lslam in Texas, please read.

20,217 Views | 445 Replies | Last: 5 hrs ago by Zobel
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 6:54a, 12/10/25
AG
Aggrad08 said:

I'm not the one who watered anything down. You were the one who said you had no problem with him being an American. But now it seems you do and wish it weren't so. Make up your mind.

The telling of a man that he doesn't belong because of racism, sexism, being too poor, not being republican enough or whatever criteria you can imagine is a red herring. Every manner of American demographic can be shown to have some idiot opinion on something.

I actually do think we should be a credal nation, but I disagree with your basic premise that we were ever as cohesive or resistant to immigration and the variety that's comes with it even early in our history.

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respected Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment."
-George Washington

"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular."

Thomas Jefferson

When [immigrants] look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'; and then they feel that that moral sentiment, taught in that day, evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration; and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world."

Abraham Lincoln

"We're a nation composed of people who have come here from every corner of the world, people of all races and creeds … they're every bit as American as those who came here two centuries ago seeking freedom." -Ronald Reagan

Since this is the last speech that I will give as President, I think it's fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love. It was stated best in a letter I received not long ago. A man wrote me and said: ``You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American. - Ronald Reagan.

There are more of course.


Bunch of woke secular liberals.
Reply Quote
4
Maximus of Tejas
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 7:56a, 12/10/25
Masonic but ya the founding fathers weren't anything special. America is nothing short of a total failure. Conservatives only have nostalgia (yes it was better) and Zionism while liberals get to look forward to embracing Islam. What a great place!
Reply Quote
Maximus of Tejas
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:58a, 12/10/25
God won't allow America to continue though unless there is mass repentance and we ain't seeing any of that. Islam, Zionism, liberalism, etc. won't win in the end.
Reply Quote
1
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bigtruckguy3500 • 8:19a, 12/10/25
AG
bigtruckguy3500 said:
I have not taken a citizenship test. How does that define being American? Or does it?

My questions are to point out that it's a rabbit hole to try and define what it means to be an American without a plethora of conditional statements and circuitous logic to keep from hypocrisy or infringing on individual rights.


I know you haven't because if you had, you'd understand that we communicate quite clearly what is important and what it means to be an American. It's the difference between legal and illegal immigrants/refugees/H1-Bs. it's why taking the final step after a green card matters.

Your questions do nothing but obliterate any semblance of identity outside of the self; it's nihilistic and should be outright rejected. What you propose isn't a country at all, since that requires something in common beyond the place you're born. I thought from comments you'd made in other threads that you were Christian but you sound more like a rational materialist. Man is born free but everywhere he finds himself in chains, eh?
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 9:37a, 12/10/25
AG
Ok, there's a lot of things there about merit, acceptance of values, rules. And we should also note that none of the early founder fathers saw any dissonance between those kinds of sentiments and the fact that not everyone could vote. Citizenship, enjoyment of rules, and suffrage aren't (weren't) the same thing.

So again we are back to the original question from page 1. What are these values and where do they come from?
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:35a, 12/10/25
AG
And I don't object to any of those. But it appears you do. You seem to be going back and forth on whether this guy should be considered an American. You appear to think that the values mentioned by those presidents implicitly require your worldview while somehow not realizing that those very statements explicitly reference other cultures and religions and the men themselves had different theological views than you.

Articulating the minutiae of what exactly we should consider our credal values is fine and well if you've got the time. But I think the premise that a Muslim would be incapable of meeting those whether immigrated or raised here is going to be a tough argument to make. Unless you espouse credal values so tied to your own presuppositions as to exclude many that past generations welcomed.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 11:00a, 12/10/25
AG
I think what they mean by merit, values etc is so far from what you would accept that you're not even talking about the same things. there is a semantic gap.

How come yall say yeah everything is fine as long as they accept American values but every time i ask for those values you can't be bothered to actually say what they are or where they come from?

