Independence Day

@LeopoldBloom It was a word that G. Washington often used.
You are something of a hater of the flag and the republic and a cynical one at that.

@LamontCranston Christ what a boor he is🤮

@LamontCranston The Declaration of Independence mentions "providence," which was a Christian term for God and God's will at the time. It also mentions "nature's god," a Deistic term that Jefferson, a Deist, would have used.

I don't hate the US, I only hate conservative degenerates who want to turn this country into a dictatorship.

@Slade Projecting again?

@LeopoldBloom
"Providence" is capitalized in the Declaration, as Washington did in his writings.. I do not think that "Nature's God" is a specifically Deist term. The use of Providence, as Washington did, meant "divine guidance or care".
The religious beliefs of the Founders fell on a broad spectrum and were inconsistent over their lives. Jefferson may have been a Deist but his views were more complicated; it may simply be that he wasn't a Trinitarian. Franklin, although he referred to himself as being a Deist, told the delegates in Philadelphia,
“The longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth, That God governs in the affairs of men.”
See Michael and Jana Novak's book [i]Washington's God [/i] on Washington's theism.
If I meet any, I will also hate and oppose "conservative degenerates who want to turn this country into a dictatorship." I also hate and oppose persons of other stripes with such a goal.

@LamontCranston US law is based on the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. It's not surprising that the colonists evoked a concept of God in a document that countered the divine right of kings. However, the Constitution makes no mention of God, Jesus, Bible, Providence, or any divine entity.

Interestingly, the Confederate Constitution explicitly mentions "almighty God" as supporting their endeavor to preserve their right to work Black people to death. And despite the "states rights" argument, it gives the states [i]fewer[/i] rights with respect to the federal government than the 1787 Constitution does.

I'm encouraged by your last paragraph as you would be bound to oppose Republicans. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Moore v. Harper in their next term. This case seeks to allow state legislatures to ignore the will of the voters and award a state's electoral votes to the candidate they prefer. Among the unenumerated rights in the Constitution is the right to vote, so given their decisions this year, it's pretty clear how the court will rule. Of course, you don't have a problem with that as long as your side wins.

@LeopoldBloom I'm not sure what you are trying to say in this "Comment". There is no reason the Constitution needs to or should mention God or Providence. The Declaration is a Founding Document and the philosophical basis for our Republic.
Second paragraph: The Confederates lost the war and the Union survives. What does it have to do with anything being discussed?
Third Paragraph: Your typical contemptible cheap shot. I am confident the Court will decide the case as it should be decided.

@LamontCranston US law is based on the Constitution, not the DOI. If your argument is that the use of the word "providence" means the US should be a Christian theocracy, that's a stretch.

I was making the point that the Confederacy invoked God in their constitution, unlike the US constitution.

The Federalist Society hacks on the Supreme Court can be trusted to approve the conservative legislative agenda they were placed on the court to uphold. The only way the minority Republican party can cling to power is through voter suppression.

@LeopoldBloom Somehow this repsonse to one of your pieces of blather was left out, so I am happy to provide it now:
"@LeopoldBloom You are one of the few people I've encountered here who is "consumed with hatred"and you are unable to discuss without belittling and deprecating.
On Justice Ginsburg's views: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/
On abortion, there is very little public support for it after 15 weeks except in cases of threat to mother's health. So your hope on a constitution amendment is vain.
And you, as your last comment shows, still a nasty, bitter person. "
I do not argue for a Christian "theocracy". But we live in a a country that in its founding documents and the public utterane of its Founders and leaders recognized God. Many of the Founders were Freemasons and the idea of the grand Architect of the Universe appears throughout their writings.
When I make my next contribution to the Federalist Society , I'll make it in your name. DM me your real name and I'll be sure you get the credit for it. A very worthy scholarly society.
Your idea of voter suppression is any procedure which assures that each citizen gets to vote once only.

