What Conservatives Believe


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 1,568 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Urizen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


(2) Deists reference a hands-off Creator who bears little resemblance to the hands-on Christian god.

Very few of the founding fathers were deists Kirth. This is a modern myth that keeps popping up.

You're saying folks such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. weren't Deists?

Jefferson was a deist. There's no doubt about that. Franklin and Washington are debatable. They didn't discuss much of their religious beliefs and scholars have not come to a definitive conclusion.


Garydee wrote:
Jefferson was a deist. There's no doubt about that. Franklin and Washington are debatable. They didn't discuss much of their religious beliefs and scholars have not come to a definitive conclusion.

I'll admit Washington was a bit ambiguous, but I'm going by what his wife had said about him. Franklin, to me, was a bit more of a intellectual hedonist (if that makes any sense). But Jefferson, most definitely a deist. I've read his revision of the gospels and one can notice easily how he stripped out all of the miracle passages, for starters.


Garydee wrote:
Franklin and Washington are debatable. They didn't discuss much of their religious beliefs and scholars have not come to a definitive conclusion.

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." --Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography.

Whether he stuck to it is debatable; a lot of those guys' brains started twisting around if they weren't kept sufficiently occupied, and Franklin and Jefferson in particular were fonts of unexpected invention (lightning rod, dumbwaiter respectively) and abandoned half-formed ideas.

The Exchange

Garydee wrote:
Urizen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


(2) Deists reference a hands-off Creator who bears little resemblance to the hands-on Christian god.

Very few of the founding fathers were deists Kirth. This is a modern myth that keeps popping up.

You're saying folks such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. weren't Deists?
Jefferson was a deist. There's no doubt about that. Franklin and Washington are debatable. They didn't discuss much of their religious beliefs and scholars have not come to a definitive conclusion.

Benjamin Franklin

Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

(Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787. )

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)

I dont think Ben was deist

Thomas Jefferson

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)


Matthew Morris wrote:
2) I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that. I also don't feel the need to put anyone to the sword who disagrees with me.

To add to Kirth's argument. The whole thing was essentially a series of compromises. One of which can be traced at least in part to the Civil War. The framers could not agree on whether the Union was inviolate or not. New York and Virginia in particular were adamant that they would not sign off on any union that they could not later withdraw from while other states, the smaller ones in particular wanted the Union enshrined for all time. To this day the only real precedent America has on whether or not a state may succeed is a long and bloody civil war. If this question had been answered concretely by the framers its possible the Civil War may have been averted or its violence significantly reduced.


Ison wrote:
stuff

Jefferson's admiration of Jesus was no secret; it's definitely documented out there. But he suspended all of the miracles as being fantasy nonsense and focused primarily on the teachings / sayings / parables.

But as for Jefferson being virtuous ... smart man, but even he had his own dalliances with the 'help', to say that lightly.


Ison wrote:
Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

I almost want to use that as a paladin's oath. :D

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ison,
The doctrines of Jesus are admirable. As an agnostic I can agree with what Jefferson wrote without a lot of difficulty, but that doesn't mean I believe Jesus is the Son of God (which is sort of a requirement to be a Christian). Islam also has much praise for Jesus, but I doubt you'd say that made President Ahmadinijahd a Christian.

Also, and this may be me misreading you, but you seem to be conflating virtuousness and Christianity, especially in the first Ben Franklin quote. If you are, then please accept whichever coruscating invective is most appropriate to your particular circumstances. As a firm believer in virtue, and an agnostic, I take exception to that sort of nonsense. Virtue is not a product of religion, never mind any one religion.


Ison wrote:
Various quotations

You seem to feel that "moral" is codespeak for "Christian," which I refute. As another note, I personally am a Buddhist and an Atheist -- in no sense a Christian -- and I, too, find much of the doctrine of Jesus to be beautiful and sublime. That doesn't mean I expect him to intervene in worldly affairs, however.

Some other quotes you avoided:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address.

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom ... was finally passed, ... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

"He [the Rev Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard."

-- Benjamin Franklin, from Franklin's Autobiography

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England."

-- Benjamin Franklin, An Essay on Toleration

"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)

"Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice."

-- Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572. (Asa Green was probably the Reverend Ashbel Green, who was chaplain to congress during Washington's administration.)

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

"It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."

-- James Madison, letter to Robert Walsh

"There is in the clergy of all Christian denominations a time-serving, cringing, subservient morality, as wide from the spirit of the gospel as it is from the intrepid assertion and vindication of truth."