How can we examine if those values are compatible with Islam, or Catholicism, or Paganism, or Nazism, or Facism, or Communism, or ethno-nationalism or whatever if we aren't even able to say what they are?

And not for nothin' but race based naturalization was a thing in this country until 1952. All of your presidents except Reagan lived with that. How do you square that circle?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 11:05a, 12/10/25
AG
I don't think so. I think you are trying to retroactively assign a uniformity and a religious/ethnic conformity that is at odds with the very statements explicitly made by these men. And it's not like Ronald Reagan was 200 years ago. But by all means put forth the criteria that you would have us follow that would've excluded this man.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 11:07a, 12/10/25
AG
come on dude at least try to engage. What are these values you keep referring to? You said credal - what's the creed?
Reply Quote
3
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 11:20a, 12/10/25
AG
No don't give me that crap. You are all over the place. First you say we have no shared values. Then you bemoan that this person is a citizen. And go on to say this:

" Because it hasn't always been true that being an American was just some kind of legal definition, without any kind of unifying valuE"

So what was the unifying value that was lost?

I can list what our cultural values "tend" to be. We have no effective enforcement that our citizens must share all these values, including those descendant from the mayflower which you well know. We have enforcement of laws which is pretty straightforward. So trying to make this about some checklist that we've never enforced to which there are countless exceptions is nonsense.

Are there sets of values we should encourage and try to vet for in new immigrants? I would say yes. And we can talk about what those should be.

But we fundamentally, as a value, protect freedom of expression. So when a nazi rally is on the news in Mississippi as was the case recently, I can think "those people don't have American values" Without thinking "those people should have the citizenship revoked".

You however appear to feel differently about some people born here.
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 11:32a, 12/10/25
AG
What is the creed?
Reply Quote
1
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 11:50a, 12/10/25
AG
You tell me. It's your own assertion that one existed and was lost.
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 12:01p, 12/10/25
AG
" I actually do think we should be a credal nation"

-you

I never said there was one existed and lost. You're confused.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:07p, 12/10/25
I would say liberty is at the top of the list. That's one principle conservatives and liberals agree on, even though they approach it from different ends.

Justice is number 2. We all agree "nobody is above the law."

Equality. We don't like the idea of classes.

Maybe hard work and family values, but liberals tend to minimize those.
Reply Quote
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 12:17p, 12/10/25
AG
You said we had a unifying value that was lost. I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make between "creed" and "unifying value". But whatever. List this value(s) that was lost.
Reply Quote
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 12:24p, 12/10/25
AG
Aggrad08 said:
I don't think so. I think you are trying to retroactively assign a uniformity and a religious/ethnic conformity that is at odds with the very statements explicitly made by these men. And it's not like Ronald Reagan was 200 years ago. But by all means put forth the criteria that you would have us follow that would've excluded this man.


Yours is the anachronistic and you accuse him of it? How incredibly dishonest to say we should ignore everything else they said and did so that you can use the 2025 denotation and connotation for the words.
Reply Quote
1
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 12:26p, 12/10/25
AG
By all means tell me how the meaning of the words fundamentally changed. Start with Reagan and work your way up.
Reply Quote
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 12:31p, 12/10/25
AG
Aggrad08 said:
By all means tell me how the meaning of the words fundamentally changed. Start with Reagan and work your way up.


Gee, why'd you pick Reagan, the first guy to offer amnesty, instead of the rest of the guys on that list…hmm?

List your creed.

Edit: I'd add Reagan's requirements for amnesty are something else to look into. It wasn't as simple as, "hey guys we're open for business, no strings attached'"
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 12:52p, 12/10/25
AG
List yours. At least you've been consistent in saying the mayor isn't American. So who is?

Also I said work you way up. Go all the way to Washington and articulate how the meaning fundamentally changed.
Reply Quote
1 edit
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 1:08p, 12/10/25
AG
Aggrad08 said:
List yours. At least you've been consistent in saying the mayor isn't American. So who is?

Also I said work you way up. Go all the way to Washington and articulate how the meaning fundamentally changed.


