"4 July 1776 Declaration of Independence"

Grampy Bobby View Profile

Spirituality

23 Oct '13 18:10

Suzianne
Misfit Queen
Isle of Misfit Toys
Joined
08 Aug '03
Moves
36617
23 Oct '13 23:35
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I have no problem with TJ's problems with the Bible. He had an acidic, nearly counter-productive intellect at times. It offered him more turmoil than it ever did rest.
This is my opinion as well. Jefferson was known to sometimes voice certain opinions just to spite other people.
JS357
Joined
29 Dec '08
Moves
6788
23 Oct '13 23:41
Originally posted by Suzianne
"a tactic to appeal to the religious"

Oh, really? It's my understanding that the type of wording in the Declaration was how most would-be Americans in the colonies felt at that time. It wasn't just an appeal to a segment of the population, it was the thinking of a vast majority of the population. It's just a good thing that the representatives to the ...[text shortened]... tal Congress got something right. Ditto the attendees to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Couldn't agree more.

But I'll add back the following in bold: "For the rest, it may have been a tactic to appeal to the religious, or wasn't worth arguing about.

I am speculating on what made any non-theists/non-deists among the signers accept the wording. If there were any such signers, then as you say, they understood that most colonists would like that wording.
Suzianne
Misfit Queen
Isle of Misfit Toys
Joined
08 Aug '03
Moves
36617
23 Oct '13 23:431 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds
Well it does mention "our Lord" which is obviously a reference to Jesus.

The Instructor
Don't misrepresent it like that.

The only mention of "our Lord" was at the end of the document, where it says "in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven". So yes, it is a reference to Jesus, but it has no actual meaning of anything but what year it was.

This was common wording in legal documents of that time.
Suzianne
Misfit Queen
Isle of Misfit Toys
Joined
08 Aug '03
Moves
36617
23 Oct '13 23:45
Originally posted by JS357
Couldn't agree more.

But I'll add back the following in bold: "[b]For the rest, it may have been a tactic to appeal to the religious, or wasn't worth arguing about.

I am speculating on what made any non-theists/non-deists among the signers accept the wording. If there were any such signers, then as you say, they understood that most colonists would like that wording.[/b]
I would count such signers as very few indeed. Like maybe one or two. Maybe.
rwingett
Ming the Merciless
Royal Oak, MI
Joined
09 Sep '01
Moves
27626
24 Oct '13 02:12
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Since its purpose is self-evident, why do you avoid limiting your comments to the purpose of the thread? Why, instead, do you bring an unrelated topic into the conversation?

Speaking of ignoring parts, why have you ignored the question posed by OP?

And lest you think you've won some inferior point, I will comment on the original draft[hidden]http:// ...[text shortened]... e God of creation?

My comment: they certainly were serious students of history, weren't they?
Since you've obviously had a brain aneurysm, let me spell this out for you. The Constitution supersedes the Declaration of Independence. Any relevance the latter may have to the content of our republic is irrelevant. The Constitution trumps it in all respects. Grampy Bobby's OP, therefore, is likewise irrelevant, and no further consideration need be given to it. If you want to talk about what the nation should or shouldn't be, then you don't start off by trumpeting on about the Declaration of Independence. You start with the Constitution.

There, that's clear enough that even a halfwit like yourself should be able to grasp it. But I don't doubt that your wounded pride will compel you to keep blathering on in your semi-coherent fashion.
RJHinds
The Near Genius
Fort Gordon
Joined
24 Jan '11
Moves
13644
24 Oct '13 03:15
Originally posted by Suzianne
Don't misrepresent it like that.

The only mention of "our Lord" was at the end of the document, where it says "in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven". So yes, it is a reference to Jesus, but it has no actual meaning of anything but what year it was.

This was common wording in legal documents of that time.
Well, it might not have any meaning to you and your liberal evilutionist atheist buddies, but I believe it meant a lot to our God fearing founding fathers.

