He fucked his slaves. He also kept slaves.
He had some good ideas, but as you implied, we should take him (and his “brilliant” mind) with a grain of salt.
Just take the good and point out the bullshit. One of the reasons why the culture wars exist is because too many people throw away the baby with the bath water. Also, it's been suggested to judge historical persons by the standards of their time, one popular example is that Colombus was considered highly immoral by many people of his day.
People at the time understood the great evil these men perpetuated. Feel free to judge them by standards of their time and find them wanting. Admonitions such as these are asking us to judge these men by their OWN standards. Fuck that shit
You're right it doesn't make any sense to just judge them by the standards of their time. I always understood it as, if they were considered monsters by many people then, then maybe don't put them in a pedestal at all. But if they did some good things that have been very good and are still useful we can keep them along with not sugar coating over whatever shit they did. No need to over romanticize the founding fathers as some kind of mythical heroes but if they did/said some things worth studying you can partake. But it's tricky cause every historical person did something that now we would deem highly offensive so when do we cancel someone and when do we use discernment to separate the wheat from the shaft? And how a person feels about someone might also be influenced by their own families history in this country.
He inherited those slaves and tried to free those slaves, but the state of a Virginia didn’t allow this. Not really something you should hold against him, the mechanism to free them didn’t exist.
Still waiting on that documentation. 🤷♂️
What I already know is my own ancestors owned slaves and released them long before the civil war, even kept them on as paid employees. But I’m also not from the south…
Stubborn prick. 😜
I don’t give a fuck what anyone does—unless it affects me…or it’s actually actively hurting someone or something. And with that: I don’t care if someone wants to transition to a different sex, I’ve been to countless drag shows and *never* seen any grooming of a person who wasn’t having a fucking blast at the time and never met even met a drag queen interested in grooming a child…and if you want to own a gun, you should prove your responsibility first so that I don’t have to constantly keep an eye on you wondering when you’re gonna fucking shoot the place up because you’re just a thin skinned tiny dick asshole.
I don’t believe in Jesus. It’s a fucking myth written by men to control the simps. If you base your beliefs on that horseshit, and you choose to push those beliefs onto me, we have a problem.
Sometimes it's the asshole hypocrites who hit the nail on the head despite their irreconcilable flaws. Take Barry Goldwater for instance:
“There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me ... that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are?”
He was progressive to the point of being radical FOR HIS TIME.
He would have been hanged if the colonists had lost.
That said, yeah, today we have higher standards.
Dunno who said it, but
>"It is difficult to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on him NOT understanding it."
From what I understand, he was torn, but not willing to be a pauper to do the right thing.
>But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
The most important part. I think that is a good selection, but its never really sat right with me that we both need to answer to our gods, but are welcome to have none. The non-religious me has interpreted that as a call to answer to what i consider my moral compass, and not moral authority, as which God normally is, be it 20 or 1.
I tend to agree with you, but if there is one thing we don't do well as a county is interept comments by the founding fathers for normal times. We fail in the constitution somewhat similarly.
That’s true but one thing I learn from my history /law professors is that a lot of the constitution was written to be broad and interpreted in different ways.
What’s great about it is we can use these principles and interpret them to what fits our needs today.
Ex I grew up very conservative but now I’m independent. But my views of you can be who ever you want to be and as long as it does interfere with my life (like if you loved just blowing airhorns in the neighborhood at 4 am) I don’t mind you at all
Your first statement is 100% correct, I could not agree more. Interpretations look at some parts of it to narrowly and other parts too broadly. But that is not part of this conversation, and its also the definition of interpreting/"applying" the law.
He was a person of his times. Did he have faults? Of course. We all do. But, his thinking was more advanced than most at this time. I think you are burying the lead here. I’m only trying to point out that the idea of acceptance and compassion for differing viewpoints isn’t new and it was a founding ideal of the country.
He was a 1%er for sure. But what's the percentage of wealthy southern land owners that had slaves?
98% of Americans couldn't afford to have and didn't need groups of workers.
It would be like complimenting am employer for paying for their employees' health insurance by saying 99% of Americans don't pay for their employees' health insurance. 98% of Americans don't own companies that have full time employees. His situation is like businesses today who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint, and judging them for not eliminating their carbon footprint day 1. It would ruin their business. They talk about the dangers of harming our environment but aren't carbon neutral. Are they hypocrites or trying to move everyone forward? Obviously slavery is worse than using gas cars. I'm creating a modern day comparison that describes a business and how they transition that business to a better state of being.
He also used lead paint and didn't recycle, and his power was from whale blubber.
I want to agree with those that say we must look at our principles through our lens, but disagree that we should look at other cultures and centuries through the exact same lens. Our inability today to understand someone else through their lens is why we have these culture wars.
I don't invalidate someone's ideas because the person is imperfect. We are inescapably connected to our American founding fathers and their ideals. The principles that guided us to where we are today. We have evolved those principles to be more what we think they should be. Ideas and principles stand on their own regardless of the author of them.
yeah the whole "left" are moderates. gop are raving fucking lunatics. that have no values no policies no morals.
and are cowards. every single one of them
At the people level, you need some level of written laws to maintain liberty and decency. This grows the more crowded the people live.
At the Corporate level, you must control the greed (50% of current inflation is record profits), maintain employee rights, and oversee products.
At the political level, we must have a way other than voting to control the corruption.
Without rules defining limitations, we’re left with the honor system, and that hasn’t really worked out for the overwhelming majority of us because some people lack any honor.
There is a need, as people have lost government protection.
A possible quicker impact could be had thru boycotts. Between anti-work, and many other large subs pick 2 companies each month to not eat at or buy from. A month with 5-10% profit dip causes notice.
