Is that an "Okay, I read and understand what you wrote." or an "Okay, I am going to take my search for Constitutional and American History through the lens of Christianity enlightenment somewhere else."?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Let's hear it for Australia
- Thread starter Intruder Driver
- Start date
Is that an "Okay, I read and understand what you wrote." or an "Okay, I am going to take my search for Constitutional and American History through the lens of Christianity enlightenment somewhere else."?
Cate
Pretty much invincible
Well, the Christian Bible does endorse slavery (as long as you treat your slaves humanely), and I can think of several places in the Old Testament where God Himself has endorsed the wholesale killing of entire races. And it could even be argued that this country was quite literally built on those things, since our forebears had to kill thousands of natives to clear the land on which our country was built and since our infrastructure was built largely with slave and indentured labor.No; by "Christian principles," I meant more the emphasis on the individual for development, "love thy neightbor," work hard, etc...how was the country founded upon the principles of race, slavery, and genocide? I always thought it was rather hypocritical of course how certain of the founders were slave-owners, and I believe even they had guilt about that, however, I wasn't aware of the country being actually founded based on anything like slavery or racism. I would more consider those things as you originally stated about Christianity, that the country was founded as a free nation, but since so many people held racist views at the time and many owned slaves, that racism and slavery were prevalent in the early days even though they should not have been.
I'm lost as to what you mean by genocide, please explain
But mostly, if you're going to go calling an entire country a Christian one based on Christian values, you're probably not going to have a lot of wiggle room to choose specifically which values you mean. You're kind of stuck with the Christian Value Meal; if you want to pick your values a la carte, they're just regular values and not specifically Christian anymore.
Random8145
Registered User
Cool your heels, I meant the latter
Point taken.
Good point.
Okay people, sorry for the threadjack, thank you for the information.
The old testament (Ephesians 6:5) implores slaves to respect, fear, and serve their masters, the new testament (1 Timothy 1:9-10) calls slave traders ungodly, unholy, and profane. There is great discussion on how the old testament was given to a people in bondage with the promise of freedom, and the new testament is the deliverance of that freedom to God's chosen people.
People who have used religion for their own gain should not be confused with the religion, just as people who use the uniform for personal gain should be confused with the service.
People who have used religion for their own gain should not be confused with the religion, just as people who use the uniform for personal gain should be confused with the service.
Irrespective of what the bible says, you can't get away from the fact that racism and slavery were values which were integral to the founding of this Nation. For Christ's sake, it's written right into the Constitution (blacks being 3/5 human, etc). So, for all of you that maintain that the nation was founded upon Christian values, you had better take ownership of ALL of them, including the ones that don't seem quite so swell 230 years later. Now, whether racism, slavery and genocide are actually Christian values is debatable (although I could make a pretty compelling case for it).
Why don't we agree upon this: Our Nation was founded upon a multitude of values, some of which are Christian, some of which are not. The only people who have a problem with this are those who want to use the concept of "Founding Christian values" as a means of ramming Christianity down everyone's throats. If you think that that's what America is all about (and I know you're out there), you should be burned at the fucking stake. These people will be among the first to perish when I seize power.
Brett
I agree completely.
Ah, but how many of those who were using it for their own gain actually believed they were doing right by deity, or confused the distinction entirely?
Where do honest intentions end and earnest corruption begin?
Granted, that's a fine line you can bring up in anything that anyone does, but I think the positive feed-back loop and the power of human rationality is most obvious in religion.
And P.S. I like the signature, but PLEASE for the love of all that still IS holy, unlike the '30s, PLEASE keep it in it's proper context!!!
[/ trudging through a paper on war crimes and atrocities in the Pacific]
Schizophrenia is a terrible thing -- to behold -- as the Bible might say. :icon_lol:
Oh, I know. Your post was just a good jumping-off point.
@ A4s: I know my audience appreciates a little satire and irony from time to time.
Brett
Random8145
Registered User
Random8145
Registered User
AHH...I had forgotten about that, you mean the three-fifths clause.
From my understanding, the notion that the three-fifths clause was written to say that blacks are three-fifths human, isn't quite true in the way people make it out to be.
From what I understand, the origins of the clause come from the debate between the northern and the southern states over the issue of political representation. The South wanted to count blacks as whole people/persons, in order to increase its political power. The North wanted blacks to count for nothing, not because they were racists, but so they could preserve and strengthen the anti-slavery majority in Congress.
I believe the three-fifths compromise was proposed by an anti-slavery northerner, James Wilson of Pennsylvania. The idea was to limit the South's political representation and thus undermine its ability to protect the institution of slavery. The great black abolitionist Frederick Douglass called the three-fifths clause "a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states" which deprived them of "two-fifths of their natural basis of representation." He also said (regarding the Constitution), "I defy the presentation of a single proslavery clause in it," and he told the crowd gathered to hear his Independence Day address, "Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document."
Also, I think the three-fifths clause only referred to slaves, not blacks who were free.
The modern belief that the three-fifths clause just blatantly stated that blacks were "three-fifths human" I believe is because the history got a bit mixed up, that really it was written specifically to prevent the institution of slavery from being able to continue.
From my understanding, the notion that the three-fifths clause was written to say that blacks are three-fifths human, isn't quite true in the way people make it out to be.
From what I understand, the origins of the clause come from the debate between the northern and the southern states over the issue of political representation. The South wanted to count blacks as whole people/persons, in order to increase its political power. The North wanted blacks to count for nothing, not because they were racists, but so they could preserve and strengthen the anti-slavery majority in Congress.
I believe the three-fifths compromise was proposed by an anti-slavery northerner, James Wilson of Pennsylvania. The idea was to limit the South's political representation and thus undermine its ability to protect the institution of slavery. The great black abolitionist Frederick Douglass called the three-fifths clause "a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states" which deprived them of "two-fifths of their natural basis of representation." He also said (regarding the Constitution), "I defy the presentation of a single proslavery clause in it," and he told the crowd gathered to hear his Independence Day address, "Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document."
Also, I think the three-fifths clause only referred to slaves, not blacks who were free.
The modern belief that the three-fifths clause just blatantly stated that blacks were "three-fifths human" I believe is because the history got a bit mixed up, that really it was written specifically to prevent the institution of slavery from being able to continue.