independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
Create new topic 
Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)| Author | Message |
Religious Conservatives: Please Find God in the Constitution I am a progressive Christian, but I truly believe that religion must be separated from politics. I wanted to challenge any religious conservative on this board to find "God" in the U.S. Constitution. If you can find a phrase or a specific reference to God, please let me know and provide a source.
| |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
laylow03 said: I am a progressive Christian, but I truly believe that religion must be separated from politics. I wanted to challenge any religious conservative on this board to find "God" in the U.S. Constitution. If you can find a phrase or a specific reference to God, please let me know and provide a source.
Thanks!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No response yet??? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
As a believer who advocates the separation of Church and State, I believe that you can find many aspects of the Constitution and its Amendments that are consistent with Judeo-Christian principles. Such as freedom of expression and conscience and the right to be treated humanely.
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: As a believer who advocates the separation of Church and State, I believe that you can find many aspects of the Constitution and its Amendments that are consistent with Judeo-Christian principles. Such as freedom of expression and conscience and the right to be treated humanely.
But as I said in an earlier thread, the Constitution was influenced by many things, including a belief in a God. And slavery? Just wondering. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
To the framers of the Constitution, the idea of having a government not based on God would have been unthinkable. It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was special creation. Therefore, all of the delegates at the Philadelphia convention were creationist. This is the reason the framers did not create a "secular" state in the modern sense of the term. Indeed, the concept of "secularism" as it is used today didn't even exist in 1787. It is largely a twentieth century concept. Since the framers of our Constitution predated Darwin and the theory of evolution, the desire to have a "secular" state would have made as much sense to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is only with the advent of Darwin and an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe that a secular state becomes desirable. There were atheists in 1787 to be sure but they lacked a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of the Universe.
Louie Gohmert Speaker of the House 2011 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VinnyM27 said: namepeace said: As a believer who advocates the separation of Church and State, I believe that you can find many aspects of the Constitution and its Amendments that are consistent with Judeo-Christian principles. Such as freedom of expression and conscience and the right to be treated humanely.
But as I said in an earlier thread, the Constitution was influenced by many things, including a belief in a God. And slavery? Just wondering. The Constitution didn't own slaves and can't enforce itself. I specifically referred to the "Constitution and its Amendments" because the original designated blacks as 3/5 of a human being. Remember, we're talking about the document. [Edited 11/24/04 7:56am] Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: As a believer who advocates the separation of Church and State, I believe that you can find many aspects of the Constitution and its Amendments that are consistent with Judeo-Christian principles. Such as freedom of expression and conscience and the right to be treated humanely.
But as I said in an earlier thread, the Constitution was influenced by many things, including a belief in a God. But that's not just a Judeo-Christian construct. Many religious traditions--much older than Christianity--espouse these moral precepts.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laylow03 said: namepeace said: As a believer who advocates the separation of Church and State, I believe that you can find many aspects of the Constitution and its Amendments that are consistent with Judeo-Christian principles. Such as freedom of expression and conscience and the right to be treated humanely.
But as I said in an earlier thread, the Constitution was influenced by many things, including a belief in a God. But that's not just a Judeo-Christian construct. Many religious traditions--much older than Christianity--espouse these moral precepts.... True. As I acknowledged in the "Jesusland vs. Jewland" thread, when I said: No one can reasonably deny that Judeo-Christian ethos are a central basis of our system of government. But not the sole basis. Our government was also spawned by the Greco-Roman models of government. And the principles of the Enlightment. The writings of Aristotle, Hobbes, John Locke, Mill, Paine, et al.
Jesus Christ is the most influential person in the history of the world. It would be absurd to think his teachings did not inform the Founding Fathers. But as you know, the question that has cost us countless lives over the ages is simply this: "WHOSE God/Jesus?" Which is why our system is structured the way it is. I could have also included the various laws of the early Semitic civilizations, including the Hammurabi Codes. You get the point. [Edited 11/29/04 11:29am] Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laylow03 said: I am a progressive Christian, but I truly believe that religion must be separated from politics. I wanted to challenge any religious conservative on this board to find "God" in the U.S. Constitution. If you can find a phrase or a specific reference to God, please let me know and provide a source.
Thanks! I'd really like to know what you mean by "progressive Christian." Here's another neat document that defines the USA (some references to God, but most of it is of course against the King): The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. Hey, look at that, we started this country with a firm reliance on God. What are the odds. When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act as a prism and form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful colors. Regardless of the day, I'm glad you were born. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thunderbird said: laylow03 said: I am a progressive Christian, but I truly believe that religion must be separated from politics. I wanted to challenge any religious conservative on this board to find "God" in the U.S. Constitution. If you can find a phrase or a specific reference to God, please let me know and provide a source.
Thanks! I'd really like to know what you mean by "progressive Christian." Here's another neat document that defines the USA (some references to God, but most of it is of course against the King): The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. Hey, look at that, we started this country with a firm reliance on God. What are the odds. Of course, the next question is, "whose God?" or better yet, "whose beliefs define our idea of God?" As tricky and as loaded a question as asking someone to define their own religious beliefs, as if they had to justify them to the person asking the question. Hey wait a minute . . . you just did that, didn't you? Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thunderbird said: laylow03 said: I am a progressive Christian, but I truly believe that religion must be separated from politics. I wanted to challenge any religious conservative on this board to find "God" in the U.S. Constitution. If you can find a phrase or a specific reference to God, please let me know and provide a source.
