US Constitution based on Secular or Judeo-Christian values [Archive] - Debate Policy

Classact

11-25-2007, 04:23 PM

Neither. The biggest inspiration is the Magna Carta, the failures of the Articles of Confederation, and Cato. The Federalist Papers go into great depth on what and why the nation should ratify the new document. The Papers also discuss the origins of many of the ideas and concepts incorporated into the new government being proposed and how they would be better than any document before for the people. That in itself is counter to any religious belief that God was first. While we may trust in God all others pay cash!Why did the Articles of Confederation fail? Why didn't they have a Constitution from the git go? The Constitution failed too... it couldn't be ratified.

Better yet, specifically why do you believe those things. I am not a social darwin kind of guy (illiterate in that area) nor have I ever viewed the Constitution from a religious point of view.The term Social Darwinists is defined as the pecking order... Darwin was not born yet, but the definition does relate. If you read the constitution it is written in a way that reflects the value of persons based on their wealth and power, a person's value is in their accomplishments of wealth and power. For an example the constitution is set up like free market capitalism... the best of the best stay in business... those with poor management fall to the wayside. Here I'm speaking of the constitution without the amendments.

Examples of the above are the construction of the Senate, who selects them... The election of the President, who selects them... In the original constitution only rich, powerful property owners could select Senators and the President... The vote of "the less than rich and powerful" was subordinated to the judgement of the Electoral College (rich, powerful folks from each state)...The Senate was appointed by the State Legislators... The Electoral College was likewise appointed. The House of Representatives that reflects "the people" is elected by the people... but if you look at the above powers given the Senate and President you must admit that the rich and powerful were to be selected by and amongst the rich and powerful. Look at the powers of the President... he can dismiss Congress or he can call them in at 6:00AM every day if he so desires under the established constitution... Would you not agree that is Social Darwinist? About the House of Representatives... Who could vote at the time? In the North "Property Owners", down to small shops could vote... in the deep South only plantation owners ports authority voted in federal elections.

So how is the Bill of Rights based on religious values? Can we agree that John Locke was the father of the Bill of Rights? He was a religious philosopher who visited the colonies and made friends with the NC Governor... the governor was impressed with his philosophy and created a State Bill of Rights... VA and other states did likewise... Does this guy qualify as religious?

According to Locke, God created man and we are, in effect, God's property. The chief end set us by our creator as a species and as individuals is survival. A wise and omnipotent God, having made people and sent them into this world:

…by his order and about his business, they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's.
It follows immediately that ”he has no liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, yet when some nobler use than its bare possession calls for it.“ (II. ii. 5) So, murder and suicide violate the divine purpose. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#HumNatGodPur

Missileman

11-25-2007, 04:31 PM

So how is the Bill of Rights based on religious values? Can we agree that John Locke was the father of the Bill of Rights? He was a religious philosopher who visited the colonies and made friends with the NC Governor... the governor was impressed with his philosophy and created a State Bill of Rights... VA and other states did likewise... Does this guy qualify as religious?http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#HumNatGodPur

Henry Ford was a religious man. That doesn't mean his cars were a product of religious values.

The first amendment is contrary to Judeo-Christian values as it violates the first commandment.

Classact

11-25-2007, 07:56 PM

Henry Ford was a religious man. That doesn't mean his cars were a product of religious values.My point was the constitution alone only supports government power while the Bill of Rights recognize and secure the rights of the people. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights have the same origin and that is Locke... Well Madison imported them from VA but the origin was Locke... So the Bill of Rights do in fact support the religious values of the people because the people were and are religious. The keys were the citizens rights to common law and trial by jury... in other words the law reflected the religious morals of the people and were judged by the people.

The first amendment is contrary to Judeo-Christian values as it violates the first commandment.In what way?

glockmail

11-25-2007, 09:29 PM

Is the US Constitution based on secular, Judeo-Christian values or Social Darwin theory?

I believe the US Constitution, as amended is based on Judeo-Christian values which supports a free market capitalism system based on Social Darwinist's form of government.

The constitution itself without the amendments is a stand alone proof of Social Darwinist's value... the amendments added shortly after represent Judeo-Christian values.

Do you agree or disagree and why?

Since the Constitution starts off with "to secure the Blessings of Liberty" and ends with "The Year of Our Lord", it is fairly obvious that the basis is Christianity.

Missileman

11-25-2007, 10:36 PM

In what way?

"Freedom of religion", AKA "worship whichever god you choose" violates "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods but me".

Jeep Driver

11-26-2007, 12:28 AM

Psychoblues

11-26-2007, 12:40 AM

The Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence were all based on the ideas of freedom, justice and above all the equality of mankind. Seems some folk failed in the interpretations through the years and they are still failing, miserably.

Classact

11-26-2007, 06:03 AM

"Freedom of religion", AKA "worship whichever god you choose" violates "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods but me".The First Amendment means "worship whichever denomination of the Protestant religion you choose but the government will, unlike Europe choose a winner to associate with".

LOki

11-26-2007, 06:34 AM

Since the Constitution starts off with "to secure the Blessings of Liberty" and ends with "The Year of Our Lord", it is fairly obvious that the basis is Christianity.
Main Entry: spe·cious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speciousnesses)
Pronunciation: \ˈspē-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, visually pleasing, from Latin speciosus beautiful, plausible, from species
Date: 1513
1 obsolete : showy
2: having deceptive attraction or allure
3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistic)[specious reasoning]

glockmail

11-26-2007, 08:58 AM

"Freedom of religion", AKA "worship whichever god you choose" violates "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods but me". AKA "worship at any church you choose, any religion that you choose, or none at all", AKA: "exercise your free will".

glockmail

11-26-2007, 09:01 AM

Main Entry: spe·cious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speciousnesses)
Pronunciation: \ˈspē-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, visually pleasing, from Latin speciosus beautiful, plausible, from species
Date: 1513
1 obsolete : showy
2: having deceptive attraction or allure
3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistic)[specious reasoning]Deflection. Look it up yourself.

LOki

11-26-2007, 09:20 AM

Deflection. Look it up yourself.Securing "the Blessings of Liberty" is not the same thing as securing "the Blessings of Christ", and using the idomatic convention "The Year of Our Lord" to establish the date of an event is not the same as an establisng principle. Your argument is specious, and pointing that out is not deflecting.

glockmail

11-26-2007, 09:27 AM

Securing "the Blessings of Liberty" is not the same thing as securing "the Blessings of Christ", and using the idomatic convention "The Year of Our Lord" to establish the date of an event is not the same as an establisng principle. Your argument is specious, and pointing that out is not deflecting.

If not from Christ then from where? Why not simply "The Year", or "Dated"?

LOki

11-26-2007, 09:48 AM

If not from Christ then from where?Christ is not mentioned, Christ does not enter the equation; the Blessings that are secured, are Blessings that come from Liberty--exactly as it it written.

Why not simply "The Year", or "Dated"?Deflection--your turn to look it up.

Little-Acorn

11-26-2007, 10:10 AM

My point was the constitution alone only supports government power while the Bill of Rights recognize and secure the rights of the people.
Nonsense. The Constitution is a product of compromise, experience, and a well-founded fear of the power of central government. It was written for the purpose of (a) creating a new form of government, and (b) limiting the powers of that government - things that had never been tried before. It was successful beyond any of the Framer's wildest expectations, until we started flagrantly disobeying it around the turn of the (20th) century.

It gave the Fed govt only certain, limited powers (those specifically named in it), and by doing so, implicitly forbade all other powers to the Fed govt. Some of the powers not mentioned, and thus forbidden, were the power to regulate speech, religion, weapons, etc. A lot of people thought that would be too easy to violate (history has since proven them right), and so demanded that some of the most important rights be also specifically mentioned and the govt banned from interfering with them. So the Bill of Rights came into being shortly after the Constitution was ratified.

The Constitution alone does NOT "only" support govt power. It gives the Fed gov certain powers, true, buth then it LIMITS the Fed to only those powers, leaving the rest to the states and lower govts to exercise as they chose. Except for those few powers specifically given to the Fed, of course. And it calls for a deliberately complex, cumbersome amendment process, assigning veto power to even a small minority of states, that must be fulfilled if any more power is to be legally taken from the states and given to the Fed govt.

That limitation was what made the Constitution the great, enduring document it is. The recent violation of that limitation by our current "progressive" liberals (in both parties) is what makes them the country-destroyers they are.

BTW, the Bill of Rights does not "secure the rights of the people". It only secures some of them - those the Framers considered the most important. It contains a statement pointing this out (9th amendment), saying that the rights it mentions, aren't necessarily the only right the people have.

