American beliefs

[ATM]

Ok, so let's duly note your subtle shift away from your original theme, which was distinctly secular v. religious:

...and your ever-so-deft pivot back towards the safe and well-traveled footpath of INGO, namely, Libertarian objection to the overarching nanny state (and also duly note your failure to note which text of the Constitution is so irreconcilable with a secular society, before this thread goes the predictable 647-page route).

Hmph. All that struggle to get religion officially recognized on the forum...only to beat a safe retreat back into the Libertarian bushes at the first sign of critical examination? Tch, tch!

Ok.

Nice cast...happy trolling!

If you want to discuss the history of America, I can do that.
If you want to discuss secular vs. religious, I can do that.
If you want to discuss anrcho-capitalist stateless society vs. the state, I can do that.
If you're capable of attempting all 3 combined, I can do that.

Why do you believe those are mutually exclusive topics?

Where exactly was the critical examination which you believe I'm retreating from?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I would like to point out that every instance where a bible is brought out to be sworn on is pretty much completely optional. It comes from the idea that you swear on something that you hold near and dear to you, whether it be a bible or something else important to you. Atheists and whatnot don't have to swear on bibles when giving testimony. Many would swear on the constitution itself because it's important to them. I'd swear on the constitution before a bible any day, because that's more important to me than the latter.

True, and pretty much what I was saying, that one's belief in Deity should guide his practice and his life, not that "I'm a FITB and I'm in power, so you should/must be a FITB, too, and believe and practice what all of us FITBs do." (FITB=Fill In The Blank)

Christians are forbidden from swearing at all so that does seem a bit odd.

OK, OK, swear or affirm, if you want to get pedantic about it. The point is that one's belief in a standard (including such things as, for example, the commission of murder or theft are wrongful acts and should be punishable) is the expectation of one who gives an oath (or affirmation). By doing so, you are binding yourself voluntarily to a course of moral (as accepted by those who elected you) behavior while in office, in the discharge of your duties. Making that public claim and concluding it with "So help me God" seems to me to be saying, "This is my intent. I recognize that I am fallible so I entreat the aid of the One who is not to uphold my stated intent."

Better?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[poptab]

True, and pretty much what I was saying, that one's belief in Deity should guide his practice and his life, not that "I'm a FITB and I'm in power, so you should/must be a FITB, too, and believe and practice what all of us FITBs do." (FITB=Fill In The Blank)



OK, OK, swear or affirm, if you want to get pedantic about it. The point is that one's belief in a standard (including such things as, for example, the commission of murder or theft are wrongful acts and should be punishable) is the expectation of one who gives an oath (or affirmation). By doing so, you are binding yourself voluntarily to a course of moral (as accepted by those who elected you) behavior while in office, in the discharge of your duties. Making that public claim and concluding it with "So help me God" seems to me to be saying, "This is my intent. I recognize that I am fallible so I entreat the aid of the One who is not to uphold my stated intent."

Better?

Blessings,
Bill

I wasn't being pedantic or trying to be smart. I simply find it an odd practice considering mat. 5:37
im not one of the people who will try to claim our country was not founded with a basis in Christianity.
ive never sworn any oath in court or otherwise and don't know exactly what wording they use.

 

[ModernGunner]

Perhaps it might be worthy to further note that there have been more than 11,500 amendment proposals made to the Constitution in the 226 years since it was placed into operation in 1789. In more modern times, about 100 changes per year are proposed. Obviously most never go anywhere (the discussion / debate in this thread gives a good clue as to why, LOL).

Out of all that, there have been 33 amendments adopted by Congress. Of those, 27 were ratified and are part of the Constitution, and 4 are still 'pending'.

The last for were ratified in 1964, 1967, 1971, and 1992, respectively. Hardly the 'province' of an 'old, outdated, and irrelevant piece of paper created by old men in ancient times'.

If the Constitution NEEDS to be changed, it can be. And has been. Perhaps not to everyone's liking, but that's a personal matter. It CAN be changed when enough people feel it needs to be changed, but it's very difficult to do, as it should be. That's the genius of it.

 

[Dean C.]

Should it really be relevant at all what particular religion person follows in this country, as long as they are good people and generally are not *******s? Yes I understand that allot of people feel that people get their morals from religion but that is simply false, religions have been evolving for centuries from polytheistic to our more modern monotheistic religions. Each religion has borrowed from previous religions to help build itself up and gain followers, this is nothing new at all (Christmas does fall on the traditional times for the midwinter festivals practiced by the pagans, and Christmas itself was not instituted until the fourth century AD.) The concepts of "right and wrong" have been evolving since the dawn of early man, not delivered to our species by a deity.

The point I am trying to make is that does religion even matter as long as people are nice to each other and the social contract is upheld, America is supposed to be a melting pot after all? Sorry for the sort of off topic mini delve into history, the concept of religion and morals being tied together bugs me....

 

[ATM]

...If the Constitution NEEDS to be changed, it can be. And has been...

The Constitution doesn't really NEED to be changed, it is already ignored by our illegitimate government thus serving as no functional restraint.

Which option seems best to return us to legitimacy?

1. Change the Constitution to legitimize the government functioning as it currently is.

2. Chop the government back down to the scope authorized by the Constitution, then figure out some other way to restrain it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I wasn't being pedantic or trying to be smart. I simply find it an odd practice considering mat. 5:37
im not one of the people who will try to claim our country was not founded with a basis in Christianity.
ive never sworn any oath in court or otherwise and don't know exactly what wording they use.

In court, one swears that the testimony s/he will give will be "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God"

Oaths of office are found with google searches, if need be, but are similar. I have to say I'm not familiar with the book of Matthew, as I am not Christian and haven't made a study of it. Others have made the same claim you did, though, which is the origin of the words, "or affirm" added to "I do solemnly swear that the testimony I shall give..." those words being placed immediately following "swear".

My apologies if you were not intentionally being pedantic. I thought that that addition and its origin were common knowledge.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

Should it really be relevant at all what particular religion person follows in this country, as long as they are good people and generally are not *******s? Yes I understand that allot of people feel that people get their morals from religion but that is simply false, religions have been evolving for centuries from polytheistic to our more modern monotheistic religions. Each religion has borrowed from previous religions to help build itself up and gain followers, this is nothing new at all (Christmas does fall on the traditional times for the midwinter festivals practiced by the pagans, and Christmas itself was not instituted until the fourth century AD.) The concepts of "right and wrong" have been evolving since the dawn of early man, not delivered to our species by a deity.

The point I am trying to make is that does religion even matter as long as people are nice to each other and the social contract is upheld, America is supposed to be a melting pot after all? Sorry for the sort of off topic mini delve into history, the concept of religion and morals being tied together bugs me....

It sounds like you're confusing organized religions with natural law. Without relying upon revealed law (religious) there is still a universal natural law which does not evolve with man or mere social acceptance, an unchanging, timeless right and wrong based upon universal morals. These could not have been given by man, they are innately a part of him. Once discovered and realized, belief in a universal law-giver rationally follows.

These natural laws were considered self-evident to the founders.

 

[Dean C.]

It sounds like you're confusing organized religions with natural law. Without relying upon revealed law (religious) there is still a universal natural law which does not evolve with man or mere social acceptance, an unchanging, timeless right and wrong based upon universal morals. These could not have been given by man, they are innately a part of him. Once discovered and realized, belief in a universal law-giver rationally follows.

These natural laws were considered self-evident to the founders.

I was trying to get at how morals and attitudes have changed throughout the centuries, based solely on an anthropological perspective. The concept of natural law does not interest me because we cannot know for 100% certain what is is. A persons perspective on what natural law is changing constantly (its an human developed concept, and like all things it changes). The general concept is nice by itself but for practical purposes I just dont see a use for it myself.

 

[ATM]

I was trying to get at how morals and attitudes have changed throughout the centuries, based solely on an anthropological perspective. The concept of natural law does not interest me because we cannot know for 100% certain what is is. A persons perspective on what natural law is changing constantly (its an human developed concept, and like all things it changes). The general concept is nice by itself but for practical purposes I just dont see a use for it myself.

This is the problem then: Our American system was designed by and for a society that understood natural rights to be self-evident as derived from natural law, as derived from free will, as endowed by our Creator.

They didn't believe it would be suitable for a society that doubted such truths. Such a society would need a huge government to impose and enforce volumes of civil law and actively regulate and maintain the society, they'd lack a necessary common basis for self-government. It would turn into something else entirely, breaking the constraints of the Constitution and the very American ideals they'd fought to defend.

But, here we are.

 

[ol' Huff]

It was evident to those who came to study the early days of this American experiment in Liberty.

What would they say of our experiment today? Of the ongoing maintenance of our republican institutions?

they wouldn't blame the document. They would blame the people and would be right to do so. They didn't create the Constitution to constrain the leviathan (a lovely Hobbes reference after the whale analogy by the by). The Constitution is a mechanism by which the governed control the government. Our system is not based on representation or responsiveness. It's based on accountability.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Interesting discussion.

 

[indiucky]

"We hold these truths to be self evident...That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain in-alienable rights...Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

If our rights are given to us by man then they can be taken away by man.....

In spite of the slurs from the usual suspects (one whom actually thinks Hitler is a Christian but the Founders were not...Seriously...An INGO member was arguing that Hitler was a Christian...) it does one good (historically) to remember that one of the battle cries of the Revolution (and I will not use His name because that's a no no) was "No King but that unemployed Jewish Carpenter."

In the Revolution they were allowed to say His name...

 

[ATM]

they wouldn't blame the document. They would blame the people and would be right to do so. They didn't create the Constitution to constrain the leviathan (a lovely Hobbes reference after the whale analogy by the by). The Constitution is a mechanism by which the governed control the government. Our system is not based on representation or responsiveness. It's based on accountability.

Precisely. The founders knew this, the American colonists knew this, visiting foreigners knew this. Nearly any constitution (or none at all) could have sufficed for such a people virtuous and accountable to govern themselves and secure the blessings of liberty.

I'm not at all down on the Constitution, folks, it was just fine for a nation devoted to Christian principles - but it aint no god.

 

[ATM]

"We hold these truths to be self evident...That all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain in-alienable rights...Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

If our rights are given to us by man then they can be taken away by man.....

In spite of the slurs from the usual suspects (one whom actually thinks Hitler is a Christian but the Founders were not...Seriously...An INGO member was arguing that Hitler was a Christian...) it does one good (historically) to remember that one of the battle cries of the Revolution (and I will not use His name because that's a no no) was "No King but that unemployed Jewish Carpenter."

In the Revolution they were allowed to say His name...

Those who don't consider these truths to be self evident will grant power to men to craft and enforce a myriad of changing truths according to the whims of the day.

We can say Jesus again!

...but not in the public schools, of course, that would violate, um... democracy, I think.

 

[MisterChester]

Those who don't consider these truths to be self evident will grant power to men to craft and enforce a myriad of changing truths according to the whims of the day.

We can say Jesus again!

...but not in the public schools, of course, that would violate, um... democracy, I think.

It really depends on how religious figures are used in public schools. If Jesus was part of a curriculum along with Muhammad or something in an educational context (where they lived, how long ago, what their beliefs were) then I don't see a problem. The problem shows up when schools start sponsoring prayers or groups of only a certain religion. If there is going to be a Christian prayer then the school has to prove that they aren't endorsing it, and that's problematic. Make a "prayer room" that all of the faithful from any religion can use. Or they could recite prayers from every religion to not show preference, but that is not practical in any sense.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It really depends on how religious figures are used in public schools. If Jesus was part of a curriculum along with Muhammad or something in an educational context (where they lived, how long ago, what their beliefs were) then I don't see a problem. The problem shows up when schools start sponsoring prayers or groups of only a certain religion. If there is going to be a Christian prayer then the school has to prove that they aren't endorsing it, and that's problematic. Make a "prayer room" that all of the faithful from any religion can use. Or they could recite prayers from every religion to not show preference, but that is not practical in any sense.

This sounds good in theory until you reach the point of children being punished up to and including expulsion for praying privately. The one I recall being expelled was praying over his lunch.

 

[BugI02]

Exactly. Taking outside documentation, most people will either hold it up as conclusive evidence of a point they like or declare it irrelevant if they don't like it without considering the context or legal weight of the document in question, like Jefferson assuring the good pastors that the .gov would not be screwing with the internal affairs of their churches.



While not part of the Constitution nor legally binding, I would consider the words of Adams to represent undeniable truth so far as our system of government cannot work with people who are not willing or are not equipped to be civil and relatively maintenance-free of their own volition. Adams obviously considered faith to be the most reliable vehicle for instilling that personal restraint which nullifies restraint applied by government force.

While I do not support scrapping the Constitution, ATM has a very valid point that the deficiencies in our government and society are based on this absence of personal restraint which cannot be externally corrected within the limits of the Constitution.

Are you not advocating what you seconds earlier decried?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Are you not advocating what you seconds earlier decried?

No. Not at all. There is a difference between making a declaration that contemporaneous private observations are not binding interpretation of the Constitution and expressing my belief that Adams, among others, happens to be right. That does not imply that I believe that the Constitution should be interpreted with the private expression of Adams as binding, although I do believe that evidence of the intent of those responsible for the Constitution can reasonably be taken into account, especially when the conversation is what we have now, addressing the question of why it isn't working right.

 

[ATM]

Are you not advocating what you seconds earlier decried?

How so? He made no claim that truth is legally binding.

If it were, our accountability problem would be solved and Liberty would have continued to guide us as a free society.