American beliefs

[ATM]

The change of our society and the abandonment of what were once considered self-evident truths prompted a change in the nature of our governance.

The people began to abdicate more and more of their own duties to "government" rather than maintaining the burdens of liberty themselves.

Beyond a certain point, that government began to assume further powers and functions never authorized or offered. Beyond that point, the government began to fabricate powers unto itself which neither the states nor any individual had ever possessed, powers and functions which could not be delegated, crimes.

We now operate largely under the guise of a democracy, though that's not accurately what it is. The changing truths of the majority and the political leverage of certain minorities are imposed with aggression upon all.

Not what the founders enacted or envisioned, but exactly what our society demanded and continues to support. We fool ourselves in many ways to make it still seem noble or just (or at least tolerable), but it isn't. Their vision was for a different people and a different truth.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The change of our society and the abandonment of what were once considered self-evident truths prompted a change in the nature of our governance.

The people began to abdicate more and more of their own duties to "government" rather than maintaining the burdens of liberty themselves.

Beyond a certain point, that government began to assume further powers and functions never authorized or offered. Beyond that point, the government began to fabricate powers unto itself which neither the states nor any individual had ever possessed, powers and functions which could not be delegated, crimes.

We now operate largely under the guise of a democracy, though that's not accurately what it is. The changing truths of the majority and the political leverage of certain minorities are imposed with aggression upon all.

Not what the founders enacted or envisioned, but exactly what our society demanded and continues to support. We fool ourselves in many ways to make it still seem noble or just (or at least tolerable), but it isn't. Their vision was for a different people and a different truth.

This is good enough to require quoting because it needs posted at least twice, just in case someone managed to overlook it.

 

[rambone]

If our modern society requires this centralized nanny cartel to rule us and the rest of the world as subjects, shouldn't we at least give it a new document by which it may legitimately function?

It seems to me that if society ignores the current constitution, it would ignore a replacement constitution. There is no remaining cultural value on the purpose for having a constitution (i.e. to limit government). That is not a problem with the document, but a problem with society.

The only way government would stay within "legitimate" bounds, when administered in this depraved culture, is if there were no constitution at all. That's what the people really want: no limits.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Rather than create a new thread... this one is pretty related to America and it's religious beginnings.

Rubio: 'Real and present danger' that Christianity will be labeled 'hate speech' | TheHill

I like Rubio for the most part... but this... eh.

 

[Dean C.]

Rather than create a new thread... this one is pretty related to America and it's religious beginnings.

Rubio: 'Real and present danger' that Christianity will be labeled 'hate speech' | TheHill

WOW.... this is from a serious presidential candidate. Since religion is free game now here goes nothing. If I am not mistaken was Jesus main message basically love everyone even your enemies? No where in the bible does Jesus say that homosexuals are bad not a single time. I understand that early Christianity has its roots in persecution but really, trying to say that the majority of Americans will have their religion labeled as hate speech is absurd at best.

 

[IndyDave1776]

WOW.... this is from a serious presidential candidate. Since religion is free game now here goes nothing. If I am not mistaken was Jesus main message basically love everyone even your enemies? No where in the bible does Jesus say that homosexuals are bad not a single time. I understand that early Christianity has its roots in persecution but really, trying to say that the majority of Americans will have their religion labeled as hate speech is absurd at best.

Why is this absurd? Canada already does it. Britain already does it.

Just because it isn't in red letters, it is still in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and homosexuality is indeed a sin. I see no justification for it being held up as a ne plus ultra sin in a category all by itself, but it is still wrong. That said, the believer is called to declare the truth while attempting to help the lost person find his way to Christ as opposed to persecution. This is NOT however to say that it is incumbent upon any believer to accept, promote, legitimize, or assist in the commission of the sin. Likewise, the believer has a duty to uphold the truth, and that includes standing by the principle that it is indeed a sin. Today in Canada, a pastor can be charged with hate speech for merely stating from the pulpit that homosexuality is in fact a sin, which is exactly what the scripture says. if it can happen in another of the most free nations on earth, why can't it happen here? I know, this is America, that can't happen here. Same deal with infringement on gun rights, search and seizure, and the federal government engaging in activities outside its constitutional mandate.

 

[D-Ric902]

Why is this absurd? Canada already does it. Britain already does it.

