Louisiana classrooms now required by law to display the Ten Commandments

[Pommer]

This thread isn't about bread.

Perhaps this forum would interest you:

Cooking and Culinary Arts

Perhaps you should look into not taking everything literally.

 

[HARK!]

Perhaps you should look into not taking everything literally.

Perhaps if you have a valid point; you could express it outside of some nebulous analogy.

 

[Pommer]

Perhaps if you have a valid point; you could express it outside of some nebulous analogy.

The Declaration of Independence outlined the reasoning for Americans breaking off from the Mother Country, as such it’s not foundational.

 

[BCP1928]

To the axiom.

What axiom? What are you talking about?

 

[HARK!]

The Declaration of Independence outlined the reasoning for Americans breaking off from the Mother Country, as such it’s not foundational.

Preposterous

 

[HARK!]

What axiom? What are you talking about?

I'm not going to walk you through the whole exchange again.

You can do that for yourself.

 

[Pommer]

Preposterous

Okay we disagree.
Have a super good night.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not going to walk you through the whole exchange again.

You can do that for yourself.

The exchange was fatuous. You can argue all you like about the semantics of whether the Declaration of Independence is "foundational" or not, but even if it was, it does not found a Christian nation. In fact, if it was foundational, the founding fathers used it as a foundation for a secular state.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The Declaration of Independence outlined the reasoning for Americans breaking off from the Mother Country, as such it’s not foundational.

Be glad you didn't make a bet on that.....you'd lose.....

https://www.congress.gov/founding-documents

America's Founding Documents

These three documents, known collectively as the Charters of Freedom, have secured the rights of the American people for more than two and a quarter centuries and are considered instrumental to the founding and philosophy of the United States. Declaration of Independence Learn More The...

www.archives.gov

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'll accept your strawman argument as a concession.

That is not a "strawman", but a proper understanding of the democratic radicalism of the DoI. When it came to forming an actual government (well a second one, since the first one was a failure), they went even further about the source of authority in a republic:

We the People... do ordain ... this Constitution. (I've simplified to pull out the subject, verb and object of the sentence.)

Not "by the authority of almighty god" or any other such formulation. It echos the "consent of the governed" rhetoric of the Declaration.

(It really helps to not get your history from David Barton.)

 

[Pommer]

Be glad you didn't make a bet on that.....you'd lose.....

https://www.congress.gov/founding-documents

America's Founding Documents

These three documents, known collectively as the Charters of Freedom, have secured the rights of the American people for more than two and a quarter centuries and are considered instrumental to the founding and philosophy of the United States. Declaration of Independence Learn More The...

www.archives.gov

We’re using two (or more?’ definitions for “foundational” here.

The way I am using it, is to mean “provides a barebones framework on which to form a nation”…remember at this point they hadn’t yet decided if the resultant nation would be a monarchy or a republic.

All the DOI was, was to inform King George that we wouldn’t be beholden to the Crown any longer, since we decided that it wasn’t in our best interest as (mostly) free men.

But yes the Declaration of Independence is a foundational-document in the sense that had it not been written we wouldn’t have become the United States we all know and love today.

 

[civilwarbuff]

…remember at this point they hadn’t yet decided if the resultant nation would be a monarchy or a republic.

What leads you to that conclusion? My readings say otherwise.....
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 states of the United States, formerly the Thirteen Colonies, that served as the nation's first frame of government. It was debated by the Second Continental Congress at Independence Hall in Philadelphia between July 1776 and November 1777, and finalized by the Congress on November 15, 1777. It came into force on March 1, 1781, after being ratified by all 13 colonial states. A guiding principle of the Articles was the establishment and preservation of the independence and sovereignty of the states. The Articles consciously established a weak federal government, affording it only those powers the former colonies had recognized as belonging to king and parliament. The document provided clearly written rules for how the states' league of friendship, known as the Perpetual Union, would be organized.
Wiki

The Continental Congress never debated the acceptance of a monarchy.

 

[Pommer]

What leads you to that conclusion? My readings say otherwise.....
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 states of the United States, formerly the Thirteen Colonies, that served as the nation's first frame of government. It was debated by the Second Continental Congress at Independence Hall in Philadelphia between July 1776 and November 1777, and finalized by the Congress on November 15, 1777. It came into force on March 1, 1781, after being ratified by all 13 colonial states. A guiding principle of the Articles was the establishment and preservation of the independence and sovereignty of the states. The Articles consciously established a weak federal government, affording it only those powers the former colonies had recognized as belonging to king and parliament. The document provided clearly written rules for how the states' league of friendship, known as the Perpetual Union, would be organized.
Wiki

The Continental Congress never debated the acceptance of a monarchy.

The Articles of Confederation had always been meant to be a bridge between the colonies being colonies and [whatever we decide later after we’ve won the war for Independence].