Thanks! I'd really like to know what you mean by "progressive Christian." Here's another neat document that defines the USA (some references to God, but most of it is of course against the King): The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. Hey, look at that, we started this country with a firm reliance on God. What are the odds. Nice try. It doesn't make any specific reference to God; it says "Creator." That may not mean "God" to everyone. This country was founded on religious freedom. And this is NOT the Constitution; you posted the Declaration of Independence. Why the founders didn't just say "God" in the DOI? Because they didn't want to; they wanted a country where everyone is free to worship--or not worship--as they see fit. I asked to find a specific reference to God in our Constitution. If the founders thought it was that important, they wouldn've included specific language in the Constitution. Furthermore, many conservatives claim to be "strict constructists." In other words, if it's not EXPLICITLY written in the Constitution, then it doesn't count. They also have a word for judges who go beyond the strict interpretation of the law: "Activist" judges. Therefore, aren't they really the activist judges if they can't find reference to God in the Constitution? Try again...and this time, please cite provisions from our Constitution (the Law of the Land). The DOI is not law and therefore doesn't apply here... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laylow03 said: The DOI is not law and therefore doesn't apply here...
No, but it belongs in an argument that God is separate from the US. The Constitution doesn't contain the word "freedom" either, but it doesn't have to. You're making a lopsided point. When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act as a prism and form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful colors. Regardless of the day, I'm glad you were born. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thunderbird said: laylow03 said: The DOI is not law and therefore doesn't apply here...
No, but it belongs in an argument that God is separate from the US. That is not the point. The point is, the further the state goes in promoting the expression of religious views in the US, eventually the question of whose interpretation of faith will be favored in a government forum. That gets messy. God is already part of the US. But He is with its citizens, not the state. His interest is in US, not our government. Likewise, our concern should be whether we are leading faithful lives, and the government has no role in that conversation. Yet conservatives, who bear a severe distrust of government, want it to be more actively involved in matters of faith and spirituality. It is astounding. We don't need the state to endorse God for us to believe in Him or live by His Word. When that happens, it bodes ill for church and state alike. Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: Thunderbird said: No, but it belongs in an argument that God is separate from the US. That is not the point. The point is, the further the state goes in promoting the expression of religious views in the US, eventually the question of whose interpretation of faith will be favored in a government forum. That gets messy. God is already part of the US. But He is with its citizens, not the state. His interest is in US, not our government. Likewise, our concern should be whether we are leading faithful lives, and the government has no role in that conversation. Yet conservatives, who bear a severe distrust of government, want it to be more actively involved in matters of faith and spirituality. It is astounding. We don't need the state to endorse God for us to believe in Him or live by His Word. When that happens, it bodes ill for church and state alike. Hey, I like the sound of that. When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act as a prism and form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful colors. Regardless of the day, I'm glad you were born. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thunderbird said: namepeace said: That is not the point. The point is, the further the state goes in promoting the expression of religious views in the US, eventually the question of whose interpretation of faith will be favored in a government forum. That gets messy. God is already part of the US. But He is with its citizens, not the state. His interest is in US, not our government. Likewise, our concern should be whether we are leading faithful lives, and the government has no role in that conversation. Yet conservatives, who bear a severe distrust of government, want it to be more actively involved in matters of faith and spirituality. It is astounding. We don't need the state to endorse God for us to believe in Him or live by His Word. When that happens, it bodes ill for church and state alike. Hey, I like the sound of that. So we're "right about close," huh?  Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: Thunderbird said: Hey, I like the sound of that. So we're "right about close," huh? Amen! I agree with you both on this. For more on what progressive Christianity is, I would consult The Sojourners (www.sojourners.net) for what I am referring to. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thunderbird said: laylow03 said: The DOI is not law and therefore doesn't apply here...
No, but it belongs in an argument that God is separate from the US. The Constitution doesn't contain the word "freedom" either, but it doesn't have to. You're making a lopsided point. Interesting. You say that I'm making a lopsided arguement? Where did I make any argument? I'm asking you to find God in the Constitution. So instead of trying to insult me--which is not working--find God in the Constitution. You can't find any reference to God, bottom line, so you try and attack me. Don't attack me, answer the question or don't respond to the thread at all... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: Thunderbird said: Hey, I like the sound of that. So we're "right about close," huh? I believe in God and love the Lord with all my heart. I am grateful to live in a country where I have the freedom to do so. But, that's not the issue here. I want to know where in the Constitution God is specifically mentioned. The Constitution serves as this country's rule of law; there is no other law above it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It refers to the "Year of our Lord". That's about it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laylow03 said: namepeace said: So we're "right about close," huh? I believe in God and love the Lord with all my heart. I am grateful to live in a country where I have the freedom to do so. But, that's not the issue here. I want to know where in the Constitution God is specifically mentioned. The Constitution serves as this country's rule of law; there is no other law above it. Except the Law upon which it stands. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Snap said: laylow03 said: I believe in God and love the Lord with all my heart. I am grateful to live in a country where I have the freedom to do so. But, that's not the issue here. I want to know where in the Constitution God is specifically mentioned. The Constitution serves as this country's rule of law; there is no other law above it. Except the Law upon which it stands. But that Law is not the Constitution's primary concern. It is but one basis of the Constitution. Not a minor one, to be sure, but one of many. In any event, the Law you speak of is a Law of a Kingdom which is not of this world. [Edited 12/1/04 20:20pm] Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The founders of the U.S. were religious and at the same time capable of separating religion from politics.
