In the declaration of Independence 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. You cant separate the person from there rights they are unalienable
This is a good video. I'll favorite it. There is a group of americans who want to treat the constitution like the bible, as a sacred document to be worshiped but never read. And i think Jefferson warned against doing that, too.
Like I was telleing the reverend Machias Houlton AKA minnesotastategop just now in a video sermon he made specifically for me, I love it because its designed as a safeguard against theocratic nutbags like him. He called it "our christian constitution" HA!
I'll share you the video if you want to. He made one for oldfartrants about halloween and rick perry being a devil worshiper.
I dont recall the bible promoting feudalism or divine right of kings. I DO recall atheists touting something like that under stalin and mao.
And the book of 1 samuel BTW condemns that. Israel was not supposd to have a king. the majority wanted a king (sound familiar?) and Samuel warned what would happen. And it did! It weakened Israel. So much for divine rights.
Not that I would apologize too much for this (because I do think folks that deny history are rather stupid), but I would have stated, "They're either lying or they are too willfully ignorant..."
Love the video and the message seamoremonster! …and what a great voice.
Although I don't think you used the word "Democracy" in your video, I do see the word in your video description. I often find myself using “Democracy” to describe our intended form of government, but it is (or rather was supposed to be) a Republic.
This is another of my favorited videos about the Constitution >> watch?v=FmzldNFgD40 << it elaborates on the topic of Democracy vs. Republic
82 percent of Preznit Barack Hussein Obama's supporters favor sweeping changes to the Constitution, compared with 28 percent of old man Mccain's. The narrator fools no one.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
@pvbaelen For everyone of these quotes you wrote here, I can give you several that were also spoken or written by the Founders rejecting and/or discrediting Christianity in plain, absolutely clear terms. They were not atheists, but Deists, which is a religion. That's the religion they refer to in all of your quotes, not Christianity, which they plainly disliked.
@armyveteran101st - You can give quotes from SOME founders and not the majority. What about Samuel Adams or Patrick Henry? How about Benjamin Rush, John Jay, John Hancock or John Witherspoon? Thats the problem with these type of claims, they are intellectually dishonest. Quotes are cherry picked to support a viewpoint while ignoring mountains of evidence contradicting it.
The Founders were diverse in their beliefs with some (probably the majority) holding strong Christian belief.
@pvbaelen And what about George Washington requiring the Continental Army to attend "divine service". I don't believe he was referring to going to the local deist get together but rather Church service. I don't agree with compelling anyone to a particular believe but it Washington did this, he must have thought it important to the cause.
Separation of church and state has been perverted to try and eliminate all religious influence from public life which I can guarantee was not intended.
@pvbaelen That is just not true, and there's ample historical evidence to support it. I say again, the Founders were DEISTS, not Christians. There is a BIG difference. If you're going to complain about quotes being cherry-picked then you should probably abstain from using them to support your erroneous assertions.
@armyveteran101st Sorry, but you're inaccurate completely. Exactly what "Founders" are you referring to? Some were Deists, but not all. Easy questions for you; yes or no: Was Patrick Henry a Deist? How about John Jay or perhaps Samuel Adams or Benjamin Rush or John Witherspoon? I recommend further study at the Library of Congress website. Google:
religion and the founding of the american republic
The site has source documents scanned that paint a clear picture of early America.
@pvbaelen When most people refer to the Founders, we refer to the main figures that participated in the process of national creation from beginning to end, and who were absolutely indispensable to the same. Those would be people like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, John Jay, and Morris, the first financier. The historical figures you mention were important contributors, but were not essential to the process in the same manner.
@armyveteran101st This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.
Will of Patrick Henry (The "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" guy)
And where is George Washington's quotes? Like this one from his Farewell Address:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.
Sheesh, 34 seconds in and the whole credibility of the vid is shot to hell! Thomas Jefferson wasn't even AT the Constitutional Convention and DID NOT draft it. He was in France! James Madison could probably be more accurately described as the drafter of the Constitution.
In 1784, he was sent to France as America's diplomatic representative, not returning home until the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 and missing the Constitutional Convention.
@pvbaelen The intent of this video is clear and absolutely on target, and not affected by mistakes regarding historical fact. That's what really matters.
"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:303, Papers 2:546
"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283
And I think that those who insist on believing that the Founding Fathers acted motivated solely by religious fervor are too ignorant of our history, and too stupid to realize their mistake. That's what a lack of education combined with religious fundamentalism do to people.
Another correction, (for the sake of accuracy): Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. He was serving as Minister to France in 1787 while the Constitutional Convention was taking place, and really had no significant participation in the process. The one who should really have been mentioned here is James Madison, who is considered the Father of the Constitution, and who also made several statements concerning his dread of religious fundamentalism in America.
I loved this video! One small note, though. The principle of Separation between Church and State is clearly implied and alluded to in the First Amendment, but nowhere does it appear stated literally in the Constitution. It is important to be aware of this. However, the video is absolutely correct in its assertion to the effect that the Framers were very well aware of the dangers posed by religious extremism and fanaticism. They spoke against them repeatedly in correspondence and other documents.