Most of those declarations of rights, were unnecessary and superfluous, since the onstitution gave the Fed govt no powers to interfere with them in the first place. But many people at that time, knew that slick lawyers and power-grabbers would ignore the Const's implicit limitation, all too well. And so they tried to "cast in stone" the most important rights, to make them harder to unconstitutionally violate. How right they were to do so. Our "progressives" now have to flagrantly ignore written Constitutional mandates to violate those rights - something they do anyway, with increasing frequency in the last 70+ years.

glockmail

11-26-2007, 10:30 AM

Christ is not mentioned, Christ does not enter the equation; the Blessings that are secured, are Blessings that come from Liberty--exactly as it it written.

Deflection--your turn to look it up. Its clear that it is you who is deflecting now.

If Christ is not mentioned, then who is "The Lord"?

The preamble states the reasons for drafting the Constitution include “in Order to… secure the Blessings of Liberty…” Again, who gave those Blessings?

Classact

11-26-2007, 11:00 AM

The Articles Failed because the states were still to divided to defend America.
"We needed to join or die. ( Ben Franklin). "
I know that quote was earlier than 1787 but it was still true for us.
It was natural evolution . brought on by necessity.

Your post is a great question . But where will we go with this?
Are you trying to assess our religious commitment as a country today?
Form a religious standard to approach future policy direction?
Question how much religious infulence is nessary?
Debate is fine , and fun. I just wondered if you are looking toward a
resolution to some loose ends found in the Constution. or Bill of Rights.
:salute:My idea was to debate the idea that the founders were just a bunch of rich guys looking to get richer and they wrote a constitution that the people rejected... the people refused to ratify it. Later the people, the religious people, ratified it after removing much of the power from the federal government while protecting the power of the people from the government. The very fact that 99.9% of the population were Christians including the rich fat white powerful folks running things would indicate this is a Christian nation and the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights reflects the religious values of "the people". How does it do it without saying cause God says so... it does it by the amendments associated with common law and judge by jury... Christians will make the moral laws they like and they will be the determining judge of fact and not a rich fat white powerful government official. I would like everyone to consider that there is a possibility that the founders did not have the people's best interest at heart at that time.

Look at the historian Charles Beard. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Beard) and look at rebellions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion and now look at this guys prospective... http://americareads.blogspot.com/2007/10/pg-69-unruly-americans-and-origins-of.html

Is everyone aware that the first printing of the American bible was authorized and printed by the first Congress of the US? It is a matter of Law. The American version of the King James Bible... Government Printing Office...

Little-Acorn

11-26-2007, 11:11 AM

Classact

11-26-2007, 11:36 AM

Its clear that it is you who is deflecting now.

If Christ is not mentioned, then who is "The Lord"?

The preamble states the reasons for drafting the Constitution include “in Order to… secure the Blessings of Liberty…” Again, who gave those Blessings?Progressive liberals would have you believe that the founders were learned visionaries, products of the age of Enlightenment that were truly SECULAR as they see themselves. In the year of our Lord is a good point because if you look at France during the same period the Progressive Liberals were actually there getting busy...
In the autumn of A.D. 1793, the new dictatorship instituted a new calendar whose names would more closely correspond to the spirit of the time than the old Gregorian calendar which was based on the liturgical year of the Church. In line with other de-Christianizing acts—many churches had been gutted and converted to Temples of Reason, museums or other secular buildings—the names of days and months were replaced by symbols of nature and other things related to the Republic’s principles. Thus the days were given names such as Lamb’s Lettuce, Plow, Billy Goat, and Spinach; the holidays were known as Opinion Day, Labor Day, and so on.
The new system was implemented retroactively from September 22, 1792, which by coincidence was both the fall equinox and the day the French Republic was created. This calendar was observed by the French until Napolean reverted to the use of the Gregorian calendar in A.D. 1806.
http://www.aquinas-multimedia.com/stjoseph/history.html

Yet, in America the founders agreed to American version of the Common Law whereby a citizen, including themselves could be punished for violation of Blasphemy laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy#United_States_of_America.

LOki

11-26-2007, 11:47 AM

Its clear that it is you who is deflecting now.Nonsense. You are now grasping, hoping that the following jab at non-sequitur will save you--it will not:

If Christ is not mentioned, then who is "The Lord"?"The Year of Our Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini)" is an idomatic expression that helps precisely establish the date of the document; it does not make a statement of principle, it does not establish a foundation in Christ.

The preamble states the reasons for drafting the Constitution include “in Order to… secure the Blessings of Liberty…” Again, who gave those Blessings?"Who" doesn't come into it; the Blessings that are secured, are Blessings that come from Liberty--exactly as it is written.

Hagbard Celine

11-26-2007, 11:48 AM

Hobbit

11-26-2007, 12:07 PM

I'd say 'inspired by' rather than 'based on.'

The Constitution doesn't actually have any 'laws' in it, per se, so it can't truly be based on any code of laws. Rather, the Constitution was a document detailing a system by which laws were made and enforced. Up until the Bill of Rights, the document essentially did away with the idea that some men were born better than others, a concept very much in line with Christian doctrine ('For all have sinned...'), but was primarily a rejection of the stagnant, corrupt British system which allowed certain people to rule others based solely on who their parents were.

The Bill of Rights, similarly, had much of it written in response to injustices done by the British government, but was also based on the Christian concept of individual rights. The founders believed that every man was given, by God, certain inalienable rights, and that no one man was better than another at the time of their birth. It was this same concept of individuality that led to the abolition movements in Europe.

glockmail

11-26-2007, 12:07 PM

Nonsense. You are now grasping, hoping that the following jab at non-sequitur will save you--it will not:
"The Year of Our Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini)" is an idomatic expression that helps precisely establish the date of the document; it does not make a statement of principle, it does not establish a foundation in Christ.

"Who" doesn't come into it; the Blessings that are secured, are Blessings that come from Liberty--exactly as it is written.

The Founders had the option to omit "The Year of our Lord" and chose not to. This shows heir intent.

the Founders used the term "Blessings", but could have used several other terms, or none at all. Again, points to intent.

Classact

11-26-2007, 12:08 PM

It doesn't matter what you believe. The writers of the US Constitution took most of their ideas from the Magna Carta and the teachings of the English philosopher, John Locke. NOT the Bible. Give it a rest! The US was never and will never be a theocracy or even a republic loosely based on theology! It's a secular republic!
There it is! BOLDED for your enjoyment. These endless threads about how US law is based on the Bible are getting ridiculous. The horse is dead! Quit beating it! :lol:In my definition the words Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means that Congress will not form a religion as an act of law, will not chose a flavor of the varieties of religion available and make it part of the government and Congress will simply not apply religion as a mandate.

If the above were not true how could the position of Chaplain of the Senate and the House of Representatives be an elected office voted on by all members of the House and Senate? If they elect a Christian Chaplain are they not establishing Christianity under your definition of establishment?

Pale Rider

11-26-2007, 12:12 PM

The same people, "Americans/Founding Fathers," that wrote the Constitution wrote the Declaration of Independence, which states....

The United States Declaration of Independence declares, "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" The founding fathers thought that it was self-evident (in other words, not even questionable) that humans were created by God.

LOki

11-26-2007, 12:15 PM

LOki

11-26-2007, 12:23 PM

The Founders had the option to omit "The Year of our Lord" and chose not to. This shows heir intent.Yes. The intent to use English rather than Latin.

the Founders used the term "Blessings", but could have used several other terms, or none at all. Again, points to intentThe intent to use plain English? I agree. ;)

Hagbard Celine

11-26-2007, 12:34 PM

In my definition the words Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means that Congress will not form a religion as an act of law, will not cho(o)se a flavor of the varieties of religion available and make it part of the government and Congress will simply not apply religion as a mandate.

If the above were not true how could the position of Chaplain of the Senate and the House of Representatives be an elected office voted on by all members of the House and Senate? If they elect a Christian Chaplain are they not establishing Christianity under your definition of establishment?

