What do we tell the children?

[Dachshynddawg]

What if he has Protestant , Presbyterian, Mormon , or Lutheran values ?

With the exception of one man (who was a Catholic), all of other 55 Founding Fathers of the United States were White Anglo-Protestant men.

These men framed America's Constitution/Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.

It doesn't matter that much which Christian denominations the Founding Fathers and their generation belonged to because (whether they were consciously aware of it or nor) they essentially drew their view of Human Nature from the classical Christian tradition.

In 1776 you can think of America as being a gigantic, political project that is an exercise in classical liberalism. The challenge is to build a new society where the most important characteristic is maximal individual FREEDOM for all citizen. The Founders think to themselves prioritising individual FREEDOM means that we keep the size of the government small. We would be taking a risk, because if we don't manage to work out just how big the state needs to be to maintain civil order, we could find things start to go pear-shaped BIG TIME

To sum up...


In creating of the new American Republic, the Founders were staking everything on a courageous "roll of the dice" and they knew it. They had wagered everything on one proposition that the majority of individual citizens in the United States would be capable of competent self-regulation. Self-regulation or self-control, self-discipline. For any human individual who is afflicted with a serious lack of self-control will never possess freedom ( or liberty).



The Founders understood FREEDOM of LIBERTY as a moral/spiritual concept, that was grounded on the Divine (God-given) nature of human CONSCIENCE.


Lord Action's was a 19th century Victorian English aristocrat who devoted a lifetime to the study of political freedom and power. He defines liberty as follows...



"Liberty is not the power of doing whatever we like, but the RIGHT of being able to do what we OUGHT."


and...


"Liberty is the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty (his MORAL obligation/s) against the influence of authority and majorities, customs and opinions."



Lord Acton is referring to an individual's CONSCIENCE. It is through our conscience we become aware of our deeply held moral principles. It is conscience that establishes a general sense of moral obligation in the individual's mind. God (Biblical) has "carved" his moral law on the heart of each man. If a man has a well-formed conscience- one that has not been corrupted by absolute power, or the experience of, say, living in a totalitarian social state, or , indeed, an affliction with some kind of severe psychiatric disorder (like High-Functioning Autism or Psychopathy or Schizoid Personality Disorder) - then he has the capacity to experience genuine, individual FREEDOM.



So for the Founders, the "name of the game" was FREEDOM/LIBERTY- that was the most important criterion. Just like the State of New Hampshire's motto: for Hamilton; Washington; Madison; Monroe Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and all the rest, what an individual man should do with his life was to "LIVE FREE OR DIE". (Where FREEDOM is a Christian concept that requires faith in the Divine nature of human CONSCIENCE).




Dachshund

 

[StoneByStone]

With the exception of one man (who was a Catholic), all of other 55 Founding Fathers of the United States were White Anglo-Protestant men.

These men framed America's Constitution/Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.

It doesn't matter that much which Christian denominations the Founding Fathers and their generation belonged to because (whether they were consciously aware of it or nor) they essentially drew their view of Human Nature from the classical Christian tradition.

In 1776 you can think of America as being a gigantic, political project that is an exercise in classical liberalism. The challenge is to build a new society where the most important characteristic is maximal individual FREEDOM for all citizen. The Founders think to themselves prioritising individual FREEDOM means that we keep the size of the government small. We would be taking a risk, because if we don't manage to work out just how big the state needs to be to maintain civil order, we could find things start to go pear-shaped BIG TIME

To sum up...

In creating of the new American Republic, the Founders were staking everything on a courageous "roll of the dice" and they knew it. They had wagered everything on one proposition that the majority of individual citizens in the United States would be capable of competent self-regulation. Self-regulation or self-control, self-discipline. For any human individual who is afflicted with a serious lack of self-control will never possess freedom ( or liberty).


The Founders understood FREEDOM of LIBERTY as a moral/spiritual concept.

Lord Action's was a 19th century Victorian English aristocrat who devoted a lifetime to the study of political freedom and power. He defines liberty as follows...


"Liberty is not the power of doing whatever we like, but the RIGHT of being able to do what we OUGHT."

and...


"Liberty is the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, customs and opinions."


Lord Acton is referring to an individual's CONSCIENCE. It is through our conscience we become aware of our deeply held moral principles

That's a lot of work to avoid answering a question.

Should the president have Christian values?

 

[anatta]

That's a lot of work to avoid answering a question.