-- John Quincy Adams, diary entry for May 27, 1838


Paul Watson wrote:
As a firm believer in virtue, and an agnostic, I take exception to that sort of nonsense. Virtue is not a product of religion, never mind any one religion.

Agreed wholeheartedly.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
Very few of the founding fathers were deists Kirth. This is a modern myth that keeps popping up.
Jefferson and Franklin for sure. Others maybe; Washington's wife wrote that "My husband was no Christian," for example. But it doesn't matter how many. It matters that some were Deist, and many were Christian, and most of them in both groups felt that all should get equal representation.

Personally I don't give a hoot what they were. A lot of the founding fathers owned slaves and most of them believed that only property owning free men should be able to vote. Does that mean that our government should based on the ideals of slavery, misogyny, and elitism? Times change, ethical standards change, our knowledge of the world and of our fellow humans advances.

If you don't think that the separation of church and state is one of the finest features of the American governmental system, take a good look at Saudi Arabia and the Taliban and see the results of the opposite. Or, if you don't think that a theocratic Christian nation is capable of the same levels of atrocity take a look in your history books and read about the Inquisition, witch hunts, and the wars and anti heresy campaigns between Protestant and Catholic.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Also, I personally am a Buddhist and an Atheist -- in no sense a Christian -- and I, too, find much of the doctrine of Jesus to be beautiful and sublime.

Kirth,

I need to remind myself; there's a couple books that I have at home that fits this niche that you might be interested in reading.


Urizen wrote:
I need to remind myself; there's a couple books that I have at home that fits this niche that you might be interested in reading.

If they're by Thich Nhat Hanh, I've read them more than once. :)


Obbligato wrote:


If you don't think that the separation of church and state is one of the finest features of the American governmental system, take a good look at Saudi Arabia and the Taliban and see the results of the opposite.

I don't think anybody here said that they want the separation and state to be abolished.


Obbligato wrote:


If you don't think that the separation of church and state is one of the finest features of the American governmental system, take a good look at Saudi Arabia and the Taliban and see the results of the opposite. Or, if you don't think that a theocratic Christian nation is capable of the same levels of atrocity take a look in your history books and read about the Inquisition, witch hunts, and the wars and anti heresy campaigns between Protestant and Catholic.

+1


Garydee wrote:
I don't think anybody here said that they want the separation and state to be abolished.
Matthew Morris wrote:
I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that.

If we abandon or "supplement" the Constitution with someone's interpretation of Scripture, then abolishing the separation of church and state is exactly what we're doing. When Matthew's (or anyone else's) idea of what God wants becomes law, that's theocracy, not democracy.

The Exchange

Obbligato wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
Very few of the founding fathers were deists Kirth. This is a modern myth that keeps popping up.
Jefferson and Franklin for sure. Others maybe; Washington's wife wrote that "My husband was no Christian," for example. But it doesn't matter how many. It matters that some were Deist, and many were Christian, and most of them in both groups felt that all should get equal representation.

Personally I don't give a hoot what they were. A lot of the founding fathers owned slaves and most of them believed that only property owning free men should be able to vote. Does that mean that our government should based on the ideals of slavery, misogyny, and elitism? Times change, ethical standards change, our knowledge of the world and of our fellow humans advances.

If you don't think that the separation of church and state is one of the finest features of the American governmental system, take a good look at Saudi Arabia and the Taliban and see the results of the opposite. Or, if you don't think that a theocratic Christian nation is capable of the same levels of atrocity take a look in your history books and read about the Inquisition, witch hunts, and the wars and anti heresy campaigns between Protestant and Catholic.

The Founders Believed Slavery Was Fundamentally Wrong.

The overwhelming majority of early Americans and most of America's leaders did not own slaves. Some did own slaves, which were often inherited (like George Washington at age eleven), but many of these people set them free after independence. Most Founders believed that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished. William Livingston, signer of the Constitution and Governor of New Jersey, wrote to an anti-slavery society in New York (John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the Continental Congress, was President of this society):

I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-slavery society] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 11

John Quincy Adams, who worked tirelessly for years to end slavery, spoke of the anti-slavery views of the southern Founders, including Jefferson who owned slaves:

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.” 12

The Founding Fathers believed that blacks had the same God-given inalienable rights as any other peoples. James Otis of Massachusetts said in 1764 that “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.” 13