 

[civilwarbuff]

The Articles of Confederation had always been meant to be a bridge between the colonies being colonies and [whatever we decide later after we’ve won the war for Independence].

Sorry, but it was never thought of as a bridge. The states were suspicious of a centralized gov which is why they opted for a loose confederation. Many states, when called upon to supply their portion of taxes to support the gov failed to do so....without consequences. With the constitutional convention of 1787 there was still much resistance to a strong centralized gov which is why the federalist papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to convince people of the necessity of the constitution being passed. There was also anti-federalists who wrote in opposition to adoption of the USC but were successful in getting the first 10 amendments proposed and passed.

BTW, after the DoI was passed the term 'colonies' dropped out of use and was supplanted by the word 'states'.

This "first constitution of the United States" established a "league of friendship" for the 13 sovereign and independent states. Each state retained "every Power...which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States. The Articles of Confederation also outlined a Congress with representation not based on population – each state would have one vote in Congress.

Articles of Confederation (1777)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Articles of Confederation; 3/1/1781; Miscellaneous Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774 - 1789; Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, Record Group 360; National Archives Building, Washington, DC. View All...

www.archives.gov

 

[Pommer]

Sorry, but it was never thought of as a bridge. The states were suspicious of a centralized gov which is why they opted for a loose confederation. Many states, when called upon to supply their portion of taxes to support the gov failed to do so....without consequences. With the constitutional convention of 1787 there was still much resistance to a strong centralized gov which is why the federalist papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to convince people of the necessity of the constitution being passed. There was also anti-federalists who wrote in opposition to adoption of the USC but were successful in getting the first 10 amendments proposed and passed.

BTW, after the DoI was passed the term 'colonies' dropped out of use and was supplanted by the word 'states'.

This "first constitution of the United States" established a "league of friendship" for the 13 sovereign and independent states. Each state retained "every Power...which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States. The Articles of Confederation also outlined a Congress with representation not based on population – each state would have one vote in Congress.

Articles of Confederation (1777)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Articles of Confederation; 3/1/1781; Miscellaneous Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774 - 1789; Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, Record Group 360; National Archives Building, Washington, DC. View All...

www.archives.gov

We’re doing it again, agreeing-by-argument.

It wasn’t even a given that one nation (or 13 or more nations) would emerge after the WoI.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It wasn’t even a given that one nation (or 13 or more nations) would emerge after the WoI.

We will disagree about this one. They had far more in common than differences but it would take a more powerful centralized gov to make it all work.

 

[HARK!]

The exchange was fatuous. You can argue all you like about the semantics of whether the Declaration of Independence is "foundational" or not, but even if it was, it does not found a Christian nation. In fact, if it was foundational, the founding fathers used it as a foundation for a secular state.

You are entitled to your opinion; even when it flies in the face of evidence to the contrary.

 

[HARK!]

That is not a "strawman", but a proper understanding of the democratic radicalism of the DoI. When it came to forming an actual government (well a second one, since the first one was a failure), they went even further about the source of authority in a republic:

We the People... do ordain ... this Constitution. (I've simplified to pull out the subject, verb and object of the sentence.)

Not "by the authority of almighty god" or any other such formulation. It echos the "consent of the governed" rhetoric of the Declaration.

Wow! Another strawman? Have you actually been following the conversation?

Since you are moving the goalposts; I'll go ahead and play your game anyway.

Lets review the founding document once again.

Your hyphenated rendering doesn't do the document due justice.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Why are Governments instituted among men?

"to secure these rights"

Which rights?": "unalienable Rights"

:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

What is the source of these "unalienable Rights," of men?

"they are endowed by their Creator"

(It really helps to not get your history from David Barton.)

Never heard of him before this. I simply read the founding document for comprehension.

 

[Belk]

Preposterous

Actual scholars disagree.

Did the Declaration of Independence establish the foundation of the American government?

Answer (1 of 11): All that’s quoted today is the Preamble which sounds stirring, but at the time functioned as a cover letter for the long laundry list of grievances, made as long as possible including even solved issues like the 1763 western lands proclamation. The Americans had already been ar...

www.quora.com

It did not. The Declaration of Independence was written to establish the US as a sovereign state so it could seek aid from France and Spain. While it was a civil war, foreign governments were loathe to get involved. But if the US was an independent country, France and Spain would be more willing to provide and and money. The Declaration worked and France and Spain agreed to supply money and arms to the new country. An excellent book describing why this happened is “Brothers at Arms” by Larrie Ferreiro

Feel free to cite the experts who agree with you.

 

[BCP1928]

You are entitled to your opinion; even when it flies in the face of evidence to the contrary.

If they thought Christian nationhood was such a hot idea, why isn't it in the Constitution?