When the Founding Fathers were asserting equality who were they asserting it against? I think of this as I heard story of a prearranged Indian marriage (based on wealth) where the woman walked always because the groom could not add two simple numbers together.
They were asserting they were equal to those who never had to work a day in their life and likely didn't have the skills to support themselves. They were not going to be ruled by that! Why not? Because that which isn't equal doesn't want to treat those that are as if they are. And what did Founding Fathers say to the aristocrat colonists who tagged along?
They never conceived that with the establishment of the Constitution that a wealthy person with low grade mental retardation would come out of the closet in droves to become a threat to our freedom.
Instead of a vow of celibacy a vow of abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, and drugs would be more meaningful. If you are a homosexual or pedophile that vow of celibacy with sex with women (and that is what the vow really means) is a given for you. It isn't anything you have to work hard at maintaining.
But in order to take that vow of abstinence the entirety of the church would come crumbling down because mental retardation causing alcohol is readily served at every mass. If you are a recovered alcohol you are not even supposed to have one drop. But do you ever hear a priest have the presence of mind to admonish himself for tempting you and your children with alcohol? It never happens! That is the parish he is patronizing.
How about taking a vow that you won't engage in any criminal activity for fear of death from God and/or Government?
How about taking a vow that if what you are preaching doesn't make any sense to someone of moral character then you don't preach it that way.
Do we ever hear you take a vow to be a good shepherd? I don't think you could even conceptualize what it means or how to be one.
So Scott Walker banned late term abortions. How can any man conscience guide him to force a parent to keep a mentally retarded or birth defective child?
Now the Baptists are touching on the issue by saying to get married early? The underlying reason that todays chemical world causes a great many more mutations as we age? But here is the problem with the Baptist view. You are expected to have a sound mind and be responsible as a young adult. Some never are! In fact just the opposite is true, those likely to get a woman knocked up at a young age are the least responsible, meaning intelligent!
The Founding Fathers should have asserted that they were indeed better than English rule. But they did not have the science to prove it; things like a wealthy persons child being mentally retarded from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. If I don't want to live with you because you are not a fair and good person am I not really asserting that I am better than you? A normal person really has no reason to keep the good from being successful; a normal person doesn't find that a threat! A normal person views someone like that as a equal. So I am making a new point here. A normal person views a good person become successful as someone who makes a good part of what should be their pier group. That is someone they will not have to fear will be corrupt or compete unfairly.
But what about the opposite of that? He likes the mentally defective to be promoted out of commonality. So that constructs the favor network or networking; really organized crime. And limited liability is indeed the pillar of organized crime.
The criminal finds commonality with the mentally defective. Hence he has an impetus that more are created and born. It is anti; God and creation.
The Founding Fathers were so oppressed that they did not have the presence of mind to touch on the real issue of equality? They did not have the confidence and science to declare the mentally defective should never be promoted to leadership because they can only lead by divine right. Meaning they are unaccountable for their actions; which amount to impulse.
If the Founding Fathers thought the King was equal to them then they would have abided to his rule and not colonized he land of the free. See the logic.
This is something that doesn't fit here or belong here!
Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 03 14 2015 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com