There had always been free blacks in America who owned property, voted, and had the same rights as other citizens. 14 Most of the men who gave us the Declaration and the Constitution wanted to see slavery abolished. For example, George Washington wrote in a letter to Robert Morris:

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 15

Charles Carroll, Signer of Declaration from Maryland, wrote:

Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 16

Benjamin Rush, Signer from Pennsylvania, stated:

Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 17

Father of American education, and contributor to the ideas in the Constitution, Noah Webster wrote:

Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery] - Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 18

Quotes from John Adams reveal his strong anti-slavery views:

Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. . . . I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in . . . abhorrence. 19
My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known. . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave. 20

When Benjamin Franklin served as President of the Pennsylvania Society of Promoting the Abolition of Slavery he declared: “Slavery is . . . an atrocious debasement of human nature.” 21

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration included a strong denunciation of slavery, declaring the king's perpetuation of the slave trade and his vetoing of colonial anti-slavery measures as one reason the colonists were declaring their independence:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere. . . . Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. 22

Prior to independence, anti-slavery measures by the colonists were thwarted by the British government. Franklin wrote in 1773:

A disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed.. 23

The Founders took action against slavery.
The founders did not just believe slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished, and they did not just speak against it, but they acted on their beliefs. During the Revolutionary War black slaves who fought won their freedom in every state except South Carolina and Georgia. 24

Many of the founders started and served in anti-slavery societies. Franklin and Rush founded the first such society in America in 1774. John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. Other Founding Fathers serving in anti-slavery societies included: William Livingston (Constitution signer), James Madison, Richard Bassett, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. 25

As the Founders worked to free themselves from enslavement to Britain, based upon laws of God and nature, they also spoke against slavery and took steps to stop it. Abolition grew as principled resistance to the tyranny of England grew, since both were based upon the same ideas. This worked itself out on a personal as well as policy level, as seen in the following incident in the life of William Whipple, signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Hampshire. Dwight writes:

When General Whipple set out to join the army, he took with him for his waiting servant, a colored man named Prince, one whom he had imported from Africa many years before. He was a slave whom his master highly valued. As he advanced on his journey, he said to Prince, “If we should be called into an engagement with the enemy, I expect you will behave like a man of courage, and fight like a brave soldier for your country.” Prince feelingly replied, “Sir, I have no inducement to fight, I have no country while I am a slave. If I had my freedom, I would endeavor to defend it to the last drop of my blood.” This reply of Prince produced the effect on his master's heart which Prince desired. The general declared him free on the spot. 26

The Founders opposed slavery based upon the principle of the equality of all men. Throughout history many slaves have revolted but it was believed (even by those enslaved) that some people had the right to enslave others. The American slave protests were the first in history based on principles of God-endowed liberty for all. It was not the secularists who spoke out against slavery but the ministers and Christian statesmen.

Before independence, some states had tried to restrict slavery in different ways (e.g. Virginia had voted to end the slave trade in 1773), but the English government had not allowed it. Following independence and victory in the war, the rule of the mother country was removed, leaving freedom for each state to deal with the slavery problem. Within about 20 years of the 1783 Treaty of Peace with Britain, the northern states abolished slavery: Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804.

The Northwest Ordinance (1787, 1789), which governed the admission of new states into the union from the then northwest territories, forbid slavery. Thus, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery. This first federal act dealing with slavery was authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington.

Although no Southern state abolished slavery, there was much anti-slavery sentiment. Many anti-slavery societies were started, especially in the upper South. Many Southern states considered proposals abolishing slavery, for example, the Virginia legislature in 1778 and 1796. When none passed, many, like Washington, set their slaves free, making provision for their well being. Following independence, “Virginia changed her laws to make it easier for individuals to emancipate slaves,” 27 though over time the laws became more restrictive in Virginia.

While most states were moving toward freedom for slaves, the deep South (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina) was largely pro-slavery. Yet, even so, the Southern courts before around 1840 generally took the position that slavery violated the natural rights of blacks. For example, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in 1818:

Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature. It exists and can only exist, through municipal regulations, and in matters of doubt,...courts must lean in favorem vitae et libertatis [in favor of life and liberty]. 28

The same court ruled in 1820 that the slave “is still a human being, and possesses all those rights, of which he is not deprived by the positive provisions of the law.” 29

Free blacks were citizens and voted in most Northern states and Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In Baltimore prior to 1800, more blacks voted than whites; but in 1801 and 1809, Maryland began to restrict black voting and in 1835 North Carolina prohibited it. Other states made similar restrictions, but a number of Northern states allowed blacks to vote and hold office. In Massachusetts this right was given nearly a decade before the American Revolution and was never taken away, either before or after the Civil War.

