Germany was originaly founded as "The holy Roman Empire of German Nationhood" it was founded to be the great protector of christian Europe and to have unquestionable sovereignty over all of Europe. Which created the idea that a German nation would have the unquestionable right to be the supreme ruler and power of Europe.


We see how well that worked out.


I find it really scary that people in the US point to "wisdomes" from the era of atlantic slave trade, syphilis and other crap, to back up their political views.
To me the concept of "a glorious past" is a fraud only used by people in politics who do not have good and democratic intentions.

(July 22, 2013 at 11:36 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Take this CNN article I just read about Thomas Jefferson and see for yourself how the debate on guns has brought our "paradoxical" 200-year old man to the forefront of the discussion when, in many cases, he should not be included at all.

Why not? Jefferson is often quoted during debates over the first amendment. He is after all the person credited with the phrase "building a wall of separation between Church & State." If his opinion of the meaning of the first amendment is relevant why would his opinion of the second amendment be any less so?

I would also be careful with CNN's suggestion that we change the law. After all if a super majority of the population were to decide the second amendment needs to be changed to do away with the right to keep and bear arms, what is to keep the seventy plus percent of Americans that identify as Christians from changing the first amendment to declare the US a Christian nation should they desire to do so?

Or like this quoted attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

Quote:“A lighthouse is more useful than a church.”

With the real quote being this.

Quote:"The bell ringing for church, we went thither immediately, and with hearts full of gratitude, returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received: were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."

Or even this one.

Quote:Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

The actual quote.

Quote:"Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy."

(July 23, 2013 at 9:48 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(July 22, 2013 at 11:36 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Take this CNN article I just read about Thomas Jefferson and see for yourself how the debate on guns has brought our "paradoxical" 200-year old man to the forefront of the discussion when, in many cases, he should not be included at all.

Why not? Jefferson is often quoted during debates over the first amendment. He is after all the person credited with the phrase "building a wall of separation between Church & State." If his opinion of the meaning of the first amendment is relevant why would his opinion of the second amendment be any less so?

I would also be careful with CNN's suggestion that we change the law. After all if a super majority of the population were to decide the second amendment needs to be changed to do away with the right to keep and bear arms, what is to keep the seventy plus percent of Americans that identify as Christians from changing the first amendment to declare the US a Christian nation should they desire to do so?

I think you're missing the point of the article. We should never cherry pick anything, and, that being said, we shouldn't take anything he says as an authoritative statement. However, Separation of Church and State is an idea that transcends generations, and though it's interesting that Jefferson spoke so highly of it back then, I think it's more important that we keep talking about it...not because the Founding Fathers said it, but because it's right.

Quote:If his opinion of the meaning of the first amendment is relevant why would his opinion of the second amendment be any less so?

Because....Jefferson was in Paris (as Ambassador to France) and had nothing to do with writing the constitution?

(July 23, 2013 at 10:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:If his opinion of the meaning of the first amendment is relevant why would his opinion of the second amendment be any less so?

Because....Jefferson was in Paris (as Ambassador to France) and had nothing to do with writing the constitution?

Yes Jefferson was in Paris. I refuse to believe though that you Min are not aware that Madison was a protege of Jefferson, or that while in Paris Jefferson wrote several letters to Madison that influenced the contents of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The later by the way being something Madison initially opposed.

The Constitutional Convention began at the end of May, 1787 and the completed document was finished and voted upon by mid September. Depending on the winds that would have been time enough for a letter to get from Philadelphia to Paris but whether or not an answer could have been received in time is doubtful.

Madison and the rest were on their own.

(July 23, 2013 at 9:26 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: Germany was originaly founded as "The holy Roman Empire of German Nationhood" it was founded to be the great protector of christian Europe and to have unquestionable sovereignty over all of Europe. Which created the idea that a German nation would have the unquestionable right to be the supreme ruler and power of Europe.


We see how well that worked out.


I find it really scary that people in the US point to "wisdomes" from the era of atlantic slave trade, syphilis and other crap, to back up their political views.
To me the concept of "a glorious past" is a fraud only used by people in politics who do not have good and democratic intentions.

The founders of the U.S., especially the authors of its Constitution, were gentlemen of The Enlightenment. The U.S. Constitution is a brilliant document, an architecture for government that has stood up well due to its clarity and flexibility.

Is it perfect? No. Is it mutable? Yes, and that is part of their genius.

So I suggest you be not quite so dismissive of hearkening back to their writings and ideas.


And before you all start in, I'm a Canadian.

(July 23, 2013 at 10:08 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I think you're missing the point of the article. We should never cherry pick anything, and, that being said, we shouldn't take anything he says as an authoritative statement. However, Separation of Church and State is an idea that transcends generations, and though it's interesting that Jefferson spoke so highly of it back then, I think it's more important that we keep talking about it...not because the Founding Fathers said it, but because it's right.

I didn't miss the point BWS. That cherry picking, lying and not checking your sources on important issues is bad goes without saying. I will add that I do not believe the second amendment is any less relevant today than the first, fourth, fifth or sixth. I do find it rather disturbing though that you fail to recognize the bias in the article you linked.

I'll concede the point of bias, but I still think it's interesting. Chas has a good point, that, while it is a brilliant document, it is mutable. The men who wrote the thing aren't alive today, so if we feel the need to change anything, that is completely up to us.