What are Progressive Values?

It depends on what you define as "superiority"(which the Liberal movement did not, and does not understand.) Do you mean superiority, as in granting rights to certain groups rather than others? This would indeed, be prejudice and not equal rights. But its the other way around when you grant "privileges" to groups that aren't necessarily rights in of themselves for anyone, but are simply demanded for the new group under the guise of "equality". A group is always preferred. Just not the "majority" group(or "previously favored") group in question.

Simply put: Favoring one group over another is reverse discrimination and is not liberalizing the United States, or a restoration of Classical Liberalism. Analyzed in this view, we can view Liberalism to meet the same fate as Communism: There had never been a truly Liberal State, since it has discriminated in one form or another in its endless and futile quest to 'balance" the groups on a scale.

Or do you mean "supremacy", in the establishment of a numerical majority, to whom life in a country(In Plural Form), it doesn't have to be the US) is situated? Here I must establish that it's not "supremacy', but a hierarchy which protects, even the minorities. If the minorities are able to assimilate into the Liberal United States(which held that all rights are equal), then the minorities would be able to enjoy life in America.

The same is true for minorities in Sweden, etc. No one has problems with minorities on an individual level, seeing them assimilate and at least respect the nation's values and held traditions. A strong, inclusive majority is how a country should be built. Minority-rule is disastrous in the long run. It builds coalitions, conflicts and often discrimination(see: Syria).

If that strong majority country happens to be European/Western in nature, that's okay. There's nothing "discriminatory" about that, unless one wants to make the claim there shouldn't be a European/Western nation. In which case, the EU Bloc should be heavily concerning to Liberals. Because they haven't "progressed" to that point.(Indeed, their only problem is other Europeans lol.)

Even if the US should have a new majority outlook, even that outlook would be acceptable as long as it can treat White minorities the same way it treated the other minorities when they were minorities. But that's just a see-saw. Up and down. No change. You'd be infighting among the people for ethnic control of the country. The US is quickly losing grip of what makes it a strong nation. Not its "diversity", but its inclusiveness.

That's why I'm a believer in hierarchy, that's why I'm a believer in a strong majority. If that majority can uphold the rule of law ethically for all people, then the country will be stable. If the people in the country are morally and philosophically consistent with each other, they can live in harmony. That, more than any "quota" is true equality. There is no such thing as a "racial" or "political" balance. Representation is more important.

 

'THE WALKING DEAD' as if Americans ARE IN A ZOMBIFIED STATE either from being subjugated by the process of dehumanization or SSRIs and alchohol. Dehumanizing mass media, endless cop shows of murder scenes on every channel, Obamas mass murder foreign policy of Syria, Iraq and the heartless lies used to cover up the war crimes of the Democrats murder of innocents by arming death squads, ruthless media whores bought and paid for to lie for the military, Dems and GOP on a daily basis thru brainwashed, dead from the neck up talk radio and tv news is parallel to the current and continous erasing of history and current events AND WITH REGARDS TO FRANCE, either being called cowards because of Iraq or WWII , Big Brother always demonizes those not in cooperation with its Pentagon endless war for profit killing machine.


Are Americans desensitized by constant extreme violence film, and TV news of cops shooting innocents and unarmed?

 

Another very noticable trait of 'progressive values' in media - be it Hartman, and his 'go Bernie ' BS, Michael Moore, Maher, Jon Stewart or Greenwald is the amount of self absorption in their commentary while Obama and Hillary proceeded in their plan to extermiate Syria. How Stewarts 30 milion a year salary changes a person - GEEZ!

Comedy Central are all scumbags anyway- sell out CBS d-bag Colbert, Amy Schumer,
Stewart ... f bombs on the whole network and the whole of them.



George Romero (the grand master of the Zombie horror cult film classics) did say in a TV interview that DAWN OF THE DEAD represented ZOMBIFIED 'mass consumer' American culture -that is why it took place in a shopping mall.

MASS CONSUMPTION (i.e.) capitalism drove the US GOVMNT INTO STAGING 9/11, as the foreign investment in America dropped to ZERO by the year 2000, so the US needed a new MANUFACTURED ENEMY ...since Russia was gone ... so the Arabs had to be the target for the TRILLION DOLLAR A YEAR PLUS INTEREST PENTAGON BUDGET.


BTW - you dodged the question ...


'Are Americans desensitized by constant extreme violence in film, and TV and news of cops shooting innocents and unarmed?'


YES OR NO ???