@armyveteran101st For every quote this video takes out of context to bolster a "non-religious" founding. I can quote twenty that bolster in context that the founders were a devout religious lot.
@quickboat22 Maybe so, but I suspect that political correctness was as bad back then as it is today, and the Founders couldn't afford to rock the boat anymore than they did, else the people wouldn't have gone along. The Framers were highly enlightened people, and they understood that religious fundamentalism was toxic and dangerous. I hope you can distinguish the difference between being a reasonable person of faith and being a crazed fundamentalist. They did, and their writings reflect so.
@armyveteran101st The founders pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor; they were not at all worried about political correctness. They were deeply religious but understood the extreme danger of theocracy or state sponsored religion. Yet they also expected the citizenry to be a moral, religious people. Because with freedom comes moral responsibility.
ie John Adams “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
@quickboat22 The Founders were not "deeply religious", and that is a historical fact that has been thoroughly documented. They were Deists, which is different. And we need to be realistic and understand that the Founders had to contend with human nature and with many of the things we are concerned with today, namely politics and PR. That is the major reason why they didn't address slavery during the Constitutional Convention. They were extremely enlightened people, but they weren't flawless.
@armyveteran101st That being said you are correct that the founders did not want any one religion being sponsored by the state. John Adams said it best “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
@quickboat22 You can be moral without being religious, and you can worship the Constitution without worshiping a deity, as I do. There was and there's still is enough room in America for those who believe and for those of us who don't. That's the beauty of the near-perfect system that our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us, which is trashed every day by the likes of idiots like Palin and Beck. But they do have a right to be idiots, and I'll defend that right by force of arms if I have to.
@armyveteran101st I appreciate your respect of our Constitution and your understanding of the founder's fear of state sponsored religion is correct. Yet histtory proves that the founders were as a whole, deeply religious men, who thought natural rights are given by God. I also have to disagree in your saying that the Palins and Becks have trashed the Constitution when in fact they have sparked a renewed interest in the history of this great nation which is never a bad thing.
@quickboat22 With all respect, that's incorrect. That is a fallacy that most people have been led to believe by 200 years of idealization and historical revisionism. The Founders were Deists, and thought the universe had a creator that didn't concern himself with the lives of humans and didn't communicate with them in any way. They strongly rejected the supernatural qualities attributed to Jesus and God, but they embraced Jesus's teachings, as do I. They were opposed to the Bible as well.
@armyveteran101st In 1777. Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase bibles which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies! And in 1782, the United States Congress declared, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.
@quickboat22 Because the Founders couldn't afford to go against popular convention regarding religion, I've told you that. What they were doing was already controversial and reprehensible to a wide swath of the colonial population. Keep in mind that a sizable percentage of the colonial population didn't want anything to do with rebellion against the British or independence from them. An attempt by the Founders to impose their true feelings on religion would have defeated their purpose.
@quickboat22 They had to tell the people what they wanted to hear. Don't forget, the Founders had superb political skills. They had to have them and use them in order to achieve some of the things they achieved, which went hand in hand with the use of military force. Like I said before, you have to take into account the fact that many were opposed to what they were trying to do. They had to influence and manipulate public opinion in order to achieve their goals, and they did it superbly.
The US Congress didn't even *exist* in 1782. The US Constitution which defined it wasn't even written until 1787!
The Aitken bible was *not* purchased by any American Congress, and the Continental Congress denied his request for his bible to be published under it's authority. They *did* endorse it as an accurate version of the bible.
[sigh] I *have* looked it up, because it's such a common claim.
The CC did at one point instruct it's Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 bibles, but it never reached a resolution. Thus, it never actually bought the bibles. Search for Aitken Bible at the Library of Congress. (In fact, Aitken lost money printing only 10,000 copies.)
The recommendation was of Aitken's version as accurate, not of the Bible in general, and was meant to promote the US publishing industry.
@armyveteran101st All but two of the first 108 universities founded in America were Christian. This includes the first, Harvard, where the student handbook listed this as Rule #1: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."
@armyveteran101st With all due respect you have been sold the bill of goods that the PROGRESSIVS have sold for nearly a century. Those Becks and Palins you so hate want an honest investigation of the facts not a rewriting of history. Lets look at some of the facts.
Hundreds of examples of Biblical references are inscribed in government buildings at both state and federal levels including the ten commandments.
@quickboat22 I've been convinced by historical facts and reason that I'm right, and I've refused to be brainwashed by the religious zealots on the evangelical side who have managed to brainwash a large segment of the public out there. They're the ones who have engaged in massive historical revisionism. The biblical references have nothing to do with the Founders, but with the religious beliefs that were brought here by pilgrims and immigrants over the span of centuries.
@armyveteran101st Though my question is this? How can you follow Jesus's Teachings and be a Deist at the same time? You've read the bible, so you surely know that Christ is God. In effect an avatar. By following through Christ you are wise with the wisdom of God. It doesn't make sense that you would follow his teachings yet say God is a neutral being in the universe. If your looking to Christ for moral Guidance then you are a Christian. They are plain and simple, followers of Christ.
According to the bible, Jesus taught people to love their neighbors. I can follow this teaching without believing Jesus was the son of God, or even that he existed. Your argument fails.