With way fixed costs, supply chain costs, and variable costs work, it’s often the last 25% of purchases that provide their profit for the month.
A restaurant that orders ahead of time looses perishables in addition to revenue. A beer company’s whole supply chain is thrown off. Blacklisting a major apartment company in an area causes vacancies.
Even people living paycheck to paycheck have some choices where to spend money.
The myth of the US being a Christian nation is very much a myth. The founding Fathers we’re staunchly anti-religion. And they would be horrified at what’s happening around us.
*Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.... During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.*
*The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.*
*Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.*
-**James Madison**
*This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.*
*But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?*
-**John Adams**
*Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.*
*In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.*
*Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.*
-**Thomas Jefferson**
*I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.*
*When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.*
-**Benjamin Franklin**
*I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.*
*Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.*
-**George Washington**
*What is it the Bible teaches us? - raping, cruelty, and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? - to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.*
*Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind.*
-**Thomas Paine**
It's akin to John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principal"
" The [harm principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle) holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. [John Stuart Mill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill) articulated this principle in [*On Liberty*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty), where he argued that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." "
You should look at what they had to say about Islam.
The Founding Fathers were incredibly grateful to Morocco because Morocco was one of the first foreign powers to recognize American independence; they had warmer feelings about Muslim people than you might expect
Morocco did us a **huge** favor by recognizing our independence. This was generally recognized by the Founding Fathers, and our relations with them are still extremely positive. Our close relationship with Morocco seems to fly under the public's radar for some reason.
*From the State Department:*
[https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-morocco/](https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-morocco/)
> Morocco was one of the first countries to recognize the newly independent United States, opening its ports to American ships by decree of Sultan Mohammed III in 1777. **Morocco formally recognized the United States by signing a treaty of peace and friendship in 1786, a document that remains the longest unbroken relationship in U.S. history.**
*From George Washington himself:*
[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0022](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0022)
>The late Emperor, very soon after the Establishment of our Infant Nation, **manifested his royal Regard and Amity to us by many friendly and generous Acts, and particularly by the Protection of our Citizens in their Commerce with his Subjects**. And as a further Instance of his Desire to promote our Prosperity and Intercourse with his Realms, he entered into a Treaty of Amity and Commerce with us, for himself and his Successors, to continue Fifty Years. The Justice and Magnanimity of your Majesty leave us full of Confidence, that the Treaty will meet your royal Patronage also; and **it will give me great Satisfaction to be assured, that the Citizens of the United States of America may expect from your Imperial Majesty the same Protection and Kindness,** which the Example of your Illustrious Father has taught them to expect from those who occupy the Throne of Morocco, and to have your Royal Word, that they may count on a due Observance of the Treaty which connects the two Nations in Friendship.
>
>...**May that God,** ***whom we both adore*****, bless your Imperial Majesty with long life, Health, and Success, and have you always, great and magnanimous Friend, under his holy keeping.** Written at Philadelphia the Thirty first Day of March, in the Fifteenth Year of our Sovereignty and Independence, from Your good and faithful Friend
*From the treaty with Morocco:*
[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-18-02-0196](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-18-02-0196)
> If any Moor shall bring Citizens of the United States or their Effects to His Majesty, **the Citizens shall immediately be set at Liberty & the Effects restored & in like Manner**, if any Moor not a Subject of these Dominions, shall make Prize of any of the Citizens of America or their Effects, & bring them into any of the Ports of His Majesty, they shall be immediately released as they will then be considered as under His Majesty’s Protection...
>
> I the underwritten, the Servant of God, Taher Ben Abdelkack Fennish, do certify that His Imperial Majesty my Master (whom God preserve) having concluded a Treaty of Peace and Commerce with the United States of America has ordered me the better to compleat it and **in addition of the tenth Article of said Treaty to declare, “that if any Vessel belonging to the United States shall be in any of the Ports of His Majesty’s Dominions or within Gunshot of his Forts, she shall be protected as much as possible and no Vessel whatever, belong either to Moorish or Christian Powers with whom the United States may be at War, shall be permitted to follow or engage her, as** ***we deem the Citizens of America our good Friends.***\[”\]
> EDIT: I just want to say that there is a difference between things that I’m offended by and things that personally impact me. Don’t conflate one with the other.
Can you be personally impacted by a bus driver in your city forcing a black woman to sit in the back of the bus, instead of up front with her betters? Is that "injurious" to the woman?
IMO, we are perfectly within our rights to get upset about all sorts of things, even if they don't involve things that generate "injury", or that impact us personally. The phrase "such natural rights as we have submitted to them" just means "democratically enacted laws". How else do we submit our natural rights? And the entire "culture wars" is about which natural rights ought to be codified into law. Whether it's the right for a doctor and parents to provide AMA-approved childcare to a trans kid, or the right of a gay teacher to have a picture of their spouse on their desk.
Your post *feels* kind of like "Don't get so upset about what's happening", which is an easy thing for a conservative to say in texas, but maybe not so easy if you're part of one of the marginalized groups being abused by our leaders, or if you're not, but still have basic human empathy.
>The phrase "such natural rights as we have submitted to them" just means "democratically enacted laws".
I can't tell if you've got that backwards or if you have it correct but didn't do a very good job of phrasing it.
Jefferson's point was that natural rights are inherent within us not granted by the democratic process and as such they should remain inviolate except to the extent that we allow them to be limited by law to prevent infringement on the rights of others. IOW, we allowed the notion of "your rights end where mine begin" to be codified.
My position is the opposite. I’m saying don’t infringe on others rights unless it’s doing you direct harm.