There it is. You posted it yourself. The founders wanted to keep religion out of government, i.e. they wanted to keep the government secular. They'd seen firsthand the evils of theocratic rule and religious suppression in England and elsewhere.
Nobody denies that most if not all of the founders believed in God. Seeing as how Darwin hadn't even been born yet, it's no surprise either that most if not all of them believed humans had been created by God too. But no one can deny that they created a secular government. It's written right there in the first amendment. The first sentence no less!
Having a chaplain in Congress to be there to address the religious needs of the elected members is in no way "establishing a religion." Give me a break. People are free to exercise their religion under the first amendment. Do I really have to explain stupid crap like this? Read a fourth-grade social studies book before coming on here and posting this childish crap. Geez. :/

Classact

11-26-2007, 12:40 PM

There it is. You posted it yourself. The founders wanted to keep religion out of government, i.e. they wanted to keep the government secular. They'd seen firsthand the evils of theocratic rule and religious suppression in England and elsewhere.
Nobody denies that most if not all of the founders believed in God. Seeing as how Darwin hadn't even been born yet, it's no surprise either that most if not all of them believed humans had been created by God too. But no one can deny that they created a secular government. It's written right there in the first amendment. The first sentence no less!No, they created a neutral government, not a secular government. The adoption of Common Law is a given that all laws are to be based on "the majority's morals and values" which are religious. Is America a Christian Nation? Yes! Are the laws Secular? No!

Hobbit

11-26-2007, 12:55 PM

The Founders had the option to omit "The Year of our Lord" and chose not to. This shows heir intent.

the Founders used the term "Blessings", but could have used several other terms, or none at all. Again, points to intent.

I gotta side with Loki on this one. "In the Year of Our Lord" is simply the English translation of the Latin "Anno Domine" (I hope I spelled that right) or "A.D." Until recently, when Atheistic scientists and historians changed the abbreviations to B.C.E. and A.C.E. (before common era and after common era, respectively. I, personally, think it's petty and stupid to use these initials to remove Jesus from the equation while still using his year of birth as a reference, but that's a whole other debate), even scientists and historians of non-Christian religions used 'A.D.' and 'B.C.,' (before Christ) since it was the most widespread calender, and it, in no way, represented an endorsement of Christianity.

The founders forbade a state religion because they thought, right or wrong, it should be everybody's choice. At the outset of the nation, pretty much everybody was Christian, but there were non-Christians in society. Church attendance was never compulsory. Nobody was converted at gunpoint (at least, never by the government). If the founders had wanted this to be an unquestioningly, officially Christian nation, I think they would have specified it.

Hagbard Celine

11-26-2007, 12:57 PM

No, they created a neutral government, not a secular government. The adoption of Common Law is a given that all laws are to be based on "the majority's morals and values" which are religious. Is America a Christian Nation? Yes! Are the laws Secular? No!

Look bud. The laws are not based on scripture. End of story.

Hagbard Celine

11-26-2007, 01:00 PM

I gotta side with Loki on this one. "In the Year of Our Lord" is simply the English translation of the Latin "Anno Domine" (I hope I spelled that right) or "A.D." Until recently, when Atheistic scientists and historians changed the abbreviations to B.C.E. and A.C.E. (before common era and after common era, respectively. I, personally, think it's petty and stupid to use these initials to remove Jesus from the equation while still using his year of birth as a reference, but that's a whole other debate), even scientists and historians of non-Christian religions used 'A.D.' and 'B.C.,' (before Christ) since it was the most widespread calender, and it, in no way, represented an endorsement of Christianity.

The founders forbade a state religion because they thought, right or wrong, it should be everybody's choice. At the outset of the nation, pretty much everybody was Christian, but there were non-Christians in society. Church attendance was never compulsory. Nobody was converted at gunpoint (at least, never by the government). If the founders had wanted this to be an unquestioningly, officially Christian nation, I think they would have specified it.

:clap: Wow Hobbit. Wow. Thank you. I tried to rep you here but I've still got some spreadin' to do.

Pale Rider

11-26-2007, 01:07 PM

Not so fast. They felt it is self evident that men are created--period. No mention of your God.

God is God. That's all there is to it. That must be what you fail to realize.

What is purely evident is the fact that most of the people that made up this nation in it's inception were Judeo Christian, period, end of story. Was our Constitution and Declaration of Independence written just like the Christian Bible? No. Was there a definite Christian influence? You bet. Now what part about that is so hard to swallow? The part about, you atheists and agnostics don't want to admit it? More than likely. As with everything else Christian, you people won't be happy until ALL signs of our religion are wiped out, and history rewritten in your heathen way.

Classact

11-26-2007, 01:09 PM

Look bud. The laws are not theology-based because they aren't based on scripture. End of story.Really, end of story... the debate is the Constitution based on Secular or Religious values. Until around forty years ago only white nations that supported Christianity could immigrate to the US in any numbers. Minority races and religious origins other than Christian were not welcome in numbers. Regardless the laws are based on Judeo-Christian values, it is up to the people of how much influence religion has on law. Some areas have Blue Laws, these laws are clearly designed to encourage attendance at church. They discourage any religious immoral activity after midnight Saturday... bars are closed, no beer or alcohol sales after midnight, are these secular laws?

LOki

11-26-2007, 01:12 PM

God is God. That's all there is to it. That must be what you fail to realize.I'm perfectly clear on that particular point. What you fail to realize is that your hope and wish that the United States Constitution should be an affirmation of your God and your religion will not come true, because it is not true, and never was true.

Hagbard Celine

11-26-2007, 01:12 PM

Really, end of story... the debate is the Constitution based on Secular or Religious values. Until around forty years ago only white nations that supported Christianity could immigrate to the US in any numbers. Minority races and religious origins other than Christian were not welcome in numbers. Regardless the laws are based on Judeo-Christian values, it is up to the people of how much influence religion has on law. Some areas have Blue Laws, these laws are clearly designed to encourage attendance at church. They discourage any religious immoral activity after midnight Saturday... bars are closed, no beer or alcohol sales after midnight, are these secular laws?

These laws are unconstitutional imo. I've fallen victim to them many times trying to buy a six pack on Sunday--then got turned away because some fat prick in the State Congress thinks I should adopt his idea of the "Sabbath."

Pale Rider

11-26-2007, 01:20 PM

I'm perfectly clear on that particular point. What you fail to realize is that your hope and wish that the United States Constitution should be an affirmation of your God and your religion will not come true, because it is not true, and never was true.

That's not what I'm claiming it is. However, the fact that there is a definite Christian influence written into the Constitution is a fact you're just going to have to live with, because the vast majority of people that made up this country in it's inception were Judeo Christian. Your war on Christianity and wanting to rewrite American history in your heathen way wiping out all signs of Christianity just aren't going to happen. Not in this life time. This country was primarily made up of Christians. The influence of which is reflected in everything we are. Get over it. You're not going to lie it away.

Hagbard Celine

11-26-2007, 01:42 PM

That's not what I'm claiming it is. However, the fact that there is a definite Christian influence written into the Constitution is a fact you're just going to have to live with, because the vast majority of people that made up this country in it's inception were Judeo Christian. Your war on Christianity and wanting to rewrite American history in your heathen way wiping out all signs of Christianity just aren't going to happen. Not in this life time. This country was primarily made up of Christians. The influence of which is reflected in everything we are. Get over it. You're not going to lie it away.

So now it's just that the Constitution contains influences of Christianity? Trying to meet half way? You're right that the writers of the Constitution were influenced by their Judeo-Christian backgrounds, but the same would be true if they had been Muslim or Jewish. Even if they had been, and the Declaration of Independence read "the Laws of Nature and of Allah (or Yahweh) entitle them," the wording of the first amendment would still read the same. And the US government would still be secular.

LOki

11-26-2007, 02:17 PM

That's not what I'm claiming it is.Your posting appears to demand otherwise. I apologize if I misunderstand.

However, the fact that there is a definite Christian influence written into the Constitution is a fact you're just going to have to live with, because the vast majority of people that made up this country in it's inception were Judeo Christian.I'm not, and never have, argued that most of the folk in this country have (and do) consider themselves some flavor of Christian. Step away from that argument. Illustrate an example of this Christian influence you go on about. One that is clearly Christian so that I can't chalk it up to just being rational. Ok? We'll have something to discuss then; until then, you're just making this Christian influence business up.

Your war on Christianity and wanting to rewrite American history in your heathen way wiping out all signs of Christianity just aren't going to happen. Not in this life time.First, you're just making up this bullshit about my war on Christianity; and secondly, I'm not the one trying to rewrite Jesus into the Constitution.

This country was primarily made up of Christians.That's what they all claim, but they can't all be right. ;)

The influence of which is reflected in everything we are.Influenced by real Christians? The really real ones?

Get over it. You're not going to lie it away.On what authority do you claim to hold the monopoly on the Truth?