Both. There is only tenuous evidence that somebody named Jesus existed then who might be the basis for the stories. There's no evidence at all that he was the son of God. In fact, it can easily be shown that the God most christians believe in can't exist, and therefore can't have a son.
@jursamaj You are absolutely right! I just said the same thing to someone else in another comment using different words and phrases, but we are in complete agreement on this....Cheers! ];-)
@jursamaj I can pick out a dozen passages or more were Jesus Embraces violence and asks you to forsake your family. That is a weak argument if your going to use it. Such as Matthew10:34. Revelations 2:23. Don't see why you would be reading a book that is the greatest mind fuck in the world. Again in Matt 24:6. He teaches of war, and rising up against a nation.Also you contradicted your self by saying you can follow with out him ever existing. Fully read the bible, then you can come back to me.
No contradiction. Whether *he* existed or not (probably not, and almost certainly not divine), the *teaching* still exists. I *can* follow that teaching, which is attributed to him, without believing he existed. (Mind you, I *don't* follow many of his teachings, like the "sell all possessions" and "hate your family" ones.)
Why would I read that vile book? Know your enemy.
@jursamaj Ah, well then you simply take certain guidelines to match your personal views. Second that on the know your enemy and total agreement on the sell all your possessions and hate your family statements. I my self take tid bits from nearly all major religious and philosophical texts my self. Our difference from my perspective is were you say an almost certainly not I say, certainly not.
Eh. I seldom claim certainty, except when something is definitionally or tautologically true or false. Of course, leaving open the possibility of divinity just demands the question of what divinity even means. :)
@GeneralArrow I would not expect a pagan to understand the spiritual teachings of the greatest spiritual influence on the world ever born, but my god you can't even read plain text. You may want to stick to keeping your comments to yourself on all fronts because I doubt that your secular reasoning is any better than that of your scriptural understanding.
@quickboat22 Except for you just made your self look like a fool, I'm not a Pagan. I'm Atheist. Trust me, there is a difference. Perhaps before you insult someone for there lack of spiritual understanding maybe you should find out what religion or belief they are, I have none. Also, you pretty much said just because your not Christian you can't understand Jesus. Bullshit, that's like saying just because I'm not conservative I don't understand there views or values.
@GeneralArrow I didn't say I was a Deist, but even if I were, I'd be able to follow Jesus's teachings. You don't necessarily have to believe in the supernatural aspects of the story in order to follow Jesus's teachings regarding how one should act towards oneself and others, and how one should conduct him/herself through life. I actually believe that most supposedly devout people nowadays have prostituted the teachings of Jesus, and used them to justify their excesses and transgressions.
"They came with Bible and their religion, stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved." - Chief Pontiac
---
The Chiefs quote reflects the current day flat-earthers view of Palestine, with "pastor" Hagee leading the charge.
Great video, if the Tali-Baggers / RepubliCONs had full control of America it'd be them that would burn our Constitution, and torturing hard working Americans by water boarding them and force them to read Bibles as the only texts to learn over and over...
The Republicans have gone from the candidate that they would like to have a beer with to the candidate that they would like to have sex with, presuming that she didn't speak too much while they were doing it. Great upload, smm. Thanks so much for sending it
@MrClaydough Claydoof - You still here? Told you to get back in the woodshed, Gomer. Get crackin on the song you were told to write: You and Pedro the Wetback and Preznit Milli Hussein Vanilli and how you still believes! there will be unicorns!
@charlie "..., that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions,... American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State." from Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptists after becoming President. This is where he explains the intent of the Constitution on this issue. Taken from the LOC.
@seamoremonster It seems like such a simple concept yet I guarrantee you that Charlie here still doesn't understand the difference between God and the Church. In fact, I'm sure he still thinks you're a "cad" for the simple fact that you challenged his deeply held, yet completely wrong beliefs.
@dsglop Yeah. I'm afraid you're right. Separation of Church and State is such a basic tenet of our system...and the lunatic fringe are still trying to include religion with its history of torture, feudalism, intolerance and suppression of thought and freedom. I mean these are the people who burnt others for heresy if they were caught with a Bible. Who threatened to burn Galileo for maintaining the Earth orbited around the Sun. The founding fathers knew about the tyranny of religion.
@seamoremonster Why can't you accept that these are actions of *people*, not religions? I would be curious to what extent you assign blame to Islam for the actions of its extremists.
And feudalism? That was the Normans who came up with that.
I also hate "silly people playing dress up in 18th century costumes." It's funny how people who quote the Constitution the most understand it the least. The Founding Fathers knew quite well that the average person does not understand the broader issues the country faces. They were at least some what elitist: the Senate was appointed by the State legislatures so better educated people would decide who the leaders were.
@dsglop For them the constitution is like the bible.
They will quote ALL the parts that they agree with, but conveniently ignore the bits that they don't believe in.Even if this means they will only quote part of a sentence. For example, they will quote the "right to bear arms" bit but not the bit about a "well regulated militia" that directly precedes it.
@dangerouslytalented Because "well-regulated" doesn't mean the modern progressive sense of management and control by central authority. In 19th century language, well-regulated means well-trained.