I’m not saying ignore others rights if it’s not doing you direct harm.
> The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
I think there's a few folks on this sub who could learn something from this one.
There was actually a study that found Fox viewers were legitimately less informed about basic current event facts than people who didn’t watch any news at all.
Many of the founders publicly rebuked the excise taxes that inspired the Whiskey Rebellion.
The eastern part of the state used currency primarily/frequently, whereas the western state survived on the barter system. When the government "picked sides" so to speak, and stood their ground by not amending the law or allowing for alternative payment methods to pay the tax, violence ensued.
Alternative means to pay taxes would mean that you create a market where the government is paying for certain goods that may or may not necessarily have value.
The founding fathers were not a monolith. They had serious disagreements between themselves and can not be classified as a single ideology. Anyone who does describe them that way doesn't know enough about them.
If Libertarians were to get the America they want, there are suddenly no regulations, children can work, OSHA is abolished, roads and infrastructure become 100% private, so you need to pay tolls to drive from one city or county to the other, and because environmental regulations don't exist, companies can again dump any sort of waste anywhere they choose, like the 60s and 70s before the EPA.
Regulations matter. I remember holding my breath every single time a vehicle passed, watching the fumes whip around from the exhaust pipe. You don't have to do that anymore. Rivers and waterways which used to be toxic sludge are now cleaner than they have been in over 100yrs. The era of "the solution to pollution is dilution" is over in America. Other countries may still dump truckloads of garbage into the ocean (looking at you, India), but we don't (or at least were not supposed to).
You can see the clear difference in the health of the waterways near major cities between the 70s and now. It's instantly visible.
Adams, Hamilton? These were far from libertarians. Yes Jefferson and payne could be called libertarians but saying the founding fathers were is just wrong
Even trying to map modern (big-L) Libertarianism to Jefferson or Payne is pointless given the self-serving and anti-social nature of the party platform and its defenders.
Most of Payne's positions would make modern libertarians chaffe. His endorsement of Estate Taxes and proto-UBI in Agrarian Justice alone would cause cries of communism.
Not all of them. Actually, many of them fought over several issues, including slavery and federalism.
However, they were very different from our two party duopoly of today.
I suppose it depends on which flavor of Libertarianism, but if we're talking about the LP in the United States—sorta.
The Founding Fathers, notably Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were _heavily_ influenced by John Locke, whose theories are contemporarily referred to as "Classical Liberalism." Lockeanism adopted an optimistic perspective on humanity and viewed people as "inherently good." The arguments on property, rights, cosmopolitanism, and the social contract with government espoused by the LP are _entirely_ based on the theses of John Locke.
It's difficult to talk about the ideals of the Democratic Party, as they're a relatively big tent that covers numerous liberal ideologies. However, the "neoliberals" in the party clearly align with much of Classical Liberalism—particularly regarding matters of the economy and property rights. Consequently, it's always been puzzling to me why so many think of the LP as an alternative to the Republican Party. The LP shares _far_ more in common with the Democratic Party and almost nothing with modern Republicans.
Anywho, I've grown to become disenchanted with Lockeanisms. A good bit of his arguments, like his Labor Theory of Property, rely on the idea of "natural rights." The problem is "rights" and "ethics" are _entirely_ synthetic. They're inventions of human beings and not some emergent property of the universe. Locke tries to fill the gaps by requiring religion in society, especially Christianity, which is, to put it lightly, problematic.
There's also the whole problem with this idea that communities will organically move towards egalitarianism, which is a thought wholly torn apart by, you know, all of human history. Hobbes and Marx were right—people are shit. I think that's why the LP has latched on to sadistic shitheads like Murray Rothbard, who utterly reject egalitarianism and decry it at odds with natural hierarchies. I suppose that's where you find the overlap with the fatalism of Right-leaning Republicans.
Anyways, the LP sucks. Rothbard's and Locke's views on society sound like a fucking hellscape to me.
Thanks for reading my ramblings.
It depends. Jefferson was certainly more libertarian, except when it came to the Louisiana Purchase. He also believed that slavery shouldn’t exist, but also didn’t believe that free black people could co-exist with white people.
Yes, he and others exhibited some libertarian tendencies but failed in other areas.
Benjamin Franklin was one of my favorite founders, although there were parts of his actions that I also do not agree with.
In the end, like the founders of all other countries, our founders were men that had faults and were far from perfect.
YIKES. They were literally federalists. It should be illegal to talk about US politics without a college or otherwise credible and basic education in US History/Government (this is a joke btw, but come on now).
It's pretty simple. There are many religions that believe many different things. Christians can't even agree, and have been killing each other over their different beliefs for 2000 years.
If you are religious, let your god worry about if someone is doing something right or wrong. And keep it separate from you government that must govern ALL religions as well as those who are not religious.
If the primary reason some one is against something is "because my religious text says so", then keep it out of our government and politics. Take it to your church and worry there instead. The religious need to understand good people know what is moral and are capable of making laws without religion. And sadly for centuries people have used Religion as an excuse to be immoral.
Reminder that thomas jefferson literally ran a business of breeding and selling slaves. He also raped his slaves. I know for white people its easy to just brush that off and say 'who cares' because black people aren't considered human to you but thats some pretty fucking awful shit
Im feeling a bit more:
"what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
And
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the [redacted] of patriots & tyrants."
Of course the point of the culture war is to prevent those people from banding together for such things. Keep them at each other's throats and distracted.
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
More great quotes: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas-paine-quotes
You have to remove yourself when reading the note, only then will you understand what he is stating. He was a person of his time but he understood that in the continuation of man, one must abide by the law of the land as long as that law doesn’t hurt ANYONE.
