1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God, Slaves, and Women in the Constitution

Discussion in 'OBOB General Politics Forum' started by Michie, Jul 12, 2011.

  1. Michie

    Michie Manipulation Resistance Team Supporter CF Ambassador

    Messages:
    83,089
    Likes Received:
    183
    Faith:
    Catholic
    I really appreciated Bishop James Conley’s “On the Square” article yesterday, “America’s Atheocracy.” In fact, I like every bit of it, with the exception of one short paragraph:
    It is true: the Constitution that America’s founders would later draft makes no mention of God. It is also true that this Constitution denies full rights to slaves and women.
    As some of the commenters pointed out, the Constitution does make one mention of God, when it says, just at the end, after Article VII and before the signatures of the framers, that the work of its framing was done “in the Year of our Lord” 1787. It might be debated what significance to attach to this, but there it is.

    I want to take issue with the second sentence here. In fact, the Constitution does not deny any rights to women at all, and it is not really correct to say that it is responsible for the denial of rights to slaves, either.


    Continued- http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/07/05/god-slaves-and-women-in-the-constitution/
     
  2. Nietzscheiswrong

    Nietzscheiswrong Newbie

    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Catholic
    The bible (old testament) is against women and slaves not the country.
     
  3. AMDG

    AMDG Tenderized for Christ

    Messages:
    25,276
    Likes Received:
    144
    Faith:
    Catholic
    I know. And we also know that without the Declaration of Independence (and the Federalist papers) there would *be* no Constitution and those do so give credit to God, our Creator. It's amazing what educators today try to get away with when they refuse to give God His just due. The fact is, our founders were religious men and Washington even said that this country could not stand without it too being moral and religious.
     
  4. Dark_Lite

    Dark_Lite Chewbacha

    Messages:
    16,989
    Likes Received:
    126
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Not all of them were. Jefferson and Franklin were deists.
     
  5. Vendetta

    Vendetta Convert to the RCC

    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Catholic
    The real question is whether or not slavery is actually absolutely morally wrong.
     
  6. AMDG

    AMDG Tenderized for Christ

    Messages:
    25,276
    Likes Received:
    144
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Good point. I think the slavery of back then is different. The reason I say so, is because Paul sent the runaway slave, Onesimus, back without a qualm in the world. IOW, just because a person's occupation was a slave, that didn't mean they were any less a fellow Christian, and just because someone had slaves that didn't mean that they were bad people.
     
  7. Vendetta

    Vendetta Convert to the RCC

    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Yes, slavery in antiquity was incredibly different from slavery in America.
     
  8. Michie

    Michie Manipulation Resistance Team Supporter CF Ambassador

    Messages:
    83,089
    Likes Received:
    183
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the United States, was characterized by some of his contemporaries as "the arch-apostle of the cause of irreligion and freethought."1 Even impartial historians are forced to conclude that he had "deistic leanings,"2 and that his friendship
    with notorious infidels like Thomas Paine did "much to propagate deistic views" in the early years of the American Republic.3 However, there is another side to Jefferson's character which is not so well known as the negative one of his antipathy to organized religion. Whatever else may be said in his favor, it must be admitted that he had a reverence and respect for the person and teachings of Jesus Christ which according to his limited vision he tried to put into practice. The purpose of this study will not be to prove that Jefferson was a Christian, or that he was not a deist. It will only be to present a piece of historical evidence which should indicate that the full Jefferson portrait has not yet been painted, at least on the side of his religious beliefs. There is no need to point out how important is a just estimate of Jefferson in this matter, since much of the present-day controversy in America over the relations of Church and State revolves around the pivotal question of what our Founding Fathers intended to legislate on the subject of religion; and their intention, it is safe to say, was an expression of their own religious convictions.
    Continued- http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6040
     
  9. Michie

    Michie Manipulation Resistance Team Supporter CF Ambassador

    Messages:
    83,089
    Likes Received:
    183
    Faith:
    Catholic
    People today celebrate the ‘separation of Church and State’, even though that’s not actually in the Constitution. They hail Jefferson’s phrase in one letter he wrote once. What people often don’t know is that Jefferson had religion, and it’s evidenced in the documents he wrote. Two accomplishments which Jefferson held most dear were the authorships of the Declaration of Independence, and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

    We’re all familiar with the preamble to the Delclaration of Independence “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    Continued- http://rootofjesse2.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/ever-notice-how-thomas-jefferson-is-styled-today-as-a-deist/
     
  10. Fantine

    Fantine Dona Quixote

    Messages:
    22,698
    Likes Received:
    154
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Perhaps. They didn't throw slaves to the lions in the 19th century, or force them to fight to the death in gladitorial battles.

    Whenever I read Acts, though, I always wonder how much of a say those slaves had when noblemen and noblewomen converted, along with their whole household...

    You may call it "saving their souls..." But are you saving someone's soul when you take away his/her free will?
     
  11. AMDG

    AMDG Tenderized for Christ

    Messages:
    25,276
    Likes Received:
    144
    Faith:
    Catholic
    In Biblical times, it seems that slavery was more of an occupation than anything. It was almost synonomous with "servant" and denoted loyalty. We have no objection to St. Paul calling himself a "slave" of Christ.
     
  12. Virgil the Roman

    Virgil the Roman Traditional Catholic

    Messages:
    10,489
    Likes Received:
    17
    Faith:
    Catholic
    The Biblical Status of a slave was more a servant, really. Recall, Hebrew slaves had restrictions upon their servitude. They could only be kept for 7 years, after which their masters were obliged and mandated to free them, unless the slave choose any term of servitude. Now, this was the slavery we saw commonly in the US a century-and-one-half ago. It was not racial based, it was more an occupation; wherein, one place one's self for economic reasons (i.e. food, shelter, survival, and protection) under the tutelage of a master. It was never, in such former times, perpetuated upon hatred of another race or ethnicity; it was economic, not racial in character and manner.