Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-04-2013, 07:36 PM
rearnakedchoke rearnakedchoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,555
Default

^^^
sure it was at the time of reformation, but there are still quotes from the likes of jefferson, adams, franklin that freedom of religion was meant for all religions and not just the different Christian groups ...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-04-2013, 08:48 PM
Chuck Chuck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flo View Post
Yay! How refreshing. No wonder Texas is such a great state.





Here is a link to the full article and here is the official site for the bill as well as the timeline since its inception.
Good find and that's great news!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-05-2013, 04:40 AM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
Good find and that's great news!
Thanks, good to see you, Chuck!
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-05-2013, 06:14 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
^^^
sure it was at the time of reformation, but there are still quotes from the likes of jefferson, adams, franklin that freedom of religion was meant for all religions and not just the different Christian groups ...
What Quotes....you cant say things like that and then NOT give the quotes your refering to
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-05-2013, 11:12 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,299
Default

The Founding Fathers would have been pretty accepting of Judaism, which is why we say that America was founded upon Judeo-Christian values, not just Christian values.

It also didn't hurt that Jewish settlers were helping to fund the American Revolution.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-06-2013, 05:36 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
The Founding Fathers would have been pretty accepting of Judaism, which is why we say that America was founded upon Judeo-Christian values, not just Christian values.

It also didn't hurt that Jewish settlers were helping to fund the American Revolution.
Jews yes...but in essence, if all of Christianity falls under the bracket of Messianic Judaism...then Judaism and Christianity are technically speaking the same faith. That was my point by saying earlier, that for all intense and purposes in this argument, Judaism may as well be a denomination of Christianity...where as that is NOT true for Islam, Oriental Polythesism, Paganism, or Secular athiesm

We can interpret both ways I believe...but that is interpretation, its not applied pragmatics by the authors, but by the zeitgiest of the reader...and they are very different.

I do have a question concerning the Civil War actually. I sort of dont understand why the Federal Union didnt simply accept the Confederate System. The reason being, that up to that point in time, All States in the Union were still Soverign...and therefore, didnt the notations made in the declairation of Independance apply to all those States...? Meaning, that at any time they had the right, under their own freedom of soverignty to make peace and war...Shouldnt President Lincoln have respected their choice to leave the Union...?

I understand he didnt like slavery, and understand that the southern states who formed the confederate were heavily into it. But, if the North depended on the South and their productions from Slavery, then fighting and beating the South wouldnt have helpped because either way, to let them go, or conqure them, you would have to have abolished slavery, or been 100 percent hypocritical...and if the North were not dependant on the South...then frankly, they should have let them go as free States

As I see it, ALL States, and therefore ALL people are now in Bondage to an overhyped Federation. He freed the slaves from private slave drivers...and then tied every single person in the whole Union to Government slavery instead????

I dont understand the American Civil War...and from what I know of the changed in the Federal Government...I dont think I like President Lincoln either. In one respect...of course...I do recognise that the British Empire probably used Slavery far more, and far longer then the Americas...

I'm not in favour of slavery...but I fail to see how creating the Big Government, was either Constitutional, or any better a situation. Its like...Americans speak a lot about the War of Independance...but ive heard almost no American, anytime, mention or speak about the Civil War at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-10-2013, 10:12 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
I do have a question concerning the Civil War actually. I sort of dont understand why the Federal Union didnt simply accept the Confederate System. The reason being, that up to that point in time, All States in the Union were still Soverign...and therefore, didnt the notations made in the declairation of Independance apply to all those States...? Meaning, that at any time they had the right, under their own freedom of soverignty to make peace and war...Shouldnt President Lincoln have respected their choice to leave the Union...?
Soon after Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency in November 1860, seven southern states seceded from the Union. In March 1861, after he was inaugurated as the 16th President of the United States, four more followed.