Slavery and the Constitution
The issue of slavery was considered at the Constitutional Convention. Though most delegates were opposed to slavery, they compromised on the issue when the representatives from Georgia and South Carolina threatened to walk out. The delegates realized slavery would continue in these states with or without the union. They saw a strong union of all the colonies was the best means of securing their liberty (which was by no means guaranteed to survive). They did not agree to abolish slavery as some wanted to do, but they did take the forward step of giving the Congress the power to end the slave trade after 20 years. 30 No nation in Europe or elsewhere had agreed to such political action.

Even so, many warned of the dangers of allowing this evil to continue. George Mason of Virginia told the delegates:

Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. 31

Jefferson had written some time before this:

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever. 32

Constitutional Convention Delegate, Luther Martin, stated:

[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 33

Some today misinterpret the Constitutional provision of counting the slaves as three-fifths for purposes of representation as pro-slavery or black dehumanization. But it was a political compromise between the north and the south.. The three-fifths provision applied only to slaves and not free blacks, who voted and had the same rights as whites (and in some southern states this meant being able to own slaves). While the Southern states wanted to count the slaves in their population to determine the number of congressmen from their states, slavery opponents pushed to keep the Southern states from having more representatives, and hence more power in congress.

The Constitution did provide that runaway slaves would be returned to their owners (We saw previously that returning runaway slaves is contrary to Biblical slave laws, unless these slaves were making restitution for a crime.) but the words slave and slavery were carefully avoided. “Many of the framers did not want to blemish the Constitution with that shameful term.” The initial language of this clause was “legally held to service or labor,” but this was deleted when it was objected that legally seemed to favor “the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view.” 34

While the Constitution did provide some protection for slavery, this document is not pro-slavery. It embraced the situation of all 13 states at that time, the Founders leaving most of the power to deal with this social evil in the hands of each state. Most saw that the principles of liberty contained in the Declaration could not support slavery and would eventually overthrow it.. As delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Luther Martin put it:

Slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression. 35

We have seen that after independence the American Founders actually took steps to end slavery. Some could have done more, but as a whole they probably did more than any group of national leaders up until that time in history to deal with the evil of slavery. They took steps toward liberty for the enslaved and believed that the gradual march of liberty would continue, ultimately resulting in the complete death of slavery. The ideas they infused in the foundational civil documents upon which America was founded - such as Creator endowed rights and the equality of all men before the law - eventually prevailed and slavery was abolished. But not without great difficulty because the generations that followed failed to carry out the gradual abolition of slavery in America.

The View of Slavery Changes
Most of America's Founders thought slavery would gradually be abolished. Roger Sherman said that “the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the U.S. and that the good sense of the several states would probably by degrees complete it.” 36 But it was not. Why?

Succeeding generations did not have the character and worldview necessary to complete the task started by the Founders. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Each generation must take up the cause of liberty, which is the cause of God, and fight the battle. While the majority view of the Founders was that American slavery was a social evil that needed to be abolished, many in later generations attempted to justify slavery, often appealing to the Scriptures (though, I believe, in error at many points, as mentioned earlier).
American slavery was not in alignment with Biblical slave laws and God's desire for liberty for all mankind. This inconsistency produced an institution that proved too difficult to gradually and peacefully abolish. Some Founders (like Henry and Jefferson) could not see how a peaceful resolution was possible and gave the “necessary evil” argument. Henry said: “As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.” 37
Jefferson was opposed to slavery yet he thought that once the slaves gained freedom, a peaceful coexistence of whites and blacks would be very difficult to maintain. Jefferson predicted that if the slaves were freed and lived in America, “Deep-rooted prejudices entertained by the whites' ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” 38
This is why many worked (especially many from Virginia, like James Monroe and James Madison) to set up a country in Africa (Liberia) where the freed slaves could live. Some at this time did not see integration as possible, and apart from the power of God, history has shown it is not possible, as there have been and are many ethnic wars. The church must lead the way in race relations, showing all believers are brothers in Christ, and all men have a common Creator.
The invention of the cotton gin, which revived the economic benefit of slavery, also contributed to a shift in the thinking of many Americans. At the time of independence and the constitutional period most people viewed slavery as an evil that should and would be abolished. But by the 1830s, many people, including some Southern ministers, began to justify it. Some, like Calhoun, even said it was a positive thing. Others justified it by promoting the inequality of the races. Stephen Douglas argued that the Declaration only applied to whites, but Lincoln rejected that argument and sought to bring the nation back to the principles of the Declaration. In the end these principles prevailed.


