|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 9, 2014 23:31:28 GMT
"Proliferation of mistruths". Wasn't that phrase last used in the Treaty of Versailles?
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 10, 2014 3:03:56 GMT
Well, then I'm sure we'll see you on our annual 'How dare people go to restaurants on Thanksgiving!' thread. No turkey for you! Come back one year!
|
|
|
Post by gypsymama on Jul 10, 2014 3:46:49 GMT
glad its not just me... and for what its worth, the people i know who work retail desperately depend on those night/weekend hours and would not survive if their saturday and sunday hours were all cut!
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 10, 2014 5:28:28 GMT
glad its not just me... and for what its worth, the people i know who work retail desperately depend on those night/weekend hours and would not survive if their saturday and sunday hours were all cut! That would be because they are not being paid a living wage, either in retail or their primary job (or spouses'), but that is a topic for another thread...
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Jul 10, 2014 10:05:33 GMT
glad its not just me... and for what its worth, the people i know who work retail desperately depend on those night/weekend hours and would not survive if their saturday and sunday hours were all cut! Those are the hours that got me through university with minimal debt.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 10, 2014 11:07:37 GMT
glad its not just me... and for what its worth, the people i know who work retail desperately depend on those night/weekend hours and would not survive if their saturday and sunday hours were all cut! Those are the hours that got me through university with minimal debt. Again, students over here don't have to shoulder the heavy debt burden of higher and/or continuing education either... different way of life...
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Jul 10, 2014 12:09:57 GMT
Those are the hours that got me through university with minimal debt. Again, students over here don't have to shoulder the heavy debt burden of higher and/or continuing education either... different way of life... And I paid just over $500 for tuition thanks to an 18-year tuition freeze. But I still had to eat. ETA - To be fair, those in liquor sales here make $15-20/hr.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jul 10, 2014 12:24:49 GMT
"Proliferation of mistruths". Wasn't that phrase last used in the Treaty of Versailles? I think it is perfect. To my oldest who tends to manipulate the truth to serve his own purposes- "child, your proliferation of mistruths is getting on my last nerve. You have 1 minute to come into compliance or I will start imposing economic sanctions." This is going to be fun.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 12:14:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 14:05:54 GMT
Sorry all, I have been traveling, and recovering from traveling (ie mounds and mounds of laundry), so I havent been back until now.
I haven't read any more of the thread, except this last page. Re: blue laws...in the spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, local and state blue laws were perfectly legal and constitutional. The "separation of church and State" in the 1st amendment was imposed upon the Federal government only. States were free to impose their own religious rules if they saw fit.
I actually picked up a book before we left Williamsburg, and I am totally enthralled with it (and I am only into the 2nd chapter!) It's called "Founding Faith - How our FF's forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty", by Steven Waldman.
Here is one paragraph from the introduction that I would like to share:
"Since each evolved throughout his lifetime - and differed from his comrades in significant ways - it is nonsensical to generalize too much about what "the Founding Fathers believed." However, they did share several common traits: Each felt religion was extremely important, at a minimum to encourage moral behavior and make the land safe for republican government; each took faith seriously enough to conscientiously seek out a personal path that worked for him; each rejected major aspects of his childhood religion; and none accepted the full bundle of creeds offered by his denomination. In other words, they were spiritual enough to care passionately about religious freedom, but not so dogmatic that they felt duty-bound to promote a particular faith. This combination led them to promote religious freedom rather than religion."
"The birth of religious freedom was not inevitable. The FF's contemplated the approach taken by their grandfathers for more than a century - and rejected it. Thru a variety of battles - some local, some national, some born of enlightenment and some of parochialism - these men and women helped create a radical new three-part creed:
"-Religion is essential to the flourishing of a republic. -To thrive, religion needs less help, not more, from the state. -God gave all humans the right to full religious freedom.
The Founding Faith, then, was not Christianity, and it was not secularism. It was religious liberty - a revolutionary formula for promoting faith, by leaving it alone."
|
|
|
Post by shescrafty on Jul 10, 2014 18:14:11 GMT
The book seems clearly written to highlight what the FFs did to make faith important in their country. The author has a clear message so of course the whole book is going to be written to side with what he (the author) agrees with.
Just because someone writes things down in a book does not mean it is all true or interpreted correctly. Even in the blurb you quoted the author is exercising his own opinion and interpretation of the actions of the FFs.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 11, 2014 0:27:04 GMT
I agree with that author. I think his opinion is pretty firmly based on primary source documents that should lead us all to a similar conclusion- the Founding Fathers were diverse and even individually grew and changed a bit in personal philosophies and theological views. But the sentiment they each ascribed to as they brought their collection of beliefs together to form a foundation for our government was that religion is very important to a society. So important that it needed to be genuinely arrived at and not mandated, and that in order for religion to flourish in this nation, it's best that the federal government let it be without regulating or establishing it. When you get past all the people arguing for a "side" and read what we've all written collectively, it's pretty much the same conclusion the author came to- The Founding Fathers were diverse, and even changed their own views at different times in their lives. The Federal Government was purposefully restricted from regulating and establishing religious beliefs. We're both right- it wasn't founded upon Christianity. But it also wasn't founded upon secularism.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 11, 2014 7:12:36 GMT
I don't think anyone has ever claimed we were founded on secularism.
Everyone knows our Western civilization was shaped by Christianity. Everyone knows it is the dominant religion. Everyone knows that many, perhaps most, Founding Fathers were Christian, some quite devout. Everyone knows (or should know) that the Founding Fathers, to a man, had always lived with a state religion and had no experience with any other way of life, pre-first amendment.
The salient point is that, given all of the above, the Founding Fathers still chose to give us freedom of religion. They chose to leave the word God out of the Constitution. No state religion. No second-class citizens due to religion. No oaths, no forced faith.
There is no excuse for anyone to ever claim that this is a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers affirmatively chose not to make it so.
|
|