ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Should we give up on the Constitution?

Report this
Created by: darmokattanagra

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Jan. 27 2013, 6:45 pm

Quote: Pianoeman2001 @ Jan. 27 2013, 3:58 pm

>The right to bear arms was created by the founding fathers to protect us from a tyranical government. Not for sport or hunting.
Actually, the right to have arms is a God-given (natural) right - it pre-existed the Constitution, but they chose to specifically add it to the Constitution because, as with many other items in the Constitution, were important because the British specifically violated those rights.


Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Jan. 28 2013, 7:06 am

A friend sent me this link regarding the 2nd and 3rd Amendments:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F584p5kJL-U&feature=youtu.be


 

Gawain_VIII

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 191

Report this Jan. 28 2013, 7:44 am

While I don't agree with the final summation of this article--the historical premise is sound: the Constitution drew heavily upon Biblical precepts.


http://www.ehow.com/info_11384841_did-bible-influence-us-constitution.html


While agreeing with the history, I would offer a counter argument that the American founders were not creating a Christian nation, per se, but rather a religious and moral nation.  While all of the founders were at least nominally Christian (in public--some arguments can be made that a few might have been deist or atheist), it is clear that the language chosen by the founders was intended to be multi-religious.


Repeated references to God and Divine Creator have been chosen as phrases which could apply equally, not only to Christians (easily the overwhelming majority), but also to Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Deists (and theists), and even Secular Humanists--all of which were known to colonial America.


Many references and similarities to and from the Bible are mentioned in the above article--but I would like to point out that there are other items which specifically counter Biblical precepts.  Prohibiting religious tests as a prerequisite to public service, tax on income, holding debt, and the responsibility to speak out against the government are just a few.


Thomas Payne became notorious for all-but-bashing Christianity in his now-famous manuscript "The Age of Reason";


Thomas Jefferson, famed deist, repeatedly asserted that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood man with no more divitity than every other man, even wrote his own version of the Bible, omitting any and all suprahuman references;


Benjamin Franklin, a freemason and founding member of the Monks of Medmenham Abbey (aka, the Hellfire Club), was publicly known to practice occult studies wrote an address to Yale University stating "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity.";


John Adams, in a letter to Jefferson dated 3 Sep 1816 condemned (organized) Christianity when he wrote "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved—the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"  Despite an oposition to organized churches, Adams was a piously religious man who, as BamBam reminds us, is also remembered for a letter to the Mass. 1st Brig. where he said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequete to the government of any other.";


George Washington--arguably the most famous freemason (with Franklin) of his time was a regular church-goer, but even his own pastor, Bishop James White questioned Washington's beliefs when he wrote "I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation further than as may be hoped from his constant attendance upon Christian worship, in connection with the general reserve of his character."


To be fair, there were far more founding fathers who were openly and unapologetically fervent Christians than there were those who were not.  Sam Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, and John Jay were all so outspoken about their fervent faith that Hamilton first turned down his appointment as Secretary of Treasury based on religious grounds before later accepting and John Jay was barely confirmed by the Senate upon his appointment to the Supreme Court based on oposition to his panache for near-fundamentalist public prostlyting.


In the end... What it all boils down to is that Yes, the Constitution was influenced by the Bible with a firm moral and religious intent, but it was not by any clear means specific to Christianity.  A Muslim, secularist, deist, humanist, and even a Pagan (virtually unknown to the public at the time) can all be religious and moral abiding by the precepts of the Constitution--without the necessity of subscribing to uniquely Christian beliefs.


ROBERT CHARLES GRAHAM, Vice Admiral
U.S.S Gawain NCC-91980
Commanding Officer, Frontier Fleet
sto-frontier-fleet.proboards.com

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Jan. 28 2013, 1:37 pm

Quote: Gawain_VIII @ Jan. 28 2013, 7:44 am

>

>While agreeing with the history, I would offer a counter argument that the American founders were not creating a Christian nation, per se, but rather a religious and moral nation.  While all of the founders were at least nominally Christian (in public--some arguments can be made that a few might have been deist or atheist), it is clear that the language chosen by the founders was intended to be multi-religious.