 

Domestic terrorism is alive and well in the USA and it is masquerading as a “Progressive

 

“It’s easy to demonstrate how progressive and open-minded and loyal you are when it costs you nothing.”
― Tim Kreider, We Learn Nothing

 

I agree with almost all you said except for the part where you say that the only one looking out for an individual except that individual.

For most people, they have their parents, siblings, close neighbors, co-religionists, et. al.

Have you ever seen an non-Chinese server in a Chinese restaurant. I have not. The Chinese in this country look out for each other to a certain extent.

This is the basis of "white privilege." I think "white privilege" is an inevitable and in fact a good thing.

This is exactly the opposite of the "Progressive values" who want to outlaw the natural affection we have for our family, our co-religionists and our race and national origin.

It is inhuman. That is the problem with Progressivism, it needs better human beings than the ones available.

 

I appreciate the respect and thoughtfulness of the questions asked so I will attempt to respond with answers in kind.

"Supremacy" could best be defined as the discrimination and oppression based upon an invidious criteria (e.g. race, religion, ethnic heritage, nationality, gender, social/economic status, etc.) and ultimately it doesn't matter if it's is official "Supremacy" embraced by the government or de facto supremacy within the social structure of the nation. Of course official "Supremacy" is worse because that implies the government not only embraces the Supremacy but also that it isn't opposing it. At least if it's unofficial Supremacy the government can be involved in fighting against or mitigating the de facto Supremacy that exists.

Officially "Supremacy" should not exist in the United States based upon the 14th Amendment's "equal protection clause" but realize that equal protection extends beyond just the actions of government. "Equal protection" also requires government to create protections of the person from the discrimination and oppression of people by society. Additionally the government is required to mitigate cases where that discrimination and oppression does exist.

"Favoring one group" is often misunderstood because it's really referring to the mitigation of harm cased by "Supremacy" where discrimination and oppression exist. By analogy my neighbor could come over and smash my car with a sledgehammer so I take them to court. The facts of the case establish my claim as the plaintiff and the court, to mitigate the damage done to me, rules in my favor and requires the defendant to pay for damages. The court is making a decision favorable to the plaintiff (i.e. favoring one group) in it's decision because the "rights" of the plaintiff were violated.

Many "conservatives" today oppose affirmative action and generally it's based upon ignorance and prejudice. At the federal level Affirmative Action is highly limited and it's goals are to eliminate racial and gender discrimination in employment. No group is "favored" under federal affirmative action guidelines. Federal government private contractors are required, if necessary, to expand their search criteria to ensure that people of both genders and all racial types are included in their search for qualified applicants and that "race and gender" are excluded from their hiring, compensation, and advancement practices. There are no quotas to meet and only statistical tracking is used to determine if the efforts of the enterprise are successful. If the goal of neutral hiring, compensation, and advancement are not being met then the enterprise must make an effort to meet that neutral criteria.

No quotas or favoritism mandates are included in federal Affirmative Action and the very small percentage of private enterprises that fall under the Affirmative Action guidelines have found that they've benefited from them and now participate willingly because it's "good for business" to hire the most qualified people without any racial or gender discrimination in employment, compensation and/or advancement.

Yes, at the state level Affirmative Action has also been applied most notably related to state college and university admissions. Some colleges and universities have determined, based upon statistical data, that they're not providing equality of educational opportunity to racial minorities (predominately blacks) so they do establish a "quota" to increase the number of students from the racial minority previously discriminated against base upon admission criteria but people need to realize that ALL of the students admitted must be qualified for admission. Everyone must pass the college admissions exam and the college or university is choosing to use "race" to mitigate against the other admission standards to ensure equality of educational opportunity for those previously discriminated against. It's an attempt to mitigate against the historical racial discrimination and oppression against black in our society.

In principle the "progressive" does support Affirmative Action, realizing there are anecdotal cases where it runs amok, because it's an attempt to mitigate the historical racial discrimination and oppression in our society that's not condoned under the US Constitution. It's not about "favoring one group" but instead is about mitigation the effects of "Supremacy" where a group is discriminated against and oppressed in our society.

End the racial Supremacy that creates the discrimination and oppression the necessity to mitigate it's effects with "Affirmative Action" disappear.

In a way it's identical to government welfare assistance that mitigates the effects of poverty. End the poverty and the necessity to mitigate the effects of poverty disappear. "Conservatives" argue against government welfare while advocating the economic policies that create the poverty that the government welfare assistance is required to mitigate. The United States produces far more wealth than is necessary to ensure that no one lives in poverty.