Just because it isn't in red letters, it is still in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and homosexuality is indeed a sin. I see no justification for it being held up as a ne plus ultra sin in a category all by itself, but it is still wrong. That said, the believer is called to declare the truth while attempting to help the lost person find his way to Christ as opposed to persecution. This is NOT however to say that it is incumbent upon any believer to accept, promote, legitimize, or assist in the commission of the sin. Likewise, the believer has a duty to uphold the truth, and that includes standing by the principle that it is indeed a sin. Today in Canada, a pastor can be charged with hate speech for merely stating from the pulpit that homosexuality is in fact a sin, which is exactly what the scripture says. if it can happen in another of the most free nations on earth, why can't it happen here? I know, this is America, that can't happen here. Same deal with infringement on gun rights, search and seizure, and the federal government engaging in activities outside its constitutional mandate.

The first thing I thought of was Canada
you can also be prosecuted in much of Europe for hate speech (hate being defined by the powers that be at the time)

 

[KG1]

What the founders envisioned for the Constitution was a pathway away from tyranny. It appears we have strayed from that original pathway right unto the precipice of a new tyranny. The federal government has enticed many to stray away from that original pathway. (could be a religious reference here)

 

[IndyDave1776]

What the founders envisioned for the Constitution was a pathway away from tyranny. It appears we have strayed from that original pathway right unto the precipice of a new tyranny. The federal government has enticed many to stray away from that original pathway. (could be a religious reference here)

Absolutely! Truth versus falsehood is one of the most significant themes in the scripture.

 

[RockofStrength]

WOW.... this is from a serious presidential candidate. Since religion is free game now here goes nothing. If I am not mistaken was Jesus main message basically love everyone even your enemies? No where in the bible does Jesus say that homosexuals are bad not a single time. I understand that early Christianity has its roots in persecution but really, trying to say that the majority of Americans will have their religion labeled as hate speech is absurd at best.

He did, however, say this:

"And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Matthew 19:4-6

Paul further supports the exclusivity of a husband/wife marriage relationship in Romans 1:26, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

I would also quote Leviticus, but I feel that the thread would be derailed by the need to go through half of the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews to clarify the differences between the ceremonial law of the Old Covenant fulfilled in Christ and the moral law which describes that which God has and always will find detestable or sinful.

 

[MisterChester]

Rather than create a new thread... this one is pretty related to America and it's religious beginnings.

Rubio: 'Real and present danger' that Christianity will be labeled 'hate speech' | TheHill

I like Rubio for the most part... but this... eh.

Ridiculous. Not everything in Christianity has to do with condemning people. It'd be more accurate to say "some people will construe parts of the bible as hate speech"

 

[MisterChester]

He did, however, say this:

"And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Matthew 19:4-6

Paul further supports the exclusivity of a husband/wife marriage relationship in Romans 1:26, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

I would also quote Leviticus, but I feel that the thread would be derailed by the need to go through half of the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews to clarify the differences between the ceremonial law of the Old Covenant fulfilled in Christ and the moral law which describes that which God has and always will find detestable or sinful.

Eating shrimp isn't allowed according to Leviticus. So I can agree with your last part.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ridiculous. Not everything in Christianity has to do with condemning people. It'd be more accurate to say "some people will construe parts of the bible as hate speech"

While that distinction has merit, it opens some questions:

1. How can we not reasonable expect to have .gov problems here when it is already an issue in allegedly free countries of similar national background with ours?

2. Who gets to define 'hate speech'?

3. Given that the Biblical condemnation amounts to declaring certain activities as sin with specific treatment of the fact that this is an different concept from condemning the practitioners thereof as human beings, how can passages which are already prosecuted as 'hate speech' in other western countries be reasonable considered such?

4. What do you do with the First Amendment? My guess is that those who don't like hearing what the Bible says (i.e., don't like being told that they are wrong whether they believe in the faith or not) will liken this to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater when it is in fact suppression of the free exercise of religion given that it is not a matter of doing anything to anyone but merely discussing what practitioners of a given religion believe to be right or in this case wrong.

5. How far do you believe that a single-digit element of the population can push everyone else before some serious pushback occurs?

6. Can I expect anti-Christian statements, likewise, to be branded 'hate speech'. Seriously, I know better than to actually expect such a thing, especially given the sheer volume of publicly declared ridicule directed against people of faith as it is now by the very same people who believe that calling anything a sin is 'hate speech'.

 

[ATM]

"Surely future generations wouldn't try to take the Bible out of schools.
In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, if we were to remove the Bible from schools, I lament that we could be wasting so much time and money in punishing crime and would be taking so little pains to prevent them."

