Democratic interpretation of the Bible and Constitution

Early defenders of the slave trade claimed that since the constitution or it’s preamble had no direct mention or prohibition against slavery, the forefathers never mentioned it, and therefore must have supported it. But Abe Lincoln and many others felt that the fact that it said all people were endowed by their Creator with “inalienable rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness” excluded slave keeping from being a lawful enterprise. Same thing today, most democrats read the constitution and claim it gives no protection to the unborn because it never explicitly mentions or condemns abortion…Really? In the same way some people choose to interpret the bible, as many democrats did in the south; God never directly prohibited slavery, nor did he explicitly condemn multiple marriage partners, and never does he use the word ‘abortion’, therefore he supported slavery and also abortion and multiple marriages. However, does God have to spell everything out for us? He doesn’t think so. He even spoke to us in parables at times with the very purpose of not spelling everything out for us. And yet the Christian nations were the only nations to ever ban slavery and infanticide and abortion and Moses was the first person in the world to recognize the rights of slaves. Both nations outlawed bigamy in time. “Love thy neighbor as thy self, “, ” when you help the least of these, you do so unto me,” etc, along with the knowledge that all humans were made in the image of God and “made from one blood” played a huge role in the minds of Lincoln and Wilberforce and ten thousand other abolitionists, no doubt. The evolutionists however, who were the first socialists, thought differently and had their own ideas about where rights came from;

“These lower races are…nearer to the mammals (apes or dogs) than to civilized Europeans, we must therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives.” (Haeckel, E., reprinted in Natural History 89, the journal, April 1980, 129

So the democratic party has at least been consistent in how they interpret the bible and constitution, and obviously how you interpret scripture and what you believe about where we came from, does matter

“This however has been known to be the great temper of mankind, that they have accordingly labored in all ages, to wrest from the populace the knowledge of their rights… I say rights, for such they have, undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly government; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”
John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. III, p. 449, “A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law.”

“It is true that New York has no charter. But if it could support its claim to liberty in no other way, it might justly plead the common principles of colonization; for it would be unreasonable to exclude one colony from the enjoyment of the most important privileges of the rest. There is no need however of this plea. The Sacred Rights of Mankind ARE NOT TO BE RUMMAGED FOR AMONG OLD PARCHMENTS or musty records; they are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature by Hand of the Divinity itself and can never be destroyed OR OBSCURED by mortal power ”

Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, John Church Hamilton, editor (New York: John F. Trow, 1850), Vol. II, p. 80, “The Farmer Refuted.


About notmanynoble

woodcutter from Washington State
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s