Skyhook79;874111 wrote:James Madison, FATHER of the U.S. Constitution: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

He speaks of self government, and only refers to the intent of the creator for human existence (the Ten Commandments). This does not separate Madison from being a Deist. It merely asserts that the United States and its political entities are founded on all men being able to govern themselves. Just because it references a text that was, at the time, widely considered immutable (by Christians and Deists alike), that certainly does not suggest that said text was the foundation of the political institution. This statement actually claims the contrary: that the American political institution was founded on the concept that man could be responsible for himself and his own actions.

Sounds very "live-and-let-live" of our predecessor.

Skyhook79;874111 wrote:Thomas Jefferson, 1781: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever"

Says nothing of the politics in the country being founded on God, but that the liberties granted people are gifts from God (again, just as much a Deistic philosophy as a Christian one).

For what it's worth, Jefferson also discounted the miracles of Jesus, and the majority of his quoted statements surrounding Christianity are hardly evidence of faith.

Skyhook79;874111 wrote:George Washington, October 3, 1789: "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge THE Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor."

Once again, a Deist believes that all these are true. A Deist believes in the providence of God (they used it often in their writings on God). They believe that God created the universe with a will for it. They considered the pleasantries of their lives to be gifts given through providence. The idea of protection and favor even run in the Deistic mindset, that God created the world to run a certain course, and that favor and protection could have been a part of that plan.

Skyhook79;874111 wrote: George Washington: "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

Washington deemed it wise. Personal opinion, AND still potentially Deistic, as Deists had high regard for the life and moral character of Jesus (see Jefferson's The Life And Morals Of Jesus Of Nazareth).

Congress would assist. That doesn't necessitate that they would legislate according to this individual's pursuit.

Skyhook79;874111 wrote: Samuel Adams: " Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system."

Ah yes, Adams said "Christian." What he didn't say was that it had anything to do with the setup of the American political system.

The founding fathers had opinions that branched outside their roles as builders of the foundation of our country. Adams believed, as I do, that educating children in the virtues of Christianity would be a wise thing.

Skyhook79;874111 wrote: Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention: "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

And why do you assume that he meant that the Lord's will would be used as the foundation? He stated that the Lord ought to build it.

Elsewhere, Franklin actually claimed, in no uncertain terms, that the Deistic argument was far stronger than a Christian refutation against it.

Skyhook79;874111 wrote: Benjamin Franklin: "History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

No mention of using the Christian religion to be the basis of the American political structure or foundational documents.

Skyhook79;874111 wrote: John Adams, 1756 (our 2nd President) -- "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited... What a paradise would this region be!"

And yet he never suggests that such a place be America.

Skyhook79;874111 wrote: Patrick Henry's Last Will & Testament, November 20, 1798: "This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed."

Personal faith, and not distinct from a Deistic faith.

Skyhook79;874111 wrote: I think they had a lot more in mind than just a "live and let live" attitude for the Country.

Actually, it doesn't seem like it at all. It seems like they were very much concerned with living as they were intended to live according to the Supreme Architect of the universe, but it does not say that they ever planned on founding the country on the tenets of the Christian (or even Deistic, if we're going to be technical, though this would be closer) faith.

This is not, and was never intended to be, a Christian nation. In the 1700s, England was considered a "Christian" nation. I daresay that's not what they were trying to emulate. They were trying to emulate, as your initial quotation of Madison states, a land in which man is left to govern himself as much as possible, where the governing bodies meddled in the affairs of the citizen as little as possible.

A government that tries to force any moral system based purely on the fact that it is moral is hardly what the founders seemed to have in mind.

Scarlet_Buckeye;874716 wrote:You are out of your mind if you think a manager would not want to hire an educated person over an uneducated person. Absolutely out of your mind.

Unfortunately, this isn't true.

An educated person ... who is overqualified for a job ... is far more likely to leave quickly.

It takes an investment to train an employee, be they flipping burgers or typing memos or submitting Amicus briefs. If you suspect that a person would leave before the training has paid for itself, then the hiring becomes unprofitable. Makes more sense to hire someone who won't find it quite as easy to find another job.

Have you never been involved in the hiring process to the degree that you had to weigh the potential employee's profitability versus the training cost?

As I stated before, my family owned/ran a restaurant for ~15-20 years until we closed the doors. As a child/teenager, I can remember my mother not hiring someone for cook/dishwasher... because there was a high chance they wouldn't last long for a variety of reasons.

1. Highly educated, so less likely they were going to stick around long because something they wanted would come up.

2. Long job history over a short period of time i.e a job hopper.

If it's even a chance that you're intentions are to have a short stay, then you're chances are more slim because they don't want to be in the same boat of hiring in the near future.

Trust me. If person A is a little more qualified than person B, but person B intends on staying there long term, person B will get the job more often than not.

bigkahuna;874951 wrote:As I stated before, my family owned/ran a restaurant for ~15-20 years until we closed the doors. As a child/teenager, I can remember my mother not hiring someone for cook/dishwasher... because there was a high chance they wouldn't last long for a variety of reasons.

1. Highly educated, so less likely they were going to stick around long because something they wanted would come up.

2. Long job history over a short period of time i.e a job hopper.

If it's even a chance that you're intentions are to have a short stay, then you're chances are more slim because they don't want to be in the same boat of hiring in the near future.