The "Progressive" seeks to ensure adequate compensation from employment, that we can certainly afford as a nation based upon the amount of wealth we produce, so that poverty will be dramatically reduced and that reduces the necessity to mitigate the effects of poverty with government welfare assistance. We can't eliminate poverty for all of the people living in the United States but we can certainly eliminate poverty for everyone working in the United States. "Conservatives" are opposed to economic policies that eliminate the poverty for working Americans. For example "conservatives" oppose a "living wage" for the workers that would ensure that workers don't require government welfare assistance. The "progressive" supports a "living wage" because it dramatically reduces the necessity for government to mitigate the effects of poverty with welfare assistance (and would dramatically reduce government spending).

It's interesting because the above "progressive" position is actually based upon the "Natural Right of Property" as expressed by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5. Based upon Locke's arguments a person's labor entitles them to their "support and comfort" and to nothing more. The person's labor establishes their Right of Property (ownership) and not statutory title to the property. "Conservatives" believe that the statutory title, not the labor of the person, establishes ownership and that's juxtaposed to the arguments established by John Locke. Locke established that there is a limit to what a person could own (i.e. not more than what they can actually use for the personal support and comfort) while "conservatives" argue that the person can have unlimited wealth.

Bottom line the "progressive" supports the "Natural Right of Property" while "conservative" oppose the "Natural Right of Property" of the person based upon the arguments presented by John Locke.

The key founders of America, including Thomas Jefferson (the "Father" of the Declaration of Independence), James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution" and "Bill of Rights") and George Washington (the "Father of the United States"), all opposed "democracy" which is the rule of the majority of the people realizing that the "people" are intellectually incapable of government. Instead they advocated and created a Constitutional Republic where the "intellectuals" of the country were to be elected to govern and where the Constitution established the authority and constraints under which the intellectuals would govern.

They understood that government based upon the "will of the majority" (i.e. pure democracy) always leads to the oppression of the minority by the majority so they rejected it. It was for this same reason that they rejected religion as the foundation for government because religion always leads to oppression of the minority by the "religious majority" of the nation (that was Christianity in the case of the United States). Many "conservatives" today claim that the United States was founded based upon Christianity or more generally based upon a belief in god but nothing could be further from the truth.

"Conservatives" often make the statement that people must assimilate to the culture of the majority of Americans and this flies in the face of the historical motto of the United States established in 1776.

E Pluribus Unum​

This is Latin meaning "From many, One" and the Progressive understands that people from all cultures, races, ethnic heritages, gender, social/economic status, and other criteria become united as one people based upon our political ideology. The only "assimilation" that we insist upon is the adoption of our political ideology and not the "cultural assimilation" that the "conservatives insist upon. The "progressive" embraces the cultural difference of the people in the United States while the "conservative" disparages those differences.

I wouldn't call Donald Trump a "conservative" (I'd use other disparaging terms) but we know that he has no "progressive" supporters. Studies indicate that Donald Trump supporters express the highest levels of explicit anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Muslim and anti-women prejudice of any presidential candidate. The "progressive" oppose racism, xenophobia, and misogyny, that Donald Trump's political rhetoric is pandering to based upon studies of his supporters which include know White Supremacy/White Nationalist leaders and organizations. Are they reflective of "conservatives" in generally? Hopefully not but we know that Donald Trump's supporters are "conservative" because they're sure as hell not "progressive" Americans. Of course we do have a positive sign because recent studies indicate that over 62% of Americans oppose Donald Trump which by default includes his racist, xenophobic, and misogynistic supporters.

Not knowing enough about foreign countries I will respectfully decline to comment on them.

 

Returning to the original question as a self-proclaimed (American) "Progressive Libertarian" I believe it's important for me to summarize both the political ideology and the foundation for morality that's embraced in the political ideology.

The political ideology is simple because it's based upon the two lines from the Declaration of Independence and cannot be expressed any better IMHO.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (people) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

The moral ideology is also simple because the "progressive" rejects morality based upon dogma and/or faith and embraces the morality of secular humanism that is based upon logic and reasoning.

"The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the bases of morality and decision making.[1][2][3][4]

Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

While some might want an itemized list of those political or moral values understanding the foundation is far more important. As noted this doesn't have anything to do with being a Democrat or Republican or whether the person might be a Christian, Muslim, or atheist. Both the moral and political ideology are based upon logic and reasoning with a foundation established by an understanding of natural law.