@LamontCranston It's one thing to say that Ginsburg didn't like Roe. I didn't like it myself, as I would have preferred a much firmer foundation for abortion rights. The fact remains that Ginsburg was firmly pro-choice.

You're also not describing the popular sentiment. Most people would support abortion for any reason up to 15 weeks, with later abortions allowed for rape, incest, threat to the mother's health, and severe fetal abnormalities. If you're implying that the majority is oppose to abortion for any reason after 15 weeks, that's simply wrong. Regardless, that's not what we will get with Dobbs, which allows states to ban abortion at any point for any reason. Ten states have passed bans that don't allow abortion in cases of rape. If you think a majority supports that, you're demented.

I don't understand why it's relevant what religion some of the framers followed. Many of them also owned slaves, didn't think women should be allowed to vote or own property, and lived in a sparsely-populated country that was mostly an agrarian backwater. Even assuming for the sake of argument that they intended the country to be "Christian," there is nothing in the Bible forbidding abortion, while there are many references to life beginning with the first breath. In short, the fundamentalist horror at abortion is purely political, not religious.

How about you send me your real name and I'll make a contribution in your name to the ACLU or NARAL. The Federalist Society pushes a view of America recognizable only to theocrats and oligarchs. What's sad is that the ACLU is actually on your side. The Federalists wouldn't hesitate to enslave people like you if they could get away with it.

Your idea of a fair election is when your side wins. As for people voting twice, most of those are Republicans.

@LeopoldBloom Some sense but a lot of nonsense in your reply. I'll keep it brief. What i said about Ginsburg which was true and which you did not refute was that she did not see the decision in [i]Roe[/i] as providing a sound constitutional basis for abortion.
Second paragraph: What I said and meant was what you said in second sentence: Most people would support abortion for any reason up to 15 weeks, with later abortions allowed for rape, incest, threat to the mother's health, and severe fetal abnormalities. Which is why I think any Roe-like constitutional amendment would fail.
[i]Dobbs[/i] allows states to ban but also allows states to allow abortions to birth, as some have.
Third para: You accused me of supporting a "Christian Theocracy" in previous post. And I simply explained that many of the Founders were men of faith and that informed their views. One thing that is clear is that I hold them in much higher regard than you do. It's still a free country.
You are incorrect on the Federalist Society AND on the ACLU. The former has brought constitutional interpretation back to originalism; the latter has moved dramatically away from supporting free speech, the organization I supported years ago. By the way, I do not know any theocrats or oligarchs.
On fair election, you could not resist a last cheap shot. But, if you agree that a system that allows each citizen to vote once is fair, we agree.

@LamontCranston I agree with Ginsburg that the constitutional basis for Roe was weak, with the result that even a hack like Alito was able to nullify it.

At least you agree that "most people" support abortion rights to some extent. At this point, a 15 week limit would be preferable to forcing ten year old rape victims to give birth. There's no reason why a constitutional amendment couldn't set limits and guidelines; without them, we can't rely on the courts to interpret them.

The faith of the founders was nothing like the fundamentalism we see today, and claiming that it was is historically inaccurate.

I'm in favor of allowing each citizen to vote once. The electoral college violates this principle as it results in a handful of voters in a few random states deciding elections.

I'm not in favor of forcing people to jump through hoops like having to produce documents requiring them to miss work, travel long distances, or perform other tricks in order to register. I grew up in California where polling places were in peoples' homes, and I never had to wait more than a few minutes to vote. I now live in Georgia where in some precincts, people wait for hours to vote. Anyone interested in free and fair elections should be outraged by this.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments next year in Moore v. Harper, which could result in partisan state legislatures being able to nullify the popular vote and award electoral votes to the candidate of their choosing. I assume you would oppose that as the concept of "one citizen, one vote" is out the window if votes don't actually count.