Samuel Johnson, 1619: "Regulate: To adjust by rule or method"
I'll do one better. Federalist 29. Alexander Hamilton explains what a "well-regulated militia" means.
DC vs Heller: "Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619; Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 referring to "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms".
@pigeatinginfidel You are taking the meaning for regulation which is plainly meant for engineering, and one that was over one hundred years old by the time that the constitution was written.
@dangerouslytalented That is the meaning of the term as used in the bill of rights. Read Federalist 29! Hamilton explains exactly what is meant by that. Also there are numerous other sources. Read DC vs Heller. There are copious footnotes in there.
The fact is "well-regulated" 1. did not mean what it does now nor was it used in the modern sense of, for example, banking regulations, and 2. even if it did, that sense would in no impair the operative part defining the right.
From Wikipedia: "Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull). By 2000 The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions."
@dangerouslytalented And in case you have suspicions about Wikipedia, the number of Supreme Court cases that cite the Federalist Papers is also cited in the book Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow (Penguin Books, 2004) which I am looking at right now.
@dangerouslytalented Perhaps you are right. When they said "well-regulated" in the Bill of Rights, they actually meant that in a sense that wouldn't exist for another 120 years, and when the guy who helped write the Constitution wrote about it, he was wrong because he knew that even though future court decisions would rely on other Federalists, #29 would be ignored.
You know, sometimes you just need to give up on the whole Occam-hating loopedy-loops and go with the simplest explanation here.
@dangerouslytalented And no, the Federalist Papers were not "one man's vision." It was three men. They were explaining to the people what the provisions meant as it was being written, in other words, "how things actually were."
@pigeatinginfidel And besides, the part about the militia is the prefatory clause, not the operative, and in no way limits the operative clause. Militia is also not the government-organized military, but all able-bodied people (formerly just men) capable of bearing arms.
But then I am probably wasting my time. There are decades of scholarship on this, and the fact that you've zeroed in on this sophomoric argument tells me you aren't interested in endangering your preconceptions. See L Tribe
@dangerouslytalented You're one to talk. You libs are more like that. You clamor about so called seperation of church and state but ignore the bit about congrees not allowed to ban free speech freedom of the press and owning defensive weapons. Clintons ambitions for a ministry of truth come to mind.
Historically, in free nations,rights have only been curtailed when people abuse them. Guns are restricted when a large number of people are shot. Churches are forbidden from interfering in the state when the rights of those of other religions (or those without religion) are threatened. Free speech is limited when it comes to defamation and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre that is not on fire.
In the declaration of Independence 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. You cant separate the person from there rights they are unalienable
Billergent 2 months ago
This is a good video. I'll favorite it. There is a group of americans who want to treat the constitution like the bible, as a sacred document to be worshiped but never read. And i think Jefferson warned against doing that, too.
TheForwardGaze 3 months ago
@TheForwardGaze Thanks mate.
seamoremonster 3 months ago
I love the constitution.
Like I was telleing the reverend Machias Houlton AKA minnesotastategop just now in a video sermon he made specifically for me, I love it because its designed as a safeguard against theocratic nutbags like him. He called it "our christian constitution" HA!
I'll share you the video if you want to. He made one for oldfartrants about halloween and rick perry being a devil worshiper.
turnofffox 3 months ago
@turnofffox Send it on!
seamoremonster 3 months ago
@seamoremonster COMING RIGHT UP!
turnofffox 3 months ago
I dont recall the bible promoting feudalism or divine right of kings. I DO recall atheists touting something like that under stalin and mao.
And the book of 1 samuel BTW condemns that. Israel was not supposd to have a king. the majority wanted a king (sound familiar?) and Samuel warned what would happen. And it did! It weakened Israel. So much for divine rights.
calstategop 9 months ago
Not that I would apologize too much for this (because I do think folks that deny history are rather stupid), but I would have stated, "They're either lying or they are too willfully ignorant..."
v2keener 1 year ago
Love the video and the message seamoremonster! …and what a great voice.
Although I don't think you used the word "Democracy" in your video, I do see the word in your video description. I often find myself using “Democracy” to describe our intended form of government, but it is (or rather was supposed to be) a Republic.
This is another of my favorited videos about the Constitution >> watch?v=FmzldNFgD40 << it elaborates on the topic of Democracy vs. Republic
chrstsldr 1 year ago
Great video! Thanks!
phillipmarch22 1 year ago
Fabulous video and subscribed
Fringe111 1 year ago
@ILoveGordo09 It does silly!
quickboat22 1 year ago
82 percent of Preznit Barack Hussein Obama's supporters favor sweeping changes to the Constitution, compared with 28 percent of old man Mccain's. The narrator fools no one.
alphecca2539 1 year ago
And where's John Adams?
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
pvbaelen 1 year ago
@pvbaelen For everyone of these quotes you wrote here, I can give you several that were also spoken or written by the Founders rejecting and/or discrediting Christianity in plain, absolutely clear terms. They were not atheists, but Deists, which is a religion. That's the religion they refer to in all of your quotes, not Christianity, which they plainly disliked.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st - You can give quotes from SOME founders and not the majority. What about Samuel Adams or Patrick Henry? How about Benjamin Rush, John Jay, John Hancock or John Witherspoon? Thats the problem with these type of claims, they are intellectually dishonest. Quotes are cherry picked to support a viewpoint while ignoring mountains of evidence contradicting it.