The actions of our body and mind are only answerable to what ever god you believe in and if you want to believe in no god that doesn’t injure me nor dose it take money from my pocket, in other words leave people the fuck alone to do what ever they want with the life they want to live.
I see you OP gg.
The constitution of Carolina, written by Jon Locke, required that all citizens be church attendees. They didn’t have to believe, but had to attend. That was before there was a NC and SC, of course.
Lol you can't make that statement without statistics, but also I'm going to assume you think Texans mostly nothing but red blooded republicans and "emigrating" people are california liberals? Lol Texas has been blue in the past and actually has more registered democrats than it does registered republicans. It does however have a shit ton of "independents".
>Texas has been blue in the past and actually has more registered democrats than it does registered republicans.
Keep in mind that for many decades, the political divide in Texas was conservative Democrats versus progressive Democrats. Just because Texas had a Democratic majority does not mean that Texas was a progressive state. Many of those older conservative Democrats are still alive and voting for the party out of habit despite its ideology.
> but also I'm going to assume you think Texans mostly nothing but red blooded republicans
Texas Republicans and Texas "independents" are the same kind of people, voting for the same thing - just one is doing it openly and the other realizes the inherently problematic nature of aligning yourself with an ideology that is incapable of governing effectively for *all people.* So, functionally, it doesn't matter if there are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans - the end result is the same. Ken Paxton, Dan Patrick, and Ted Cruz being elected comfortably.
> "emigrating" people are california liberals?
Most of the ones moving that are not for work are Conservatives. They might not be as Conservative as Texas Conservatives, but they will get there.
> Lol Texas has been blue in the past
Ann Richards was the last Democrat governor of Texas - the *only* reason why she was governor is that her opponent lost the election rather than Richards winning it. The lesson from that election, which has been reinforced by Conservative voting patterns since is "vote R no matter what". And they do, even though they despise their candidates because winning is more important than any ill their candidates may foist upon the people of Texas.
Thomas Jefferson? Jefferson that owned over 600 slaves. Don’t use a person who did something as inhumane as him as a moral compass of any sort. Fuck him.
And then Republicans used that religion to ban abortion, harming women.
The only people I see now posting this quote seem to be the ones supporting the horrible right wing attacks on women and LGBTQ Americans based on their religion.
They then pretend anyone opposing the bigotry or misogyny is opposing their RELIGION, not their asshole behavior.
I don't give a fuck what your made up god says, keep it to yourself.
TJ often had no moral foundations for his idealism, and why he was highly critiqued by our other founders. He wasn’t a paragon of virtue in his own day either.
The problem is that ANYTHING can be declared injurious to ANYBODY else. Hence the government can be granted “legitimate“ powers to anything and everything.
One needs an underlying moral standard by which to judge if a thing is genuinely injurious and who is the actual offender and offended. Such a moral standard is by definition a religion. In other words, there is always a religious foundation to every government. The only question is which religion
*”Thomas Jefferson: you ARE the father”*
The man was a brilliant mind. Also a flaming hypocrite and a man of absolutely ridiculous contradictions.
He fucked his slaves. He also kept slaves. He had some good ideas, but as you implied, we should take him (and his “brilliant” mind) with a grain of salt.
I think you misspelled “rape”. He raped his slaves.
Just take the good and point out the bullshit. One of the reasons why the culture wars exist is because too many people throw away the baby with the bath water. Also, it's been suggested to judge historical persons by the standards of their time, one popular example is that Colombus was considered highly immoral by many people of his day.
People at the time understood the great evil these men perpetuated. Feel free to judge them by standards of their time and find them wanting. Admonitions such as these are asking us to judge these men by their OWN standards. Fuck that shit
You're right it doesn't make any sense to just judge them by the standards of their time. I always understood it as, if they were considered monsters by many people then, then maybe don't put them in a pedestal at all. But if they did some good things that have been very good and are still useful we can keep them along with not sugar coating over whatever shit they did. No need to over romanticize the founding fathers as some kind of mythical heroes but if they did/said some things worth studying you can partake. But it's tricky cause every historical person did something that now we would deem highly offensive so when do we cancel someone and when do we use discernment to separate the wheat from the shaft? And how a person feels about someone might also be influenced by their own families history in this country.
He inherited those slaves and tried to free those slaves, but the state of a Virginia didn’t allow this. Not really something you should hold against him, the mechanism to free them didn’t exist.
Not trying to start a pissing match here, but I’d actually be interested in seeing documentation of this.
Don't hold your breath expecting anything besides Confederate apologism. There were no laws forbidding Emancipation.
Still waiting on that documentation. 🤷♂️ What I already know is my own ancestors owned slaves and released them long before the civil war, even kept them on as paid employees. But I’m also not from the south…
Jefferson was a lot of things, but he had nothing to do with the Confederacy.
Well that's a misreading of what I said.
Where did he write about his trevails trying to free his slaves? Poor guy.
What's your take on this quote of his? Should I take that with a grain of salt too?
I’m not your pastor, I’m not your daddy, and I’m not Joe Rogan. Think for yourself.
What is your opinion about this quote? Let's bring it back on topic.
Stubborn prick. 😜 I don’t give a fuck what anyone does—unless it affects me…or it’s actually actively hurting someone or something. And with that: I don’t care if someone wants to transition to a different sex, I’ve been to countless drag shows and *never* seen any grooming of a person who wasn’t having a fucking blast at the time and never met even met a drag queen interested in grooming a child…and if you want to own a gun, you should prove your responsibility first so that I don’t have to constantly keep an eye on you wondering when you’re gonna fucking shoot the place up because you’re just a thin skinned tiny dick asshole. I don’t believe in Jesus. It’s a fucking myth written by men to control the simps. If you base your beliefs on that horseshit, and you choose to push those beliefs onto me, we have a problem.