Urizen wrote:
Ison wrote:
stuff

Jefferson's admiration of Jesus was no secret; it's definitely documented out there. But he suspended all of the miracles as being fantasy nonsense and focused primarily on the teachings / sayings / parables.

But as for Jefferson being virtuous ... smart man, but even he had his own dalliances with the 'help', to say that lightly.

I think Family Guy put it best.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Various quotations

Thank you. The belief that the United States was founded as a "Christian Nation" persists through ignorance, willful or otherwise.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
I don't think anybody here said that they want the separation and state to be abolished.
Matthew Morris wrote:
I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that.

If we abandon or "supplement" the Constitution with someone's interpretation of Scripture, then abolishing the separation of church and state is exactly what we're doing.

I believe he said "and wish people would return to that." Didn't see "government" in there.

And, it would be nice if people acted like Jesus, you know, hanging with his posse and hookers, wandering around dropping bits of street wisdom, kind of like Ludacris, I guess...


What I always wonder about is what would say Washington say if asked publically to describe himself would he call himself clearly a Christian or a something else? What about the others? I think it's interesting that we look back and try and classify them, often by terms they would never have referred to themselves as.

The fact Martha didn't think of Washington as a Christian to me actually indicates he did think of himself as one, or at least would want to be thought of as one. And if it was something he sought to be but may have ended up not quiet making it, well that would define his beliefs well enough to say he placed great value in the Christian beliefs.

Now if we agree that others such as Jefferson at the least had great regard for the teachings of Christ, whether he personally believed in Christ's divinity or not those teachings still would have weighed in on his own values and thus his beliefs he used to help craft the nation.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
houstonderek wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
I don't think anybody here said that they want the separation and state to be abolished.
Matthew Morris wrote:
I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that.

If we abandon or "supplement" the Constitution with someone's interpretation of Scripture, then abolishing the separation of church and state is exactly what we're doing.

I believe he said "and wish people would return to that." Didn't see "government" in there.

And, it would be nice if people acted like Jesus, you know, hanging with his posse and hookers, wandering around dropping bits of street wisdom, kind of like Ludacris, I guess...

It would be nice if people did. It would be nicer if certain Christians led the way. I'm with Ghandi on the difference between Christ and many of his followers.


houstonderek wrote:
I believe he said "and wish people would return to that." Didn't see "government" in there. <SNIP>

That seems like splitting hairs, given that he just established the context as the founding of the nation by the people (AKA government).


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
I don't think anybody here said that they want the separation and state to be abolished.
Matthew Morris wrote:
I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that.

If we abandon or "supplement" the Constitution with someone's interpretation of Scripture, then abolishing the separation of church and state is exactly what we're doing. When Matthew's (or anyone else's) idea of what God wants becomes law, that's theocracy, not democracy.

Kirth, what he said can be interpreted in many different ways. Why do you come to the conclusion that his ideas set up a theocracy?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Urizen wrote:
I need to remind myself; there's a couple books that I have at home that fits this niche that you might be interested in reading.
If they're by Thich Nhat Hanh, I've read them more than once. :)

I have those too, but it's more along the nature of Buddhism without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor and another title about seeing the Buddha on the road to kill him, but I don't think it's the mass paperback that was released back in the '70s (I don't recognize the cover).


Freehold DM wrote:
Urizen wrote:
Ison wrote:
stuff

Jefferson's admiration of Jesus was no secret; it's definitely documented out there. But he suspended all of the miracles as being fantasy nonsense and focused primarily on the teachings / sayings / parables.

But as for Jefferson being virtuous ... smart man, but even he had his own dalliances with the 'help', to say that lightly.

I think Family Guy put it best.

Haha! I remember that episode. :D


Thurgon wrote:
What I always wonder about is what would say Washington say if asked publically to describe himself would he call himself clearly a Christian or a something else?
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice.


What I find so odd is the marriage between fiscal and social conservatism. If one takes a "Randian" view (sorry, made up word), often considered a cornerstone of conservative thought, then the link to social conservatism becomes particularly difficult to understand.