Classact

11-26-2007, 03:48 PM

These laws are unconstitutional imo. I've fallen victim to them many times trying to buy a six pack on Sunday--then got turned away because some fat prick in the State Congress thinks I should adopt his idea of the "Sabbath."Why would they be unconstitutional? The federal Constitution only dealt with the Federal Government. The amendments gave power to the states and to the people. The idea was that the Federal Government would not have too much power. It is the policy of the US Government to not establish a religion, however the power was not taken from the states to establish a religion according to the Tenth Amendment.

So, if you find Blue Laws a problem then you would have really had a problem if you lived in Massachusetts following the ratification of the Federal Constitution because MA was a Theocracy, they did establish a church in the state government and collected taxes for that church. Persons not belonging to the state church could have their church taxes sent to their church but you had a church tax.

glockmail

11-26-2007, 04:02 PM

Yes. The intent to use English rather than Latin.

The intent to use plain English? I agree. ;) As you have resorted to deflection, it is apparent that you have lost this debate.

glockmail

11-26-2007, 04:19 PM

If the Founders had been secular-progressives than they would simply omitted the term entirely. After all no one would have confused the actual date of the document with the era before Christ. Instead they used the term “in the Year of our Lord”, either because they wished to use it, because it was proper or they were used to using it, which simply proves that Christianity was the very basis of their society. The fact that atheist scientists and historians wish to change the term to CE is further evidence that people don’t use these terms without significance.

As the title of this thread is: “US Constitution based on Secular or Judeo-Christian values”, not “the founders had wanted this to be an unquestioningly, officially Christian nation”, you appear to be arguing a related point.

Pale Rider

11-26-2007, 04:30 PM

So now it's just that the Constitution contains influences of Christianity? Trying to meet half way? You're right that the writers of the Constitution were influenced by their Judeo-Christian backgrounds, but the same would be true if they had been Muslim or Jewish. Even if they had been, and the Declaration of Independence read "the Laws of Nature and of Allah (or Yahweh) entitle them," the wording of the first amendment would still read the same. And the US government would still be secular.

That's been my main focus, that this new country was made up of primarily Christians, and that influenced both the writing of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

If that's halfway, I can live with that for the sake of this debate.

Pale Rider

11-26-2007, 04:43 PM

Your posting appears to demand otherwise. I apologize if I misunderstand.

I'm not, and never have, argued that most of the folk in this country have (and do) consider themselves some flavor of Christian. Step away from that argument. Illustrate an example of this Christian influence you go on about. One that is clearly Christian so that I can't chalk it up to just being rational. Ok? We'll have something to discuss then; until then, you're just making this Christian influence business up.
OK, how about the ever present "In God We Trust" on just about everything to do with our government? Or "In The Day Of Our Lord?"

First, you're just making up this bullshit about my war on Christianity; and secondly, I'm not the one trying to rewrite Jesus into the Constitution.
Fair enough. Sorry, it isn't "your" war on Christianity. I'll rephrase that to "the secularists war on Christianity.

Influenced by real Christians? The really real ones?
I'm just going to take it for granted here that you already know. :rolleyes:

On what authority do you claim to hold the monopoly on the Truth?
On the authority bestowed on me by GOD! :D

Classact

11-26-2007, 04:47 PM

Nonsense. The Constitution is a product of compromise, experience, and a well-founded fear of the power of central government. It was written for the purpose of (a) creating a new form of government, and (b) limiting the powers of that government - things that had never been tried before. It was successful beyond any of the Framer's wildest expectations, until we started flagrantly disobeying it around the turn of the (20th) century.

It gave the Fed govt only certain, limited powers (those specifically named in it), and by doing so, implicitly forbade all other powers to the Fed govt. Some of the powers not mentioned, and thus forbidden, were the power to regulate speech, religion, weapons, etc. A lot of people thought that would be too easy to violate (history has since proven them right), and so demanded that some of the most important rights be also specifically mentioned and the govt banned from interfering with them. So the Bill of Rights came into being shortly after the Constitution was ratified.

The Constitution alone does NOT "only" support govt power. It gives the Fed gov certain powers, true, buth then it LIMITS the Fed to only those powers, leaving the rest to the states and lower govts to exercise as they chose. Except for those few powers specifically given to the Fed, of course. And it calls for a deliberately complex, cumbersome amendment process, assigning veto power to even a small minority of states, that must be fulfilled if any more power is to be legally taken from the states and given to the Fed govt.

That limitation was what made the Constitution the great, enduring document it is. The recent violation of that limitation by our current "progressive" liberals (in both parties) is what makes them the country-destroyers they are.

BTW, the Bill of Rights does not "secure the rights of the people". It only secures some of them - those the Framers considered the most important. It contains a statement pointing this out (9th amendment), saying that the rights it mentions, aren't necessarily the only right the people have.

Most of those declarations of rights, were unnecessary and superfluous, since the onstitution gave the Fed govt no powers to interfere with them in the first place. But many people at that time, knew that slick lawyers and power-grabbers would ignore the Const's implicit limitation, all too well. And so they tried to "cast in stone" the most important rights, to make them harder to unconstitutionally violate. How right they were to do so. Our "progressives" now have to flagrantly ignore written Constitutional mandates to violate those rights - something they do anyway, with increasing frequency in the last 70+ years.You make some very good points. On the boldened area above I would point out that the Constitution wasn't ratified until after the Bill of Rights were added. There was a war going on between the Federalists and the Anti Federalists which is a good part of the theme of this thread... check out this link: http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm

Also when the Federal Government was established it was to the states like the European Union is to the European States and it was never considered to have much power. The US Federal Government got it's power through the Buck Act, a trick to bypass the states to deal direct with state citizens... the Social Security Card is a state citizens contract with the federal government according to that act that makes the citizen federal property. Check out this link http://www.svpvril.com/OACL.html the entire link is a two week read but the Buck Act is at the bottom of the page (about an inch and a quarter on your scroll) from the bottom.

Hagbard Celine

11-26-2007, 04:48 PM

Why would they be unconstitutional? The federal Constitution only dealt with the Federal Government. The amendments gave power to the states and to the people. The idea was that the Federal Government would not have too much power. It is the policy of the US Government to not establish a religion, however the power was not taken from the states to establish a religion according to the Tenth Amendment.

So, if you find Blue Laws a problem then you would have really had a problem if you lived in Massachusetts following the ratification of the Federal Constitution because MA was a Theocracy, they did establish a church in the state government and collected taxes for that church. Persons not belonging to the state church could have their church taxes sent to their church but you had a church tax.

The states are beholden to the Federal Constitution. The federal government can't make laws that restrict state rights that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but they sure as hell can regulate on those that are. And the reason Mass. is no longer a theocracy? Because it's unconstitutional. Constitutional law and the rights guaranteed therein trump state laws. The Judicial system agrees and always has. States cannot make laws respecting an establishment of religion because they violate the first amendment of the Federal Constitution. Blue laws are unconstitutional. BUT, there's a loophole. They get around this trivial little unconstitutionality by giving secular reasoning for it such as saying it's in the state's interest to not sell alcohol for atleast one day a week, which happens to coincide with the Christian Sabbath. :rolleyes: It's the same thing as so-called "Intelligent Design." It's just creationism with a pseudo-scientific name. Religious nuts trying to enforce their agenda on the unsuspecting public. Luckily the courts saw through that bit of creationism nonsense, but some fall through the cracks. Like the fact that some self-righteous pricks in the state congress think they can dictate when I can buy a six-pack. It's an outrage.

LOki

11-26-2007, 04:48 PM

As you have resorted to deflection, it is apparent that you have lost this debate.As you have resorted to this desperate denial of reality, it is patently clear that you have lost this debate. You may now post your emoticon of defeat.

If the Founders had been secular-progressives than they would simply omitted the term entirely. After all no one would have confused the actual date of the document with the era before Christ. Instead they used the term “in the Year of our Lord”, either because they wished to use it, because it was proper or they were used to using it, which simply proves that Christianity was the very basis of their society. The fact that atheist scientists and historians wish to change the term to CE is further evidence that people don’t use these terms without significance.The fact that the Founders translated the Latin "Anno Domini" to the plain English "In the Year of Our Lord" speaks only to their intent to use plain English. "Anno Domini" is nothing but an idomatic expression that helps precisely establish the date of the document; it does not prove that Christianity is the basis of their society any more than using the same calandar proves Christianity to be the basis of Bhuddist societies; using A.D. to express a date is not the same thing as declaring one's faith; it does not make a statement of principle; it does not establish a Constitutional foundation in Christ.

