Skip to comments.Pardon Me, President Trump, But Donít Forget Dinesh DíSouza
Posted on 04/17/2018 8:33:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
click here to read article
David Frum, Canadian emigrant and expatriate, Yale pseudo-Conservative, and for a brief time Presidential speech writer, has written a book in which he advocates--with no real pretense to Constitutional authority--sending America's sons (and as a fake Conservative, daughters) to die in order to support a theory: That imposing Democracy on the Near & Middle Easts by force is, in some imagined sense, in America's long term interest. While some may snicker at the sophomorish quality of a man who would advocate killing others to make them "Democratic," as some would snicker at the idea of killing others to make them free; there is nothing really funny about a verbal spin Doctor or apprentice, demanding that the United States of America, which he has adopted, sacrifice their youth for his theories.
Well, I hope at least that my utter contempt for the poseur shines through. A younger friend of mine tried to lure Frum down here for a debate with ‘yours truly’ over a decade back; but he did not take the bait. Too bad!
Let me guess... you got that idea from David Barton?
Yet somehow the Founders forgot to codify that intent into law and failed to include it in their debates.
Probably because the Constitutional convention grew out of two previous trade conferences- the Mount Vernon conference and the Annapolis convention- and it's number one goal was to correct what the Founders saw as major problems with the United States original "constitution", the Articles of Confederation.
What it wasn't, was a theological or philosophical exercise.
The closest that they came to incorporating Christian norms into the founding was to cite Deuteronomy more often than other sources such as Blackwell's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Not surprising since the founders were almost all members of Christian churches and those values were the water that they swam in. But they weren't consciously seeking to impose a religious test.
In fact one only needs to look at the 1779 Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom that grew into the 1st Amendment to see what the Founder's attitude towards religion and government was:
our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy of the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction;
It does. Well done!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.