In short: Why does religion have any place in this conversation? It's unrelated to classic conservatism (at least as I understand it).

Of course, it's possible that I'm way off base. Anyone care to explain?

Edit: Speaking of Rand, has anyone here read Atlas Shrugged? Though I have a vague feeling that the book may amount to what I consider begging the question, the title is so evocative that I'm tempted nonetheless. Anyone have any thoughts on it's literary merit (aside from political ideology)?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

I've never understood the 'I admire Jesus but he's not the Son of God' I think CS Lewis summed it up best, (paraphrase)"Either Jesus was the Son of God, or a lunatic."

As to the treaty of Tripolli... Yeah, if that little phrase would stop the Muslim slavers from raiding our ships, I could picture them saying it.

Again, I'm marking a difference between what I believe and what I impose. The Constitution keeps the government from creating a national church of Barney, but (prior to the Civil War) did not prevent a church of Connecticut, for example.

Also (again, belief not fact) the Divine works through less direct methods. Ever hear the two boats and a helicopter joke?

Spoiler:

Town is being flooded from the rain. Boat comes down the flooded street, and they tell the old man to get in, they'll take him to safety.

"Nope, I'm praying to God, he'll save me."

Little later, the first floor of his house is flooded, second boat comes through, "Get in we'll save you!"

"Nope, I'm praying to God, he'll save me."

Flood now drives him to the roof. Helicopte comes in braving the rain, they roll down a ladder and tell him to get on.

"Nope, I'm praying to God, he'll save me."

The old man drowns.

He's facing God and asks him "I prayed and prayed and prayed, why didn't you save me?"

God replies, "What do you mean? I sent you two boats and a Helicopter, you idiot!"

As was pointed out above, the constitution does rely on a moral and just people. For the founders, this was easiest if they were a spiritual people. But the beauty of the document is there's no coersion to a particular faith. Indeed, until the rights of another are impeeded, you're allowed to believe whatever, just believe something (and yes, all you athiests, you believe something, you believe there's no divine).

What makes the Constitution different from most anything at the time, was that it limited the amount of power provided to the government, and kept it in the governed. (whether it still does or not is a matter of conjection)

So yes, I do believe that a return to the divine would be good for the nation. I also believe that it is something that can't be legislated, nor should it be.

The Exchange

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that.

So, never mind the writings of the Framers; things like, "the United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion" (Treaty of Tripoli)? I mean, if I were a devout Christian as well as a devout patriot, it would be convenient if I could combine the two -- and Patrick Henry and John Jay tried like hell (and failed) to get that kind of thing written into the Constitution -- but that's expressly the opposite of what Jefferson, Madison, and others recommended.

The U.S. at the time of its independence was unique specifically because its authority was expressly stated as being derived from the consent of the governed, rather than from divine right handed down by God.

I feel you have hit the nail on the head so to speak without trying. There were founding fathers. Plural. More then one. Some of them wanted and used religious beliefs as the basis of what they wanted included in the constitution, others did not. They came to a compromise on how they wrote it. Neither endorsing nor ignoring religion.It depends on of whom you ask and when they wrote about it whether they said that these beliefs, or lack of them had any way or form in the shaping of said documents. Many do feel that they did use, or some of them, the moral framework of the Judeo-Christian belief system as a basis and if you look hard enough you can find examples of this. Others point out examples of the opposite and this is factual as well. We should rather in my opinion live in the here and now and the adjustments made to the constitution instead of how it once might have been, for that is in fact a slippery slope, of what do we strike out because it is not what we wish it to be.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Garydee wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
I don't think anybody here said that they want the separation and state to be abolished.
Matthew Morris wrote:
I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that.

If we abandon or "supplement" the Constitution with someone's interpretation of Scripture, then abolishing the separation of church and state is exactly what we're doing. When Matthew's (or anyone else's) idea of what God wants becomes law, that's theocracy, not democracy.

Kirth, what he said can be interpreted in many different ways. Why do you come to the conclusion that his ideas set up a theocracy?

Because it fits his image of me, despite several words to the contrary?


Matthew Morris wrote:
Because it fits his image of me, despite several words to the contrary?

Or because, intentionally or not, you give that impression?

That was a pretty thinly-veiled shot at Kirth. Perhaps it fit your image of him?


Matthew Morris wrote:
Because it fits his image of me, despite several words to the contrary?

