[fr_freak]

The Constitution was based upon philosophy, not dogma.

When I say that the Constitution outlined a government designed to govern a people with a Christian worldview, I do not mean that it employed religious dogma to do so. What I do mean is that it provided a framework to provide for governance in those areas where Christian morality was insufficient, and left out provisions for governance in areas where it was assumed unnecessary because the Christian worldview would provide the necessary restraint (or motivation). This is not the same as dogma. This is a government set up on the assumption that its people would be livign within a certain set of principles and needed governance only where those principles were insufficient to prevent conflict.

As an example, the First Amendment, without question, was never intended to protect the rights of people to engage in public pornography. It was designed to protect political speech from government oppression. However, that amendment did not explicitly state that not every kind of speech was to be considered sacred, because it would not have occurred to the founders at the time that such a stipulation was necessary, as most communities at that time would even considered allowing such a thing, much less promoting it.

Two hundred plus years later, this country has become far more secularized and therefore those assumed moral restraints have largely been lifted, resulting in interpretations of the First Amendment which would have been unimaginable at the inception. As a result, we find that the Constitution is wholly insufficient to address this question. Of course, activist judges are more than happy to fill in that gap by pretending that the Constitution does address that very specific issue (just as they did with Roe V. Wade), at which point they effectively create new law by judicial fiat.

The mutilation of our Constitution that we see all to often these days is as much a result of the change in prevailing worldview among US citizens as it is corrupt government officials. In fact, it is the abandonment of the societal Christian foundation that has permitted the wholesale abandonment of Constitutional principles, as many people are not even able to understand the context in which the Constitution was written.

[Ditto]

In fact, it is the abandonment of the societal Christian foundation that has permitted the wholesale abandonment of Constitutional principles, as many people are not even able to understand the context in which the Constitution was written.

I can agree with everything up until "Christian foundation. The were not an exclusive "Christian" foundation as they were a product of a small sub-set of the Christian world who happened to develop the Enlightenment philosophy (built on medieval English common law) upon which this nation was founded. Much of the Christian world in 1776 would not and did not tolerate those principles, and even here, we were a long time in truly enfranchising "all men" into the concept of the "self evident right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

This is a nation that happened to be founded BY Christians, but it was not founded FOR Christians alone.

To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport Rhode Island Gentlemen:
While I receive with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of answering you, that I shall always retain, a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past, is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and a happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of con-science and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favor-able opinion of my administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

George Washington

I think you can see from the author of this thread, that there are many who are afraid publicly. (It is common is closed quarters --- if you are a father with kids in some damn crack neighborhood, are you going to trust the police to protect you from the gang-bangers if you tell on them?)

We can ask for their courage, but we have the obligation to protect them and sadly, as you indicated, we have institutions here such as the ACLU who support the terrorists, not those being terrorized.

We need to find a way to give the moderates voice and expose the CAIR phonies for what they are.