The Founders were diverse in their beliefs with some (probably the majority) holding strong Christian belief.
pvbaelen 1 year ago
@pvbaelen And what about George Washington requiring the Continental Army to attend "divine service". I don't believe he was referring to going to the local deist get together but rather Church service. I don't agree with compelling anyone to a particular believe but it Washington did this, he must have thought it important to the cause.
Separation of church and state has been perverted to try and eliminate all religious influence from public life which I can guarantee was not intended.
pvbaelen 1 year ago
@pvbaelen That is just not true, and there's ample historical evidence to support it. I say again, the Founders were DEISTS, not Christians. There is a BIG difference. If you're going to complain about quotes being cherry-picked then you should probably abstain from using them to support your erroneous assertions.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st Sorry, but you're inaccurate completely. Exactly what "Founders" are you referring to? Some were Deists, but not all. Easy questions for you; yes or no: Was Patrick Henry a Deist? How about John Jay or perhaps Samuel Adams or Benjamin Rush or John Witherspoon? I recommend further study at the Library of Congress website. Google:
religion and the founding of the american republic
The site has source documents scanned that paint a clear picture of early America.
pvbaelen 1 year ago
@pvbaelen When most people refer to the Founders, we refer to the main figures that participated in the process of national creation from beginning to end, and who were absolutely indispensable to the same. Those would be people like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, John Jay, and Morris, the first financier. The historical figures you mention were important contributors, but were not essential to the process in the same manner.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st John Adams Diary: 1774.SEPT 4. SUNDAY.
Went to the Presbyterian Meeting and heard Mr. Sprout in the forenoon. He uses no Notes dont appear to have any. Opens his Bible and talks away.
Dined at our Lodgings at Mrs. Yards
Went in the Afternoon to Christ Church, and heard Mr. Coombs.
(attends church twice on Sunday? Pretty impressive for a Deist)
Falmouth July 9, 1774 Letter to Abigail
My Dr.
I cannot with all my Phylosophy and Christian resignation keep up my Spirits.
pvbaelen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@armyveteran101st This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.
Will of Patrick Henry (The "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" guy)
pvbaelen 1 year ago
And where is George Washington's quotes? Like this one from his Farewell Address:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.
pvbaelen 1 year ago
Sheesh, 34 seconds in and the whole credibility of the vid is shot to hell! Thomas Jefferson wasn't even AT the Constitutional Convention and DID NOT draft it. He was in France! James Madison could probably be more accurately described as the drafter of the Constitution.
In 1784, he was sent to France as America's diplomatic representative, not returning home until the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 and missing the Constitutional Convention.
pvbaelen 1 year ago
@pvbaelen The intent of this video is clear and absolutely on target, and not affected by mistakes regarding historical fact. That's what really matters.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:303, Papers 2:546
quickboat22 1 year ago
"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283
quickboat22 1 year ago
If the founding fathers based the Constitution on Leviticus, why is seafood legal? LOL
KataVideo 1 year ago
@KataVideo I was not based solely on Levitcus and they were not Jewish. Funny though!
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22 it wasn't based on the buy-bull in the least. and I'll thank the churchies to keep their hands off of my freedom.
KataVideo 1 year ago
Great vid seamore! Thumbs up, Fav!
ObamaComma 1 year ago
And I think that those who insist on believing that the Founding Fathers acted motivated solely by religious fervor are too ignorant of our history, and too stupid to realize their mistake. That's what a lack of education combined with religious fundamentalism do to people.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
Another correction, (for the sake of accuracy): Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. He was serving as Minister to France in 1787 while the Constitutional Convention was taking place, and really had no significant participation in the process. The one who should really have been mentioned here is James Madison, who is considered the Father of the Constitution, and who also made several statements concerning his dread of religious fundamentalism in America.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
I loved this video! One small note, though. The principle of Separation between Church and State is clearly implied and alluded to in the First Amendment, but nowhere does it appear stated literally in the Constitution. It is important to be aware of this. However, the video is absolutely correct in its assertion to the effect that the Framers were very well aware of the dangers posed by religious extremism and fanaticism. They spoke against them repeatedly in correspondence and other documents.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago 5
@armyveteran101st Thanks for that. I appreciate the corrections, you suggestions and input.
seamoremonster 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st For every quote this video takes out of context to bolster a "non-religious" founding. I can quote twenty that bolster in context that the founders were a devout religious lot.