Should the president have Christian values?

you should appreciate that work,,it's correct and instructive on what the Founders wanted from government.
Limited in scope ( by enumerated powers ) so as not to impinge on liberties, but nimble enough to protect the common good of the pre-amble.

Most important the Founders did not want an intrusive government into the marketplace
or stifling regulations that made government the focus of commercial activities.

Generally "less is better" because government can never be dynamic like entrepreneurs .
Socialist fail to understand this in their ever more burdensome quest for fairness

 

[StoneByStone]

you should appreciate that work,,it's correct and instructive on what the Founders wanted from government.
Limited in scope ( by enumerated powers ) so as not to impinge on liberties, but nimble enough to protect the common good of the pre-amble.

Most important the Founders did not want an intrusive government into the marketplace
or stifling regulations that made government the focus of commercial activities.

Generally "less is better" because government can never be dynamic like entrepreneurs .
Socialist fail to understand this in their ever more burdensome quest for fairness

Should the president have Christian values?

 

[anatta]

Should the president have Christian values?

fucking dumb ass dotard. talking to you is a waste of time because of your continual willful ignorance

 

[StoneByStone]

fucking dumb ass dotard. talking to you is a waste of time because of your continual willful ignorance

Just trying to get the Fascists to give a simple answer.

 

[Dachshynddawg]

That's a lot of work to avoid answering a question.

Should the president have Christian values?

I think he does INHERENTLY respect the fundamental precepts/principle of Christian morality.


But human beings are not perfect, they make mistakes and sometimes they act against their better judgement. This is especially the case if a single man is given a tremendous responsibliity, i.e; to be President of the United States, and not just that but is then viciously attacked by a confederacy of political enemies in the opposition party and by the leftist media, all determined to bring him down using ANY smear, hoax or dirty trick they think might work. If you want an example of a thoroughly immoral American politician, Adam Schiff's a prime example; he is a corrupt, pathological liar who is totally bereft of any scintilla of conscience. Schiff knows this about himself, but to make matters worse (morally speaking) he just doesn't give a FUCK.


Trump fucked Stormy Daniels ? SO WHAT! (I wouldn't screw her myself, she's not my cup of tea) Paying to screw a porn star if you are a married man is certainly the WRONG thing to do, but if you look at the big picture and consider of what GOOD things he has managed to do for the well being and prosperity of America there are lots things to ofset the BADS like fucking Stormy Daniels or bragging about grabbing young women by the pussy ! For example He's made the lives of millions of blue-collar workers better by bring manufacturing back to the, signing the USMCA And recent China trade deals, this will bring back jobs to America and lift wages for many workers, he's also got heap of unemployed Americans from ethnic minority groups (African-American, Hispanic, Asian) back into the work workforce, he's saved lives by passing "Right to Try". Wall Street has been singing like a bird under Trump with many record highs
"

In short, Trump (BY HIMSELF through the sheer force of his will) has done a lot of (moral) GOOD (and I'm using that term in its Christian context) since he was elected to office in 2016.


As for the Democrats, they've DONE NOTHING - just sit on their arses and bitch and get nasty because they last the last election. What a bunch of LOSERS !


Dachshund

 

[StoneByStone]

I think he does INHERENTLY respect the fundamental precepts/principle of Christian morality.


But human being are not perfect, they make mistakes and sometime act against their better judgement. This is especially the case if a single man is given a tremedous responsiblity, i.e; to be President of the United States, and not just that but is viciously attacked by a confederacy of enemies in the opposition party and the leftist media determined to bring him down using ANY smear, hoax or dirty trick they think might work. If you want an example of a thoroughly immoral American politician, Adam Schiff's a prime example; he is a pathological liar who is totally bereft of any scintilla of conscience. Schiff knows this about himself, but to make matters worse (morally speaking) he just doesn't give a FUCK.


Trump fucked Stormy Daniels ? SO WHAT! (I wouldn't screw her myself, she's not my cup of tea) He's also made the lives of millions of blue-collar worker by improving their wages, he's also got heap of unemployed Americans (including those from ethnic minority groups back into the work workforce, he's saved lives by passing "Right to Try.
"

In short, Trump (BY HIMSELF) has done a lot of GOOD (and I'm using that term in its moral context) since he was elected in 2016.


As for the Democrats, they've DONE NOTHING - just sit on their arses and bitch because they last the last election. What a bunch of LOSERS !