I don't have "an image," but rather only impressions from what you write, impressions that are revised as you write more. Your statement regarding non-legislation of your beliefs, for example, changed the impression received from some of your earlier statements which implied you didn't have that view.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:

I've never understood the 'I admire Jesus but he's not the Son of God' I think CS Lewis summed it up best, (paraphrase)"Either Jesus was the Son of God, or a lunatic."

As to the treaty of Tripolli... Yeah, if that little phrase would stop the Muslim slavers from raiding our ships, I could picture them saying it.

Again, I'm marking a difference between what I believe and what I impose. The Constitution keeps the government from creating a national church of Barney, but (prior to the Civil War) did not prevent a church of Connecticut, for example.

Also (again, belief not fact) the Divine works through less direct methods. Ever hear the two boats and a helicopter joke?
** spoiler omitted **

As was pointed out above, the constitution does rely on a moral and just people. For the founders, this was easiest if they were a spiritual people. But the beauty of the document is there's no coersion to a particular faith. Indeed, until the rights of another are impeeded, you're allowed to believe whatever, just believe something (and yes, all you athiests, you believe something, you believe there's no divine).

What makes the Constitution different from most anything at the time, was that it limited the amount of power provided to the government, and kept it in the governed. (whether it still does or...

Matthew,

The teachings of Jesus include some wonderful moral stuff: Love thy neighbour as yourself; Do not be so concerned with the stye in another's eye that you miss the plank in your own, etc. etc. You don't have to believe he was divine or to accept everything he said to find beauty and truth in his teachings.

Why the jab at atheists, by the way? Is there some sort of atheist campaign to outlaw all religions in the USA that I'm unaware of?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Garydee wrote:
I don't think anybody here said that they want the separation and state to be abolished.
Matthew Morris wrote:
I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that.

If we abandon or "supplement" the Constitution with someone's interpretation of Scripture, then abolishing the separation of church and state is exactly what we're doing. When Matthew's (or anyone else's) idea of what God wants becomes law, that's theocracy, not democracy.

So I have to ignore my religious beliefs when voting or I am supporting the creation of an American theocracy? Your asking for a lot. Religious beliefs in some are very much the foundation of their beliefs. I would however disagree, voting based on your belief structure is the very core idea of what a democracy is. Being told that religious beliefs do not qualify as a valid belief structure seems to be to be well a religious belief in and of itself.


bugleyman wrote:
Edit: Speaking of Rand, has anyone here read Atlas Shrugged? Though I have a vague feeling that the book may amount to what I consider begging the question, the title is so evocative that I'm tempted nonetheless. Anyone have any thoughts on it's literary merit (aside from political ideology)?

I have. Long, rambling, very dry in places. I agree with about half of what she says... none of it in the religious parts, only some of the politics.

Mostly because I lack the faith in my fellow humans that she seems to have.


Thurgon wrote:
So I have to ignore my religious beliefs when voting or I am supporting the creation of an American theocracy? Your asking for a lot. Religious beliefs in some are very much the foundation of their beliefs. I would however disagree, voting based on your belief structure is the very core idea of what a democracy is.

Every law should serve secular ends. If it also fits your religious beliefs, by all means vote for it for that reason! But no law should be proposed which serves no secular purpose, but rather only a religious one -- and if one of those sneaks in, yes, I'd expect you to keep your fervor at bay and vote against it. If your religious beliefs prompt you to pass laws that serve only religious functions, then, yes, you're supporting theocracy. This sort of fits in with Matthew's recent statements regarding not legislating his beliefs -- statements that make me suspect that maybe some of his views aren't so different from mine, despite earlier posts to the contrary.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
What I always wonder about is what would say Washington say if asked publically to describe himself would he call himself clearly a Christian or a something else?
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice.

I understand but the possible reasons for being coy are what I find most interesting. Was he coy because he wasn't a Christian, because he was but wanted to not overly influence others, was he coy because he thought to make such a claim would be prideful, or some other reason I have yet to envision.


Thurgon wrote:
I understand but the possible reasons for being coy are what I find most interesting. Was he coy because he wasn't a Christian, because he was but wanted to not overly influence others, was he coy because he thought to make such a claim would be prideful, or some other reason I have yet to envision.

Agreed; we have no way of knowing. One of the things I admire about the guy, especially in contrast to most candidates today who can't talk enough about their religious beliefs.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
I understand but the possible reasons for being coy are what I find most interesting. Was he coy because he wasn't a Christian, because he was but wanted to not overly influence others, was he coy because he thought to make such a claim would be prideful, or some other reason I have yet to envision.
Agreed; we have no way of knowing. One of the things I admire about the guy, especially in contrast to most candidates today who can't talk enough about their religious beliefs.