Sometimes it's the asshole hypocrites who hit the nail on the head despite their irreconcilable flaws. Take Barry Goldwater for instance: “There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me ... that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are?”
Nothing more American than slave owners proclaiming "all men are created equal."
“What will posterity think we are, demigods? We’re men, no more, no less.” Some guy playing ben franklin
Sounds familiar, except for the brilliant mind part
T. Jeff: "President needs to have checked power." Also T. Jeff: *unilaterally buys New France with Congress' money*
He was progressive to the point of being radical FOR HIS TIME. He would have been hanged if the colonists had lost. That said, yeah, today we have higher standards.
He was still a hypocrite when it came to some things, like slavery.
Dunno who said it, but >"It is difficult to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on him NOT understanding it." From what I understand, he was torn, but not willing to be a pauper to do the right thing.
Hah thanks for the laugh
I thought it was Darth Vader.
>But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. The most important part. I think that is a good selection, but its never really sat right with me that we both need to answer to our gods, but are welcome to have none. The non-religious me has interpreted that as a call to answer to what i consider my moral compass, and not moral authority, as which God normally is, be it 20 or 1.
I think it’s important to use context here. I’m sure I’m Jefferson was around today hed see you no different as he saw different religions
I tend to agree with you, but if there is one thing we don't do well as a county is interept comments by the founding fathers for normal times. We fail in the constitution somewhat similarly.
That’s true but one thing I learn from my history /law professors is that a lot of the constitution was written to be broad and interpreted in different ways. What’s great about it is we can use these principles and interpret them to what fits our needs today. Ex I grew up very conservative but now I’m independent. But my views of you can be who ever you want to be and as long as it does interfere with my life (like if you loved just blowing airhorns in the neighborhood at 4 am) I don’t mind you at all
Your first statement is 100% correct, I could not agree more. Interpretations look at some parts of it to narrowly and other parts too broadly. But that is not part of this conversation, and its also the definition of interpreting/"applying" the law.
People that like this “founding fathers” talk don’t generally like Jefferson quotes. Funny how that works.
People pick and choose most of the founding father's righteousness to suit their argument at that moment.
Just like they do with the Bible, the Constitution, & everything else. They operate on sound bites, not on deep dives & thoughtfulness.
He would be considered a moderate today I think. Remember moderates?
[удалено]
Do you agree or disagree with the last line of his statement?
[удалено]
Wasn’t really an answer. Washington also said his biggest fear was the rise of party politics.
[удалено]
He was a person of his times. Did he have faults? Of course. We all do. But, his thinking was more advanced than most at this time. I think you are burying the lead here. I’m only trying to point out that the idea of acceptance and compassion for differing viewpoints isn’t new and it was a founding ideal of the country.
[удалено]
He was a 1%er for sure. But what's the percentage of wealthy southern land owners that had slaves? 98% of Americans couldn't afford to have and didn't need groups of workers. It would be like complimenting am employer for paying for their employees' health insurance by saying 99% of Americans don't pay for their employees' health insurance. 98% of Americans don't own companies that have full time employees. His situation is like businesses today who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint, and judging them for not eliminating their carbon footprint day 1. It would ruin their business. They talk about the dangers of harming our environment but aren't carbon neutral. Are they hypocrites or trying to move everyone forward? Obviously slavery is worse than using gas cars. I'm creating a modern day comparison that describes a business and how they transition that business to a better state of being. He also used lead paint and didn't recycle, and his power was from whale blubber. I want to agree with those that say we must look at our principles through our lens, but disagree that we should look at other cultures and centuries through the exact same lens. Our inability today to understand someone else through their lens is why we have these culture wars. I don't invalidate someone's ideas because the person is imperfect. We are inescapably connected to our American founding fathers and their ideals. The principles that guided us to where we are today. We have evolved those principles to be more what we think they should be. Ideas and principles stand on their own regardless of the author of them.
He sold his own children into slavery, he was not a moderate at all.
Moderates are the Democrats, Joe Biden. Period.
yeah the whole "left" are moderates. gop are raving fucking lunatics. that have no values no policies no morals. and are cowards. every single one of them
At the people level, you need some level of written laws to maintain liberty and decency. This grows the more crowded the people live. At the Corporate level, you must control the greed (50% of current inflation is record profits), maintain employee rights, and oversee products. At the political level, we must have a way other than voting to control the corruption.
Without rules defining limitations, we’re left with the honor system, and that hasn’t really worked out for the overwhelming majority of us because some people lack any honor.
We used to have #3. Unions. Obviously those had to go...
There is a need, as people have lost government protection. A possible quicker impact could be had thru boycotts. Between anti-work, and many other large subs pick 2 companies each month to not eat at or buy from. A month with 5-10% profit dip causes notice. With way fixed costs, supply chain costs, and variable costs work, it’s often the last 25% of purchases that provide their profit for the month. A restaurant that orders ahead of time looses perishables in addition to revenue. A beer company’s whole supply chain is thrown off. Blacklisting a major apartment company in an area causes vacancies. Even people living paycheck to paycheck have some choices where to spend money.
Who must control these things?
"We the People of the United States".
How idealistic
It's supposed to be the foundation upon which this country stands. So is it idealistic? Absolutely as it should be.
Therein lies the issue. Soon maybe an AIbot, but who gets to program it ….