The "Progressive Ideology" is an ideology of the person based upon intellectualism as opposed to ignorance, prejudice, and/or superstition.

 

Such walls of text.
"Lie,cheat, and steal"
"The end justifies the means"
There you go.

 

Clearly reflective of the "ignorance, prejudice, and/or superstition" I've previously referred to.

 

I'm not seeing the intelligence in New World Order Progressive Humanists Socialist, ETC. Your camp assumes there is no intelligence or value in any religion---certainly among Judeo-Christians.

As the largest group of atheists/humanists have been communists---I not seeing much intelligence or value given their long history of draconian rule, genocides, mass murders, human rights travesties, and so forth.

Virtually all the Founders were Christians or at least unopposed to Christian values and traditions. So stating you copy and paste their ideas that came about from a Christian moral view.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2546951/posts

 

"Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith."

The "progressive" would reject the unquestioned acceptance of any dictated morality based upon dogma as opposed to logical deduction based upon scrutiny of what is proposed. It would make no difference to the "progressive" whether the dogma was coming from texts by the "New World Order Progressive Humanists Socialist" or from Judeo-Christian religious texts. An example would be Thomas Jefferson's "New Testament" where he removed all of the supernatural references so that he could review the "Philosophy of Christianity" without any religious dogma. Jefferson subjected Christian teaching to intellectual scrutiny. The same applies to the intellectual scrutiny of any philosophical proposition. It is not accepted at "face value" without question but instead is subjected to an intellectual review but the "progressive" before it's accepted.

This is a Non Sequitur argument.

First and foremost nothing dictates that the "progressive" that bases their morality on "secular humanism" be an atheist or religious believer. They can be either but in both cases their morality is based upon the intellectual scrutiny of moral philosophy they embrace as opposed to being based upon dogmatic faith in any teaching.

"Draconian rule" that has resulted in "genocides, mass murders, and human rights travesties" has existed based upon both religious beliefs and a lack of religious beliefs (atheism) throughout history and neither is acceptable under morality established by secular humanism. For ,example, based upon the Torah the Jews committed the genocide of the Canaanites when they originally invaded the Land of Canaan where all living creatures, man, woman, and child along with all of the animals were slaughtered.

Communism and Capitalism are both political/economic philosophies that are inherently neither good or bad. We can certainly document the extensive human rights violations under communist regimes but how many are aware of the fact that capitalism in the United States violates the "natural right of property" of the person? Our laws of property are based upon "title" that was created under the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings" as opposed to being based upon "the labor of the person" established by the philosophical arguments proposed by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5.

Many Christians like to point to this list but overwhelmingly it addresses "how the person was raised" as opposed to what they actually believed later in life. Always remember that everyone is "born an atheist" without any religious beliefs. They are later indoctrinated in a specific religious belief typically by their parents when they're too young to make intellectual decisions for themselves. When they reach the "age of majority" (where it's assumed they can reason for themselves) then they may retain or reject those religious beliefs.

As the list notes Thomas Jefferson firmly established that he was a "Deist" in his writings as an adult so while he was raised as a child as an Episcopalian he was NOT an Episcopalian (Christian). James Madison, while respecting the religious beliefs of others (that he cites in a quotation in the provided link), was arguably an atheist from what we know about him. Without doing extensive research we really have no way of knowing what the actual religious beliefs, if any, were for most of the founding fathers of this nation. Most people will admit that just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they actually are and we have no means of determining what's in the heart of the person.

What we do know is that the political ideology of the United States and the US Constitution were NOT based upon religious beliefs. Both the political ideology of the United States and the US Constitution are based upon secular humanism as opposed to sectarian dogma. That's really the only thing that matters.

 

progressive values = biblical values


biblical values = progressive values




I have posted on several Christian or biblical web forums where there have been debates between patriotic progressives and those whose agenda is with the unamerican right wing ~ as always the Christian progressives always win those debates and do so easily - after all they are adherents of that liberal Jew from Nazareth

 

In your totally disinterested, objective and unbiased opinion of course.

 

They don't call Jesus that "liberal Jew" for nothing.

 

Who are "they?"

 

Liberal response to your post?

Plug ears and go "lalalalala"

"It"s Bush's fault"

"You're a bigot and a racist" (they really like to use that one)

 

Lacking time to be more thorough, we see by your definition of secular-humanist-progressive that each person can base his morals and beliefs any way they wish. Certainly any progressive Christian can pick or choose any part of the Bible they want to support, and certainly any moral teachings of Christ they wish, and ignore whatever they please. Basically, it's the "Create-A-Jesus" faith. Really, no faith at all.