Did I? Where did I say that?

Again, you quote historical figures without interrogating their presuppositions and arrive at flawed conclusions. You're reading historical documents like an evangelical reads the Bible: plaintext is all there is.

Voting and rights were not for everyone, nor was citizenship, which is why we had such vigorous debates historically. We still have citizenship tests, so clearly it means something to be American other than showing up at the door. Most of that you learn in school if you're born here so it's lost on you and 'bigtruckguy'.

If you want to read poorly, continue to dredge up quotes without understanding the people who said them, I won't stop you. But it doesn't serve to continue posting if you're afraid to stake out any territory to shield yourself from critique. At least 'bigtruckguy' in his persona attempted to enumerate the lowest common denominator. You can't even be bothered to do that.
Reply Quote
3
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 1:09p, 12/10/25
AG
this is comical because you say should be creedal but are like totally incapable of actually setting a real requirement.

Here's what I said.
Quote:
Because it hasn't always been true that being an American was just some kind of legal definition, without any kind of unifying value or virtue or kinship involved. That's the entire problem.

so, kinship, as John Jay said, is that we had a common ancestry - primarily British with other European founding stock, with a shared language as a unifying tongue, broadly a common religion (Christianity and primarily Protestant Christianity), and similar manners, and customs.

For values or political/social principles, liberty and independence, egalitarianism and individualism, republicanism, and a concept of society as founded on natural rights generally through the lens of Locke, tied to the family and societal structure and viewed as the origin itself of society with the enlightenment framework of rights. And absolutely with religion as a pillar of public order, with Christianity in particular seen as foundational and necessary for civil freedom.

For virtues, civic virtue was the highest - the ability to prioritize the public good over self interest, with Washington being the exemplar as a modern Cincinnatus. However, civic or public virtue is impossible without personal or private virtue, so moral character was a real need for the people of a republic. You'll see the founding fathers talk about prudence, courage, justice, and moderation all being required virtues for citizens. And of course the family basis for ethics is mentioned by people like John Adams - "the foundations of national morality must be laid in private Families." This all rests upon a moral framework and morality is downstream of religion. Which is why Washington could say that while he was completely in support of religious liberty, he didn't see it an issue to make people pay toward that which they profess. And why he said "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

These are aspirational unifiers in the writing of the founders, for sure. But that is a sharp contrast with modern legalistic concepts of citizenship or nationhood. Especially considering there is zero appeal to consensus in the above.

Now you go. What is the creed that we need as a credal nation?
Reply Quote
4
one MEEN Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 4:29p, 12/10/25
AG
"Now you go. What is the creed that we need as a credal nation?"

Ooh pick me pick me. I've got an oldie but a goodie.

I believe in one God, the Father almighty…
Reply Quote
2
bigtruckguy3500
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 5:15p, 12/10/25
AGC said:
bigtruckguy3500 said:
I have not taken a citizenship test. How does that define being American? Or does it?

My questions are to point out that it's a rabbit hole to try and define what it means to be an American without a plethora of conditional statements and circuitous logic to keep from hypocrisy or infringing on individual rights.


I know you haven't because if you had, you'd understand that we communicate quite clearly what is important and what it means to be an American. It's the difference between legal and illegal immigrants/refugees/H1-Bs. it's why taking the final step after a green card matters.

Your questions do nothing but obliterate any semblance of identity outside of the self; it's nihilistic and should be outright rejected. What you propose isn't a country at all, since that requires something in common beyond the place you're born. I thought from comments you'd made in other threads that you were Christian but you sound more like a rational materialist. Man is born free but everywhere he finds himself in chains, eh?


Aggies have certain values and customs, right? Is someone not an Aggie if they're a 2%er? If they don't go to football games? If they cheat on a test? If they share pirated textbooks or movies? Or straight up steal from the convenience store on campus? At what point do we say "you're not an Aggie"?

We should all aspire to something more, helping our communities, our families, our state, our country, etc.