The secessionists claimed that according to the Constitution every state had the right to leave the Union. Lincoln claimed that they did not have that right. He opposed secession for these reasons:


1. Physically the states cannot separate.

2. Secession is unlawful.

3. A government that allows secession will disintegrate into anarchy.

4. That Americans are not enemies, but friends.

5. Secession would destroy the world's only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive.


Lincoln may have thought the fifth point was the most important. If you traveled the earth in 1860, and visited every continent and every nation, you would have found many examples of monarchies, dictatorships, and other examples of authoritarian rule. But in the all the world, you would have found only one major democracy: The United States of America. Democracy had been attempted in one other nation in the eighteenth century - France. Unfortunately, that experiment in self-government deteriorated rapidly, as the citizens resorted more to the guillotine than to the ballot box. From the ashes of that experiment in self-government, rose a dictator who, after seizing control in France, attempted to conquer the continent of Europe.

Those who supported monarchies felt vindicated by the French disaster, but the United States experiment in self-government remained a thorn in their side. Those wishing for democracy could always point across the ocean and say, "It works there. Why can't we try it here"? In 1860 however, it appeared that the thorn had been removed. The monarchists were thrilled with the dissolution of the United States, and many even held parties celebrating the end of democracy.

Lincoln understood this well, and when he described his nation as "the world's last best hope," these were not idle words. Lincoln truly believed that if the war were lost, it would not only have been the end of his political career, or that of his party, or even the end of his nation. He believed that if the war were lost, it would have forever ended the hope of people everywhere for a democratic form of government.

Listed below are some of the comments that Lincoln made against secession.

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historycultu...ofcontents.htm
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-11-2013, 12:40 PM
rearnakedchoke rearnakedchoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,555
Default

^^^^^
and that is why lincoln is consistently ranked as one of the best presidents ever ... great post!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-11-2013, 07:34 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar View Post
Soon after Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency in November 1860, seven southern states seceded from the Union. In March 1861, after he was inaugurated as the 16th President of the United States, four more followed.

The secessionists claimed that according to the Constitution every state had the right to leave the Union. Lincoln claimed that they did not have that right. He opposed secession for these reasons:


1. Physically the states cannot separate.

2. Secession is unlawful.

3. A government that allows secession will disintegrate into anarchy.

4. That Americans are not enemies, but friends.

5. Secession would destroy the world's only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive.


6) Lincoln may have thought the fifth point was the most important. If you traveled the earth in 1860, and visited every continent and every nation, you would have found many examples of monarchies, dictatorships, and other examples of authoritarian rule. But in the all the world, you would have found only one major democracy: The United States of America. Democracy had been attempted in one other nation in the eighteenth century - France. Unfortunately, that experiment in self-government deteriorated rapidly, as the citizens resorted more to the guillotine than to the ballot box. From the ashes of that experiment in self-government, rose a dictator who, after seizing control in France, attempted to conquer the continent of Europe.

7) Those who supported monarchies felt vindicated by the French disaster, but the United States experiment in self-government remained a thorn in their side. Those wishing for democracy could always point across the ocean and say, "It works there. Why can't we try it here"? In 1860 however, it appeared that the thorn had been removed. The monarchists were thrilled with the dissolution of the United States, and many even held parties celebrating the end of democracy.

8) Lincoln understood this well, and when he described his nation as "the world's last best hope," these were not idle words. Lincoln truly believed that if the war were lost, it would not only have been the end of his political career, or that of his party, or even the end of his nation. He believed that if the war were lost, it would have forever ended the hope of people everywhere for a democratic form of government.

Listed below are some of the comments that Lincoln made against secession.

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historycultu...ofcontents.htm
1) The Physical States do not need to separate physically to be their own individual soverignties. The rest of the entire world, except for Island States have no problem with Physical Land Boarders...Infact as I understood it, the Confederate States lay geographically next to one another...I could see an Issue if, for example, Iowa wanted to join the Confederacy that the issue of land boarders would be difficult...but the US Union manages with Alaska, and Hawaii so its not impossible.

2) Is it unlawful? Or is that a matter of interpretation? I thought that as a Democratic Union of States, that just as States were free to try and join the union, so they could be free to leave. If you force a State to remain in a Union, trust me, I know, the European Union is just like this, then you actually take away the soverignty and free will of the people of that State, the people in that State will hate you for it and feel like what you actually have is an occupation of a free state, which translates your Union into an Empire. As Yours is run by Federal Washington...so Ours in Run financially (and therefore, actually, in practise) Germany.