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22 Maybe so, but I suspect that political correctness was as bad back then as it is today, and the Founders couldn't afford to rock the boat anymore than they did, else the people wouldn't have gone along. The Framers were highly enlightened people, and they understood that religious fundamentalism was toxic and dangerous. I hope you can distinguish the difference between being a reasonable person of faith and being a crazed fundamentalist. They did, and their writings reflect so.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st The founders pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor; they were not at all worried about political correctness. They were deeply religious but understood the extreme danger of theocracy or state sponsored religion. Yet they also expected the citizenry to be a moral, religious people. Because with freedom comes moral responsibility.
ie John Adams “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22 The Founders were not "deeply religious", and that is a historical fact that has been thoroughly documented. They were Deists, which is different. And we need to be realistic and understand that the Founders had to contend with human nature and with many of the things we are concerned with today, namely politics and PR. That is the major reason why they didn't address slavery during the Constitutional Convention. They were extremely enlightened people, but they weren't flawless.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st That being said you are correct that the founders did not want any one religion being sponsored by the state. John Adams said it best “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22 You can be moral without being religious, and you can worship the Constitution without worshiping a deity, as I do. There was and there's still is enough room in America for those who believe and for those of us who don't. That's the beauty of the near-perfect system that our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us, which is trashed every day by the likes of idiots like Palin and Beck. But they do have a right to be idiots, and I'll defend that right by force of arms if I have to.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st I appreciate your respect of our Constitution and your understanding of the founder's fear of state sponsored religion is correct. Yet histtory proves that the founders were as a whole, deeply religious men, who thought natural rights are given by God. I also have to disagree in your saying that the Palins and Becks have trashed the Constitution when in fact they have sparked a renewed interest in the history of this great nation which is never a bad thing.
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22 With all respect, that's incorrect. That is a fallacy that most people have been led to believe by 200 years of idealization and historical revisionism. The Founders were Deists, and thought the universe had a creator that didn't concern himself with the lives of humans and didn't communicate with them in any way. They strongly rejected the supernatural qualities attributed to Jesus and God, but they embraced Jesus's teachings, as do I. They were opposed to the Bible as well.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st In 1777. Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase bibles which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies! And in 1782, the United States Congress declared, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22 Because the Founders couldn't afford to go against popular convention regarding religion, I've told you that. What they were doing was already controversial and reprehensible to a wide swath of the colonial population. Keep in mind that a sizable percentage of the colonial population didn't want anything to do with rebellion against the British or independence from them. An attempt by the Founders to impose their true feelings on religion would have defeated their purpose.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st What? The were fake Christians? All of their writtings were falsifications to appease the people? Thats rich!
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22 They had to tell the people what they wanted to hear. Don't forget, the Founders had superb political skills. They had to have them and use them in order to achieve some of the things they achieved, which went hand in hand with the use of military force. Like I said before, you have to take into account the fact that many were opposed to what they were trying to do. They had to influence and manipulate public opinion in order to achieve their goals, and they did it superbly.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@quickboat22
The US Congress didn't even *exist* in 1782. The US Constitution which defined it wasn't even written until 1787!
The Aitken bible was *not* purchased by any American Congress, and the Continental Congress denied his request for his bible to be published under it's authority. They *did* endorse it as an accurate version of the bible.
jursamaj 1 year ago
@jursamaj The Continental Congress did you dope! And they did buy 20,000 bibles. Look it up and quit spewing stupidity.
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22
[sigh] I *have* looked it up, because it's such a common claim.
The CC did at one point instruct it's Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 bibles, but it never reached a resolution. Thus, it never actually bought the bibles. Search for Aitken Bible at the Library of Congress. (In fact, Aitken lost money printing only 10,000 copies.)
The recommendation was of Aitken's version as accurate, not of the Bible in general, and was meant to promote the US publishing industry.
jursamaj 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st All but two of the first 108 universities founded in America were Christian. This includes the first, Harvard, where the student handbook listed this as Rule #1: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22 Again, that has nothing to do with the Founders and their beliefs. Refer to my last reply.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st With all due respect you have been sold the bill of goods that the PROGRESSIVS have sold for nearly a century. Those Becks and Palins you so hate want an honest investigation of the facts not a rewriting of history. Lets look at some of the facts.
Hundreds of examples of Biblical references are inscribed in government buildings at both state and federal levels including the ten commandments.
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22 I've been convinced by historical facts and reason that I'm right, and I've refused to be brainwashed by the religious zealots on the evangelical side who have managed to brainwash a large segment of the public out there. They're the ones who have engaged in massive historical revisionism. The biblical references have nothing to do with the Founders, but with the religious beliefs that were brought here by pilgrims and immigrants over the span of centuries.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@armyveteran101st Though my question is this? How can you follow Jesus's Teachings and be a Deist at the same time? You've read the bible, so you surely know that Christ is God. In effect an avatar. By following through Christ you are wise with the wisdom of God. It doesn't make sense that you would follow his teachings yet say God is a neutral being in the universe. If your looking to Christ for moral Guidance then you are a Christian. They are plain and simple, followers of Christ.
GeneralArrow 1 year ago
@GeneralArrow
According to the bible, Jesus taught people to love their neighbors. I can follow this teaching without believing Jesus was the son of God, or even that he existed. Your argument fails.
jursamaj 1 year ago
@jursamaj Just like you not knowing about the Continental Congress your unbelief in Jesus does not surprise me.
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22
I knew of the CC's existence. You even mentioned it in that post, so how could I not?
*You* said "...in 1782, the United States Congress declared..." when the *US* Congress didn't exist until 1787.
I don't believe in Jesus for the same reason I don't believe in santa: lack of evidence!
jursamaj 1 year ago
@jursamaj Is that evidence He ever exsisted, or evidence He was who He said He was?
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22
Both. There is only tenuous evidence that somebody named Jesus existed then who might be the basis for the stories. There's no evidence at all that he was the son of God. In fact, it can easily be shown that the God most christians believe in can't exist, and therefore can't have a son.
jursamaj 1 year ago
@jursamaj Im sorry then sir you would incorrect on both accounts. For ours is not a blind faith, it is a faith of facts.
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22
Incorrect. By *definition*, faith is belief not based on proof.
Where are these "facts" you claim?
jursamaj 1 year ago
@quickboat22
And why should we believe some one who can't even use the right words in what they are trying to say and proper grammar?
It's "Then I'm sorry Sir, you were incorrect on both accounts."
Or perhaps "I'm sorry Sir, you are incorrect on both accounts."
But to be even more proper "I'm sorry Sir, but I believe you to be incorrect on both accounts."
Your lack of education won't help you when you sound like you never made it past the fifth grade.
nitruswolf 1 year ago
@nitruswolf Yea I didn't like my English teacher either.
quickboat22 1 year ago
@jursamaj You are absolutely right! I just said the same thing to someone else in another comment using different words and phrases, but we are in complete agreement on this....Cheers! ];-)
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
@jursamaj I can pick out a dozen passages or more were Jesus Embraces violence and asks you to forsake your family. That is a weak argument if your going to use it. Such as Matthew10:34. Revelations 2:23. Don't see why you would be reading a book that is the greatest mind fuck in the world. Again in Matt 24:6. He teaches of war, and rising up against a nation.Also you contradicted your self by saying you can follow with out him ever existing. Fully read the bible, then you can come back to me.
GeneralArrow 1 year ago
@GeneralArrow
No contradiction. Whether *he* existed or not (probably not, and almost certainly not divine), the *teaching* still exists. I *can* follow that teaching, which is attributed to him, without believing he existed. (Mind you, I *don't* follow many of his teachings, like the "sell all possessions" and "hate your family" ones.)
Why would I read that vile book? Know your enemy.
jursamaj 1 year ago
@jursamaj Ah, well then you simply take certain guidelines to match your personal views. Second that on the know your enemy and total agreement on the sell all your possessions and hate your family statements. I my self take tid bits from nearly all major religious and philosophical texts my self. Our difference from my perspective is were you say an almost certainly not I say, certainly not.
GeneralArrow 1 year ago
@GeneralArrow
Eh. I seldom claim certainty, except when something is definitionally or tautologically true or false. Of course, leaving open the possibility of divinity just demands the question of what divinity even means. :)
jursamaj 1 year ago
@GeneralArrow I would not expect a pagan to understand the spiritual teachings of the greatest spiritual influence on the world ever born, but my god you can't even read plain text. You may want to stick to keeping your comments to yourself on all fronts because I doubt that your secular reasoning is any better than that of your scriptural understanding.
quickboat22 1 year ago
@quickboat22 Except for you just made your self look like a fool, I'm not a Pagan. I'm Atheist. Trust me, there is a difference. Perhaps before you insult someone for there lack of spiritual understanding maybe you should find out what religion or belief they are, I have none. Also, you pretty much said just because your not Christian you can't understand Jesus. Bullshit, that's like saying just because I'm not conservative I don't understand there views or values.
GeneralArrow 1 year ago
@GeneralArrow I didn't say I was a Deist, but even if I were, I'd be able to follow Jesus's teachings. You don't necessarily have to believe in the supernatural aspects of the story in order to follow Jesus's teachings regarding how one should act towards oneself and others, and how one should conduct him/herself through life. I actually believe that most supposedly devout people nowadays have prostituted the teachings of Jesus, and used them to justify their excesses and transgressions.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
Great video, Sea!
---
"They came with Bible and their religion, stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved." - Chief Pontiac
---
The Chiefs quote reflects the current day flat-earthers view of Palestine, with "pastor" Hagee leading the charge.
mintvagoo 1 year ago
Great video, if the Tali-Baggers / RepubliCONs had full control of America it'd be them that would burn our Constitution, and torturing hard working Americans by water boarding them and force them to read Bibles as the only texts to learn over and over...
Pellegrino80 1 year ago 2
@Pellegrino80 If you were only so lucky.
quickboat22 1 year ago
The Republicans have gone from the candidate that they would like to have a beer with to the candidate that they would like to have sex with, presuming that she didn't speak too much while they were doing it. Great upload, smm. Thanks so much for sending it
classicallady 1 year ago 2
Sea, that was outstanding!!
Couldn't have said it better myself.
HUGE Thumbs Up!
TalladegaTom 1 year ago
Great video, Sea. Love your quiet but sure explanations.
julsHz 1 year ago
Why do you think Mr Jefferson along with other names. facts and history are being removed from Texas School Books?