At least Aggies, if you want to say they aren't one, aren't born Aggies. If someone was born here, and their family has been here for generations, but they don't give a crap about this country, they are crappy people, and break laws, do unethical things, etc., do you strip them of their title of being an American?

Or do you only apply some arbitrary criteria to people you perceive to be foreigners, or people you feel are part of an ethnic or religious group you disagree with?

My point with everything I've said so far is that it's great if you want to create some criteria that you use to say if someone is a good American, or bad American, but all it takes to be an American, is being born here or becoming a citizen.
Reply Quote
1
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 8:02p, 12/10/25
AG
AGC said:
Aggrad08 said:
List yours. At least you've been consistent in saying the mayor isn't American. So who is?

Also I said work you way up. Go all the way to Washington and articulate how the meaning fundamentally changed.


Did I? Where did I say that?


Then take a stand. Is he an American? Should he be?

Quote:
Again, you quote historical figures without interrogating their presuppositions and arrive at flawed conclusions. You're reading historical documents like an evangelical reads the Bible: plaintext is all there is.

Voting and rights were not for everyone, nor was citizenship, which is why we had such vigorous debates historically. We still have citizenship tests, so clearly it means something to be American other than showing up at the door. Most of that you learn in school if you're born here so it's lost on you and 'bigtruckguy'.

You are the one who committed the error. You think that the context of these men being slaveholders, not supporting universal suffrage or other rights undermines the ideals they espoused. When actually it's quite the opposite. These men held ideas greater than themselves. Ideals they did not live up to. But the ideals held greater sway. The ideals slowly over time, and against the constant clawing of generations of social conservatives destroyed norms of the time and turned the context you are appealing to on it's head. All men were created equal is an ideal they fell short of. But that ideal killed slavery, partial suffrage, and Jim crow to name a few.


Quote:
If you want to read poorly, continue to dredge up quotes without understanding the people who said them, I won't stop you. But it doesn't serve to continue posting if you're afraid to stake out any territory to shield yourself from critique. At least 'bigtruckguy' in his persona attempted to enumerate the lowest common denominator. You can't even be bothered to do that.

I understand what they were saying just fine. Your only response to Reagan was lol amnesty, and to the others you offered nothing. Why don't you see what 'context' you can muster to undermine their statements.
Reply Quote
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 8:41p, 12/10/25
AG
Zobel said:

so, kinship, as John Jay said, is that we had a common ancestry - primarily British with other European founding stock, with a shared language as a unifying tongue, broadly a common religion (Christianity and primarily Protestant Christianity), and similar manners, and customs.


These are aspirational unifiers in the writing of the founders, for sure. But that is a sharp contrast with modern legalistic concepts of citizenship or nationhood. Especially considering there is zero appeal to consensus in the above.

Now you go. What is the creed that we need as a credal nation?

You have made a basic error as I see it. The founders did care deeply about virtue, religion, and civic character. Where I disagree is with the idea that this was ever meant to be instead of a creedal understanding of American identity, or that it depended on one fixed ancestry or religious sect. Jay could talk about "one united people" of largely British stock but the legal and philosophical framework they built was not "for Britons only."

Our creed that you request, existed from the beginning and has changed some over time but largely resounds.

First above all we collectively believe in liberty. Individual freedom and self-determination. That the value in possessing rights supersedes the interests of the state or even that of a simple majority. Of individual access to justice and opportunity.

We believe in equality. "All men are created equal." This idea persisted in an unequal society. But rather than the society undermining the ideal and watering it down with notions of various demographic superiority, the ideal broke down national norms that competed with it. There was a disharmony from the moment these words were written with any notion of racial, ethnic, religious and other notions of superiority. But the idea persisted and one by one conquered it's opposition.

We believe in rule of law. That due process binds everyone. That none exist above the law. In a republican form of government. That the government requires the consent of the governed.

That is not to say this list is exhaustive or absolute or in any practical sense enforceable against individual opposition particularly for natural born citizens.

