Comment by Richard E. Robertson on August 8, 2012 at 11:32am

@Michael M. 

Huh?

The Founders did have a few slave owners, but the majority weren't. And in one case the slaves were inherited and the laws in his community at the time prevented him from freeing them.

And why do you hope they were devout Christians? Historically they weren't - that was the point of the article.

Comment by Richard E. Robertson on August 8, 2012 at 12:09pm

The "original" Constitution did not legalize slavery - it simply acknowledged the fact that it already existed substantially and had a clause that existed to start curtailing it. 

At last check there was only one or two known practicing Christians in the whole bunch. Most were deists or other free thinkers.

Thomas Jefferson was a secularist AND a slave owner. He had no choice in the matter. He had slaves willed to him by a relative when they died, and the laws of his colony/state forbade him simply freeing them. What do you mean "no excuse" The term "Secularist" does NOT mean "pure moral thought and conduct".  They acted according to the mores and common beliefs of the day. It sounds like you are committing the "psychologists/historians fallacy" there.

Comment by Richard E. Robertson on August 8, 2012 at 1:24pm

Naturally out comes the ad hominem. There is no romanticization going on. It's simple awareness of the actual history and culture of the time. The phrase "There is no excuse for..." when applied to a person is denying their very existence is unjustified -  a logical fallacy. And not all secularist have come to the conclusion that there is no deity. And you are still applying modern standards to historical figures. That's called the "Historians Fallacy" - it's a well know logical error.

And the Constitution did in fact have a clause that attempted to restrict slavery. It forbade the importation of any further slaves after a certain date. The idea was to let the course of time deal with the issue of slavery. Slave owners in the southern United States HATED that law. They actually were granting (where it was lawful) to give their female slaves their freedom in exchange for having babies. As a group those slave owners were indeed generally corrupt, but the political reality of the day was that they were wealthy and politically powerful. There weren't that many, but they had influence far in excess of their numbers. 

A cop out because they didn't focus on a single issue? They had much more pressing concerns than the issue of slavery at the time. To demand that they have considered one such issue that could be (and was) resolved at a future date to be overriding is pure hubris and arrogance. And if you bothered to read the history of the Constitution (which I doubt since you've just revealed you haven't read much of the document itself) you would discover a major figure in the ratification quit over the slavery issue - he was strongly against it and wanted it outright prohibited (Hanson was his name). And this was a person that had the stature and public respect granted to Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin in that day.

Back civil rights? There were public battles over the Bill of Rights, and the very people you accuse are the ones who were their staunchest supporters. The very reason the groups you mention have been able to progress as they have is the result of their work. You really fail to grasp what was possible legally and politically in their day. 

All you are doing is coming off as is sounding ignorant and arrogant. 

 

Comment by JustNorrik on August 8, 2012 at 1:34pm

The point I was making was that Christians love to tout how wonderful things would be if we used Christian beliefs instead of secular beliefs. But it was secular beliefs that allowed the founding fathers to come to an agreement and make the better call of keeping the church and state separate. 

As for slavery, as disgusting as it is now, culturally 200+ years ago many views and opinions were not the same as today. Owning slaves back then was still not such a big deal, that doesn't mean owning slaves now is justified, as our culture has evolved to recognize slavery as evil.
Christian's have to reconcile owning slaves as it says it's perfectly okay to do so in the bible.

Another slave issue isn't who owned slaves, but how did they treat them? if they were worked into the ground and had little provided for we can agree that is evil and is a far worse scenario than slaves having lite work duties in exchange for housing, food, clothing and medicine, not to mention freedom to move about the community. Slavery wasn't all evil, some did provide good care in exchange for work, doesn't mean owning another person is ok, but how do we define "owning"? I could argue those I owe money to, own me, as the fruits of my working hard goes to them and I cannot refuse to work or not pay them. I can also address a portion of Europeans who came to the US did so as indentured servants, aka slavery. Most never paid off their debts, and in some even worse cases their children didn't either.
One also forgets some slaves during that time period lived better than most free people in poverty did. I don't get to travel much, but Thomas Jefferson's slaves got to travel quite a bit around the world. 
    
I won't argue slavery isn't evil, or inequality isn't bad, but using generalized statements such as "well he owned slaves = he's evil", without analysing all the factors involved shows a bias towards a specific view of history.

    

Comment by Richard E. Robertson on August 8, 2012 at 2:10pm

I can admire the work of an artist and still not admire the artist. You are the one imputing a sense of admiration to others. 

I don't have to justify admiration that doesn't exist except in your imagination.

And you would worship a stone likeness of a human? 

Your previous statements about slave owners demonstrate a perception of evil that you outright deny later. 

And if you have been on these boards very long, you will find that the justification of "It's my opinion" without any justification of that opinion is not well received. It's a denial of personal accountability. It's a common trait of bully's, criminals, and other assholes or, as you called them "pieces of shit". And since it looks like your arguments appear to the work of a troll (also pieces of shit), that seems to a self-supporting conclusion. 

No one expects you too (unless you are around religious idiots- they like that kind of mindless exercise).

I have no interest.

I rather doubt it - they are dead and beyond any hope or care by centuries. 

You are either a troll, or a young man with patterns of delusion and grandiosity. In any case I see no point in further feeding your pathology.

@JustNorrik - Good original post and followup response. I just wish you had had a better first respondent. I'll try not to derail this topic any further if possible.

Comment by JustNorrik on August 8, 2012 at 2:19pm

I don't admire anyone for them being who they are, I do admire their actions among the culture they lived in. In a vastly overwhelming Christian culture, to pass the Bill of Rights, where the church and state are separate was impressive. 

If you don't think its impressive, think how liberal Christians are today compared to 200+ years ago. The Salem witch trials took place in the late 1600's, less than 100 years from the Constitution being written. In less than 100 years from the public murders of Salem, do you think they stopped believing in witchcraft? or other issues that today we've dismissed? 

Those "pieces of &^%" as you call them were the only one's who stood between you living in an outright theocracy, where slave ownership might still be going on today and what you live in today where you enjoy freedom to not be religious. I'd cut those guys some slack for making the call they did, rather than complain they didn't do enough...  
But that's my opinion... 

Comment