As the title of this thread is: “US Constitution based on Secular or Judeo-Christian values”, not “the founders had wanted this to be an unquestioningly, officially Christian nation”, you appear to be arguing a related point.Since you haven't produced one of these Judeo-Christian values you claim are so foundational, I suspect you are arguing an unrelated point.

Classact

11-26-2007, 05:09 PM

The states are beholden to the Federal Constitution. The federal government can't make laws that restrict state rights that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but they sure as hell can regulate on those that are. And the reason Mass. is no longer a theocracy? Because it's unconstitutional. Constitutional law and the rights guaranteed therein trump state laws. The Judicial system agrees and always has. States cannot make laws respecting an establishment of religion because they violate the first amendment of the Federal Constitution. Blue laws are unconstitutional. BUT, there's a loophole. They get around this trivial little unconstitutionality by giving secular reasoning for it such as saying it's in the state's interest to not sell alcohol for atleast one day a week, which happens to coincide with the Christian Sabbath. :rolleyes: It's the same thing as so-called "Intelligent Design." It's just creationism with a pseudo-scientific name. Religious nuts trying to enforce their agenda on the unsuspecting public. Luckily the courts saw through that bit of creationism nonsense, but some fall through the cracks. Like the fact that some self-righteous pricks in the state congress think they can dictate when I can buy a six-pack. It's an outrage.The First Amendment was not intended to not recognize Christianity it was intended to state that the Federal Government would not endorse a denomination of religion making it more powerful than another denomination. The Wall of Separation always quoted referring to Jefferson was a conversation Jefferson had with a Baptist Minister that thought perhaps another denomination would get power at the hands of the government. Christianity was the only religion and I would dare to say there were no Catholics at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights in America... it was a guarantee that a single denomination of the Protestant faith would gain political favor. The Justice System ruled wrong on the spirit and intent of the First Amendment.

Hagbard Celine

11-26-2007, 05:13 PM

The First Amendment was not intended to not recognize Christianity it was intended to state that the Federal Government would not endorse a denomination of religion making it more powerful than another denomination. The Wall of Separation always quoted referring to Jefferson was a conversation Jefferson had with a Baptist Minister that thought perhaps another denomination would get power at the hands of the government. Christianity was the only religion and I would dare to say there were no Catholics at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights in America... it was a guarantee that a single denomination of the Protestant faith would gain political favor. The Justice System ruled wrong on the spirit and intent of the First Amendment.

Nope, you're wrong. Catholics came over in droves with the Spanish who settled in the Americas--including the North American South. And it's widely-known that Jefferson, if not others kept a copy of the Quran in his personal library at Monticello. He was an avid reader and writer and in addition to the Muslims, he mentioned the Hindus in his many, many letters and essays as well. The founders were perfectly aware of religions other than Christianity and the First Amendment was written to reflect this fact.

LOki

11-26-2007, 05:24 PM

OK, how about the ever present "In God We Trust" on just about everything to do with our government? Or "In The Day Of Our Lord?"These aren't influences on our founding. "In God We Trust" wasn't plastered all over everything by our Founding Fathers--you're about a century off the founding of this nation, and you're also conspicuously non-denominational about it too. I don't know what you are referring to with "In The Day Of Our Lord?", unless your referring to the idiom, "In the Year Of Our Lord" which (as discussed elswhere) is plain English for the Latin "Anno Domini" or A.D. used with dates.

Fair enough. Sorry, it isn't "your" war on Christianity. I'll rephrase that to "the secularists war on Christianity.Secularists aren't at war with Christianity either. The Christian ones in particular are trying to save Christianity--from the government.

I'm just going to take it for granted here that you already know. :rolleyes:You take a great deal for granted. And you take much more for granted from the Founding Fathers who were first-hand witnesses to various Faiths and Nations, all validly claiming to be Christians, killing each other in Europe over who subscribed to the True Faith, and who were just filthy heretics. Members of all these same Christian Faiths fled their various "Christian" nations to live here in relative peace (for the most part).

So answer the question Pale Rider, which were the really, real Christians? Whose really, real Christian values were the influence? How do you know it wasn't the influence of the filthy heretics--or God fucking forbid; SECULARISTS!

April15

11-26-2007, 05:26 PM

Then there is the treaty of tripoli that states we are not a religious based nation.

Classact

11-26-2007, 05:43 PM

Then there is the treaty of tripoli that states we are not a religious based nation.All the copies got lost just like the Indian Treaties... It was, as we say in the Army, field expediency.

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli... If the Jews circumcised Allah would Muslims then have to bow down to Allan?

Little-Acorn

11-26-2007, 06:33 PM

And the reason Mass. is no longer a theocracy? Because it's unconstitutional.
Sorry, not so. The reason Mass. is no longer a theocracy (actually it never was, it was a democracy which legislated a state religion, but that's a subject for a different debate), is because the people of Massachusetts didn't want it to be one any more.

The 1st amendment ban against supporting or banning any particular religion, was carefully applied to CONGRESS (that is, the Fed govt) only, not to the states. Notice the first word of the amendment text - it's that way for a reason. OTOH, the 2nd amendment is not restricted to Congress, so it applies to all governments in the US - Fed, state, local. That was the intention of the people who wrote the amendments. They were mostly lawyers and very experienced politicians, trying to get it exactly right. The phrasing is not accidental.

The reason the 1st was applied only to the Fed, is precisely because several states (Mass. being one of them) had official state religions when the BOR was ratified, and the Framers were taking pains not to upset that. It was only much later, that the Supreme Court began a misguided attempt to incorporate the BOR, or "apply all the amendments to the states as well". They ignored the fact that the framers had already "incorporated" the ones they thought should apply to the states, by explicitly writing it into the text.

Technically, Nebraska could vote to be officially a Catholic state, or Muslim, or whatever, and they would not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court would disagree, but they would be mistaken as far as the actual text and intention of the Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) are concerned.

BTW, Classact, the Constitution was ratified (without amendments) many years before the Bill of Rights was ratified. Many states demanded a BOR as a condition of their ratifying the Constitution, but took the Framers' word for it that one would be added. Years later, the Framers kept their promise. But the Constitution, as ratified, had no Bill of Rights. It did not mention Freedom of the Press, religion, right to keep and bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc., anywhere in its text when it became law.

glockmail

11-26-2007, 06:50 PM

As you have resorted to this desperate denial of reality, it is patently clear that you have lost this debate. You may now post your emoticon of defeat.

The fact that the Founders translated the Latin "Anno Domini" to the plain English "In the Year of Our Lord" speaks only to their intent to use plain English. "Anno Domini" is nothing but an idomatic expression that helps precisely establish the date of the document; it does not prove that Christianity is the basis of their society any more than using the same calandar proves Christianity to be the basis of Bhuddist societies; using A.D. to express a date is not the same thing as declaring one's faith; it does not make a statement of principle; it does not establish a Constitutional foundation in Christ.

Since you haven't produced one of these Judeo-Christian values you claim are so foundational, I suspect you are arguing an unrelated point.

You don't appear to have addressed my points.

April15

11-26-2007, 07:12 PM

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac2&fileName=009/llac009.db&recNum=340
The library of congress has a copy! It reads as follows;
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary?

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor
of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved.
John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
Annals of Congress, 5th Congress

Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of
America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both
parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be
loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall
be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a
prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at
liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be
known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date
of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers,
belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the
other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a
sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a
proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions
or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put
in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and
re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her
cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance
shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the
disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their
country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts
of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized
on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to
sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after
her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to
merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in
each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with
those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory
consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and
friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same,
according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of
the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of
which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further
payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. 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.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no
appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the
Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same,
an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the
parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty,
engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true
interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the
same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211—
corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by

JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
MAMET, Treasurer.
AMET, Minister of Marine.
SOLIMAN KAYA.
GALIL, General of the Troops.
MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
AMET, Chamberlain.
ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
MAMET, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by

HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,

And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,

JOEL BARLOW.

This being after the Constitution was ratified

In the early part of the 19th century the regency at Tripoli, owing to its piratical practices, was twice involved in war with the United States. In May 1801, the pasha demanded an increase in the tribute ($83,000) which the US government had been paying since 1796 for the protection of their commerce from piracy. The demand was refused, and a naval force was sent from the United States to blockade Tripoli. The First Barbary War dragged on for four years, the Americans in 1803 losing the frigate, Philadelphia, the commander (Captain William Bainbridge) and the whole crew being made prisoners. The most colourful incident in the war was the expedition undertaken by William Eaton with the object of replacing the pasha with an elder brother living in exile, who had promised to accede to all the wishes of the United States. Eaton at the head of a motley crew of 500 US Marines and Muslim Mercenaries marched across the desert from Alexandria. Egypt, and with the aid of American ships, succeeded in capturing Derna. Soon afterwards, on June 3, 1805, peace was concluded. The pasha ended his demands and received $60,000 as ransom for the Philadelphia prisoners.

glockmail

11-26-2007, 07:23 PM

.....Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on
the Christian religion; ....