>


Yep, that's true. Some founders, like Paine, were athiest, There were diests (though actually diests back then were more religous than many of today's christians), but the majority were christian. But that did not mean it was a christian nation they created.


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

DUKAT!!!!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 63

Report this Jan. 28 2013, 1:55 pm

The American Revolution was based on the fact that the British had violated the american's natural rights, among these life, liberty, and property. If you read the whole Declaration of Independence, it states this. In fact, after the revolution, they made the Confederacy, which instituted such a weak federal government, it was almost irrelevant. John Hancock was elected as president, but never showed up for the job, because he didn't have anything to do.


At the constitutional convention, they threw out those articles, and made a new constitution, the one we have today. But they didn't just make it up. They studied other cultures to see what worked. What did they find? There was no model. They saw that a very weak State couldn't keep the country together, and ended up being invaded by surrounding ones. (whew, we dodged a bullet!) A big government ended up over time violating natural god-given rights. Remember, a government who can do good can also do bad. And with people's corrupt nature, it always happens. They looked at direct democracies, which fail for reasons stated here before. Even some representitive democracies failed.


So after lots of work, they came up with our constitution. It is considered the best governing document ever made. It limits the government from taking over, but gives it enough power to keep the country operating. It gives us freedom. It's government system works, and has been proved over time.


Now lets take a look at other governments. Russia's socialism failed. The people were opressed. Ever wonder why people escaped from there to America, and not visa-versa? The Government worked fine at first. Everyone was equal. But after a while it went downhill. China is slowly abandoning communism. It didn't work. At least they are smart and slowly transitioning, and not proping it up until it collapses! We see direct democracies failing all throughout history. Take a look at ancient greek states, for example. But America was a thriving nation as long as we followed our constitution. People left tyrannys and came to freedom. We inspired the industrial revolution. Until America, humans had just farmed and been controled by royal families. Then, when freedom was introduced, everything changed. That is because our government worked.


That, not some political jargon, is why we should not abandon our constitution.


DUKAT!!!!! -Major Kira

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Jan. 28 2013, 2:47 pm

The USSR and China are examples of oligarchy and state capitalism. They are not examples of direct democracy and they definitely aren't examples of communism. Pure communism is stateless and moneyless.


If you guys want a reasonable compromise, look at Switzerland. It is a federal republic that practices direct democracy. You might not like that they have "socialized medicine" but they also have a very liberal gun control policy, 3% unemployment and the highest wealth per adult of any country in the world.

JayPadMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Jan. 28 2013, 5:04 pm

Give up on the Consitution? Only as an outdated class of starship! As for the documents themselves? Any one implying that, needs to be shipped out of the country, and if a Citizen of the USA, have that citizenship stripped, and their assets, within this nation, seized.


The alternitive, is to trat them at traitors, and follow the proscribed punishement....

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this Jan. 29 2013, 6:21 am

The question is WHY would one want to get rid of it or bypass it.


The Constitution limits the size/scope of the Federal Government.


Those that want it to go away WANT a large socialist style government.


One needs one look at history to define those that oppose a small government that derives it's power from the people.


This topic is scary.


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Jan. 29 2013, 10:25 am

Quote: JayPadMan @ Jan. 28 2013, 5:04 pm

>

>Give up on the Consitution? Only as an outdated class of starship! As for the documents themselves? Any one implying that, needs to be shipped out of the country, and if a Citizen of the USA, have that citizenship stripped, and their assets, within this nation, seized.

>The alternitive, is to trat them at traitors, and follow the proscribed punishement....

>


Um, one of the points of the constitution is freedom of speech, and doing that would violate it.


DS9_FOREVER, precisely.


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Jan. 29 2013, 10:31 am

The USSR and China are examples of oligarchy and state capitalism. They are not examples of direct democracy and they definitely aren't examples of communism. Pure communism is stateless and moneyless.


If you guys want a reasonable compromise, look at Switzerland. It is a federal republic that practices direct democracy. You might not like that they have "socialized medicine" but they also have a very liberal gun control policy, 3% unemployment and the highest wealth per adult of any country in the world.