The Instructor
JS357
Joined
29 Dec '08
Moves
6788
24 Oct '13 07:03
Originally posted by Suzianne
I would count such signers as very few indeed. Like maybe one or two. Maybe.
I'm not going to get into a headcount of nontheistic signers. I'm OK to be inclusive of whoever you are willing to acknowledge. A dispute over the theological positions of the signers isn't worth while.
Suzianne
Misfit Queen
Isle of Misfit Toys
Joined
08 Aug '03
Moves
36617
24 Oct '13 15:531 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, it might not have any meaning to you and your liberal evilutionist atheist buddies, but I believe it meant a lot to our God fearing founding fathers.

The Instructor
I swear, Ron, do you have any coherent thoughts at all?

All I've seen suggests you live in a fairytale land of your own making.

No wonder you're a republican tool.
Suzianne
Misfit Queen
Isle of Misfit Toys
Joined
08 Aug '03
Moves
36617
24 Oct '13 16:01
Originally posted by rwingett
Since you've obviously had a brain aneurysm, let me spell this out for you. The Constitution supersedes the Declaration of Independence. Any relevance the latter may have to the content of our republic is irrelevant. The Constitution trumps it in all respects. Grampy Bobby's OP, therefore, is likewise irrelevant, and no further consideration need be given t ...[text shortened]... ubt that your wounded pride will compel you to keep blathering on in your semi-coherent fashion.
Maybe as far as the law goes.

The DofI was relevant for its time. Think of it as a "letter of intent". It shows the mind of the founding fathers at that moment in time. It is relevant to compare it with the Constitution in order to see exactly how they sketched out their ideals, and to what extent they were successful.

In this way, even the Articles of Confederation are relevant, considering how it stood in the gap between "intent" and "law", and shows a continuum of effort towards our constitutional republic.
Soothfast
0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
Planet Rain
Joined
04 Mar '04
Moves
2701
24 Oct '13 21:561 edit
Originally posted by JS357
Here is a pretty good answer from Yahoo answers: "The point of the Declaration of Independence was to say why the colonies were leaving England; to say what justification they had to essentially commit what was seen as treason, and explain why it wasn't treason."

It also said that the rebellious colonies were open for business, so potential trade arrangements need not be involve England.
When breaking away from England back in the day, it was good for morale to imagine that the Master of the Universe was on your side. Of course, many found it sufficiently comforting imagining a Master of the Universe exists at all, and continued to bow to a king who for his part claimed the Master of the Universe was on his side.

It's all seems terrifically silly when you mull it over whilst stuck in traffic.
JS357
Joined
29 Dec '08
Moves
6788
24 Oct '13 22:06
Originally posted by Suzianne
I would count such signers as very few indeed. Like maybe one or two. Maybe.
There's a lot of Google results on both sides of this question, but many of the sources are themselves advocates for one side or another.

But

http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm

seems to be a balanced view because the author says "I am a subscriber to the Apostles' Creed (I've had a "subscription" since second grade). I would love to document that the most prominent Founding Fathers were orthodox Christians."

He finds it to be complicated, in that there is little evidence that the founders were orthodox Christians, but then again you might not be considered orthodox by some who post here.
RJHinds
The Near Genius
Fort Gordon
Joined
24 Jan '11
Moves
13644
25 Oct '13 00:221 edit
Originally posted by Suzianne
I swear, Ron, do you have any coherent thoughts at all?

All I've seen suggests you live in a fairytale land of your own making.

No wonder you're a republican tool.
It just so happens that the Republicans are the best of what we have to choose from right now.

The Instructor
Grampy Bobby
Boston Lad
USA
Joined
14 Jul '07
Moves
43012
25 Oct '13 01:26
Originally posted by Suzianne
"a tactic to appeal to the religious"

Oh, really? It's my understanding that the type of wording in the Declaration was how most would-be Americans in the colonies felt at that time. It wasn't just an appeal to a segment of the population, it was the thinking of a vast majority of the population. It's just a good thing that the representatives to the ...[text shortened]... tal Congress got something right. Ditto the attendees to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
"It wasn't just an appeal to a segment of the population, it was the thinking of a vast majority of the population."