Dachshund

So should we be concerned with a president's personal life and values, or only what they do as president?

 

[Dachshynddawg]

OF COURSE !!! Every President of the US should be a Christian, or at least take his moral lessons from scripture BECAUSE the Constitution is an implicitly Christian document, likewise the Declaration of Independence.

All 56 of the Founding Fathers were brought up in the classical Christian tradition, compared to Christians today, they were much stricter in their observance of the need to always try and do the RIGHT (morally good according to Christian teaching) and avoid evil (the WRONG). They weren't FUCKING Muslims, were they ?? !! I mean how would you like it if the Ayatollah Khomeini came back to run against Trump in Nov 2020 and beat him?

Once again, bear in mind that Christians are flawed and imperfect human beings. All that they can do in the end is STRIVE to follow what their conscience tells them is the RIGHT path

 

[anatta]

So should we be concerned with a president's personal life and values, or only what they do as president?

he/she has to faithfully discharge the oathe of office is the only Constitutional requirement

 

[Bigdog]

he/she has to faithfully discharge the oathe of office is the only Constitutional requirement

Yep

Stoney does not want to hold Black Christians to the same standard she wants for Whites.

Interesting side note ...

"RELIGIOUS TESTS AND OATHS IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS, 1776-1784
Nine out of thirteen states had some sort of religious test requirement for officeholders in their constitutions."

https://csac.history.wisc.edu/docum...s-and-oaths-in-state-constitutions-1776-1784/

 

[Earl]

So should we be concerned with a president's personal life and values, or only what they do as president?

Are you speaking of Bill Clinton?

 

[CFM]

Shutup Goat fucker!

^^^^^A faggot just like mayor Pete.

 

[CFM]

So should we be concerned with a president's personal life and values, or only what they do as president?

You lefties are only concerned when it's not a lefty in office. When one is, you change whether or not it should be considered.

 

[CFM]

Failed logic. Do two consenting same-sex adults result in offsprings? No? Then your comparison is retarded.

Failed excuse. The faggot argument didn't mention offspring.

Are you saying that all marriages produce offspring?

 

[CFM]

And Bill?

Perhaps you should ask StoneByStone. That leftwing dumbass keeps calling Trump a rapist yet has failed to show a conviction date. Using SBS's logic, no proof has to be given for it to be true.

 

[CFM]

Because of poly-phobia lol?

You’re right: once the door was opened to give gays *more rights* than polygamists—any argument against polygamy went out the window.

And it’s just a matter of time before it comes up. Surprised it hasn’t already.

The sock AProudLefty tried to bring in the offspring argument to say this wasn't a valid argument.

I don't recall the homo argument mentioning anything about offspring. Do you?

 

[CFM]

I don’t care how many marriages they have had, how many prostitutes they have slept with, how many kids out of wedlock...

Until they attack someone else’s marriage

Rush Limbaugh! TRUMPPERS!!!

Any lefty that's had multiple marriages that attack Trump on that topic?

Whoopie Goldberg?

 

[Dachshynddawg]

So should we be concerned with a president's personal life and values, or only what they do as president?

If a POTUS is a consistently, thoroughly bad, (immoral) man in terms of how he behaves in his private life and in terms of holding values that are harmful to himself and other and/or habitually pursues life- denying - as opposed to life- affirming - principles of conduct. Or, if he is a philosophical nihilist, a moral/epistemic relativist, a hardened skeptic, he would not be CAPABLE of competently discharging his Oath of Office because that oath requires him to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the US and its "Bill of Rights and these are grounded on a set of objective moral laws that were divinely ordained (i.e, ordained by the Biblical God).


Here's the full Oath of Office that President-elect Trump took in 2016...


"I Donald Trump do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the very best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


A man who was a thoroughly bad (immoral) man, in the sense that bad actions and immoral behaviours are specified in the Christian religion and its sacred scripture. would never be able to honour this Presidential "Oath of Office", because the Constitution and its "Bill of Rights" are inspired by - and perfused throughout with - (1) the political philosophy of classic Liberalism (which is most concerned with ensuring the FREEDOM of the individual) and (2) the principle moral precepts of the classical Christian tradition. As a feminist might say, it would be like trying to get a fish to ride a bicycle.


Dachshund

 

[CFM]

And he admitted that he hits on married women. If Obama did that, Republicans would be demanding that we bring CHRISTIAN VALUES back to America.

Obama preferred men.