You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
God is not mentioned in the U.S. constitution; however, God is referenced in many state constitutions, and the Declaration of Independence.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Adhering to the principle that the US Consitution must be strictly interpreted according to the original intent of the Framers is classic operating procedure among conservatives - minds frozen in time.
"When they tell me 2 walk a straight line, I put on crooked shoes" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheMax said: Adhering to the principle that the US Consitution must be strictly interpreted according to the original intent of the Framers is classic operating procedure among conservatives - minds frozen in time.
The US Constitution is not static. It has been carefully modified and improved since its inception, starting with the Bill of Rights that privdes a starting point for separation of church and state. I think those who rigidly adhere to what they think the Framers intended miss the point that thoughtful interpretation very careful modification of this document are concerns for us, the living, not the dearly departed. By the way, Thomas Jefferson, the principal proponent for the Establishment Clause, was an atheist. [Edited 12/4/04 18:05pm] No doubt the constitution is a ever-evolving, "living" document. However, just because it can be easily adapted to meet our needs doesn't mean that the fundamental principles should be altered: such a change would most certainly jeopardize our democracy. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. Actually, from what I've read,Thomas Jefferson was probably closer to an agnostic than atheist. He believed in a higher power but not necessarily as portrayed in Christianity. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Isel said: No doubt the constitution is a ever-evolving, "living" document. However, just because it can be easily adapted to meet our needs doesn't mean that the fundamental principles should be altered: such a change would most certainly jeopardize our democracy. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.
Actually, from what I've read,Thomas Jefferson was probably closer to an agnostic than atheist. He believed in a higher power but not necessarily as portrayed in Christianity. So we agree, kind of. I've never heard it said that the Constitution can be "easily adapted" to present needs and awareness, nor do I necessarily feel that it should be. But strict constructionist views are the hallmarks of conservatives, both religious and social, who rely on antiquated, static, and narrow interpretations of just about everything to suit their self-righteous needs. The Framers certainly knew what they were doing, but they needed help. It started with the Bill of Rights. Our help to their original efforts continues today in the Supreme Court. Modifications continue to be necessary. If the Supreme Court becomes populated with a bunch of Scalia types, then our "living" Constitution will be on life support - the great hope of all religious and social conservatives who fear that each evolutionary judicial step degrades their divine right to exclusive privilege and protection. Whether Thomas Jefferson was an atheist or agnostic is hardly a difference worth debating. The important point for me is that he, a non-Christian, gave us the Establishment Clause, negating the viewpoint that the Framers were in lockstep on the issue of Christianity as it related to the new nation. "When they tell me 2 walk a straight line, I put on crooked shoes" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
True, "easily-adapted" is an over-simplification and overstatement on my part. And I also agree in regard to your point concerning "strict constructionists views" endangering not only the effectiveness of the Constitution to ensure our rights but also the basic principle of freedom on which this country was founded. In fact our country's current conservative, "morality" trend, resulting in Bush's re-election makes me a little nervous.
TheMax said: Isel said: No doubt the constitution is a ever-evolving, "living" document. However, just because it can be easily adapted to meet our needs doesn't mean that the fundamental principles should be altered: such a change would most certainly jeopardize our democracy. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.
Actually, from what I've read,Thomas Jefferson was probably closer to an agnostic than atheist. He believed in a higher power but not necessarily as portrayed in Christianity. So we agree, kind of. I've never heard it said that the Constitution can be "easily adapted" to present needs and awareness, nor do I necessarily feel that it should be. But strict constructionist views are the hallmarks of conservatives, both religious and social, who rely on antiquated, static, and narrow interpretations of just about everything to suit their self-righteous needs. The Framers certainly knew what they were doing, but they needed help. It started with the Bill of Rights. Our help to their original efforts continues today in the Supreme Court. Modifications continue to be necessary. If the Supreme Court becomes populated with a bunch of Scalia types, then our "living" Constitution will be on life support - the great hope of all religious and social conservatives who fear that each evolutionary judicial step degrades their divine right to exclusive privilege and protection. Whether Thomas Jefferson was an atheist or agnostic is hardly a difference worth debating. The important point for me is that he, a non-Christian, gave us the Establishment Clause, negating the viewpoint that the Framers were in lockstep on the issue of Christianity as it related to the new nation. [Edited 12/5/04 12:21pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
We need to eliminate religion from government and politics once and for all!!...
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Create new topic Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