~Benjamin Rush

 

[ATM]

So how did we not see this coming when nearly everyone of the founding era had the foresight to fervently warn us?

And to rephrase one of my original questions, how can we support a Constitution crafted for a different society, under a different belief system, adhering to truths which are no longer considered self-evident, erecting a limited federal government which could not handle the task of governing us (as we were supposed to largely be doing that ourselves).

Why does anyone think we could go back to our original Constitutional form prior to our society returning to its previous nature? It would be folly.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So how did we not see this coming when nearly everyone of the founding era had the foresight to fervently warn us?

And to rephrase one of my original questions, how can we support a Constitution crafted for a different society, under a different belief system, adhering to truths which are no longer considered self-evident, erecting a limited federal government which could not handle the task of governing us (as we were supposed to largely be doing that ourselves).

Why does anyone think we could go back to our original Constitutional form prior to our society returning to its previous nature? It would be folly.

Very few people truly understand or care to understand our founders at a number of different levels:

1. Self-sacrifice is virtually absent from our society aside from people demanding that others do it for them.

2. Objective truth is treated as a fairy story and not truth, specifically or in concept.

3. Responsibility has been generally rejected aside from, again, when demanding it of others and further demanding that others assume responsibility they don't properly own for the benefit of the irresponsible people making the demand.

You have a very valid point that a Constitution drafted for a specific society which no longer exists is not going to work for a society not compatible with its tenets. I would suggest that there are still enough people who are remnants of that society for it to continue to function for a while yet, but that time is limited, especially with domestic enemies hard at work to use immigration in addition to laws against traditional ways of life in a number of ways to, as the Kenyan put it, fundamentally transform America.

I don't see any landmark changes to the Constitution nor do I see any meaningful effort to actually follow it. We will most likely continue in the fiction of being the republic which was founded in the Eighteenth Century until we cross the tipping point. Then we will see either chaos, the heavy fist of authoritarian government, or some combination of both. In any event, it won't be pretty.

 

[KG1]

So how did we not see this coming when nearly everyone of the founding era had the foresight to fervently warn us?

And to rephrase one of my original questions, how can we support a Constitution crafted for a different society, under a different belief system, adhering to truths which are no longer considered self-evident, erecting a limited federal government which could not handle the task of governing us (as we were supposed to largely be doing that ourselves).

Why does anyone think we could go back to our original Constitutional form prior to our society returning to its previous nature? It would be folly.

Should a new constitution be crafted that outlines the parameters of the federal government in today's climate given the ever increasing trend by many that favor a bigger role by the very same government? Should the role of the federal government be expanded in this new constitution? That's a total flip flop from what the founders envisioned.

 

[Cerberus]

Christians are forbidden from swearing at all so that does seem a bit odd.

Not quite. We are allowed to swear true faith and honesty. And we are only held accountable for idle words. Might want to learn that which you persecute.

 

[Cerberus]

Eating shrimp isn't allowed according to Leviticus. So I can agree with your last part.

And Acts, allows us to eat what we wish. New Testament has priority over Old.

 

[zippy23]

Christianity has ideas and morals that come from God and not man. Therefore these morals like the right to life cant be undone or interfered with. This is a very very good thing for society regardless of if you believe in a god or not. If society doesnt have a constitution like ours, and man is the rule of law, then men can make any law or moral and deem it "right." Like gay marriage, like sharia law, like abortion, etc. Even murder can be made ok if its totally up to the population to vote yes or no. Without a set of rules that cant be changed, society crumbles, because any law or moral can be undone at any time, especially the right to life. Just look at taxes for example. The narrative now is to just take(STEAL) from rich people because they have it, and give it to poor people because they dont. They use lies to push the agenda and the ends justify their means. This is nothing more than theft from someone who has more. It is now ok in our society because we have become so secular and so immoral, or amoral, that politicians are just making "laws" and not following other laws. Nothing matters anymore because there is no standard. Religion can also be used for the opposite, as we see is Islam. The religion is used to make laws that benefit men and enslave women and non believers. This nation grew to the greatest nation in such a short period of time, we must look at why. The majority has been christian, we are set up to be free, we have a constitution that makes the people have the power with a few rules like free speech, guns, etc, that cant be abridged no matter what law is passed. The constitution is the greatest governing document to ever be written, and it made sure that religion could not be controlled by gov't. The only problem is that our gov't isnt following it anymore at all.