Our founding documents make no mention of religious preference rather they forbade religious test for office, they appeal to no ethnic heritage, no bonds of kinship. And so such notions had no protections, and it can be no surprise that such things changed.

To become a citizen you have to pass a civics test about our constitution, declaration, form of government and so on. You then swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, renouncing allegiance to foreign powers. If that's not creedal I don't know what is.

Now are native born citizens required to do that, yes and no. We sort of force it in school but it's not as explicit. And anyone can simply lie during any oath.

Can you say that America is not determined enough in enforcing, teaching and protecting it's creed. I think I would agree with that.

And you again fail to understand the role of consensus. The role of consensus is purely practical. In that no god has ever bothered to defend a single right. We defend rights. And without such a defense they exist only as a notion. The consensus is not the justification for the right, it's an important means by which the right is defended.

The alternative some of you seem to imply of re-ethicizing American identity around a particular ancestry or religious sentiment isn't a recovery of the founding it's a retreat from the most important things the founding got right.

Reply Quote
4 edits
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 11:07p, 12/10/25
AG
Quote:
You have made a basic error as I see it. The founders did care deeply about virtue, religion, and civic character. Where I disagree is with the idea that this was ever meant to be instead of a creedal understanding of American identity, or that it depended on one fixed ancestry or religious sect. Jay could talk about "one united people" of largely British stock but the legal and philosophical framework they built was not "for Britons only."

Nobody said it was for Britons only…? Or one fixed ancestry or one sect.

Creed isn't ever instead of kinship, virtues, and values. It's part of the framework. For one, that's a really odd dichotomy, and for two, creeds are statements of belief. Beliefs are downstream of virtues and values, and virtues and values are part of the fabric of a society - culture - which is part of kinship. What makes you part of one people and not part of another is not blood, or certainly not merely blood.

This is honestly a bad response, and you should feel bad.

Quote:
We believe in equality. "All men are created equal."

This is empty without a why, because objectively all men aren't equal. They are only equal in certain philosophical or moral ways. What is the philosophy that informs this? People have to believe in that narrow(er) definition of equality before they can be said to believe in this.

Quote:
That is not to say this list is exhaustive or absolute or in any practical sense enforceable against individual opposition particularly for natural born citizens.

Yeah - idiocy. Every classical republic or democracy practiced exile for this reason.

Quote:
Our founding documents make no mention of religious preference rather they forbade religious test for office, they appeal to no ethnic heritage, no bonds of kinship. And so such notions had no protections, and it can be no surprise that such things changed.

The constitution, maybe - state governments, no. So clearly the founders of this country and you are at variance. Basically the story you're telling is the federal government consumed state and local rights. Ok, sure. That's a bad story, not a good one.

Quote:
Can you say that America is not determined enough in enforcing, teaching and protecting it's creed. I think I would agree with that.
of course. There is zero enforcement, and ultimately because this is all malleable and subject to individual opinion and consensus it's a losing proposition. I think it's flatly impossible to do creedal nation as you describe. Enforcing it would require self violation of its own principles.

Quote:
And you again fail to understand the role of consensus. The role of consensus is purely practical. In that no god has ever bothered to defend a single right. We defend rights. And without such a defense they exist only as a notion. The consensus is not the justification for the right, it's an important means by which the right is defended.
it's also the means by which the right is shown to be non-existent. So… there is no such thing as a right, then. Just consensus.

Quote:
The alternative some of you seem to imply of re-ethicizing American identity around a particular ancestry or religious sentiment isn't a recovery of the founding it's a retreat from the most important things the founding got right.

Yeah, no. This completely mischaracterizes the historical record. The facts are the opposite. Kinship, religious sentiment, and moral virtues aren't a retreat from but a recovery of the founders' explicit design, in their own words, which integrated these elements as essential for viability. Stripping them away denudes the document of its foundations and reduces it to abstract legalism.

The founders viewed virtues, religion, and morality as indispensable for self governance. They're prerequisites to the constitution and republican form of government.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.