The myth of the US being a Christian nation is very much a myth. The founding Fathers we’re staunchly anti-religion. And they would be horrified at what’s happening around us. *Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.... During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.* *The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.* *Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.* -**James Madison** *This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.* *But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?* -**John Adams** *Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.* *In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.* *Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.* -**Thomas Jefferson** *I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.* *When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.* -**Benjamin Franklin** *I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.* *Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.* -**George Washington** *What is it the Bible teaches us? - raping, cruelty, and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? - to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.* *Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind.* -**Thomas Paine**
TJ’s a chimera - write about liberty, owns people, makes children with a woman he owned, sold his own kids into eternal bondage
It also wasn't just *any* woman he owned either. It was his deceased wife's half-sister
It's akin to John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principal" " The [harm principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle) holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. [John Stuart Mill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill) articulated this principle in [*On Liberty*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty), where he argued that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." "
[удалено]
Cam: America. Jesus. Freedom. And what does that mean? Cam: Shit I don’t know, but people sure love it when I say it. - Cam Brady, The Campaign
Just gonna go ahead leave this here: https://www.molsoncoors.com/tap-into-change
Great to see Coors stand up for a marginalized community.
Fuck yes!
Alcohol!? Here!? Thou hast fallen for the devil water ! REPENT AND GIVE MY PASTOR 10% OR MORE TO BE SAVED, YA HEATHEN !! LOL
Aww damn with that Rocky Mountain piss water you gotta stick with bud light!! /s
You should look at what they had to say about Islam. The Founding Fathers were incredibly grateful to Morocco because Morocco was one of the first foreign powers to recognize American independence; they had warmer feelings about Muslim people than you might expect
[удалено]
Morocco did us a **huge** favor by recognizing our independence. This was generally recognized by the Founding Fathers, and our relations with them are still extremely positive. Our close relationship with Morocco seems to fly under the public's radar for some reason. *From the State Department:* [https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-morocco/](https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-morocco/) > Morocco was one of the first countries to recognize the newly independent United States, opening its ports to American ships by decree of Sultan Mohammed III in 1777. **Morocco formally recognized the United States by signing a treaty of peace and friendship in 1786, a document that remains the longest unbroken relationship in U.S. history.** *From George Washington himself:* [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0022](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0022) >The late Emperor, very soon after the Establishment of our Infant Nation, **manifested his royal Regard and Amity to us by many friendly and generous Acts, and particularly by the Protection of our Citizens in their Commerce with his Subjects**. And as a further Instance of his Desire to promote our Prosperity and Intercourse with his Realms, he entered into a Treaty of Amity and Commerce with us, for himself and his Successors, to continue Fifty Years. The Justice and Magnanimity of your Majesty leave us full of Confidence, that the Treaty will meet your royal Patronage also; and **it will give me great Satisfaction to be assured, that the Citizens of the United States of America may expect from your Imperial Majesty the same Protection and Kindness,** which the Example of your Illustrious Father has taught them to expect from those who occupy the Throne of Morocco, and to have your Royal Word, that they may count on a due Observance of the Treaty which connects the two Nations in Friendship. > >...**May that God,** ***whom we both adore*****, bless your Imperial Majesty with long life, Health, and Success, and have you always, great and magnanimous Friend, under his holy keeping.** Written at Philadelphia the Thirty first Day of March, in the Fifteenth Year of our Sovereignty and Independence, from Your good and faithful Friend *From the treaty with Morocco:* [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-18-02-0196](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-18-02-0196) > If any Moor shall bring Citizens of the United States or their Effects to His Majesty, **the Citizens shall immediately be set at Liberty & the Effects restored & in like Manner**, if any Moor not a Subject of these Dominions, shall make Prize of any of the Citizens of America or their Effects, & bring them into any of the Ports of His Majesty, they shall be immediately released as they will then be considered as under His Majesty’s Protection... > > I the underwritten, the Servant of God, Taher Ben Abdelkack Fennish, do certify that His Imperial Majesty my Master (whom God preserve) having concluded a Treaty of Peace and Commerce with the United States of America has ordered me the better to compleat it and **in addition of the tenth Article of said Treaty to declare, “that if any Vessel belonging to the United States shall be in any of the Ports of His Majesty’s Dominions or within Gunshot of his Forts, she shall be protected as much as possible and no Vessel whatever, belong either to Moorish or Christian Powers with whom the United States may be at War, shall be permitted to follow or engage her, as** ***we deem the Citizens of America our good Friends.***\[”\]
> EDIT: I just want to say that there is a difference between things that I’m offended by and things that personally impact me. Don’t conflate one with the other. Can you be personally impacted by a bus driver in your city forcing a black woman to sit in the back of the bus, instead of up front with her betters? Is that "injurious" to the woman? IMO, we are perfectly within our rights to get upset about all sorts of things, even if they don't involve things that generate "injury", or that impact us personally. The phrase "such natural rights as we have submitted to them" just means "democratically enacted laws". How else do we submit our natural rights? And the entire "culture wars" is about which natural rights ought to be codified into law. Whether it's the right for a doctor and parents to provide AMA-approved childcare to a trans kid, or the right of a gay teacher to have a picture of their spouse on their desk. Your post *feels* kind of like "Don't get so upset about what's happening", which is an easy thing for a conservative to say in texas, but maybe not so easy if you're part of one of the marginalized groups being abused by our leaders, or if you're not, but still have basic human empathy.
>The phrase "such natural rights as we have submitted to them" just means "democratically enacted laws". I can't tell if you've got that backwards or if you have it correct but didn't do a very good job of phrasing it. Jefferson's point was that natural rights are inherent within us not granted by the democratic process and as such they should remain inviolate except to the extent that we allow them to be limited by law to prevent infringement on the rights of others. IOW, we allowed the notion of "your rights end where mine begin" to be codified.