<Dubya> My favorite philsopher is Jesus </Dubya>

O vey.


Paul Watson wrote:
Why the jab at atheists, by the way? Is there some sort of atheist campaign to outlaw all religions in the USA that I'm unaware of?

Oddly, some seem to view the resistance of teaching Creati- sorry, ID - as an attempt to undermine their freedom of religion. Of course, teaching ID would amount to promoting a religion, at the expense of not only the other religions of the world, who have their own creation myths, but at the expense of evidence as the basis of curriculum. Exactly such promotion is often advocated, however, justified by the incorrect (and Constitutionally irrelevant) assertion that we were "founded as a Christian Nation."

In answer to your question: No, no such atheist campaign exists. However, it isn't hard to notice that the threat of one (delivered, of course, by religious leaders, and lying completely at odds with the beliefs of the VAST majority of atheists) is often used to galvanize a not-insignificant subset of the faithful into ill-considered action.


Paul Watson wrote:
Is there some sort of atheist campaign to outlaw all religions in the USA that I'm unaware of?

You all the time get some nimrod who wants to sue the city because there's a manger scene up at Christmas time, or some other form of nonsense. Personally, I denounce people like that as worse than religious extremists. Just as government should not be used to further one's religion, so it should not be used to attack anyone else's. Two sides of a coin.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
So I have to ignore my religious beliefs when voting or I am supporting the creation of an American theocracy? Your asking for a lot. Religious beliefs in some are very much the foundation of their beliefs. I would however disagree, voting based on your belief structure is the very core idea of what a democracy is. Being told that religious beliefs do not qualify as a valid belief structure seems to be to be well a religious belief in and of itself.
Every law should serve secular ends. If it also fits your religious beliefs, by all means vote for it for that reason! But no law should be proposed which serves no secular purpose, but rather only a religious one -- and if one of those sneaks in, yes, I'd expect you to keep your fervor at bay and vote against it. If your religious beliefs prompt you to pass laws that serve only religious functions, then, yes, you're supporting theocracy.

Interesting. I think being allowed to vote based on whatever personal beliefs you have is the very fundation of democracy, being resricted as to where you can get those beliefs is actually to my mind damaging to democracy as a whole.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
You all the time get some nimrod who wants to sue the city because there's a manger scene up at Christmas time, or some other form of nonsense. Personally, I denounce people like that as worse than religious extremists. Just as government should not be used to further one's religion, so it should not be used to attack anyone else's. Two sides of a coin.

Though I find the retroactive hijacking of December 25th as the "birth of Christ" amusing, I'm certainly not going to sue anyone.

I wonder, however, if the government funded the hypothetical display, and if so, why you don't find that to be a violation of the separation of church and state doctrine.


Thurgon wrote:
Interesting. I think being allowed to vote based on whatever personal beliefs you have is the very fundation of democracy, being resricted as to where you can get those beliefs is actually to my mind damaging to democracy as a whole.

Tyranny of the Majority

The Exchange

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

people seem to forget the second half of the sentence.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

They believe in nothing Lebowski.

Oh wait...that's nihilists. Never mind...


Kirth Gersen wrote:
You all the time get some nimrod who wants to sue the city because there's a manger scene up at Christmas time, or some other form of nonsense. Personally, I denounce people like that as worse than religious extremists. Just as government should not be used to further one's religion, so it should not be used to attack anyone else's. Two sides of a coin.

I agree. Just as a lot of Christians don't want to be tied to their evangelistic bible thumping right-wing zealots, there are atheists that don't want to be tied to nimrods that you've described above. I have a friend that I work with that is a pastor for United Church of Christ and he happens to be gay, but we agree about a lot of topics and agree to disagree on others we don't. He's just impressed that I keep myself informed more than the average individual who's there to warm the pews on a Sunday to work toward their senority with their attendance merit badges. ;)


bugleyman wrote:
Though I find the retroactive hijacking of December 25th as the "birth of Christ" amusing, I'm certainly not going to sue anyone.

Somewhere, Mithras is pouting. And plotting his revenge. :P


Sebastian wrote:

They believe in nothing Lebowski.

Oh wait...that's nihilists. Never mind...

Vastly underrated movie.

251 to 300 of 1,568 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / What Conservatives Believe All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.