With the progressives, they are even more intolerant of breach of their doctrine (what ever it is at the time) than evangelical Christians. So what progressive values, beliefs, doctrines, cannot be disputed by any of their adherents?

Homosexuality is a good and moral practice. Any person or business that does not support same-sex marriage should be condemned.

All people are basically good, unless they are Conservative Whites and/or Christians, even though they gave the world modern democracy and charity.

Only discuss White slavery of Blacks, even though all people until the last 1,000 years practiced slavery, and Christians were the 1st to stop it.

Transexuals, transvestites and almost all forms of sexual deviancy are to be rejoiced.

There should be no limit to entitlements. The central government, not the Christian Church or the traditional family, IS the wellspring of all goodness.

And so forth....

Obvious to all but the anointed progressives:

 

This is absolute nonsense. Accepting on faith without intellectual review of what someone wrote down in a book over 2,000 years ago is the most regressive form of "conservatism" imaginable. For example the Bible expresses support for genocide (i.e. the genocide of the Canaanites by the Jews) and the subjugation of women to the man in marriage. People were burned at the stake and subjected to slavery based upon "Biblical" texts.

 

Well, you cannot say you value freedom and then pass laws that limit freedoms at the same time. The mantra from the right that they alone by some proclamation or declaration stand for freedom is nothing but a slogan, it means nothing. It is the same with so-called "constitutionalists". It is a declaration based upon a very narrow understanding of the law that cannot hold up to scrutiny. But it sells tickets to the conservative side show and allows that person to make a declaration of principle that is meant to separate themselves from everyone else. Conservatism like all ideologies is about separation, it is a catch all phrase with only one purpose. That purpose was to give white men of power and means a way of maintaining control over their fellow white men while feeding them a story that they can stick to like white on rice. Remember that the modern conservative movement was championed publicly by an aristocratic elite intellectual named Buckley. He created the modern conservative movement by being intellectually articulate enough to battle the other intellectuals that were common at the time. These debates used to be fought between intellectual giants not vapid idiots like Trump or Hannity or Sarah Palin. Reagan turned the conversation into a farce by celebrating his non-intellectual bona fides and making the truly ignorant into the virtuous. That is how we got to Trump. The GOP in my childhood was deeply cerebral in many ways, not anymore.

 

Not true on either count. First of all the "progressing" has to base their moral beliefs upon intellectual scrutiny of philosophical propositions. They must be able to support whatever they believe in based upon the presentation of compelling and logical argument. They can't just "believe whatever then damn well please" because they won't be able to support their beliefs with compelling and logical argument.

We don't have any texts written by Jesus so we don't actually know what Jesus taught or believed. All we have are hearsay documents (i.e. the New Testament) written by unknown authors about what Jesus may or may not have said. Effectively Jesus is like Socrates that never wrote down anything either but we do have texts written by the followers of Socrates such as Aristotle and those are the texts we subject to intellectual scrutiny.

Arguably true because the progressive would state "this is intolerable and here are the reasons why" while the evangelical Christian would state "this is intolerable because the Bible says so." One is based by logic and reason with supporting argument while the other is based upon faith without supporting argument.

All of the beliefs of the progressive are subject to scrutiny and review because they are not based upon blind acceptance and faith. If the progressive cannot provide the logic and reason then their beliefs are highly questionable.

The interactions of adults based upon mutual consent are fundamentally unrelated to morality. It would be immoral to prohibit personal interactions based upon the mutual consent of adults involved in those actions. A person does not have to support homosexuality but they can't discriminate in commerce based upon their personal beliefs. Commerce is not a "right of the person" but instead is a "privilege" granted by government. As a "privilege" the government has a responsibility to "regulate" and that regulation must ensure that the invidious discrimination based upon personal opinion does not occur. There's literally no difference between racial discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination based upon personal opinion in commerce. The customer's personal lifestyle is none of the "sellers" business.

No, all people aren't basically "good" or "bad" and it has nothing to do with being white, Christian, or any other invidious criteria. Go back to the quotation I provided on secular humanism. I would object logically to the Christian belief in "original sin" of course because the infant has done nothing wrong and the "crimes (sins) of the father" are never the "crimes (sins) of the child" but will refrain from going into a long explanation of that.