@LeopoldBloom So manty things which are, sad to say, defectrive in your post here. i only wish I had the time to take on each and every on. Right now i'm listening to [i]Don Giovanni[/i] (Boston Symphony at Tanglewood) one of the pinnacle artistic achievements of Western Civiliziation and need to experience it.
Perhaps I'll get to some or all of your issues at some point.

@LamontCranston Don't bother, your tendentious ramblings aren't worth the trouble to refute.

While I share your appreciation of Mozart, I'm not sure what "Western Civilization" has to do with it. Mozart had tremendous natural talent, possibly on a level only a handful of other people had, and he was born into an environment that nurtured it. His father basically sacrificed his own already respectable career to make sure his son had every possible opportunity. I give him a lot more credit than some vague and nebulous "Western Civilization."

You remind me of those modern Romans who are so proud of that city, even though they're not the ones who built it.

@LeopoldBloom ah, "tendentious ramblings".
You couldn't stick to a point if it were on a stake driven through your vampirish heart.

@LamontCranston I could say the same for you, with the addition of either right wing brainwashing or willful ignorance. Not being able to follow an argument doesn't mean your opponent can't stick to a point; it means you're in over your head.

Tell the truth, you had to look up "tendentious," didn't you.

@LeopoldBloom No. But it was such a beatiful irony that you used the phrase in the course of your tendentious ramblings.
I firmly believe you underestimate everyone except yourself, Leopold.

@LamontCranston I don't underestimate you. You seem fairly intelligent. In fact, I'm wondering if you're a sock puppet of another guy on here who is very similar to you. I just think you've been indoctrinated by a particularly American form of pseudo-Christianity, and you've bought into it completely.

Even though I'm an atheist, I actually admire many Christians: Jimmy Carter, Pope Francis (to a point), Fred Rogers, Pete Buttigieg, Francis Schaeffer, John Shelby Spong, John Shore, Kim Bobo, and others. These people are following the kind of Christianity that Jesus would have recognized, unlike the degenerate form promoted by loudmouth grifters and wannabe Taliban.

@LeopoldBloom How about Arthur C. Brooks?
I suppose we have our own heroes. I personally think John XXIII was greatest pope of the last century and Teilhard de Chardin the greatest thinker.
I'd be more worried about the real Taliban than the pseudo-Christians you seem to have multiplied in your mind.

@LamontCranston The real Taliban is on the other side of the world. I'm more concerned about the "pseudo-Christians" in my own country. At least you admit that the psychopaths pushing a conservative agenda in the name of Jesus aren't real Christians.

I have no respect for conservative ideologues like Arthur C. Brooks who are pushing a libertarian agenda while taking full advantage of the regulatory state.

It's unfortunate that John XXIII didn't live longer as he was pushing the church in a more liberal direction.

@LeopoldBloom "i have no respect" is pretty mch your mantra. But now, you should read Nate Hochman's groundbreaking essay in the NYT about The Secular Right.

@LamontCranston There used to be a secular right. They didn't care about abortion or any of the culture war issues. Barry Goldwater would have been a good example of this. He warned the Republicans about the religious right, and then the senile Ronald Reagan let them in for their support, and the GOP hasn't been the same since.

I wouldn't support the secular right, either, as their main goals are ending government regulation of business and cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy. In other words, libertarian lite.

@LeopoldBloom I have a clear idea of whom and what you don't like. The only reason I would want to know is in case I've otherwise missed some worthwhile person or organization. Your dismissal of Arthur Brooks show that your judgement is seriously flawed.

@LamontCranston I notice you didn't comment on the names I mentioned. I have a low opinion of religious conservatives, who are very often promoting policies that Jesus wouldn't recognize.

@LeopoldBloom Certainly the current Secretary of transportation, whose name I hope I'll never have to spell, is a hypocritical panderer to the woke. The fred Rogers I follow publishes a worthy futurist e-magazine called [i]Trends [/i]. Otherwise a motley assortment that i have no strong opinion of.
Again, I'd consider your opinion as a contra-indication.-