You quoted a obsolete version. The Treaty was renegotiated in 1805 and Article 11 was removed.

April15

11-26-2007, 07:34 PM

You quoted a obsolete version. The Treaty was renegotiated in 1805 and Article 11 was removed.So the fact that the first treaty had article 11 and then a second treaty was negotiated that did not have the inclusion of the contents of article 11 from the prior treaty invalidates nothing. That treaty was accepted and signed. That another treaty was negotiated after the first was violated only shows that the bounty wasn't high enough for our people. So the Bay of Tripoli just started capturing Americans again for ransom.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

This may help you understand what I cannot get through to you.

glockmail

11-26-2007, 08:15 PM

So the fact that the first treaty had article 11 and then a second treaty was negotiated that did not have the inclusion of the contents of article 11 from the prior treaty invalidates nothing. That treaty was accepted and signed. That another treaty was negotiated after the first was violated only shows that the bounty wasn't high enough for our people. So the Bay of Tripoli just started capturing Americans again for ransom.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

This may help you understand what I cannot get through to you.

Removal of Article 11 shows that appeasement was tried and later rejected. Democrats like yourself have failed to learn this lesson, which is why we are still fighting Muslims, and probably always will be.

Classact

11-26-2007, 09:20 PM

glockmail

11-26-2007, 09:32 PM

Here is another conclusion of what happened http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html Thanks. I had a similar site book-marked at one time, then lost the link. There are so many "skeptic" sites that it was impossible for me to find using google. Of particular interest:
"Readers should note that at this point, 1795, America was following the line of the other world powers in appeasing the pirates rather than fighting them."

April15

11-26-2007, 10:23 PM

Removal of Article 11 shows that appeasement was tried and later rejected. Democrats like yourself have failed to learn this lesson, which is why we are still fighting Muslims, and probably always will be.
The point that keeps eluding you is colored red, but read the part before as it is a good preface for the highlighted piece.

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).

Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.

glockmail

11-26-2007, 10:38 PM

The point that keeps eluding you is colored red, but read the part before as it is a good preface for the highlighted piece.

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).

Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.

That's merely one's opinion. If you read classact's link in its entirety, it puts the document in a more thou rough perspective, and has a different, and arguably more justifiable opinion.

Jeep Driver

11-26-2007, 11:42 PM

My idea was to debate the idea that the founders were just a bunch of rich guys looking to get richer and they wrote a constitution that the people rejected... the people refused to ratify it. Later the people, the religious people, ratified it after removing much of the power from the federal government while protecting the power of the people from the government. The very fact that 99.9% of the population were Christians including the rich fat white powerful folks running things would indicate this is a Christian nation and the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights reflects the religious values of "the people". How does it do it without saying cause God says so... it does it by the amendments associated with common law and judge by jury... Christians will make the moral laws they like and they will be the determining judge of fact and not a rich fat white powerful government official. I would like everyone to consider that there is a possibility that the founders did not have the people's best interest at heart at that time.

Look at the historian Charles Beard. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Beard) and look at rebellions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion and now look at this guys prospective... http://americareads.blogspot.com/2007/10/pg-69-unruly-americans-and-origins-of.html

Is everyone aware that the first printing of the American bible was authorized and printed by the first Congress of the US? It is a matter of Law. The American version of the King James Bible... Government Printing Office...

I have to agree with your intent to expose commerce as the priority.
The stamp act got most of the Revolution started in the first place.
And had it not been for
Shay's rebellion We would not even have a Bill of Right's .
Shay's was over money as well. Farmers being thrown into jail
because of unfair taxes.
Religion did to some degree help to unite the colonies ( States) .
But it was commerce that drove the rebellion .

It takes me a while to reply sometimes . I have only one good hand to type with.:salute:

diuretic

11-27-2007, 12:01 AM

Hobbit

11-27-2007, 03:21 AM

I think that the Constitution was founded on ideas that sprang out of the Enlightenment and that would mean that religious (or as it was put, Judeo-Christian values) wouldn't have been the philosophical underpinning given that the Enlightenment was a reaction against the stifling hand of religion.
It was a realisation that humans were rational, thinking creatures and not pushed around willy nilly by an interventionist god or a monarch who claimed to have derived authority from a god. So I reckon it was secular.

That's a myth. The Enlightenment was was a religious movement, and all of the figures portrayed as rebelling against the church weren't rebelling against Christianity, just the dogmatic Catholics. What inspired the Enlightenment was that God gave us an intellect and curiosity to unravel the mysteries of the universe and that it was high time we use it. Those pioneers of the movement weren't rejecting God. On the contrary, their desire to know God better drove them to great discoveries.

The atheist movement, as well as the secular movement, on the other hand, didn't really gain steam until the 20th century. Until then, most people believed in some kind of god and nobody obsessed over trying to extract all traces of God from certain things.

diuretic

11-27-2007, 04:36 AM

That's a myth. The Enlightenment was was a religious movement, and all of the figures portrayed as rebelling against the church weren't rebelling against Christianity, just the dogmatic Catholics. What inspired the Enlightenment was that God gave us an intellect and curiosity to unravel the mysteries of the universe and that it was high time we use it. Those pioneers of the movement weren't rejecting God. On the contrary, their desire to know God better drove them to great discoveries.

The atheist movement, as well as the secular movement, on the other hand, didn't really gain steam until the 20th century. Until then, most people believed in some kind of god and nobody obsessed over trying to extract all traces of God from certain things.

The Enlightenment was not a religious movement, it was a movement of secular rationality. It wasn't about atheism either, It is entirely possible to be religious, to believe in a deity and yet allow that humans are capable of rationality and that not everything is moved by a god. That's the driving intellectual force behind the Enlightenment. It was a force that moved humans away from being dominated by superstition and into rationality. Remember it was Nietzsche who declared God was dead, but that wasn't until much later. The Enlightenment was a rejection of the terrible fatalism that some religions visit upon their faithful. The struggle was to prove that humans could exercise rationality and free will and weren't subject to the overwhelming influence of the unholy alliance between church and state.

There is no "atheist movement". There have always been voices sceptical of gods and the claims made about them. It's just that these days the punishment for being an atheist is much less harsh than it used to be (well in secular liberal democracies anyway).

Hobbit

11-27-2007, 01:13 PM

The Enlightenment was not a religious movement, it was a movement of secular rationality. It wasn't about atheism either, It is entirely possible to be religious, to believe in a deity and yet allow that humans are capable of rationality and that not everything is moved by a god. That's the driving intellectual force behind the Enlightenment. It was a force that moved humans away from being dominated by superstition and into rationality. Remember it was Nietzsche who declared God was dead, but that wasn't until much later. The Enlightenment was a rejection of the terrible fatalism that some religions visit upon their faithful. The struggle was to prove that humans could exercise rationality and free will and weren't subject to the overwhelming influence of the unholy alliance between church and state.

There is no "atheist movement". There have always been voices sceptical of gods and the claims made about them. It's just that these days the punishment for being an atheist is much less harsh than it used to be (well in secular liberal democracies anyway).

You missed the entire point of the Enlightenment. The movement that people were capable of logical, rational, scientific thought may have been a rejection of traditional Catholic dogma, but it was not a rejection of religion altogether. There's a difference. If I say "the Baptist church has this all wrong, I'm going to do things differently," I'm not rejecting Christianity, just what the Baptist church teaches. Those who moved the Enlightenment forward did so out of a desire to get closer to God and explore his creation. Newton, Galileo, and all of the other major scientific pioneers of the time drew their motivation to discover more of the world around them from their faith in God.

As a side note, an extensive historical study by the Chinese done within the past few years was done with the goal of determining why, out of all other civilizations, Europe was the first (and only, for quite a while) region to develop chemistry, physics, accurate astronomy, etc. from the more ancient traditions of alchemy, astrology, etc. Their conclusion was that Christianity was the deciding factor and was what drove these early scientists to discover the true workings of the universe. Remember that this was done by Chinese scientists who, prior to this conclusion, believed that no good came from religion.

