Our Godless Constitution

[Phil]

Male Bovine Manure. Pure Political Propaganda. Of the worst kind imaginable.

"E pluribus unum" means nothing else than the union of the first 13 states, way before anyone had envisioned anything remotely like the United States of today.

Sorry to butt in, but weren't the quotes you cited from the Declaration of Independence written way before anyone had envisioned anything remotely like the United States of today, too?

 

[punchdrunk]

(sigh....)

Been there, done that.

(woah is me, sigh, gasp...)



You claim that the US and God are inextricable, based upon your supposition that the Pledge of Allegiance is the 'very symbol of the United States'. Where is your evidence that this is the symbol of the US? You're just making this **** up, bud. Meanwhile, your constitution mandates a state church. Oh, and does the thread you link to disprove the fact that you have a state church? What exactly am I supposed to draw from that thread? Help out an American dullard, oh great Dane.

 

[Brown]

Excuse me while I fan the flames a bit. Here is a link to the brief filed by the United States of America in one of the Ten Commandments cases. If you buy these arguments, religious beliefs permeate the laws of the United States.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

CFLarsen, The pledge of allegiance is a cynical attempt by blue noses to try to introduce a test of "Patriotism" and the most telling is the phrase "under God". That in fact as stated was first included in the 50's during the Commie witch hunt hosted by that famous protector of free speech and civil rights-Joseph McCarthy .

Am I the only person who sees contemporaneous parallels here?

If anyone has studied history ( not 1 page blurbs explaining in cartoon style the heroic effort of nation building ) of Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, they all state EMPHATICALLY that the exclusion of a particularly religious slant was by design. They realized that tyranny can emanate not just from the throne but also from the pulpit.

They were men of morals bred from a religious sense, but championed the Moral not the dogma from whence it sprang. Most were casually observant protestant ( not catholic) some were more, but the consensus was to embrace the lessons without the bonds. This was the time of the enlightenment the age of Rousseau. The process that gave rise to the American revolution as well as the French revolution. These men we speak of had some of the finest minds and the novel thought of the day . They realized that We could not trade one set of chains for another. The omission - again was by design, but unfortunately did not include the phrase " Freedom FROM religion".

 

[kalen]

It matters not one whit what is in the American constitution. The reason the United States exist today is because of God's Finger.

I'm thinking that would be His middle finger.

 

[punchdrunk]

Excuse me while I fan the flames a bit. Here is a link to the brief filed by the United States of America in one of the Ten Commandments cases. If you buy these arguments, religious beliefs permeate the laws of the United States.

I think this is their most compelling argument:

As this Court has repeatedly recognized, the political and legal history of the United States is infused with religious influences, and the Establishment Clause does not require government to ignore or minimize that reality. Governmental commemorations of history, heritage, and culture properly need not exclude references to religious influences.

Religious beliefs permeate our history and sometimes unfortunately our politics and laws, but it was not what our country was founded upon. Our country's designers understood the importance of the separation of church and state by including the Establishment Clause, and their views are well-documented on the matter. It doesn't deny that religion is a part of our lives (whether we like it or not), but that it has no authority over the Constitution and the Rule of Law. So while there may be an argument for public displays of religious symbols (although I still think we should immediately stop spending any public money on wasteful and needless displays), there is no argument about where our rights come from; not a supernatural being, but the Constitution. Being in the minority in this country concerning religion, no matter how depressed I become about it, I've always got that to hold on to.

edited for are/our goof.

 

[shanek]

I am not saying that the US is built on the Pledge of Allegience. It merely emphasizes my point: That the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being.

If it's "invariably" connected, then why did it take them 100 years to get around to connecting it?

 

[shanek]

Male Bovine Manure. Pure Political Propaganda. Of the worst kind imaginable.

"E pluribus unum" means nothing else than the union of the first 13 states, way before anyone had envisioned anything remotely like the United States of today.

No, the motto stuck around after the 14th state was ratified. And for a good long while afterward.

So, make up your mind. You said before it was founded on this idea, that it was invariably connected to it, and now you're talking about some kind of different United States today than what existed originally.

Can you support any of this with citations from the Constitution? Oh, that's right, the Constitution means nothing. What a nutcase!

Of course, you're used to a Constitution meaning nothing, since yours says the King has sole executive and shared legislative power, but you say he has no power...

 

[shanek]

CFLarsen, The pledge of allegiance is a cynical attempt by blue noses to try to introduce a test of "Patriotism" and the most telling is the phrase "under God". That in fact as stated was first included in the 50's during the Commie witch hunt hosted by that famous protector of free speech and civil rights-Joseph McCarthy .

Ironically, the pledge of allegiance was written by a Communist, Francis Bellamy, as part of a plan to introduce Socialism to the United States. (Interesting side note: he toyed with putting in the word "equality," to go along with his Socialist agenda, but left it out because "equality for all" would have meant including women and blacks as well and making them equal to white males.)

Am I the only person who sees contemporaneous parallels here?

If anyone has studied history ( not 1 page blurbs explaining in cartoon style the heroic effort of nation building ) of Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, they all state EMPHATICALLY that the exclusion of a particularly religious slant was by design. They realized that tyranny can emanate not just from the throne but also from the pulpit.

They were men of morals bred from a religious sense, but championed the Moral not the dogma from whence it sprang. Most were casually observant protestant ( not catholic) some were more, but the consensus was to embrace the lessons without the bonds. This was the time of the enlightenment the age of Rousseau. The process that gave rise to the American revolution as well as the French revolution. These men we speak of had some of the finest minds and the novel thought of the day . They realized that We could not trade one set of chains for another. The omission - again was by design, but unfortunately did not include the phrase " Freedom FROM religion". [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[shanek]

Oh, one more thing:

If anyone has studied history ( not 1 page blurbs explaining in cartoon style the heroic effort of nation building ) of Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, they all state EMPHATICALLY that the exclusion of a particularly religious slant was by design. They realized that tyranny can emanate not just from the throne but also from the pulpit.

This reminded me of a quote:

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." —Denis Diderot

 

[shanek]

One more quick point:

If it is true that many of our founders were religious, and this justifies putting religious symbols in courthouses etc., does that also mean that, given the fact that even more of our founding fathers were freemasons, we should have symbols of freemasonry?

 

[SezMe]

At some point I think it would be useful to discuss what is potentially meant by the notion that the United States was (or, conversely, was not) "founded on Christian principles". In my view, the statement The United States was founded on Christian principles can reasonably be employed to convey a variety of meanings, some of which render the statement patently false and some of which might render the statement arguably true, at least partially.

You're right on the "patently false" part because the people who argue that the USA was founded "on Christian principles" would not agree among themselves what that means because there is no such thing as "Christian principles." For example, the fundies would probably bring in gay marriage as one principle while their more liberal brethern would vehemently disagree.

I would be interested in your giving the phrase an interpretation that would render the statement "arguably true."

But I think there is a worse objection. When I hear or read the argument, I don't remember the phrase "founded on Christian principles." Rather, I hear, "This is a Christian nation" or a reference to the decalogue or something similar. These would be far harder to defend, IMO. For example, the first four commandments (depending on your chosen version) distinctly violate constitutional principles.

Finally, as a general rule, it is my sense that the more fundamentalist one is, the more likely he is to make this argument. This, I don't think it is event a thought-filled assertion but one based on rock-hard dogmatic assertion without thoughtful consideration of the implications at all.

I note that along the spectrum of plausible meanings of the phrase The United States was founded on Christian principles, the only ones likely to be adequately rebutted by scouring the Constitution for references to God are pretty narrowly clustered at one end.
Explicitly, yes. Implicitly, no. After all, if this nation was "based on Christian principles" one would expect reference to those principles in some form or another. There is none. In particular, one sees no reference to Jesus or God. For example, the one place it would surely exist in the explicit statement of the oath of the President. It does NOT end in "so help me God." Thus I argue that the document, taken as a whole, screams out secularism.

By the way, you have posted some excellent posts here. I have found myself checking my own preconceived notions along the way. Thanks a lot.

 

[SezMe]

Excuse me while I fan the flames a bit. Here is a link to the brief filed by the United States of America in one of the Ten Commandments cases. If you buy these arguments, religious beliefs permeate the laws of the United States.

What a disappointment. OF COURSE, a litigant that is trying to preserve the display of the decalogue is going to make these arguments. So what? That does not give the arguments any veracity.

This from one of my Forum heros. Damn. I hope that little toe of clay extends no further.

 

[CFLarsen]

If it is true that many of our founders were religious, and this justifies putting religious symbols in courthouses etc.,

"In God We Trust", yes. We find that everywhere in the US, e.g. as you say, in courthouses. The legislation depends on a supernatural belief.

given the fact that even more of our founding fathers were freemasons, we should have symbols of freemasonry?

You do. Check your money bills.

 

[CFLarsen]

Prayer in schools? Yup, in the schools, too.

"School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. " U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Santa Fe v. Doe, (2000).

 

[CFLarsen]

"God bless America". Not just a very popular song, but how your President ends his speeches.

Oh, yeah...the President and religion....

 

[CFLarsen]

It's rather difficult for atheists to get elected to a public office, isn't it?

 

[Batman Jr.]

I think the real question here is: why do we have to defer to the complete frameworks of the philosophies of our founding fathers? Whether the framers were atheists, deists, or anything else, it shouldn't be accepted by anyone that we should just do things "their way." That would be in violation of the whole of the backbone on which all of the principles of critical thinking are mounted. I don't care even if they did somehow try to cryptically imbue in the sensibilities of America Christian dogma; the arguments supporting theocracy still wouldn't be transformed into something appealing or rational.

 

[shanek]

"In God We Trust", yes. We find that everywhere in the US,

Again, not until the late 1800s. But again, you never let the facts get in the way of your bigotry...

You do. Check your money bills.

For the first 100 years or so they simply said "Mind Your Business." Learn some history before you go spouting off your ignorant rants.

 

[shanek]

Prayer in schools? Yup, in the schools, too.

Which had nothing at all to do with the Federal government until the 1950s. Try again.