Trust me. If person A is a little more qualified than person B, but person B intends on staying there long term, person B will get the job more often than not.

Yep. It's just the way it is. It's the catch-22 to being educated and ambitious.

Skyhook79;872275 wrote:Because of Matthew 25:34-40?

Don't you think Matthew was referring to people, not the government being charitable? I am charitable and I like being able to choose which charities I donate to, I don't need the government to do it for me. Allowing the government to do it allows people to cheat the system (as you stated that some people do). Being able to choose which charity a person would like to donate to makes it much harder for people to commit fraud because if that was the case, that charity wouldn't receive much in donations after it was revealed fraud was being committed.

We all know that fraud is committed through our government entitlement programs, yet there is no way to stop our "donations" from being distributed to these people committing fraud.

Skyhook79;872341 wrote:You mean the "real world" where the same people (not all) who complain about Food Stamps and food stamp fraud cheat on their taxes, call in sick to work when they really aren't sick,work on a "cash basis" on the side or full time to avoid paying taxes and draw unemployment at the same time etc,etc,etc...??

Many people do that so their money doesn't go to programs that are not regulated for fraud and cheats.

Skyhook79;873401 wrote:No, receiving a Pell Grant is because you qualified for it because your income level is low. Same as Food Stamps. Should people who receive Pell Grants be allowed to have cell phones? Flatscreen TV's, Have children? Be drug tested?

I think the difference between receiving a Pell grant and welfare assistance is that through the Pell grant, people are trying to better themselves and become productive members of society. Many people (not all) on welfare programs are just trying to live off of it for as long as they can and not trying to better themselves.

Skyhook79;873403 wrote:Maybe both Parents had jobs when they had the children and then found themselves unemployed during the 4 year recession like millons of people did??

The recession was 4 years long? That's news to me.

Skyhook79;873436 wrote:So should people who receive other Gov't aid such as unemployment benefits,Pell Grants etc... that you pay for, not be allowed to have what you deem as a "luxury" item?

I addressed this issue above, but to expand, I have no problem with people having luxury items as long as they are not buying these items while receiving assistance. If they had the items prior to getting on assistance, no problem. But if they are on assistance and still buying luxury items, something is wrong.

Skyhook79;873460 wrote:Did you ever stop and think that if our Gov't acted like those in Haiti,Guinea,Chad,Zimbabwe and many other places that the USA would have those same kind of poverty levels? Thank God our Gov't doesn't...

Sorry, this is completely not true. The people of the United States are the most charitable in the world. I think many people (myself included) would be more charitable than we already are if we weren't mandated by the government to pay for social programs that aren't working anyhow. The poor in this country would be taken care of with or without the government intervention.

Iliketurtles;871347 wrote:I'm with you as well SB. I really wish they would do away with food stamps. I hated to watch people come in and buy nice steaks, crab legs, lobsters(etc.) all on food stamps when I was in high school working at Kroger. I really hope they at least start drug testing people on food stamps and test for everything even beer and cigarettes if you can afford to buy those things then you can afford to not be on food stamps.

I had the exact same experience when I was in hs working at Kroger.

rydawg5;873950 wrote:There's obviously a lot of "religious" values, with Christianity being the largely accepted one. The declaration of Independence, for one, declares we are all created equal (by our creator) of which we should have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

This was the seed for social justice, that just because you make less doesn't make you less of a person. Since you are not less of a person, the community feels obligated to help you in need.

That is quite a jump, from helping a working neighbor in need to plant his crop, to giving away steaks to all of those who are not working for it.

rydawg5;873950 wrote:For how rich our country is, the American standard of living is not that of a 3rd world country, and being qualified for Food Stamps does not have to mean homeless or nearly homeless. If it helps people maintain a standard of living, it will hopefully keep them motivated to get a better job to enjoy that standard.

Sounds like poverty does not really exist in the USA. Maintain a standard of living, that is our moral obligation? Wow.

Entitlement Food Stamp Fraud

another example of waste to those who don't care for the benefits of what is being given and utilize the opportunity but only in the taking and wasting it


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/24/federal-government-tries-to-stop-food-stamp-water-dumping-fraud/The/?intcmp=obinsite

There are better ways to help the poor and people who have come upon hard times than the current system I believe. Though that doesn't mean I think we should stop assisting people altogether. We should just do it in a way that isn't so fucking stupid.

Belly35;877164 wrote:Entitlement Food Stamp Fraud

another example of waste to those who don't care for the benefits of what is being given and utilize the opportunity but only in the taking and wasting it


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/24/federal-government-tries-to-stop-food-stamp-water-dumping-fraud/The/?intcmp=obinsite

I don't see a reason for bottled water to be covered by food stamps. Tap water is perfectly acceptable for everyone. I'd like to know who the genius was that convinced people to pay for something they get for free pretty much anywhere. (At least in the US. There are places in the world who have water issues.)

FatHobbit;877264 wrote:I don't see a reason for bottled water to be covered by food stamps. Tap water is perfectly acceptable for everyone. I'd like to know who the genius was that convinced people to pay for something they get for free pretty much anywhere. (At least in the US. There are places in the world who have water issues.)

Hear, hear.

here we go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrvnLpLjTuA

this is alot of people attitudes