Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 75 of 75
Thanks Tree33Thanks

Thread: Which ideals, specifically?

  1. #71
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    38,848
    Thanks
    37003

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    What were the states' unconstitutional laws?
    The ones that are no longer in force because they were eventually ruled unconstitutional.

  2. #72
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,266
    Thanks
    504

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    The ones that are no longer in force because they were eventually ruled unconstitutional.
    I am asking for specific laws that were unconstitutional.

  3. #73
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,469
    Thanks
    37016

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    Was it a Judeo-Christian ideal to exclude black people from said equality when our Judeo-Christian nation was founded?
    No, but if you read the writings of nearly all those founders, they knew what they were doing was wrong. Some tried to justify it by saying that without slavery these Africans and their descendants wouldn't hear the gospel or some such, but even the slave-holding Founders for the most part acknowledged the fundamental wrongness of their way of life. Jefferson compared it to holding on to a wolf's ears--you know it's a bad thing to do, but what happens if you stop?

    They acknowledged even in the Constitution that the issue of slavery was going to have to be resolved at some point in the future. They even set a date for when the slave trade could be ended.

  4. #74
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,469
    Thanks
    37016

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Some of them. Xianity borrowed heavily from Judaism and grew out from it, but ultimately Xianity is a rejection of Judaism. While in the "broad outline" there are similarities, the two cannot be reconciled once you scratch below the surface, especially when trying to apply the principles of both to one society, such that the concept "Judeo-Xian" simply does not work as such.
    I see your point, I think, but I'll stick with it. I was steeped in it as a college student, and I do think that--for Christians, at least--it represents a line of moral/ethical development that's distinct from other great cultures. Sometimes it's called the "Western Tradition." The founder of my little college "set the purpose of the College in the context of western religious tradition and the thinking of the American Enlightenment, interpreting it to imply that the goal of education is to prepare students to become useful and responsible members of society by liberating them from superstition and ignorance, the tyranny of others, and 'vulgar prejudices.'" It's certainly an ecumenical notion that doesn't put too fine a point on any notion of doctrine or dogma.

    Those rules include, of course, all the natural laws under which we operate. Science thus is merely an exploration of those rules and creation in general. There are many in Xianity (and very few in Judaism) who disparage science
    Yes, but more important, it seems to me, are the moral/ethical rules. Everyone operates under the same natural laws, no matter their culture or thinking. Hindus or animists still have gravity. I believe that much of what you associate with Christians comes from Christians who have less education rather than more. Most Christian sects were founded by very smart, very educated people, but often these people were killed or exiled, and their followers in the next generations were generally not among the privileged who did get to have a lot of education. The result was that they made a virtue of necessity and PREFERRED un-education as an anti-elitist, less "worldly" ideal. That's the opposite of what I'm suggesting.

  5. #75
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,266
    Thanks
    504

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    No, but if you read the writings of nearly all those founders, they knew what they were doing was wrong. Some tried to justify it by saying that without slavery these Africans and their descendants wouldn't hear the gospel or some such, but even the slave-holding Founders for the most part acknowledged the fundamental wrongness of their way of life. Jefferson compared it to holding on to a wolf's ears--you know it's a bad thing to do, but what happens if you stop?

    They acknowledged even in the Constitution that the issue of slavery was going to have to be resolved at some point in the future. They even set a date for when the slave trade could be ended.
    An interesting observation is that the word "slavery" is never mentioned in the Constitution by design; the word "persons" was substituted. The debates at the Philadelphia Convention regarding the importation clause of Article I, Section 9 on August 25, 1787, manifested why:

    Mr. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not like merchandize, consumed.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Similar Threads

  1. Trump Specifically Warned
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19th December 2017, 02:07 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 1st August 2013, 09:04 PM
  3. Specifically- how does your face change as you age?
    By Detective Mike Logan in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12th March 2012, 12:35 PM
  4. New Edition Of Bible Specifically Mentions Second Amendment
    By imported_steezer in forum Political Humor
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 18th August 2010, 01:05 PM
  5. Kofi and U.N. 'Ideals'
    By Truth Detector in forum World Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18th December 2006, 03:12 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed