Ha TooCurious, how things going.
Not bad, thank you. How are things with you?
Well, In speaking frankly.The Christian migrated here and understanding the true meaning of what it means to be free.
Well, in New England and some other parts of the Northeast, colonies were indeed formed by people seeking religious freedom. However, other colonies (such as Virginia) were founded largely to pursue business ventures, and Georgia was initially a penal colony. What you're presenting is a very incomplete picture of colonial America. Even then, many of the religiously-founded colonies did not advocate freedom of religion for all, but only for their own sect; those who were more accepting of religious freedom for all (such as Roger Williams, who was exiled from Massachusetts for his beliefs) were notable exceptions.
Formatted the constitution based on that all men are created equal and much of the understand came from the word of God/bible and there experience of the king of England in contrast.
Actually, much of their understanding came from Enlightenment political philosophy. Exactly what parts of the Constitution do you believed to be influenced by the Bible? Because I'm really not seeing it.
How ever in our arrogance in peace. We have to understand basic laws of truth which equals Principle of common ground.In which to have understanding of liberty's that we should see to hold on to you have had to have lived in persecution. Generational out of ignorance we give up what we have not fully experienced.
I would agree that we should not be so quick to surrender certain essential liberties -- or to take them away from others.
Boldly stated If you don't understand the bible and our forefathers.( On the bases of liberty) How do you expect to understand the constitution.
Presumably, by understanding the historical and cultural climate of the time and Enlightenment political philosophy. The writings of Paine, Locke, and Rousseau should prove very helpful in that regard -- as, in fact, should the letters and writings of the authors of the Constitution and the founders of this country. After all, the Constitution is not, as far as I can tell, based on the Bible in any meaningful way.
Liberty is based on creating life not smothering,suppression,tyranny.
Wait. How exactly is liberty supposed to be based on "creating life"? I was under the impression that liberty was about protecting the life, liberty, and property of the individual against the arbitrary and particular will of the majority.
Based on roles of basic natural logical laws.With a moral out look. In a reality of Right and wrong.
Wait, again. Now you're introducing a new concept ("morality-based laws") that doesn't seem connected with anything that you've said before. And there's an important question here that you're not answering: WHOSE morality? That's what the topic of this entire thread has been about: different people and groups have different moral standards. We need certain basic laws and restrictions to keep society functioning, but beyond those, how is it valid to force one particular group's set of moral beliefs onto other people who may not agree with those beliefs?
So
does this explain more in understanding the lateral posting Simplicity of laws are basic in morality. Giving us limited laws and freedom. Not controlling every agenda and variables people have. To Govern people fairly and limited by law can only come from Morality based laws.
No, I'm afraid it doesn't explain at all. Laws and morality are (and must be) two separate things. We have laws to keep a certain general order to society and preserve the ability to have everyday interactions. Laws against murder exist to protect the citizens and to keep order, not because murder is "morally wrong" (although it is). There is no moral imperative associated with driving on the right side of the road in America, or driving on the left side of the road in other parts of the world; the laws simply exist to keep traffic orderly and to help prevent accidents. Law should not be derived from the particular moral code of a given individual or group; that is the exact opposite of fair governance.