To be clear, all government, no matter the form it takes, is oligarchy. The U.S. Constitution, unlike any other, places strict limits on the oligarchy. The problem is that politicians have expanded terms like "General Welfare" beyond their scope, specifically those enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, to promote big government and central planning.


"State Capitalism" is an oxymoron and just another euphesmism for centralized planning. Capitalism, by its nature, is decentralized self-management, which is what we should strive for as oppsed to democracy, no matter its form. Decentralized self-management maximizes liberties. 


The fallacy of the argument is that your comparing one government system to another government system. That's like comparing one drunk to another, and handing over the car keys to the soberest drunk at the bar. The result is still drunk driving. The litmus test is comparing government to private enterprise.


A moneyless society is a flawed concept. Money, beyond simple bartering, serves another important function in the economy. It serves as the basis for interest rates, which tell when to save and when to borrow. These are key indicators to distributing resources and growing a healthy economy. Without money, these indicators would cease to exist and the resulting economy would at best remain stagnant.


 


 


 

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Jan. 29 2013, 12:56 pm

Capitalism, by its nature, is decentralized self-management, which is what we should strive for as oppsed to democracy, no matter its form.


...

The fallacy of the argument is that your comparing one government system to another government system.

The fallacy of the argument is that you're comparing political systems to economic systems. If you want to do that then socialism is democracy, capitalism is oligarchy and the terms "state socialism" and "communist dictatorship" are the true oxymorons.

A moneyless society is a flawed concept.

It's only flawed to those who believe the only purpose of life is to accumulate money and possessions.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Jan. 29 2013, 1:35 pm

The fallacy of the argument is that you're comparing political systems to economic systems. If you want to do that then socialism is democracy, capitalism is oligarchy and the terms "state socialism" and "communist dictatorship" are the true oxymorons.


Centralized planning, by its nature and in historical practice, blends politics and economics. Political entrepreneurs must force centralized planning upon society by way of the political system, specifically unconstitutional legislation, because no educated individual would otherwise willingly accept the ponzi scheme that is fractional reserve banking - the backbone to centralized planning. Furthermore, under centralized planning, government favored corporations are granted monopolies with exclusive operating rights and bailouts. How is that not a mixture of of economics and politics? 


Unlike centralized planning, capitalism does not require political backing to operate. Capitalism results as a normal function of human behavior, specifically decentralized self-management, and common law. 

(A moneyless society is a flawed concept.) It's only flawed to those who believe the only purpose of life is to accumulate money and possessions.


That is a misrepresentation of both capitalism and money. The purpose of capitalism is to generate and expand wealth, which is the totality of goods and services offered by the free market. Too many people confuse wealth and money, but they are separate entities. Money is a capital good that provides distinct services, chief among these services being a means of barter and a means to assess savings & debt via interest rates, etc. to grow and expand the economy.


How do you propose to assess savings and debt in a moneyless society? Without the ability to assess savings, expanding the economy will be impossible. This is a hurdle one needs to overcome to generate voluntary compliance with such a system.



Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jan. 29 2013, 3:19 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Jan. 29 2013, 10:31 am

>

>A moneyless society is a flawed concept.

>


So what did people do before money?


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jan. 29 2013, 3:24 pm

Quote: JayPadMan @ Jan. 28 2013, 5:04 pm

>

>Give up on the Consitution? Only as an outdated class of starship! As for the documents themselves? Any one implying that, needs to be shipped out of the country, and if a Citizen of the USA, have that citizenship stripped, and their assets, within this nation, seized.

>The alternitive, is to trat them at traitors, and follow the proscribed punishement....

>


You want to deal with people who suggest giving up on the Constitution by following a course of action that completely disregards the Constitution?


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Jan. 29 2013, 4:05 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jan. 29 2013, 3:19 pm

>

>So what did people do before money?

>


There was always some sort of trade. No matter where you go in the world, you find the ancients all had some sort of trade. Whether it was precious metals, food, or even favors, there was always some sort of trade.


Why would you provide a service for nothing in return? It doesn't make sense. Energy is expelled for someone else?


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum