If we're a supposedly Christian nation, why doesn't "God" appear anywhere in the Constitution?

Apostate
Apostate's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
If we're a supposedly Christian nation, why doesn't "God" appear anywhere in the Constitution?

 



For anyone who thinks that we were "founded" as a specifically Christian or religious nation, do a search of the full-text of the US Constitution.

 

The word "God" does not appear anywhere in the original Constitution and appears nowhere in any of the subsequent amendments. The names "Jesus" and "Christ" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

Doesn't it seem that if the delegates to the Constitutional Convention truly saw the nation as a specifically Christian or religious nation, that they would have specifically put it in the Constitution?

 


James "the Apostate"



V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
Agreed. The only thing I've

Agreed.

The only thing I've ever heard a xian point to is that it says "All men are created equal"  And say that they all agreed in a supreme creator.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


snafu
atheist
snafu's picture
Posts: 101
Joined: 2006-12-17
User is offlineOffline
for interest here is

for interest here is article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli signed in 1796 by the then President George Washington and ratified by the US in 1797:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Also, as per the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the United States federal government is not allowed to force people into worshiping in any one style or practicing any particular religion.

(info from Wikkipedia) 

"The World is my country, science my religion" - Christiaan Huygens


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Technically the word "God"

Technically the word "God" isn't in the constitution, but the word lord appears once..."Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."

 

That's it.  I realize it was only put there out of convention and has no valid standing in the argument that we are a christian nation. I was just saying that you can't say something isn't there if it is.

No Gods, Know Peace.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15707
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux

NinjaTux wrote:

Technically the word "God" isn't in the constitution, but the word lord appears once..."Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."

 

That's it. I realize it was only put there out of convention and has no valid standing in the argument that we are a christian nation. I was just saying that you can't say something isn't there if it is.

Right. That is merely lip service to the traditions of the time. They never proclaimed the idea of Jesus sitting on the shoulder of the office of president. Sure, some of the founders were Christian, most of them DEIST, but none wanted our laws to be ripped out of any holy book. They wanted OUR LAWS based on common law. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
I would have to agree with

I would have to agree with you.  I am still wondering what creative enforcement method xtians think would be developed for "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass..".  They say things, like our laws are based on the ten commandments, but never think through the simple ramifications of what they say...

No Gods, Know Peace.


Symok
Symok's picture
Posts: 63
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Right. That

Brian37 wrote:
Right. That is merely lip service to the traditions of the time.

 

Even today, most people use BC/AD. It doesn't necessarily mean they believe it, its just habbit/convention. 


TheDude27
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
who cares :)

I hate the whole forefathers argument...honeslty who gives a shit what the forefathers were like or what they had in mind?  Granted, they had balls and kudos to them for being so forward-thinking for their time.

 However, its pretty evident that repressing ppl's freedom is wrong for any reason (unless it causes them harm or putting someone in excessive danger) including enforcing the will of imaginary being's.  It doesnt really matter what their intention is/was if its wrong. Simply because their intentions are old, doesnt make them correct(doenst make them incorrect either).  The arguments that spawn these dumb discussions about what the forefathers wanted should be taken on the merits of the argument not what someone onced believed.

I find it funny that everyone seems to "believe" in freedom yet few of them seem to practice their beliefs.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Your argument is not

Your argument is not completely true. There is a clear statement of belief in a deity from the Founding Fathers in other documents that are fundamental to the United States. For example, the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson clearly indicates this belief, being signed by many of those later signers of the Constitution:

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 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 benefit 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 & 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 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.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
@StMichael ... referring to

@StMichael
... referring to the Deist god. Anyways, the DoI has no legal standing.

------
If the USA was a Christian nation, why would we have the establishment clause?

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
NO LEGAL STANDING?!? What

NO LEGAL STANDING?!? What published document(or word from a Supreme Justice's mouth) says such may I ask?

So qbg, it was not related to the Christian god, Jehova.

 

It however DOES refer to a Deist God? So lets see... the document that FOUNDS us as INDEPENDENT from all other nations refers to a Creator, Supreme Judge of the World, Divine Providence, and Laws of God. Are you still willing to say that the United States of America was not founded under a God?

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
While they did believe in a

While they did believe in a deist concept of God, it still rules out any notion that the US was founded by atheists. Further, I would argue that not a little of US law is founded in that notion, which is where we get the idea of inalienable rights of nature, through Locke.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: While they

StMichael wrote:
While they did believe in a deist concept of God, it still rules out any notion that the US was founded by atheists. Further, I would argue that not a little of US law is founded in that notion, which is where we get the idea of inalienable rights of nature, through Locke.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

That's not the topic in the first place. Not one single person suggested a bunch of atheists founded the US. The topic is whether it was founded on christianity. It obviously wasn't. Get a clue.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Who said it was founded on

Who said it was founded on Christianity?

You people are arguing over something, that noone said.

However, as being a Christian nation, one can claim that. Anyone care to find the numbers on how many people in this nation is founded in some belief that Jesus was the Christ? If it's more then 50 percent, then it is safe to claim this nation as a Christian nation. Majority rules, especially being a democratic(dem meaning people) form of society.

Though this country may have no legal bearings when it comes to Christianity, it is safe to assume that it plays a major and key factor in the driving forces of this nation.

How many organizations have as many T.V. shows as Chrisitian organizations?

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote:Who said it

Ripple wrote:
Who said it was founded on Christianity?
You people are arguing over something, that noone said.

Lots of christians say it. So you're a liar. And I need not look at the rest of your post.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15707
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:
While they did believe in a deist concept of God, it still rules out any notion that the US was founded by atheists. Further, I would argue that not a little of US law is founded in that notion, which is where we get the idea of inalienable rights of nature, through Locke. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Nobody was claiming that dippy!

We are simply sick of Christians claiming they have a right to gang tag OUR GOVERNMENT as Jesus run.

Our goverment is founded on the concept of sanctuary for all, no monopolies allowed. Neutrality does not mean atheist run, it means citizen run.

Our government is not "under God" it is under the concept of protecting the individual and THE RIGHT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Apostate
Apostate's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
TheDude27 wrote: I hate

TheDude27 wrote:

I hate the whole forefathers argument...honeslty who gives a shit what the forefathers were like or what they had in mind? Granted, they had balls and kudos to them for being so forward-thinking for their time.

However, its pretty evident that repressing ppl's freedom is wrong for any reason (unless it causes them harm or putting someone in excessive danger) including enforcing the will of imaginary being's. It doesnt really matter what their intention is/was if its wrong. Simply because their intentions are old, doesnt make them correct(doenst make them incorrect either). The arguments that spawn these dumb discussions about what the forefathers wanted should be taken on the merits of the argument not what someone onced believed.

I find it funny that everyone seems to "believe" in freedom yet few of them seem to practice their beliefs.

The intent of the founders is relevant. In the American system of jurisprudence which is a continuation of the English Common Law system, when a court rules on a point of law it attempts to establish legislative intent and prior legal precedents. The question as to whether or not the United States of America is a religious nation or Christian nation, a claim that is bantied about quite often by the Christian commentators in popular media, is a question of legal interest and can be settled by the principles of jurisprudence.

If someone were to actually make a claim before a court that the nation is a Christian nation, he or she would have to support the assertion with evidence. In refuting the assertion, we would also offer a rebuttal argument and evidence. Since the notion of having been founded as a Christian nation is inherently a question relating to the foundation of the nation, the Constitution is normative for representing the intentions of the nation's founders. All commentary made by the founders is useful, but it is the Constitution which is actual positive law.

The Constitution as adopted made no mention whatsoever of religion. The anti-establishment and free-exercise provisions of the First Amendment were not even part of the original constitution, they were added when the Bill of Rights was adopted. When one examines the Constitutions of other nations, those which are founded upon granting a special status to a particular religion or church explicitly say so. Although the United Kingdom doesn't have a single written Constitution as such, it's Constitution exists through Common Law precedents and statutory law. The Church of England is the established state church in England. The Church of Scotland is the established state church in Scotland. A very clear claim could be made that the United Kingdom is an explicitly Christian nation. No such claim could be strongly supported in the case of the United States. Constitutions of Islamic states explicitly grant special status to Islam. Many nations are explicitly secular in their constitutions. India and South Africa are examples that come immediately to my mind. South Africa is a very recent Constitution but also represents a nation operating under the English Common Law tradition. It is worth studying since it's Constitution is only a decade old.

Bottom line, examining the intentions of the Founders is relevant.


Apostate
Apostate's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
TheDude27 wrote:

[MOD EDIT - duplicate post removed]


Apostate
Apostate's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
TheDude27 wrote:

{Deleting my duplicate post}


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: NO LEGAL

Ripple wrote:
NO LEGAL STANDING?!? What published document(or word from a Supreme Justice's mouth) says such may I ask?

The FFRF Nontract explains it...
Quote:
We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The majority has no right to

The majority has no right to discriminate against the minority - that's why we have the bill of rights. And besides - would you say this is a "White Nation" since the majority of the country is white?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15707
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: The

MattShizzle wrote:
The majority has no right to discriminate against the minority - that's why we have the bill of rights. And besides - would you say this is a "White Nation" since the majority of the country is white?

THANK YOU!

Saying that this country has had a history of having a Christian majority is DOES NOT give that majority the right to claim which god owns OUR Constitution.

Majroity rules is NOT what our Constitution says. It says that ANYONE BORN HERE has the same rights including to be apointed to a goverment office IE Supreme Court, OR run and be ellected to our highest offices INCLUDING PRESIDENT.

We have Jews and now even a Muslim serving in OUR CONGRESS, which upholds the concept of "NO RELIGIOUS TEST"

I am sick of Christians taking "Freedom of religion" to mean "Jesus run goverment"

THERE NEVER WAS NOR SHOULD THERE EVER BE ANY SIGN ON ANY GOVERMENT OFFICE SAYING, "NON-CHRISTIANS NEED NOT APPLY"

Just as we rightly rejected the once held attitude, "Non-Whites need not apply". 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Nobody ever said from my end

Nobody ever said from my end that the nation ought to be ruled by Christians. But its laws and authority basically derive from what it defines as natural law, which is established by God.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Nobody

StMichael wrote:
Nobody ever said from my end that the nation ought to be ruled by Christians. But its laws and authority basically derive from what it defines as natural law, which is established by God.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Nope. Evolution gave us our morality and established laws. Not some false god.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15707
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:
Nobody ever said from my end that the nation ought to be ruled by Christians. But its laws and authority basically derive from what it defines as natural law, which is established by God. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

You have no clue what a the deists back then were and the "God" of nature was not a magical being like discribed in your KJV book.

Jefferson denied the virgin birth and death of Jesus so do not omit that and try to pass off our laws as based on any form or Christianity DONT LIE AND SAY THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

You want our laws based on the Christian bible THAT IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS SAID OR INTENDED!

There is no mention of Jesus or "Jesus owned goverment" in OUR constitution.

Jefferson like I do, believe that your religion is personal and should be left up to you, not a burocrate or politician and for you to attempt to lie and say you arent claiming that our laws are based on your bible is bunk.

"As the goverment of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". Treaty of Tripoly (aka) Barbary Treaty signed without dissent by both houses of Congress and signed into LAW by President John Adams June 10th 1797.

"God of nature" is Jeffersons individual idea and he didnt even use those words "God of nature" in the Constitution and he certainly did not believe in YOUR Christian God.

BUT do not lie to my face and say you dont want our laws based on your bible.

The founders all had a wide variety of beleifs most of them were deists, some were believers BUT ALL AGREED THAT GOVERMENT SHOULD NOT TOUCH THE ISSUE OF RELIGION AND THAT IT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establisment of religion or the free exorcise thereof" DOES NOT EQUATE TO ONE GROUP GANG TAGING GOVERMENT PROPERTY OR THAT A CHRISTIAN MONOPOLY IS ALLOWED!

The founders expressing personal opinions did not equate to public law.

OUR LAWS are not based on atheism, Christianity or Islam, they are based on COMMON LAW.

The First Amendment is an anti-trust law that prevents monopolies of power, and on issues of speech and religion it says, "We wont come after you, but we wont aid you either. ON YOUR OWN TIME WITH YOUR OWN DIME"

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Nobody

StMichael wrote:
Nobody ever said from my end that the nation ought to be ruled by Christians. But its laws and authority basically derive from what it defines as natural law, which is established by God. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

 

This begs the question, of course. It's also a non sequitur as it commits a stolen concept fallacy - i.e. speaking of something non natural as it if were natural.

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
First, in response to

First, in response to Brian37, I never claimed that Jefferson was a Christian. But he most certainly was a deist, and a believer in God. Our system of rights and laws is based on the concept of natural laws which flow from God.
Second, evolution did not give us morality. It is a bad argument on SO many levels.
Third, in response to todangst, it neither begs the question nor commits stolen concept. That only applies if you believe that nothing meaningful can ever be said about God, which we obviously reject. If you want to maintain that, you ought to demonstrate it philosophically.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Our system

StMichael wrote:
Our system of rights and laws is based on the concept of natural laws which flow from God.

Nope. Evolution. A god can't have, because there isn't one.

StMichael wrote:

Second, evolution did not give us morality. It is a bad argument on SO many levels.

Wrong again. And you don't even explain yourself. Making you not only wrong but laughable.

StMichael wrote:

Third, in response to todangst, it neither begs the question nor commits stolen concept. That only applies if you believe that nothing meaningful can ever be said about God, which we obviously reject. If you want to maintain that, you ought to demonstrate it philosophically.

Look up fallacies. You don't know what you're talking about.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote: "Its authority was

Quote:
"Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Aye, and the precise reason these same words who's first draft was on hemp paper has made such an impact on this nation, even today is for what reason? Because it's a legal document, then and now and always.

The newly formed United States of America derived its just powers from the consent of the governed at such day where the governed happened to be Christian. Such is precisely the fact there was freedom of religion. Christians were afraid of being prosecuted.

And today, such a document has held true(save Civil Rights) to this day, and today, it is as strong as ever. The governed is of all citizens(it might be all people...but I kind of doubt this?any insight?) and the powers derived by the government is from such citizens.

It sucks, but the fact is, such a powerfull organization as the Church has a huge stake in this country even today. They do what they do in this country, simply because they have a right to. Just as much of a right you have to picket outside a church, it is as much their right to have things ranging from television shows all the way down them picketing as well. Fight fire with fire if you must, but I'm sure there has to be a better way. Granted places like these is a safe harbor for intelectual sources of "fighting" instead of people acting like fools.

Simply put, no matter how much pressure you think Christians are putting on the government, the seperation of church and state is evident. The power given to Christians is near soley in political activism by putting people in office and lobbying for their desires to see this nation to be. Essentially it comes down to money and power, in which not many, if any at all, atheist organization have.

 

This coming from a US History teacher-- Without the consent of the governed circa 1776, being Christians, the United States would have not of formed, and if it did, it would have been at a different time in history. Undoubtedly, the course of human existence would have been changed dramatically. Take it for what it is, but surely the Declaration of Independence IS a legal document, for it firmly states that we are all the governed, not just the Christians. If you want to stop the Christians, then simply gain the power to do so. It is NOT the governments fault to stop legal actions, but almost always(You can't ban the Pledge..I'm sorry, that is ridciculous) the illegality of any violations of church and state are covered. For instance, there have been several Ten Commandment statues removed from court houses all over the south. These orders are evidence enough that Chrisitanity doesn't have any governmental power besides that of shear legal(for the most part) politics.

 

Yes vastet, it obviously wasn't founded by Christians, and today it still isn't run by Christians.

"We are simply sick of Christians claiming they have a right to gang tag OUR GOVERNMENT as Jesus run."

Who cares who tags our country as Jesus run, because lets face it, Jesus was not a real person. Who can something that NEVER existed, rule the most powerful nation in the world? (you peoples style of argument is so fun. stupid, but fun)

"Our goverment is founded on the concept of sanctuary for all, no monopolies allowed. Neutrality does not mean atheist run, it means citizen run."

Is it not citizen run? Lets see, we have a Democratic-Republican form of government. It is NOT citizen run. This government is moved and shaped by bipartisan politics. Don't like how the country is being ran, then vote for the other guy. If you don't think your single vote really matters, then go out and inform others on the misdeeds of such a politician.  If you don't like the 2 party system, then go out and make a movement to amend the constitution for a new system of voting. Get 2/3 of the peoples support, and there you have it, Amendment 28. Such is the power of the PEOPLE not the power of the PERSON. (George Washington didn't want to be president because he feared the institution of such a powerful position would no doubt lead to corruption[as it has so many times, but yet we NEED a president. Such is the way of the greatest form of government in the world])

 

The fact is Brian, you need to stop bitching like a little girl. Christians have such a strong backing in this country(they don't control it) because they are politically active, and the constituents of such an organization comprise of the largest politically active group in the nation(once again by way of teacher)

 

So either

A.)stop being lazy, and go get people to vote for YOUR cause(stopping the Christians from ruling the world??)

or

B.)Run for office.(notice why there are several members of the government who are Christian? Becaue they were VOTED in)

This government is not citizen run. It is not person run. It is people run. Plural, my friend. Even the president doesn't have full control over the nation, and he is the most powerful citizen in the nation.

Brian, do you think for yourself? Is someone forcing you every day to "think" a certain way? Or do you have the free will to choose to think and hold convictions about whatever you like?

 

 

 

Yes Apostate, the intents of the founders were very relevant. One may also point out that the actions in which the founding fathers were taking, were ACTS OF TREASONS. Oh yeah, and that one guy...John Hancock; If I remember correctly, he was one of the largest smugglers in the world. So, this country was essentially founded by a bunch of would-be convicts. Sweet, we really do live in the greatest country ever. 

And that's the damn beauty of such a government. Who really has the right to determine what the intentions of the founding fathers really were? You or I? Or the people? Anyone at all? No, the founding fathers did. They weren't treasonous anymore, they were freedom fighters. They became freedom fighters because the victors always write the history books. Had the rebellion been quelled, the American Revolution would not have been a revolution at all. It would have been the American Colonial Rebellion. A large number of people would either be sentenced to jail or HUNG for acts of treason if say...the Christians weren't there to back the cause. There would be NO founding fathers, because they would have founded nothing but acts of terrorism. Such is precisely how the history books would have it today, had we not won the rebellion.

In this day and age however, we have the RIGHT to view the government as being anything we want. A Christian wishes to state that the United States was founded out of Christianity, then so be it. Such state of ignorance can only be rooted in EVIDENCE. The fact is, evidence, being the Declaration of Independence, states specifically that this nation was formed with an idea of SOME God. It is so, but does God rule this nation? "One nation under God." Is that really truth? Or is it just tradition?

 

You all have just as much rights as Christians. Make the dough, and get active in politics. Tides will change if you wish. 

 

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Our

StMichael wrote:

Our system of rights and laws is based on the concept of natural laws which flow from God.

VastetNope. Evolution. A god can't have, because there isn't one.[/quote wrote:


I just can't believe how you are so convinced of this. Give evidence on a "God" not existing. One peice of solid scientific proof.

 

Second, evolution did not give us morality. It is a bad argument on SO many levels.

Vastet wrote:
Wrong again. And you don't even explain yourself. Making you not only wrong but laughable.

 

No, you obviously have a laughable perspective on human nature and morality. Must one need an explanation on the morality of man if one simply knows a pinch of history.

 

 Brian37, at what point in the political process is there even a possibility of Christians having an influence on every day running, if this seperation is clearly evident? Where exactly? Is there even a point? 

 

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote:Vastet

Ripple wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Nope. Evolution. A god can't have, because there isn't one.
I just can't believe how you are so convinced of this. Give evidence on a "God" not existing. One peice of solid scientific proof.

Laws of conservation: Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, a creator cannot exist.

Now, I want one piece of scientific evidence that you have to explain your belief in the unbelievable.

Ripple wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Wrong again. And you don't even explain yourself. Making you not only wrong but laughable.
No, you obviously have a laughable perspective on human nature and morality.

Got it backwards, these words apply to yourself.

Ripple wrote:
Must one need an explanation on the morality of man if one simply knows a pinch of history.

I know quite a lot of history. I know our moral code has evolved over thousands of years to get to where it is today. I know that even two hundred years ago our code was lacking comparatively, and people were burned at the stake for beliefs(or merely the accusation of such). This is empirical evidence of moral evolution.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Aye, and the

Quote:

Aye, and the precise reason these same words who's first draft was on hemp paper has made such an impact on this nation, even today is for what reason? Because it's a legal document, then and now and always.

It set the way for the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution. It is a historical document, not a legal document (in the sense that we are not governed by it); we do not derive laws/rights from it.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: A god can't have,

Quote:
A god can't have, because there isn't one.

Dooty dooty doo, circular logic in your head...

Quote:
Wrong again. And you don't even explain yourself. Making you not only wrong but laughable.

Is anything objectively wrong or right? If it is the case that nothing is right or wrong, I cannot be "wrong again."

Quote:
Look up fallacies. You don't know what you're talking about.

Look up "reading comprehension." You didn't even read my post if you are making this sort of statement.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: Take it for

Ripple wrote:
Take it for what it is, but surely the Declaration of Independence IS a legal document, for it firmly states that we are all the governed, not just the Christians.

Why do you keep repeating this assertion when it's been pointed out numerous times that this is not the case? We do not derive rights from the Declaration, nor is our government bound to the document in any way. If you actually read the thing (and it's been posted in this thread), you'll see that it is not much more than a formal middle finger to the King of Great Britain, whining about all the grievances he's caused, and talking about how it is the right of the people to overthrow their unjust government. Does the Constitution enumerate this same right to overthrow our own government? No it does not, and it is the Constitution which enumerates our basic rights, not the Declaration.

Ripple wrote:
It is NOT the governments fault to stop legal actions, but almost always(You can't ban the Pledge..I'm sorry, that is ridciculous) the illegality of any violations of church and state are covered. For instance, there have been several Ten Commandment statues removed from court houses all over the south. These orders are evidence enough that Chrisitanity doesn't have any governmental power besides that of shear legal(for the most part) politics.

You don't seem to be aware of the nature of the issue we're taking. No one is saying Christians have no right to take legal action. We are saying that Christians (maybe not you in particular, but oh, say, the Sean Hannity or Newt Gingrich crowd) often make the claim this is a "Christian Nation" as though that alone were sufficient to back their political positions that there is no separation of church and state. Nonsense. The Establishment clause is there for all to see in the document (Constitution) which enumerates our rights. The "Christian Nation" charge is irrelevant in a discussion of rights and religious liberties in the same way a racist crying "this country was built by white people" is irrelevant in a discussion of rights and civil liberties.

 

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15707
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: First, in

StMichael wrote:
First, in response to Brian37, I never claimed that Jefferson was a Christian. But he most certainly was a deist, and a believer in God. Our system of rights and laws is based on the concept of natural laws which flow from God. Second, evolution did not give us morality. It is a bad argument on SO many levels. Third, in response to todangst, it neither begs the question nor commits stolen concept. That only applies if you believe that nothing meaningful can ever be said about God, which we obviously reject. If you want to maintain that, you ought to demonstrate it philosophically. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

St Micheal. STOP! I am not fooled by your attempt to usurpt the Constitution.

The founders had opinions about religion and veryied widely. BUT ALL AGREED THAT THAT ISSUE WAS TO BE LEFT UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL, AND NOT TO BE USED AS A TOOL FOR THE GOVERMENT.

Christians unfortunatly have taken that as license to promote the "wink wink, we wont say Jesus, wink wink, but we know what "God" really means, wink wink".

It was never about Jesus. It was about FREEDOM. It was about the ability for all who wanted to partisipate in our highest levels of goverment to have the ability to compete for a shot at it. Christians have burried the truth.

The truth is that a Jewish citizen CAN be president. A Buddhist citizen CAN be Prestident. AN ATHEIST CAN BE PRESIDENT.

Problem is selfish revisionists wont tell you the truth that if you want to run for that office YOU CAN, and swearing to Jesus OR ANY GOD, IS NOT MANDITORY!

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
That is not correct. The

That is not correct. The founders sought freedom among religions and freedom of conscience. But their own beliefs and the laws of this country are founded in a knowledge of a Supreme Creator and in His creation of morality that is normative for all men, regardless of religion. It is not an obligation for all men to become Christians, but it is an obligation for all men to follow the natural morality that the Creator put in our hearts and which we put in our laws.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15707
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:
That is not correct. The founders sought freedom among religions and freedom of conscience. But their own beliefs and the laws of this country are founded in a knowledge of a Supreme Creator and in His creation of morality that is normative for all men, regardless of religion. It is not an obligation for all men to become Christians, but it is an obligation for all men to follow the natural morality that the Creator put in our hearts and which we put in our laws. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

AGAIN STOP!

BULLSHIT!

"Question  with boldness the existance of God, for if there be one surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson.

"As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" TREATY OF TRIPOLY!

Dont give me this crap that we have an obligation to a supreme being according to them. It was always a matter of personal opinion.

Freedom of concious and the mind of the individual !

You want to make them out to be clones of Jesus and the fact was that they dispised sheep!

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Read Thomas Paine's "The Age

Read Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason." The entire book is pretty much ridiculing the Bible.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: That is

StMichael wrote:
That is not correct. The founders sought freedom among religions and freedom of conscience. But their own beliefs and the laws of this country are founded in a knowledge of a Supreme Creator and in His creation of morality that is normative for all men, regardless of religion. It is not an obligation for all men to become Christians, but it is an obligation for all men to follow the natural morality that the Creator put in our hearts and which we put in our laws. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

If that was the case they wouldn't have said, "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now if this creator was so important why do they leave it out of our constitution? 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
It has nothing to do with

It has nothing to do with the Christian God. It merely affirms a single supreme Creator.
Most of the founding fathers were deists, believing in God but not in any particular revealed religion. They were not Christians and allowed free tolerance of religious opinions in the states.
God is not directly found mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but it is clear from the writings of the Founding Fathers who comment on the Constitution, as well as any examination of the thought of the Constitution and other early American legal documents, that the philosophy of natural law theory is essential to the basis of the law of the United States. Why, in your opinion, is God/the Creator mentioned elsewhere in US documents, like the Declaration of Independence?
I have no desire to say that atheists have no right to freedom of conscience in matters of religion in the US, or that the founders intended to remove the rights of atheists. Rather, I just want to say that the basis of US law rests on some assumptions about reality that are fundamentally based in a supreme Creator, such as natural law/right theory.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: God is not

StMichael wrote:
God is not directly found mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but it is clear from the writings of the Founding Fathers who comment on the Constitution, as well as any examination of the thought of the Constitution and other early American legal documents, that the philosophy of natural law theory is essential to the basis of the law of the United States. ...Rather, I just want to say that the basis of US law rests on some assumptions about reality that are fundamentally based in a supreme Creator, such as natural law/right theory. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

 

Natural law theory had nothing to do with a "Supreme Creator" until Christian philosophers adapted it from the Stoics(if memory serves. By all means correct me if I'm wrong). According to the tenets of Stoicism, Natural Law postulates that the universe is governed by reason, or rational principle. Stoics believed all humans have reason within them and can therefore know and obey its law. Because human beings have free will, they will not necessarily obey the law, but, if they act in accordance with reason, they will be "following nature."

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
That's kind-of correct. The

That's kind-of correct. The Stoics did believe the universe was governed by the Logos, but the Logos was an emanation or correlate of their concept of god, which was an eternal fire that filled all things; I quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on this:
"In accord with this ontology, the Stoics, like the Epicureans, make God material. But while the Epicureans think the gods are too busy being blessed and happy to be bothered with the governance of the universe, the Stoic God is immanent throughout the whole of creation and directs its development down to the smallest detail. God is identical with one of the two ungenerated and indestructible first principles (archai) of the universe. One principle is matter which they regard as utterly unqualified and inert. It is that which is acted upon. God is identified with an eternal reason (logos, Diog. Laert. 44B ) or intelligent designing fire (Aetius, 46A) which structures matter in accordance with Its plan. This plan is enacted time and time again, beginning from a state in which all is fire, through the generation of the elements, to the creation of the world we are familiar with, and eventually back to fire in a cycle of endless recurrence. The designing fire of the conflagration is likened to a sperm which contains the principles or stories of all the things which will subsequently develop (Aristocles in Eusebius, 46G). Under this guise, God is also called ‘fate.’ It is important to realise that the Stoic God does not craft its world in accordance with its plan from the outside, as the demiurge in Plato's Timaeus is described as doing. Rather, the history of the universe is determined by God's activity internal to it, shaping it with its differentiated characteristics. The biological conception of God as a kind of living heat or seed from which things grow seems to be fully intended."

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Roisin, you state that the

Roisin, you state that the universe is governed by reason. Wouldn't it also hold true by this Stoicism belief, that the universe is governed by God. Therefor reason is governed by God.

This in turn makes the laws of reason and nature a by-product of God's universal prescense.

Philosophically speaking, if a God was all-powerful, it would hold the power to do absolutely anything. And if something is done in this natural world, it is natural, correct(no rational person here believes in such craziness like supernatural events, right?) Therefor, there is no such thing as supernatural, as God is able to take anything "supernatural" and make it natural for God is just as natural then anything in the Universe, as it is the Universe.

 

God is nature, and nature is God? Perhaps?

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Ahh, AL, so if it is

Ahh, AL, so if it is irrelevant, then why such a big hoopla over it? If these Christians clearly have no power to control the government, as the Establishment Clause states, then why such a fuss?

Just because they "claim" this nation to be a Christian Nation? I can "claim" this nation to be a White Nation. Lets face it, who holds the most power in this country? I can claim it all I want. It doesn't mean that it is legally true. Therefor, what am I doing by claiming it to be so? Just as much as the Christians are doing by claiming this nation to be Christian. They're doing absolutely nothing. What is your point? You wish to stop people from "claiming things" that's not theirs? Well why prosecute just the Christians for doing that? Prosecute the rest of the people in the world who "claim things" You guys are so fucking subjective.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15707
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: That is

StMichael wrote:
That is not correct. The founders sought freedom among religions and freedom of conscience. But their own beliefs and the laws of this country are founded in a knowledge of a Supreme Creator and in His creation of morality that is normative for all men, regardless of religion. It is not an obligation for all men to become Christians, but it is an obligation for all men to follow the natural morality that the Creator put in our hearts and which we put in our laws. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

You are embarrasing yourself here. Stop trying to slap the Jesus label on OUR Constitution and lie to us and say that is not what you are doing.

YES, the founders had opinions about religion. But OUR Constitution was founded on COMMON LAW, not any dogma. Not yours, not Baptists not Catholics not Jews. It was based on COMMON LAW.

This "creator" crap you are throwing at us if it were so damned important why not open the Constitution with " THE FOLLOWING ARE LAWS GIVEN TO US BY OUR CREATOR"

Even in the DoI it doesnt say, "OUR CREATOR" it says "Their Creator" which ment in THE MIND OF THE INDIVIDUAL!

You are trying to twist a statement in a LETTER which is what the DoI is and turn it into LAW which it is not.

It is not a collectivest statement as most Christians would like to beleive. And if it were so damned important why wasnt that included in the LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION?

Why? Because in the time period between the DoI and the Constitution being ratified, the founders debated faught and struggled to figure out who what and how and by the time the sat down to write it they decided to leave God out because they did not want to be unfair to anyone and have them left out.

POOF, a neutral documant in the form of a template of law called OUR CONSTITUTION is born. It wasnt born out of the Bible, or Quran or atheism. It was born out of the ideas of freedom of consience and the mind of the individual to think for themselves.

Whatever personal beliefs the founders had they would have never suggested like you are now, to take their religious books or beliefs and translatethem into public law. 

This is merely YOU geting caught in a lie to say that you arnt trying to slap the Jesus label on OUR Constitution. That is really what you want and I am not fooled one bit by it.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You are embarrasing

Quote:
You are embarrasing yourself here. Stop trying to slap the Jesus label on OUR Constitution and lie to us and say that is not what you are doing.

I am not "trying to slap the Jesus label" on the Constitution. It is just a very big misreading of United States law to consider it apart from any religious consideration whatsoever. The entire basis of US law is founded on the notion of inviolable principles which proceed from a supreme Creator. To rid US law of this would be to undermine its foundations. This, for example, is the source of the idea of political power as proceeding from the citizens of the republic.

Quote:

YES, the founders had opinions about religion. But OUR Constitution was founded on COMMON LAW, not any dogma. Not yours, not Baptists not Catholics not Jews. It was based on COMMON LAW.

Common law is merely the idea that certain legal principles are common to all men, also somewhat derived from the concept of natural law. It is a misinterpretation of the term "common law" that you want to apply here. Common law does not mean that it possesses no assumptions about philosophy or theology, but merely adopts the law of nature as the law of the land.

Quote:

This "creator" crap you are throwing at us if it were so damned important why not open the Constitution with " THE FOLLOWING ARE LAWS GIVEN TO US BY OUR CREATOR"

Because it doesn't claim that they are directly from the Creator. Those would be found in the particular Scriptures or revelation of religious bodies. But the Founders did see the laws that they enacted as based in the natural law, which itself is from the Creator.

Quote:
Even in the DoI it doesnt say, "OUR CREATOR" it says "Their Creator" which ment in THE MIND OF THE INDIVIDUAL!

That is a misinterpretation and likewise uncontextual. It does not mean in "their minds." That would be completely contrary to the full text of that sentence, which reads: "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." Now, if it were merely each person's individual creator, or idea thereof, what sense would it make to say that such creators likewise gave all men the same rights? No, it only makes sense if there was one single Creator of all men who bestows the same rights on all men. Only in this sense can the right be "inalienable."

The Declaration says this likewise in many other places: "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," or "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."

Quote:
You are trying to twist a statement in a LETTER which is what the DoI is and turn it into LAW which it is not.

The Declaration is not a particular law. But it does give us the Founding Father's intent when they lay out the laws of this country and the source from which they believe natural rights flow, which is the one Creator of all men. This is likewise found in other documents that express the Founding Fathers' intent.

Quote:
It is not a collectivest statement as most Christians would like to beleive. And if it were so damned important why wasnt that included in the LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION?

I never claimed the Founding Fathers were all Christians, just that they believe that all laws are founded in a nature created by one Supreme Creator. There is nothing inherently Christian about that idea. Also, they do include it in the Constitution, because it is the foundation of the theory of natural rights which the United States is founded on.

Quote:
Why? Because in the time period between the DoI and the Constitution being ratified, the founders debated faught and struggled to figure out who what and how and by the time the sat down to write it they decided to leave God out because they did not want to be unfair to anyone and have them left out.

That is your assertion. Nowhere do you provide evidence to back up this insane claim.

Quote:
POOF, a neutral documant in the form of a template of law called OUR CONSTITUTION is born. It wasnt born out of the Bible, or Quran or atheism. It was born out of the ideas of freedom of consience and the mind of the individual to think for themselves.

Freedom of conscience is derived from natural rights of man endowed by the Supreme Creator. My point exactly.
Further, I would argue that no such "neutral" document can exist, regardless of whether you believe the Constitution to be one of these.

Quote:
Whatever personal beliefs the founders had they would have never suggested like you are now, to take their religious books or beliefs and translatethem into public law.

And they did not legislate their personal religious beliefs. They, however, did not consider the notion of a supreme Creator a private religious belief, but something as coming out of philosophy and knowable by all men.

Quote:
This is merely YOU geting caught in a lie to say that you arnt trying to slap the Jesus label on OUR Constitution. That is really what you want and I am not fooled one bit by it.

The name "Jesus" does not occur in any document giving the political thought of the Founders. However, "Creator" and "God" do, and often.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15707
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
You are embarrasing yourself here. Stop trying to slap the Jesus label on OUR Constitution and lie to us and say that is not what you are doing.
I am not "trying to slap the Jesus label" on the Constitution. It is just a very big misreading of United States law to consider it apart from any religious consideration whatsoever. The entire basis of US law is founded on the notion of inviolable principles which proceed from a supreme Creator. To rid US law of this would be to undermine its foundations. This, for example, is the source of the idea of political power as proceeding from the citizens of the republic.
Quote:
YES, the founders had opinions about religion. But OUR Constitution was founded on COMMON LAW, not any dogma. Not yours, not Baptists not Catholics not Jews. It was based on COMMON LAW.
Common law is merely the idea that certain legal principles are common to all men, also somewhat derived from the concept of natural law. It is a misinterpretation of the term "common law" that you want to apply here. Common law does not mean that it possesses no assumptions about philosophy or theology, but merely adopts the law of nature as the law of the land.
Quote:
This "creator" crap you are throwing at us if it were so damned important why not open the Constitution with " THE FOLLOWING ARE LAWS GIVEN TO US BY OUR CREATOR"
Because it doesn't claim that they are directly from the Creator. Those would be found in the particular Scriptures or revelation of religious bodies. But the Founders did see the laws that they enacted as based in the natural law, which itself is from the Creator.
Quote:
Even in the DoI it doesnt say, "OUR CREATOR" it says "Their Creator" which ment in THE MIND OF THE INDIVIDUAL!
That is a misinterpretation and likewise uncontextual. It does not mean in "their minds." That would be completely contrary to the full text of that sentence, which reads: "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." Now, if it were merely each person's individual creator, or idea thereof, what sense would it make to say that such creators likewise gave all men the same rights? No, it only makes sense if there was one single Creator of all men who bestows the same rights on all men. Only in this sense can the right be "inalienable." The Declaration says this likewise in many other places: "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," or "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."
Quote:
You are trying to twist a statement in a LETTER which is what the DoI is and turn it into LAW which it is not.
The Declaration is not a particular law. But it does give us the Founding Father's intent when they lay out the laws of this country and the source from which they believe natural rights flow, which is the one Creator of all men. This is likewise found in other documents that express the Founding Fathers' intent.
Quote:
It is not a collectivest statement as most Christians would like to beleive. And if it were so damned important why wasnt that included in the LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION?
I never claimed the Founding Fathers were all Christians, just that they believe that all laws are founded in a nature created by one Supreme Creator. There is nothing inherently Christian about that idea. Also, they do include it in the Constitution, because it is the foundation of the theory of natural rights which the United States is founded on.
Quote:
Why? Because in the time period between the DoI and the Constitution being ratified, the founders debated faught and struggled to figure out who what and how and by the time the sat down to write it they decided to leave God out because they did not want to be unfair to anyone and have them left out.
That is your assertion. Nowhere do you provide evidence to back up this insane claim.
Quote:
POOF, a neutral documant in the form of a template of law called OUR CONSTITUTION is born. It wasnt born out of the Bible, or Quran or atheism. It was born out of the ideas of freedom of consience and the mind of the individual to think for themselves.
Freedom of conscience is derived from natural rights of man endowed by the Supreme Creator. My point exactly. Further, I would argue that no such "neutral" document can exist, regardless of whether you believe the Constitution to be one of these.
Quote:
Whatever personal beliefs the founders had they would have never suggested like you are now, to take their religious books or beliefs and translatethem into public law.
And they did not legislate their personal religious beliefs. They, however, did not consider the notion of a supreme Creator a private religious belief, but something as coming out of philosophy and knowable by all men.
Quote:
This is merely YOU geting caught in a lie to say that you arnt trying to slap the Jesus label on OUR Constitution. That is really what you want and I am not fooled one bit by it.
The name "Jesus" does not occur in any document giving the political thought of the Founders. However, "Creator" and "God" do, and often. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Again, this is nothing more than a veil for you to justify Christian pulpit politics. I find it extreemly hard to believe that you believe in the same "god" the founders talked about considering your sig at the end of every post you make. "Yours in Christ".