Little-Acorn

11-27-2007, 01:22 PM

It was a realisation that humans were rational, thinking creatures and not pushed around willy nilly by an interventionist god or a monarch who claimed to have derived authority from a god.
That's more or less what I said, but about the Constitution itself, not the ENlightenment. The Framers wrote it to provide the maximum of freedom while leaving the Fed govt enough power to do what it needed to... and then LIMITING the govt to those powers only.

So I reckon it was secular.
"Secular" only in the sense that the Constitution did not put any kind of religious facet into law. But the purpose of doing that was not to EXCLUDE religion from society or even from government. It was to leave people free to choose whatever religion they wanted, if any.

There's a lot of that in the Constitution - many things not addressed, so as to leave people free to decide them for themselves.

Later the 1st amendment was added, expressly forbidding the Fed govt from imposing or restricting any particular religion.

diuretic

11-27-2007, 05:11 PM

You missed the entire point of the Enlightenment. The movement that people were capable of logical, rational, scientific thought may have been a rejection of traditional Catholic dogma, but it was not a rejection of religion altogether. There's a difference. If I say "the Baptist church has this all wrong, I'm going to do things differently," I'm not rejecting Christianity, just what the Baptist church teaches. Those who moved the Enlightenment forward did so out of a desire to get closer to God and explore his creation. Newton, Galileo, and all of the other major scientific pioneers of the time drew their motivation to discover more of the world around them from their faith in God.

As a side note, an extensive historical study by the Chinese done within the past few years was done with the goal of determining why, out of all other civilizations, Europe was the first (and only, for quite a while) region to develop chemistry, physics, accurate astronomy, etc. from the more ancient traditions of alchemy, astrology, etc. Their conclusion was that Christianity was the deciding factor and was what drove these early scientists to discover the true workings of the universe. Remember that this was done by Chinese scientists who, prior to this conclusion, believed that no good came from religion.

Firstly I didn't argue that the Enlightenment was a rejection of Christianity. I argued that religion lost its overwhelming influence. If we hadn't experienced the Enlightenment then we'd still be living in the shadows, frightened of natural phenomena that we ascribed to acts of the gods. You and I wouldn't be communicating from the other side of the world to each other, such communication being mediated by computers. The Enlightment was about putting religion into perspective, that is, allowing it to inhabit the spiritual world rather than controlling the temporal world.

Secondly, regarding the research. That's interesting. I'm just finishing The Gifts of the Jews by Thomas Cahill (a really good read). It seems to me that Europe owes it pre-eminence in the sciences as you've indicated from the monotheism of the Jews. And of course we have to acknowledge the efforts of the Islamic scholars and the Jewish scholars in what we call the Dark Ages in keeping alive the knowledge of the ancient Greeks. It's an interesting discussion, not that I know a lot about it, I just find it interesting.

diuretic

11-27-2007, 05:14 PM

That's more or less what I said, but about the Constitution itself, not the ENlightenment. The Framers wrote it to provide the maximum of freedom while leaving the Fed govt enough power to do what it needed to... and then LIMITING the govt to those powers only.

"Secular" only in the sense that the Constitution did not put any kind of religious facet into law. But the purpose of doing that was not to EXCLUDE religion from society or even from government. It was to leave people free to choose whatever religion they wanted, if any.

There's a lot of that in the Constitution - many things not addressed, so as to leave people free to decide them for themselves.

Later the 1st amendment was added, expressly forbidding the Fed govt from imposing or restricting any particular religion.

I can take all your points but I do think that the Founders wanted to avoid the mix of state and religion. They had experienced the corrupting influence of religion in government under the British, who had and have a state religion (albeit that its influence is now greatly diminished). Yes, religious tolerance is a must for a free society, people should be free to worship as they wish so long as their worship doesn't transgress the secular laws.

Roadhouse158

11-27-2007, 10:51 PM

Sadly enough, if the founding fathers were alive today to say that the constitution was based on Christian values it wouldn't matter. It's the Judges that decide what was meant by laws. Not the legislators. Legislators just write the laws. The judicial system tells the legislation what is meant by those laws (:argue:). Makes me want to pay more attention to how I vote for judges. I don't know about you.

Hobbit

11-28-2007, 12:03 AM

Firstly I didn't argue that the Enlightenment was a rejection of Christianity. I argued that religion lost its overwhelming influence. If we hadn't experienced the Enlightenment then we'd still be living in the shadows, frightened of natural phenomena that we ascribed to acts of the gods. You and I wouldn't be communicating from the other side of the world to each other, such communication being mediated by computers. The Enlightment was about putting religion into perspective, that is, allowing it to inhabit the spiritual world rather than controlling the temporal world.

Secondly, regarding the research. That's interesting. I'm just finishing The Gifts of the Jews by Thomas Cahill (a really good read). It seems to me that Europe owes it pre-eminence in the sciences as you've indicated from the monotheism of the Jews. And of course we have to acknowledge the efforts of the Islamic scholars and the Jewish scholars in what we call the Dark Ages in keeping alive the knowledge of the ancient Greeks. It's an interesting discussion, not that I know a lot about it, I just find it interesting.

Ok, I think the problem is that you're using 'religion' and 'The Catholic Church' interchangeably. Religion caused the Enlightenment. The Catholic Church tried to stop it.

diuretic

11-28-2007, 02:42 AM

diuretic

11-28-2007, 02:45 AM

Ok, I think the problem is that you're using 'religion' and 'The Catholic Church' interchangeably. Religion caused the Enlightenment. The Catholic Church tried to stop it.

I don't think religion caused the Enlightenment. Truth is I don't know what caused the Enlightenment. I should read up on it I know.

How did the Catholic Church try to stop the Enlightenment? I'm asking because I don't know. I know that by the time of the Enlightenment that in England at least the Church of England was the co-power (along with the Monarchy).

Hobbit

11-28-2007, 10:52 AM

I don't think religion caused the Enlightenment. Truth is I don't know what caused the Enlightenment. I should read up on it I know.

How did the Catholic Church try to stop the Enlightenment? I'm asking because I don't know. I know that by the time of the Enlightenment that in England at least the Church of England was the co-power (along with the Monarchy).

Well, a bunch of good Catholics decided that instead of accepting what was placed before them, they would use the reason God gave them to explore the universe and either prove or disprove it. Well, some of the things they discovered didn't fit with what the Catholic Church taught at the time. For example, Galileo discovered that the Earth moved around the Sun, not vice versa. Since these things contradicted what the Catholic Church had said (even though it contradicted no scripture), those who said them were often accused of heresy and excommunicated or executed.

Roadhouse158

11-28-2007, 03:56 PM

And the Founders would be pleased that the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers was still in place, albeit just hanging on under the Bush Administration.

You don't know what the founding fathers would have wanted. Remember that seperation of church and state wasn't in the constitution. It was in a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist to soothe their fears that they would be made to worship as the government wanted. Freedom of religion is what was meant in that letter. Not freedom from religion.

diuretic

11-28-2007, 05:18 PM

Well, a bunch of good Catholics decided that instead of accepting what was placed before them, they would use the reason God gave them to explore the universe and either prove or disprove it. Well, some of the things they discovered didn't fit with what the Catholic Church taught at the time. For example, Galileo discovered that the Earth moved around the Sun, not vice versa. Since these things contradicted what the Catholic Church had said (even though it contradicted no scripture), those who said them were often accused of heresy and excommunicated or executed.

I'm all over the place with this. Copernicus had his proof of heliocentricity and I think the Church was okay with it. I'm wondering how Galileo got himself in strife with the Church. But he did, I know. Just shows how things shift around from Pope to Pope I suppose.

It's well for us that some brave people favoured reason over dogma.

diuretic

11-28-2007, 05:21 PM

You don't know what the founding fathers would have wanted. Remember that seperation of church and state wasn't in the constitution. It was in a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist to soothe their fears that they would be made to worship as the government wanted. Freedom of religion is what was meant in that letter. Not freedom from religion.

On the separation of powers, Montesqieu was heeded by the Founders and he wrote on the need for separation (although the idea had been around for a long time before him).

As for freedom from religion/freedom of religion. I suppose if the Founders had wanted a state religion they would have made sure it appeared in the Constutition.

Psychoblues

11-29-2007, 02:39 AM

What a GREAT conversation albeit like another poster said, "beating a dead horse".

This is a nation that as a nation respects no religion over and above any other. Period. Even our Supreme Court has ruled on this issue time and again and always with the same result. We are not a nation that insists on or respects any particular religion over any other.

avatar4321

12-01-2007, 08:06 PM

the entire idea if secularism is based on Judeo-Christian values.