3) Anarchy...or Freedom? I think it IS true that if the Confederates had split from the Federal Union and flourished...it might have caused other States to try and create unions...but this is where you need to be careful. Do you respect the will of the people in doing that, if they so wish...or do you say NO! Anarchy on a Parliamentarian level is nothing more then the loss of power...now the Federal Union wasnt supposed to be a Government in its own right...just a collection of representatives of the individual State Governments...therefore its a big illusion, that exists only so long as the States stay United...which surely, given that, is a case for each individual state to decide...By using that argument, Lincoln is already saying BIG Government....thats NOT akin to George Washingtons mentality...and I dont really think its consitutional...though, I understand why it HAD to happen if one was going to fight a civil war, or otherwise during the war effort itself.

4) Friendly States do not wish to break Union in the first place...and sometimes, letting them go peacefully is the only way to remain "Friends"

5) At Worst, it simply applies the democratic Government to less coverage...at best the Confederacy may have actually been the SECOND democratic country.

6) Yes...The French have never been that successful its true to say. They jumped on the freedom bandwagon from the American Revolutionary War...and unfortunately crashed it.

7) Dissolution of The States?? But thats NOT what was happening...it was simply a few States wishing to leave the Union...this did NOT mean the end of the Federal Government! There was no reason why the Federal Government couldnt run the North in the same way it had since its inception. I dont understand why Lincoln took the view that it was total Governance, or none at all...and I dont understand really the relevence with the Monarchists...The Confederate System seemed to be based on the Federal System...didnt they even ellect their own President?? This didnt appear to be the establishment of a wayward Kingdom...but a second Union on the Continent.

Please tell me this wasnt just about power...because thats what it looks like to me. I do not understand why Lincoln could not comprimise with the existance of an independant South. All the reasons above give the impression that the whole Federal System would come crashing down...but we know thats not the case, and I dont believe any Statesman in the Office of President wouldnt know that. So I move to the nearest obvious conclusion...simply that Lincoln couldnt cope with loss of power and governance in the Southern States. Thats a trade mark of an opressor who feels they have some GOD Given Right to rule over a populas that has rejected them.

8) So Lincoln couldnt distinguish between The Union, and Democracy? Are you saying that for Lincoln one could not exist without the other?? Not even in a parallel Union physically located right next door??

Thanks for the insight...I'll go lookey at those quotes
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-11-2013, 07:54 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

Okay...sorry but I really think President Lincoln was wrong...in those quotes, he uses as his premise that its unlawful to leave, a document PRE the Constituion, and tries to say that because History has never seen a state leave, therefore, history never can. Pepetual Unionism...ever expanding, but never contracting...thats a lovely ideal...but it doesnt make departure from the Union unlawful. Its all well and good to try and better the union, but if it doesnt work, there is only so long one should try to make it more perfect before deciding on another course of action.

"The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status"

MY GOD, WTF does he think State Governments are???? The Union was designed to be the sum of all the states...the power flows from the bottom up, NOT the top down..."The Union" should exist without the input of the individual soverignties. I dont know what he thought he was saying there, but thats probably the most dictatorial thing I have EVER heard from a US President...and it just proves my point more. He believed The Union, Himself, was the be all and end all of legal matters. He didnt believe in the soverignty of the individual states at all. Thats undemocratic, thats NOT constitutionalist...THIS is why you have a problem with your Government today, THIS is why your State Governments have no authority, no power, no rights, no freedom, except that which is dictated to them by a Federal Entity that exists in its own right "If they break from this they can only do so against law and by revolution."

Hate to say it...but under the guise of that above...I would say that Americans, even if they didnt want to leave the union, might have needed a revolution.

I had thought this was the way it probably was...but I wanted to be sure because I didnt honnestly know the facts...now I have actual quotes I can see quite plainly.

I think your nation would have been better off without the war entirely.

Lincoln should have just let them go. Its ironic, that the very man who most wanted to save Democrasy, and preserve the longevity of the Union in order to keep alive the Washington Ideals, effectively, distroyed it, by trying to cling to power, and by violating the freedoms of the individual states.

He may have won the war...but at what cost? I dont think George Washington would recognise your Union today
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.