MrClaydough 1 year ago
@MrClaydough Claydoof - You still here? Told you to get back in the woodshed, Gomer. Get crackin on the song you were told to write: You and Pedro the Wetback and Preznit Milli Hussein Vanilli and how you still believes! there will be unicorns!
alphecca2539 1 year ago
@charlie "..., that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions,... American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State." from Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptists after becoming President. This is where he explains the intent of the Constitution on this issue. Taken from the LOC.
julsHz 1 year ago
@seamoremonster It seems like such a simple concept yet I guarrantee you that Charlie here still doesn't understand the difference between God and the Church. In fact, I'm sure he still thinks you're a "cad" for the simple fact that you challenged his deeply held, yet completely wrong beliefs.
dsglop 1 year ago
@dsglop Yeah. I'm afraid you're right. Separation of Church and State is such a basic tenet of our system...and the lunatic fringe are still trying to include religion with its history of torture, feudalism, intolerance and suppression of thought and freedom. I mean these are the people who burnt others for heresy if they were caught with a Bible. Who threatened to burn Galileo for maintaining the Earth orbited around the Sun. The founding fathers knew about the tyranny of religion.
seamoremonster 1 year ago
@seamoremonster Why can't you accept that these are actions of *people*, not religions? I would be curious to what extent you assign blame to Islam for the actions of its extremists.
And feudalism? That was the Normans who came up with that.
pigeatinginfidel 1 year ago
Awesome video!
Thank you.
buffyjan 1 year ago 2
I also hate "silly people playing dress up in 18th century costumes." It's funny how people who quote the Constitution the most understand it the least. The Founding Fathers knew quite well that the average person does not understand the broader issues the country faces. They were at least some what elitist: the Senate was appointed by the State legislatures so better educated people would decide who the leaders were.
dsglop 1 year ago
@dsglop For them the constitution is like the bible.
They will quote ALL the parts that they agree with, but conveniently ignore the bits that they don't believe in.Even if this means they will only quote part of a sentence. For example, they will quote the "right to bear arms" bit but not the bit about a "well regulated militia" that directly precedes it.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
@dangerouslytalented Because "well-regulated" doesn't mean the modern progressive sense of management and control by central authority. In 19th century language, well-regulated means well-trained.
pigeatinginfidel 1 year ago
@pigeatinginfidel Go find a 18th century dictionary.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Samuel Johnson, 1619: "Regulate: To adjust by rule or method"
I'll do one better. Federalist 29. Alexander Hamilton explains what a "well-regulated militia" means.
DC vs Heller: "Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619; Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 referring to "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms".
pigeatinginfidel 1 year ago
@pigeatinginfidel You are taking the meaning for regulation which is plainly meant for engineering, and one that was over one hundred years old by the time that the constitution was written.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
@dangerouslytalented That is the meaning of the term as used in the bill of rights. Read Federalist 29! Hamilton explains exactly what is meant by that. Also there are numerous other sources. Read DC vs Heller. There are copious footnotes in there.
The fact is "well-regulated" 1. did not mean what it does now nor was it used in the modern sense of, for example, banking regulations, and 2. even if it did, that sense would in no impair the operative part defining the right.
pigeatinginfidel 1 year ago
@pigeatinginfidel the federalist papers were never part of the constitution. They were one mans vision of how things should be.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
@dangerouslytalented
From Wikipedia: "Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull). By 2000 The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions."
pigeatinginfidel 1 year ago
@dangerouslytalented And in case you have suspicions about Wikipedia, the number of Supreme Court cases that cite the Federalist Papers is also cited in the book Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow (Penguin Books, 2004) which I am looking at right now.
pigeatinginfidel 1 year ago
@dangerouslytalented Perhaps you are right. When they said "well-regulated" in the Bill of Rights, they actually meant that in a sense that wouldn't exist for another 120 years, and when the guy who helped write the Constitution wrote about it, he was wrong because he knew that even though future court decisions would rely on other Federalists, #29 would be ignored.
You know, sometimes you just need to give up on the whole Occam-hating loopedy-loops and go with the simplest explanation here.
pigeatinginfidel 1 year ago
@dangerouslytalented And no, the Federalist Papers were not "one man's vision." It was three men. They were explaining to the people what the provisions meant as it was being written, in other words, "how things actually were."
pigeatinginfidel 1 year ago
@pigeatinginfidel And besides, the part about the militia is the prefatory clause, not the operative, and in no way limits the operative clause. Militia is also not the government-organized military, but all able-bodied people (formerly just men) capable of bearing arms.
But then I am probably wasting my time. There are decades of scholarship on this, and the fact that you've zeroed in on this sophomoric argument tells me you aren't interested in endangering your preconceptions. See L Tribe
pigeatinginfidel 1 year ago
@dangerouslytalented You're one to talk. You libs are more like that. You clamor about so called seperation of church and state but ignore the bit about congrees not allowed to ban free speech freedom of the press and owning defensive weapons. Clintons ambitions for a ministry of truth come to mind.
Denverlibertarion 9 months ago
@Denverlibertarion Clinton's ministry of truth? Can you please explain?
Historically, in free nations,rights have only been curtailed when people abuse them. Guns are restricted when a large number of people are shot. Churches are forbidden from interfering in the state when the rights of those of other religions (or those without religion) are threatened. Free speech is limited when it comes to defamation and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre that is not on fire.
dangerouslytalented 9 months ago