, and higher costs for healthy people. It will be an absolute disaster for small businesses.

What I would like to ask you, in light of the fact that you believe abortion is good for the poor, you must be pro-abortion. My pro-life stance has nothing to do with religion, to me, it is a matter of science. Abortion is murder, as far as I can tell (the "aborting" of a "being" with brain waves, a beating heart, etc...how could that be anything but murder?) Regardless, this to me is not an example of how Democrats help anyone. We could discuss this further, if you are interested.

It has been the Republicans who have tried to make prayer a requirement in schools, and insert creationism into science textbooks.

Richard, I am not quite sure where this fits in the conversation, but I am happy to discuss further with you.

Mark John, "It is welfare that impoverishes." Yes, if the numbers are any indication.

Yes. Renee...let both numbers and suffering be the indication...

Welfare impoverishes, economically. It impoverishes Societally.

Further, the strength of our Nation is in proportion to that level with which we Value the Judeo-Christian VALUE SYSTEM. That is where lies our strength. That is why the Marxist must coincidentally remove God from his Society, while stealing and redistributing...

And where we become impoverished, Spiritually and in our Value System, there we become impoverished Economically. It is in the Fatherless Inner City that the impoverished dwell; while the Family in the outlay flourishes. Sadly, the Lie of "welfare" is the antidote; and not that which we once Valued...sadly, the poverty of the "humanist value system" is spreading, by Leftists...and Poverty is reaching throughout the Fabric of American Society.

Richard...you are deeply, deeply confused.

I'm now 72 years old. Guess how long I have been hearing warnings about government dept? It has been most of those 72 years.

The ironic part is that deficit spending has a way of stimulating the economy. The U.S. has been in a recession, and the Republicans insist on reducing spending. The Republicans were willing to accept a tax increase which would reduce the deficit, but they wanted the tax increase to be upon the middle class and screamed about how much damage a tax increase would for the rich would do.

I have just been looking at figures which show that since 1950 the tax rate for the rich has been steadily going down. I think they could stand a little more taxation.

Renee,

I just noticed above that in response to my comment about same-sex marriage, you replied:

So you are saying that gay marriage should happen in a church?

This is part of the lies that have been circulated by anti-gay groups.

Churches have never been forced to perform marriages which they disapprove of. For example, a Catholic church will not marry a couple if one of them have been divorced. And if a Catholic wishes to marry a non-Catholic, the church will not perform the marriage unless it is agreed that the children will be raised Catholic. In other words, churches will not be forced to marry gay couples.

There are Christian churches which will perform same-sex marriages, and there are some Christian churches which will perform such ceremonies.

In fact, same sex couples will soon be able to marry at the Episcopal National Cathedral in Washington D.C. This Cathedral is famous because so many national events have taken place there, including funerals for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his last sermon there in 1968.

Other Episcopal churches are also starting to perform same sex marriages.

I would be interested in your reaction to the words of the Democratic party website, and the words I cite from the Samuel and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington...

As far as Christianity and the founding of America, of course the founders were influenced by their beliefs in the faith. They also believed that the church (no matter the sect) should not have undue influence on the government and vice versa. Consider the famous "separation of church and state" line written in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Assoc. in 1804. Two days later, Jefferson attended a church service in a government building. Was he a hypocrite? Or has this phrase been distorted to mean something it never meant, ie, the freedom from religion?

In other words, churches will not be forced to marry gay couples. Well then, perhaps we are on the same page. With one major exception. Please do not throw around the phrase "anti-gay" when discussing Christians. Respect for traditional marriage does not mean anti-gay. It is that type of rhetoric that is inflammatory and invites polarization. Do some believe that gay acts are a sin? Yes, but they also believe that everyone sins.

The ideal of separation of church and state also grew out of the English Civil wars and was strongly supported by Deists such as Voltaire and John Locke. Up till then Christian fractions were tearing Europe apart, and was the main cause of the English Civil Wars.

Thomas Jefferson admired Jesus Christ, but he did not accept Jesus as being more than just a man. The church service he attended was conducted by a close friend of his: The Baptist minister John Leland. He was in Washington to deliver a rather massive cheese to Jefferson which was sent as a gift.

You will like John Leland. He was a Christian, a revolutionary, an abolitionist, and a supporter of religious freedom (even for Jews and Moslems.)


Notice the comment above by Mark-John which ends:

But then, this is not about what two confused people may or may not share...this is about the intent to MOCK the Institution of Marriage...and to redefine it for narcissistic purposes.

That is inflammatory rhetoric. Mark-John is an example of an anti-gay Christian who defines "traditional marriage" as being between one man and one woman.

No, it is not, Richard...it is merely the Truth.

And, try to pay attention. As Renee has pointed out clearly, supporting the Truth about Marriage is NOT "anti-gay." It is Pro-Marriage.

And therefore, Pro-Truth.

Richard, don't you see what you are doing? You call Mark-John's statement inflammatory, but you mock Christianity. Isn't that inflammatory?

The church service he attended was conducted by a close friend of his: The Baptist minister John Leland. in the House of Representatives, I believe. A "rather massive cheese" - that is funny ;-)

"Despite their finding, "minority outreach" should not be the goal of conservatives. Reaching out to all Americans, no matter the color of their skin, should be the goal." - Renee

Golden Words, Renee.

xoxoxoxoxoxo!!

(You must be one of those evvvvilllll racists!)

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox.

xoxoxoxoxoxo!!
(You must be one of those evvvvilllll racists!)
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox.

Is this how "evilllll racists" communicate? The "evilllll racist" language?

mwahhhhaahahahahha!

I clicked because I actually thought this was going to be a joke post...it's not, but I'm still laughing! :0)

At the Democrats, because they are not as diverse as the GOP. I know, they really need to get their act together, right?

Yeah, that's why Romney got 10% of the AA vote & 30% of the Hispanic vote~Puh-leeese, your making me laugh harder!

Perhaps you should have a word with the author of the CNN article.... ;-)

True diversity is found in willingness to consider diverse ideas. I find little diversity of ideas in posts from those who call themselves 'liberals' and 'progressives' whose knees jerk in unison in response to certain stimuli. There seems to be plenty in posts from Republicans and libertarians and those who do not align themselves with political left.

In the UK it was traditionally the Conservatives who were accused of putting party loyalty ahead of personal principle. But it was the socialist Labour Party that expelled members for associating with Conservative of Liberal party supporters. Lefties are the same the world over.

love it. You are the best. Well said, and this should be a bumper sticker: "True diversity is found in willingness to consider diverse ideas."