You try so desperately to pass yourself off as neutral and objective but your sig gives you away every time. Maybe if you would lose it you'd be more convincing. I dont think you can or want to. 

This is nothing more than you saying, "Christians are allowed to rip our laws out of their bible"

If that is not what your intent is then your next post should say.

"I St Micheal state that OUR laws are not taken from the Christian Bible".

Oh BTW, "Yours in Reason" Maybe I should end my posts to you with that. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: Roisin, you

Ripple wrote:

Roisin, you state that the universe is governed by reason.

I stated that according to Stoicism, the universe is governed by reason.

Quote:
Wouldn't it also hold true by this Stoicism belief, that the universe is governed by God. Therefor reason is governed by God.

No. According to Stoicism, Absolute reason IS god. Their concept of god is a pantheistic one.

Quote:
This in turn makes the laws of reason and nature a by-product of God's universal prescense.

No, it doesnt. God and reason are the same thing. One is not any byproduct of the other.

Quote:
Philosophically speaking, if a God was all-powerful, it would hold the power to do absolutely anything. And if something is done in this natural world, it is natural, correct(no rational person here believes in such craziness like supernatural events, right?) Therefor, there is no such thing as supernatural, as God is able to take anything "supernatural" and make it natural for God is just as natural then anything in the Universe, as it is the Universe.

Most of what you wrote here is incomprehensible.

Quote:
God is nature, and nature is God? Perhaps?

According to Stoicism, yes. You thinking of joining?

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I have no desire to play

I have no desire to play politics with you and no desire to command politics. I am just stating the obvious: the Founders based their political philosophy in the existence of natural law coming from a Supreme Creator. The "Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom" has to do with my own beliefs and position, not any political commentary. I did not claim that the Founders ripped their beliefs from the Bible, nor necessarily ought the US to do so. I claimed merely that they believed in a Creator from whom we gain our natural rights. If you want to refute this, please go ahead and cite a Founder stating that we don't have natural rights.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15707
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I have no

StMichael wrote:
I have no desire to play politics with you and no desire to command politics. I am just stating the obvious: the Founders based their political philosophy in the existence of natural law coming from a Supreme Creator. The "Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom" has to do with my own beliefs and position, not any political commentary. I did not claim that the Founders ripped their beliefs from the Bible, nor necessarily ought the US to do so. I claimed merely that they believed in a Creator from whom we gain our natural rights. If you want to refute this, please go ahead and cite a Founder stating that we don't have natural rights. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

We do have natural rights, BUT as I said, what the Founders personally believed had nothing to do with the intent of our Constitution. There is no mention of Jesus in it. That is what OUR laws are based on.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establisment of religion or prohibiting the free exorsize thereof" was never intended by the founders to mean a monopoly of one religious politicall power over another.

It also says in the Constitution "No Religious Test". IT DOES NOT SAY, " No religious test as long as you swear to any god" it says "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" Show me the word "creator" in that law? NOT THERE!

And "So Help Me God" you hear politicians doing in sound bites is VOLUNTARY NOT MANDITORY! Go look up the oath of office you wont find "creator" or "god" or "God" or "Jesus". NOT MANDITORY!

Still not fooled by your veiled attempt to maintain a Christian monopoly on goverment power. That is all you are trying to do and I am not fooled in the least.

Yours in rationality,

Brian37 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: Ahh, AL, so

Ripple wrote:
Ahh, AL, so if it is irrelevant, then why such a big hoopla over it? If these Christians clearly have no power to control the government, as the Establishment Clause states, then why such a fuss?

Do you even think through the questions you ask before you ask them?  You act as though the fuss and hoopla are caused by the atheists when it is clearly the other way around.  The Declaration is irrelevant, and the hoopla is caused by the Christians who think the Declaration is relevant.  If the hoopla bothers you, then tell your fellow Christians to give the Declaration nonsense a rest, since clearly they're the ones who didn't pay attention in government class if they actually think the Declaration grants them rights.

Same with the fuss over the Establishment Clause.  It is there to prevent the formation of a theocracy, but that doesn't stop Christians from attempting to form one anyway IN SPITE.  The fuss and the hoopla stems from them, not us.

Ripple wrote:
What is your point? You wish to stop people from "claiming things" that's not theirs? Well why prosecute just the Christians for doing that? Prosecute the rest of the people in the world who "claim things" You guys are so fucking subjective.

You can claim whatever you want.  The Christians can claim whatever they want as well.  I am not denying anyone's rights to free speech.  It is when they want to implement policy on grounds that this nation is "Christian" and on grounds that "the Declaration says so" that I take issue. 

And nobody is "prosecuting" any Christians.  The word you're looking for is "persecuting," and no, we're not doing that either.  The issue is Separation of Church and State, and the attempts by Christians to circumvent it by declaring "Christian Nation" and "Declaration" nonsense.  You can say it, but it's nonsense and has no bearing on rights, or policy, and any attempt to implement such policy or infringe upon rights should be frowned upon by anyone who respects the Constitution.

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?