"The question I have had for some time is whether this will continue through the entire cycle of Bondage, Spiritual Faith, Courage, Liberty, Abundance, Selfishness, Complacency, Apathy, Dependence, then starting over with Bondage; or whether concerned and knowledgeable individuals can somehow halt the decline and keep us from going into a new period of bondage.....? Thread 156064 Thanks, Suzi. This referenced thread provides an Outline of The USA Historical Cycles.
FreakyKBH
Unknown Territories
Joined
05 Dec '05
Moves
20408
25 Oct '13 13:20
Originally posted by rwingett
Since you've obviously had a brain aneurysm, let me spell this out for you. The Constitution supersedes the Declaration of Independence. Any relevance the latter may have to the content of our republic is irrelevant. The Constitution trumps it in all respects. Grampy Bobby's OP, therefore, is likewise irrelevant, and no further consideration need be given t ...[text shortened]... ubt that your wounded pride will compel you to keep blathering on in your semi-coherent fashion.
Since you've obviously had a brain aneurysm...
Wutchewtalkinbout Willis?Reveal Hidden Content
Ah, the richness of the well-placed jab which is enhanced greatly with the knowledge that not only did your opponent not see it coming, neither do they understand what hit them!

let me spell this out for you.
Haven't you been spelling everything out, for everyone, all the time?
That's what I've been doing since I first got on here!

The Constitution supersedes the Declaration of Independence.
Oh. My.
"Supersedes" it? How, exactly?
The ConstitutionReveal Hidden Content
first of its kind
is the structural foundation of law and separation of its governing body for the country.
The DoI is the statement made by the colonies to justify the war for separation it waged a year prior to its appearance.
They are two separately considered entities with the former sometimes being interpreted by the latter, but otherwise distinct and totally different both in intent and content.
One lists grievances while the other establishes the rule of law to be employed for the nation.
The Constitution emphatically does not set aside the DoI, as it simply follows as a natural result of what the DoI established; namely, here's why the US will be a separate nationReveal Hidden Content
insert DoI here
and hereReveal Hidden Content
insert the Constitution
is how that nation will be governed.

Any relevance the latter may have to the content of our republic is irrelevant.
Either woefully uninformed and belligerently ignorant, this statement clearly reveals a near-complete lack of perspective. The DoIReveal Hidden Content
as as has the Bill of Rights
has been used repeatedly to help interpret the intent of the Constitution since the latter's inception. Why? Because the DoI shows original intent of the framers of the established nation and its subsequent actions. The DoI contains statements and sentiments which--- to this day--- continue to inform/remind us on the basics of human rights.

Like the Constitution, the DoIReveal Hidden Content
both firsts
has become the conceptual cornerstone for many of the countries which followed the same path toward independence from their ruling parties.

There, that's clear enough that even a halfwit like yourself should be able to grasp it.
What is clear is that you are a troll. Whether or not you believe what you wrote is of speculation: one can only hope that a person possessed with the ability to read, write and form conceptual statements is not as bereft of these truths as you make yourself out to be.

But I don't doubt that your wounded pride will compel you to keep blathering on in your semi-coherent fashion.
It's not a wounded pride which compels me to respond to you.
It's pity.
rwingett
Ming the Merciless
Royal Oak, MI
Joined
09 Sep '01
Moves
27626
25 Oct '13 15:05
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Since you've obviously had a brain aneurysm...
Wutchewtalkinbout Willis?[hidden]Ah, the richness of the well-placed jab which is enhanced greatly with the knowledge that not only did your opponent not see it coming, neither do they understand what hit them![/hidden]

let me spell this out for you.
Haven't you been spelling everything out, ...[text shortened]... -coherent fashion.[/b]
It's not a wounded pride which compels me to respond to you.
It's pity.[/b]
Reveal Hidden Content
😴