Lawmaker Apologizes

Based upon the Declaration of Independence, he is wrong. But no one can "prove" it either way since there are no extant Founding Fathers.

 

Uh huh. Although men of great courage and vision, I doubt the founding fathers were as all knowing and all seeing as we'd like to believe. They were afflicted with most of the same prejudices and foibles as we are today.

Maybe even more so, since slavery was legal and accepted. I wonder how many of them actually envisioned a black Congressman, let alone President.

Or a Hindu prayer to start the day.

 

The Founding Fathers were very, very, very divided on the slavery issue.

My premise is that if they were alive today that they would not have a problem with a non-white male of non-European descent and non-Christian serving in the Congress.

 

A different time period, moondg. Context is everything when discussing history.

 

So do really contend that our founding fathers would want an America today run by white, land-owning, Christian males, over 21, of European descent?

 

What they would want is not the point. Although, in answer to your question, you might think about who they gave voting rights to.

Based on what they knew about the world they lived in, what they could have envisioned is the question.

 

Were that case preserved till today, I believe we'd have experienced far fewer problems. Clearly the Bible doesn't condone many women in high, decision making positions, in the Church or civilian positions. And I believe with time, race would have been a waning factor.

 

It is unfortunate that Ken, who quoted this, won't actually live by it when it comes to those who disagree with him. You want to throw out all kinds of vitriole towards Bush and the "neo-cons" as well as people like me who have never done anything but offer opinions (most of which are less biased than yours) and yet you persist in tearing them down.

 

I believe that we'd have the same amount of problems, maybe even more under your scenario of excluding non-white males of European descent from voting and holding government office.

 

I am doing nothing different than the Christian right-wingers who post on this board.

 

There is no Biblical warrant for such a statement.

 

Let's assume that's true. Are you seriously arguing that that makes it okay? The fact that someone else sins with their tongue does not justify your sin with your tongue.

 

I never said that it did.

 

So you are admitting that you should not have done it but are not repenting and confessing it? Come on Ken, at least make some effort to be biblical in this. I think many of the right wingers here are totally out of line in what they say. I don't defend them. And I certainly won't defend you when you do the same.

 

Of all the people who post on this board I am probably the worst sinner of the whole bunch.

By the way, I have to repent and repent and repent every day.

 

I didn't say they should exclude anyone but women. I said the non-white's would have earned their fair place in the govt. if the founders were to take their own words seriously. And I personally believe in the idea that voters should be property owners. The politicians wouldn't spend the money that they do today to "buy" the poor's votes.

 

There aren't many "non-white males of European descent". :laugh:

 

Make that "excluding anyone who is not a white male of European descent".

 

I know, and I'm surprised I caught it.