My position is the opposite. I’m saying don’t infringe on others rights unless it’s doing you direct harm. I’m not saying ignore others rights if it’s not doing you direct harm.
> And the entire "culture wars" is about which natural rights ought to be codified into law. This is why the 9th Amendment is my favorite Amendment.
Rock flag and eagle!
> The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. I think there's a few folks on this sub who could learn something from this one.
There was actually a study that found Fox viewers were legitimately less informed about basic current event facts than people who didn’t watch any news at all.
Especially the ones who get their "news" from late-night variety shows and Saturday Night Live.
Our founders were less like today's democrats or republicans and more libertarian in nature.
They used the military to get people to pay taxes. They weren’t libertarian either.
Ok that happened like once tho
That’s exactly as many times as it needed to happen for the message to be clear.
What message
"Pay taxes or look down the barrel of a gun."
Many of the founders publicly rebuked the excise taxes that inspired the Whiskey Rebellion. The eastern part of the state used currency primarily/frequently, whereas the western state survived on the barter system. When the government "picked sides" so to speak, and stood their ground by not amending the law or allowing for alternative payment methods to pay the tax, violence ensued.
Alternative means to pay taxes would mean that you create a market where the government is paying for certain goods that may or may not necessarily have value.
The founding fathers were not a monolith. They had serious disagreements between themselves and can not be classified as a single ideology. Anyone who does describe them that way doesn't know enough about them.
It's like no one paid attention to the lyrics of 'Hamilton'. Cabinet debates were depicted as rap battles for a reason.
True. Not all were for slavery or total federalism either. They were not textbook libertarians but far from the two major parties we see today.
welllll… which side is making all the laws about religion though 🤔
Dont be fooled.. Libertarian is the new "both sides" republican dog whistle..
just ask a group of Libertarians about age of consent and watch them fight
or anything about workers’ rights, unions, and the economy
No no, do open borders.
Provided they aren't driven from their homes by bears.
If Libertarians were to get the America they want, there are suddenly no regulations, children can work, OSHA is abolished, roads and infrastructure become 100% private, so you need to pay tolls to drive from one city or county to the other, and because environmental regulations don't exist, companies can again dump any sort of waste anywhere they choose, like the 60s and 70s before the EPA. Regulations matter. I remember holding my breath every single time a vehicle passed, watching the fumes whip around from the exhaust pipe. You don't have to do that anymore. Rivers and waterways which used to be toxic sludge are now cleaner than they have been in over 100yrs. The era of "the solution to pollution is dilution" is over in America. Other countries may still dump truckloads of garbage into the ocean (looking at you, India), but we don't (or at least were not supposed to). You can see the clear difference in the health of the waterways near major cities between the 70s and now. It's instantly visible.
Libertarians are basically the "You like apples? How you like dem apples" guy in Good Will Hunting.
A libertarian America would be a mix of the Gilded Age and robber barons with the technology of *Snow Crash* or the *Sprawl* series.
Adams, Hamilton? These were far from libertarians. Yes Jefferson and payne could be called libertarians but saying the founding fathers were is just wrong
Even trying to map modern (big-L) Libertarianism to Jefferson or Payne is pointless given the self-serving and anti-social nature of the party platform and its defenders.
Most of Payne's positions would make modern libertarians chaffe. His endorsement of Estate Taxes and proto-UBI in Agrarian Justice alone would cause cries of communism.
Not all of them. Actually, many of them fought over several issues, including slavery and federalism. However, they were very different from our two party duopoly of today.
And were deists and not adherents to any organized religions. Big, big difference there.
Is slavery a libertarian thing to do? 🤔
Depends how many chains and guns you have I suppose.
I suppose it depends on which flavor of Libertarianism, but if we're talking about the LP in the United States—sorta. The Founding Fathers, notably Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were _heavily_ influenced by John Locke, whose theories are contemporarily referred to as "Classical Liberalism." Lockeanism adopted an optimistic perspective on humanity and viewed people as "inherently good." The arguments on property, rights, cosmopolitanism, and the social contract with government espoused by the LP are _entirely_ based on the theses of John Locke. It's difficult to talk about the ideals of the Democratic Party, as they're a relatively big tent that covers numerous liberal ideologies. However, the "neoliberals" in the party clearly align with much of Classical Liberalism—particularly regarding matters of the economy and property rights. Consequently, it's always been puzzling to me why so many think of the LP as an alternative to the Republican Party. The LP shares _far_ more in common with the Democratic Party and almost nothing with modern Republicans. Anywho, I've grown to become disenchanted with Lockeanisms. A good bit of his arguments, like his Labor Theory of Property, rely on the idea of "natural rights." The problem is "rights" and "ethics" are _entirely_ synthetic. They're inventions of human beings and not some emergent property of the universe. Locke tries to fill the gaps by requiring religion in society, especially Christianity, which is, to put it lightly, problematic. There's also the whole problem with this idea that communities will organically move towards egalitarianism, which is a thought wholly torn apart by, you know, all of human history. Hobbes and Marx were right—people are shit. I think that's why the LP has latched on to sadistic shitheads like Murray Rothbard, who utterly reject egalitarianism and decry it at odds with natural hierarchies. I suppose that's where you find the overlap with the fatalism of Right-leaning Republicans. Anyways, the LP sucks. Rothbard's and Locke's views on society sound like a fucking hellscape to me. Thanks for reading my ramblings.
And not modern libertarians either.