Slavery has existed in many cultures and I don't believe that it can be documented that Christians were the first to end the practice of slavery in a society.

What should be rejoiced is that consenting adults can engage in relationships of mutual consent where no harm comes to those involved or others without someone else disparaging them based upon personal opinion. What "Tom and Bill" choose to do is up to "Tom and Bill" and as long as they don't harm each other or someone else they certainly haven't harmed me.

A "factoid" about charity. Never in the history of civilization have private charities, regardless of whether the were secular or sectarian, been able to fully mitigate the effects of poverty. Governments have chosen, often based upon the will of the people, provided for the shortfall of private charities to mitigate the effects of poverty with welfare assistance (e.g. entitlements). Historically, even when both private charity and government welfare are addressed, they have still fallen short of fully mitigating the effects of poverty in a society.

As a "progressive libertarian" I advocate reducing the poverty which reduces the necessity for both private charity and government welfare that's required to mitigate the effects of the poverty.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from that the "progressive" advocates unlimited "entitlements" because not even Democrats advocate that. Democrats. for example, advocate a dramatic increase in the minimum wage that would result in a dramatic decrease in the amount of government welfare assistance. An increased minimum wage reduces poverty in our economic system and reducing poverty has to be the goal if we want to reduce the necessity for private charities and government welfare assistance.

I believe you're consistently confusing "Democrats" with "Progressives" because "Progressive" has nothing to do with political party affiliation or agenda.

 

My other post was getting way to long and this is a slightly different subject so I decided to address it separately.

As noted the Declaration of Independence does not refer to the Christian god nor does it literally refer to god at all. It refers to "creator" that can either be "god" or "nature" based upon whether the person believes in god or not. It's also intentionally vague in referring to "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God", "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World”, and "With a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence” because all are subject to individual interpretation where the religious believer would automatically interpret those statements to mean "god" whereas the atheist, that doesn't believe in god, would not.

In any case none of these refer to the Christian god even for those that have religious beliefs. In any case, as you accurately note, it doesn't refer to Christianity and it's subject to interpretation in a nation where both atheists and religious believers adopted the ideology based upon their individual beliefs and interpretations. In fact the original official motto of the United States reflects this.

E Pluribus Unum ("from many, one") which is inclusive of all religious and non-religious beliefs, all races, and all social customs establishing America as a multi-cultural society united by a singular political ideology.

Tradition dictate a "day of rest" in many cultures and the Constitution is really allowing for a "day of rest" that traditionally was on Sunday in the United States. The Constitution doesn't mention Christianity but instead is referring to the custom of a "day of rest" that was most commonly on Sunday in the United States.

This is a reference to the calendar in use as opposed to using other world calendars that could also have been referenced. It's literally a reference to the calendar that was in use based upon the Church of England that had been adopted from the Roman calendar and was generally accepted by "Western European nations" of the time. As also mentioned, at the time when the United States Constitution was ratified there were "conservatives" and "progressives" and the "conservatives" sought to retain the traditional institutions including Christian traditions. That didn't make it right nor does it represent the very progressive political ideology upon which America was founded.

The "progressives" were tolerant of many of the "conservatives" that sought to retain traditional institutions that were contradictory to the new ideology so long as those traditional institutions were fundamentally harmless to the new ideology.

Nonsense. The Paris Peace Treaty ended the war but the United States was founded in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was adopted and not in 1783 when the Paris Peace Treaty was signed or in 1786 when the Constitution was ratified and replaced the Article of Confederation. From July 4, 1776 the United States was being governed by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation.

Once again the "progressives" that established the United States and the political ideology for the United States remained tolerant of the "conservatives" that retained traditional beliefs where no harm was caused. In fact they even tolerated the continuation of slavery because fully implementing the political ideology expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the 9th Amendment, that protected the unenumerated rights of the person when adopted, both should have ended slavery but would have divided the nation. The "progressives" were both idealistic and pragmatic in establishing and implementing the political ideology of America.

Of note the British government and the British monarchy were based upon Christianity which explains the reason for the inclusion of this text. The Treaty was not an American document but instead was a British-American document that took into account both countries. Inclusion of this reference for the sake of the British was of no consequence to the government in the United States.

 

Why did the values of the leading progressives change so suddenly on SSM? It's like their entire life long belief system changed on a dime along with the political winds.

Fracking hacks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

one progressive value, is to promote the general welfare incrementally and progressively.

 

Faith, hope, and charity. "Love thy neighbour as thyself."