Is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” a quote mine because I didn’t include the preliminary “a well regulated militia” or the conclusory “shall not be infringed”? It was for the sake of brevity, not an intention to deceive, I would hope that any true Conservative would be able to recognize the relevant section.
My point was that all the practices of the government of these United States will not align themselves with the religious sensibilities of all of its citizens. This does not in any way make the actions of the government of these United States an Unconstitutional abridgment of these citizens religious liberty. They are free to pray for an end to war, cry that the world is only 6,000 years old, claim Social Security numbers as the number of the Beast, and that Fluoride in the water will contaminate our precious bodily fluids. But that doesn’t make not kowtowing to their sensibilities an Unconstitutional abridgment of their religious liberty.
Among the limited enumerated powers of the Federal Government is the mandate to promote the Arts and Sciences, and yes, the specific power granted for this goal is the issuance of exclusive rights for a limited time.
Jefferson I think would be amazed that we lasted this long in any form, that we had a relatively peaceful coexistence after slavery was ended, and a dearth of the periodic revolutions that Jefferson envisioned. I think he would also be proud that we have become the preeminent world power without becoming an expansionist empire, but a fairly benevolent force for good and the spread and support of democracy and opposition to totalitarianism. I think he would be more proud than prone to tears if his shade were free to contemplate such things.
Almost certainly, Franklin would be amazed. But the United States has been remarkably stable over time because of its widely-shared unifying core philosophy, which is essentially Christian to its core. We are not speaking of sectarian religion here, but the essential truths of Christianity that all Christian sects espouse. That unifying core is precisely what has been coming under attack over the past several decades, with the attempts to "kill God," remove "religion" from the public square, and characterize Christians as dim, superstitious, anti-science weirdos. [Need I add that this is mainly the work of the atheist "progressive" Left, conning the American public into selling their own heritage and birthright? Guess why they would want us to do that....]
Consider this, from Ellis Sandoz:
As Perry Miller remarked decades ago, the American Revolution was preached as a revival and had the astonishing result of succeeding. A new generation of scholars is concluding that Miller was right. At the center of attitudes lay a kind of consensual Christianity that unified all denominations. It joined with Whig political views to give a resonant core of love of liberty and courageous resistance to tyranny and corruption to a great moral and political cause as the heartbeat of the American community. Federalist No. 2 reflects this, and it is wonderfully stated by John Adams in a letter to Jefferson late in life. Adams wrote to his fellow "Argonaut" of the American founding in their declining years, and he asked--
"Who composed that Army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes [during the American Revolution]? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, House Protestants, Deists and theists; and [Protestants who believe nothing]. Very few however of several of these Species. Never the less all educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.Sandoz is Professor Hermann Moyse Jr. Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Louisiana State University and Director, Eric Voegelin Institute for American Renaissance Studies. The above was excerpted from his "AMERICAN RELIGION AND HIGHER LAW: HIGHER THAN WHAT?," April 26, 1997."The general Principles, on which the Fathers atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful assembly of young gentlemen could unite.... And what were these general Principles? I answer [John Adams wrote]-- the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and those principles of Liberty, as unalterable as human nature and the terrestrial, mundane system" (Letter of Adams to Jefferson, June 28, 1813).
It has become fashionable lately to say that Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson were "privately" very anti-religion. Indeed, we have many champions of this view here at FR. But if this is so, then these people need to explain why Thomas Jefferson would have engraved on his personal seal the motto, "Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
You weren’t?! Forgive me, but I doubt your sincerity. If you believe the phrase “To promote the Progress of Science and [useful] Arts” accurately conveys a clear understanding of the powers permitted Congress in Article One. Section Eight. Clause Eight; then do not expect me to join you in an attempt to defend your warped concept.
”Is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” a quote mine because I didn’t include the preliminary “a well regulated militia” or the conclusory “shall not be infringed”?”
No. It’s an incomplete thought searching for fulfillment. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” . . . what? “Shall not be granted”? “Shall be allowed only on Tuesday afternoons”? “Shall be subject to the whim of Congress”? “Shall be accessed only at Federal armories”? Oh, wait! I know . . . “shall not be infringed.” Brevity is pointless if it does not convey a comprehensible concept. Your example fails on that count. Worse, it (your example) exactly reverses what you did with the disputed passage, in that you offered a present participle as though it were the operative clause, and excluded entirely the main or independent clause as though it did not exist. Using your present example, it is as though you had offered “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” as an accurate representation of the meaning and import of the Second Amendment, while ignoring “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” There are, of course, people who would like us to believe that is the proper understanding, but we know that it is not.
Walks like a duck; talks like a duck. I think it’s a duck.
”Among the limited enumerated powers of the Federal Government is the mandate to promote the Arts and Sciences, and yes, the specific power granted for this goal is the issuance of exclusive rights for a limited time.”
There you go again. Back at the same Kool-Aid stand, trying to smuggle in the same poisoned concept. The ‘mandate’ in Article One. Section Eight. Clause Eight. is to secure “for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” In truth, it is not a ‘mandate’ at all. It is an enumerated power. This is The Constitution; not some misanthropic Marxist/Socialist manifesto.
”would hope that any true Conservative . . .
I’m a Jeffersonian liberal from before the time the term was transformed into a Liberal excrement deformity (POS) by Democrats, Progressives, Anarchists, and Marxists/Socialists, and I recognize far more than you will find comforting.
” My point was that all the practices of the government of these United States will not align themselves with the religious sensibilities of all of its citizens.:
And drive every vestige of religion (specifically Judeo-Christian) from the public square, denying in the process that the Judeo-Christian tradition ever had any influence on the building of the Union. I could say a good deal more, but you have been blessed with an epistle from betty boop (see msg 179) and I do not wish to burden you and any lurkers with what she has already said so much better than I.
”It is not my fault
Maybe not. Your attempts at quote-mining The Constitution tell me, however, that you are perfectly willing to allow it to be subverted and that you do not propose to do so much as lift a finger in its defense. Jefferson warned that we dare not turn The Constitution into a blank piece of paper lest we lose its protection; a warning largely unheeded. Day by day, we are seeing the results unfold before our eyes.
Jefferson weeps.