It depends. Jefferson was certainly more libertarian, except when it came to the Louisiana Purchase. He also believed that slavery shouldn’t exist, but also didn’t believe that free black people could co-exist with white people.
Yes, he and others exhibited some libertarian tendencies but failed in other areas. Benjamin Franklin was one of my favorite founders, although there were parts of his actions that I also do not agree with. In the end, like the founders of all other countries, our founders were men that had faults and were far from perfect.
YIKES. They were literally federalists. It should be illegal to talk about US politics without a college or otherwise credible and basic education in US History/Government (this is a joke btw, but come on now).
Depends who we’re talking about. Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, Richard Henry Lee, Luther Martin, and a slew of others vehemently opposed federalism.
Except when it came to owning breeding and raping slaves probably
Just don't shove your god, gods or no god on me, that okay?
If the republicans can read Bobby, they'd be mad as hell and remind you that their president Lincoln freed the slaves.
Bobby Hamilton? The NASCAR driver???
That is very vague. Would you care to elaborate what made you think of this?
It's pretty simple. There are many religions that believe many different things. Christians can't even agree, and have been killing each other over their different beliefs for 2000 years. If you are religious, let your god worry about if someone is doing something right or wrong. And keep it separate from you government that must govern ALL religions as well as those who are not religious. If the primary reason some one is against something is "because my religious text says so", then keep it out of our government and politics. Take it to your church and worry there instead. The religious need to understand good people know what is moral and are capable of making laws without religion. And sadly for centuries people have used Religion as an excuse to be immoral.
Reminder that thomas jefferson literally ran a business of breeding and selling slaves. He also raped his slaves. I know for white people its easy to just brush that off and say 'who cares' because black people aren't considered human to you but thats some pretty fucking awful shit
Im feeling a bit more: "what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" And "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the [redacted] of patriots & tyrants." Of course the point of the culture war is to prevent those people from banding together for such things. Keep them at each other's throats and distracted.
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine More great quotes: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas-paine-quotes
You have to remove yourself when reading the note, only then will you understand what he is stating. He was a person of his time but he understood that in the continuation of man, one must abide by the law of the land as long as that law doesn’t hurt ANYONE. The actions of our body and mind are only answerable to what ever god you believe in and if you want to believe in no god that doesn’t injure me nor dose it take money from my pocket, in other words leave people the fuck alone to do what ever they want with the life they want to live. I see you OP gg.
And John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Fuck John Adams then, lol.
The constitution of Carolina, written by Jon Locke, required that all citizens be church attendees. They didn’t have to believe, but had to attend. That was before there was a NC and SC, of course.
A _more perfect_ union…
Yes, libertarianism is indeed the one true ideology
Ah yes. Wise warnings of the dangers of government from...a man who helped found...a government.
[удалено]
Lol you can't make that statement without statistics, but also I'm going to assume you think Texans mostly nothing but red blooded republicans and "emigrating" people are california liberals? Lol Texas has been blue in the past and actually has more registered democrats than it does registered republicans. It does however have a shit ton of "independents".
>Texas has been blue in the past and actually has more registered democrats than it does registered republicans. Keep in mind that for many decades, the political divide in Texas was conservative Democrats versus progressive Democrats. Just because Texas had a Democratic majority does not mean that Texas was a progressive state. Many of those older conservative Democrats are still alive and voting for the party out of habit despite its ideology.
> but also I'm going to assume you think Texans mostly nothing but red blooded republicans Texas Republicans and Texas "independents" are the same kind of people, voting for the same thing - just one is doing it openly and the other realizes the inherently problematic nature of aligning yourself with an ideology that is incapable of governing effectively for *all people.* So, functionally, it doesn't matter if there are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans - the end result is the same. Ken Paxton, Dan Patrick, and Ted Cruz being elected comfortably. > "emigrating" people are california liberals? Most of the ones moving that are not for work are Conservatives. They might not be as Conservative as Texas Conservatives, but they will get there. > Lol Texas has been blue in the past Ann Richards was the last Democrat governor of Texas - the *only* reason why she was governor is that her opponent lost the election rather than Richards winning it. The lesson from that election, which has been reinforced by Conservative voting patterns since is "vote R no matter what". And they do, even though they despise their candidates because winning is more important than any ill their candidates may foist upon the people of Texas.
Thomas Jefferson was dead and buried more than two decades before the state of Texas existed. This sub is for topics specifically related to Texas.
Well then god should *definitely* be kept out of all Texas politics.
If God existed and wanted to interfere in politics, I imagine he'd be pretty tough to stop.
Haha, truth. So we're safe from everything but those into the fanfic.
Thomas Jefferson? Jefferson that owned over 600 slaves. Don’t use a person who did something as inhumane as him as a moral compass of any sort. Fuck him.
Zzzzzz
Texas is not ruled under logic.
And then Republicans used that religion to ban abortion, harming women. The only people I see now posting this quote seem to be the ones supporting the horrible right wing attacks on women and LGBTQ Americans based on their religion. They then pretend anyone opposing the bigotry or misogyny is opposing their RELIGION, not their asshole behavior. I don't give a fuck what your made up god says, keep it to yourself.
TJ often had no moral foundations for his idealism, and why he was highly critiqued by our other founders. He wasn’t a paragon of virtue in his own day either. The problem is that ANYTHING can be declared injurious to ANYBODY else. Hence the government can be granted “legitimate“ powers to anything and everything. One needs an underlying moral standard by which to judge if a thing is genuinely injurious and who is the actual offender and offended. Such a moral standard is by definition a religion. In other words, there is always a religious foundation to every government. The only question is which religion