Who is calling anyone a Redskin?
They were actually very religious as a whole. The main point of contention was denominational control and the operative presumption was Christianity was the moral framework for a just and society of laws. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitutional concept. It is a prohibition against endorsement and a restriction against the restraint of free practice of one's religion. The notion that the public square should be sanitized of religion is simply not a concept that the framers endorsed. It is precisely the opposite. In fact in many states, the ability to qualify to hold office was statutorily defined to require a Christian faith. This seems crazy today, but not then. The idea was focused on the fact that any endorsement of a Christian denomination would result in oppressive government by the denomination in control. For example, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was an assurance that they would not be persecuted in Connecticut which was predominately controlled by Congregationalists. More generally, and I would have to find it, there is a reference to Mohammedism in the early writings that goes to the point being that each person is free to practice his or her religion, but the nation's laws and people are that of Christian nation and the Christianity is an essential aspect of public discourse and intercourse. It is not until the mid-1900s do you begin to see a re-interpretation of Constitutional underpinnings based on a (liberal) theory of positivism (which means you interpret the Constitution in accordance with the times). This concept was also expressly rejected by the framers in numerous writings notwithstanding the revisionist law professors at Harvard and Yale, etc.. What you see is actually a paradoxical erosion of our constitution rights under liberal interpretation due to several phenomena. But, I could write a book on that and bore you to death. Anyway, back to the main point, the modern liberal sentiments about the Constitution on the current subject are just vastly out of step with the reality of what was intended and was practiced for nearly 150 years. Sadly, most of what is taught even in college level classes is pure modern myth that was invented by "progressives" .
Well, the name "America" itself has European origins. What gives?
Then why did Catholics creep into this country when they were hated by Protestants?
The Redskins started in Boston. They played at Braves Field and were originally called the Boston Braves. When they moved to Fenway Park, they changed their name to the Redskins, presumably to endear themselves to the Red Sox and keep the Indian moniker, but who knows for sure. George Preston Marshall was a bigot. It's documented history and maybe he choose Redskins as a racial taunt, but is that really what it means now? The only other owner of the Franchise besides Marshall and Snyder was Jack Kent Cooke and the only color he saw was green. He made and lost a ton of it.
The Catholics were in the Baltimore, Maryland area. They came from Jesuit settlers settling from England (later they were persecuted and extradited back to England, but the Catholics in Maryland remained active and were tolerated) . Each state/area has its own its Christian flavor. Most of these groups came and took up various areas as the colonies were settled. In the earliest times, those reaching settling were under charter from one European power or another. Spain, a Catholic country, was a major world power and had influence on the founding of America with the colonies it ha set up as well. These were primarily in the deep south (Florida, Georgia) which they claimed as possessions. The French as well were Catholic and Catholics were present in America through their Canadian possessions (a large population was in present day Michigan). These were obviously contested by the British (I.e, French Indian War, The British wresting control of Florida from Spain, etc.). Catholics were just another flavor in a stew of Christian settlers many of whom were predominantly from protestant denominations which were under persecution by other dominant protestant denominations in Europe.
It is not false. Read the letter in full and its intended context. And also read it in context of his other writings. This quote has been vastly abused. In fact, it was well known then and never came into use by the courts until relatively recently. Also, he alone is not the definitive word on this in any case. He is one of many framers.
hell just reading some people's opinions on this let me know that we're screwed as a country. it's a football team name for god's sake. just change it.
Dude. I'm happy to go back to football. These discussions lead nowhere. I would comment that we have real problems when the government can decide what is offensive and take away somebody's property (i.e., their intellectual property rights which had been secured legitimately over a long period). Everyday, we get closer to a banana republic (no offense to Latin Americans, Gorillas, or Banana lovers because I'm sure that phrase is derogatory too).
As you can see, I just commented on this before reading your post.
That's the whole point. It is not universally accepted and was not until recently. The courts never used the phrase for the first 150 years over hundreds of relevant cases. Anyways, I suspect this argument cant be settled, so I'm out.
My view we are screwed big time as a country if we allow this thought police. The government is so entangled with everything we do, they have way too much power to control what we can say.