Psychoblues

12-01-2007, 11:35 PM

You are a liar, a'21.

the entire idea if secularism is based on Judeo-Christian values.

First off, what is a Judeo/Christian value? Secondly, what caused so many to desire to escape the Church of England and thirdly, why do you suppose the founders to be so suspicious of religious aspirations they included a separation of church and state in their most intimate declarations?

Hobbit

12-02-2007, 01:55 AM

You are a liar, a'21.

To prove that you must first prove:
a) The statement was false.
b) Avatar knew the statement was false.
c) That he stated it with intent to decieve

I doubt you can.

First off, what is a Judeo/Christian value?

One commonly expressed by the Bible, which takes more than half its books from Judaism.

Secondly, what caused so many to desire to escape the Church of England

The fact that it was corrupt, served the King rather than God, and that nobody was allowed to disagree with it.

and thirdly, why do you suppose the founders to be so suspicious of religious aspirations they included a separation of church and state in their most intimate declarations?

You mean the letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church preacher assuring him that the government wouldn't interfere with church business? That separation of church and state? Sounds more like they didn't trust government.

Psychoblues

12-02-2007, 02:10 AM

You cannot answer questions that I have asked of another, hibbitt.

To prove that you must first prove:
a) The statement was false.
b) Avatar knew the statement was false.
c) That he stated it with intent to decieve

I doubt you can.

One commonly expressed by the Bible, which takes more than half its books from Judaism.

The fact that it was corrupt, served the King rather than God, and that nobody was allowed to disagree with it.

You mean the letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church preacher assuring him that the government wouldn't interfere with church business? That separation of church and state? Sounds more like they didn't trust government.

But, considering that you desire to do so I suggest that you answer the questions that I asked and I will repeat them for you:

1. What is a Judeo/Christian value?
2. What caused so many to desire to escape the Church of England?
3. Why do you suppose the founders to be so suspicious of religious aspirations they included a separation of church and state in their most intimate declarations?

Are you truly attempting to debate or are you just demonstrating your ability to talk shit as you are commonly known for?

Hobbit

12-02-2007, 03:20 AM

You cannot answer questions that I have asked of another, hibbitt.

But, considering that you desire to do so I suggest that you answer the questions that I asked and I will repeat them for you:

1. What is a Judeo/Christian value?
2. What caused so many to desire to escape the Church of England?
3. Why do you suppose the founders to be so suspicious of religious aspirations they included a separation of church and state in their most intimate declarations?

Are you truly attempting to debate or are you just demonstrating your ability to talk shit as you are commonly known for?

I just answered those questions, both thoroughly and accurately. That you choose to ignore the answers is your problem.

Psychoblues

12-02-2007, 03:35 AM

As the self proclaimed faux scholar that you pretend to be, I ask simply that you define your rather abstract answers to anything.

I just answered those questions, both thoroughly and accurately. That you choose to ignore the answers is your problem.

In the meantime I'll repeat the questions.

1. What is a Judeo/Christian value?

2. What caused so many to desire to escape the Church of England?

3. Why do you suppose the founders to be so suspicious of religious aspirations they included a separation of church and state in their most intimate declarations?

Is your denseness voluntary or somehow genetical?

Roadhouse158

12-02-2007, 08:44 AM

To hear some posters you would think the founding fathers were anti religion. You do know that when he was president, Thomas Jefferson held church services in the House of Representativers every Sunday right? Not anti christianity. Anti-OFFICIAL religion..

Hobbit

12-02-2007, 03:24 PM

As the self proclaimed faux scholar that you pretend to be, I ask simply that you define your rather abstract answers to anything.

In the meantime I'll repeat the questions.

1. What is a Judeo/Christian value?

2. What caused so many to desire to escape the Church of England?

3. Why do you suppose the founders to be so suspicious of religious aspirations they included a separation of church and state in their most intimate declarations?

Is your denseness voluntary or somehow genetical?

Ok, I'll answer them again.

1. A value commonly expressed by the Bible, which takes more than half its books from Judaism.

2. The fact that it was corrupt, served the King rather than God, and that nobody was allowed to disagree with it.

3. You mean the letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church preacher assuring him that the government wouldn't interfere with church business? That separation of church and state? Sounds more like they didn't trust government.

Roadhouse158

12-02-2007, 03:50 PM

On the separation of powers, Montesqieu was heeded by the Founders and he wrote on the need for separation (although the idea had been around for a long time before him).

As for freedom from religion/freedom of religion. I suppose if the Founders had wanted a state religion they would have made sure it appeared in the Constutition.

I agree. The founders didn't want an Official religion. They also made law that the government could not stop ones religious expression. This happens everyday in this country. Christianity is in no way pushed on people by the government. Maybe by citizens. However, if a local city councilman ends a prayer with "In Jesus Name" there are lawsuits filed. This is clearly the government getting involved in someones religious freedom. One persons beliefs, no matter what his/her job, is not the government forcing others into accepting only that religion. It is one person, freely expressing his/her beliefs. That part is in the constitution. Not separation of church and state. I know that some would say that being against gay marriage is a religious belief, therefore religion is being pushed on the people. So what. Religous beliefs set certain standards as to what one thinks is right and wrong. People who aren't religious at all have standards of right and wrong. Should there be an amendment that states, Congress shall pass no law establishing what's right or wrong, as to others may not agree with you? I see no problem with a candidate being religious. As long as I am not told what religion I have to be.

diuretic

12-02-2007, 03:58 PM

Hagbard Celine

12-04-2007, 05:49 PM

It does seem to me, from afar, to be a bit ridiculous at times, the reaction against isolated and personal instances of religion in government. I suppose the objectors, primarily the ACLU I think, are concerned about the slippery slope possibilities. Speaking only for myself, it wouldn't fuss me, heck all our parliaments here (federal and state) start with parliamentary prayers (and in hundreds of years not one parliament has lost its roof :laugh2:). I suppose when we get our first Muslim MP they'll have to allow for his or her prayers otherwise they'll either have to dump the idea or be accused of hypocrisy (as if that would worry too many politicians).

Anyway I'm strongly in favour of people having the right to worship, I would be offended if it were any other way.

It's a small minority of people who become outraged at issues regarding religion. More often than not, it's self-professed Christians who become outraged that there are people who dare have beliefs different from their own. Yet from reading the majority of posts on this forum, you'd think it was everybody in the US who votes Democrat.:rolleyes:

Psychoblues

12-07-2007, 01:49 AM

Dig that, HC.

It's a small minority of people who become outraged at issues regarding religion. More often than not, it's self-professed Christians who become outraged that there are people who dare have beliefs different from their own. Yet from reading the majority of posts on this forum, you'd think it was everybody in the US who votes Democrat.:rolleyes:

But you can't convince these hypocrits of it in a million years!!!!!!!!!!!!!

trobinett

12-07-2007, 08:28 PM

Dig that, HC.

But you can't convince these hypocrits of it in a million years!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ain't THAT the fucking truth.............

Classact

12-17-2008, 01:16 PM

I found a new source to fully explain how the USA is based on Judeo Christian values while doing some research on individual rights on another debate site. I think everyone wondering about the religion involvement in the founding of our nation should read this...

In the history of modern man individual rights were not clearly defined until the age of enlightenment. Prior to that period all societies were ruled by might, there were courts that resolved disputes in the Roman Empire but they were primarily in place to limit irritating disputes between subordinated masses.

Please take time to read this entire link for it answers the questions of rights, nature, Creator and reason leading up to the recognition of individual rights. It’s a long read but shorter than this thread and full of great information. http://history-world.org/age_of_enlightenment.htm

PostmodernProphet

12-17-2008, 03:56 PM

PostmodernProphet

12-17-2008, 03:57 PM

It's a small minority of people who become outraged at issues regarding religion. More often than not, it's self-professed Christians who become outraged that there are people who dare have beliefs different from their own. Yet from reading the majority of posts on this forum, you'd think it was everybody in the US who votes Democrat.:rolleyes:

it isn't that your beliefs are different from ours, it's that your beliefs are different from reality that bothers us.....

Classact

12-18-2008, 07:41 AM

In the section “The Enlightenment And The Age Of Reason In Philosophy” in the link I posted in my last post Kant explains the basis of individual rights.

Before the eighteenth century, the Enlightenment was confined to Holland
and England. Its earlier Dutch spokesmen were religious refugees, like the
French Huguenot Pierre Bayle (1674-1706), whose skepticism and pleas for
religious toleration were widely known in France. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1687),
a Jewish intellectual and Holland's greatest philosopher, was a spokesman for
pantheism, the belief that God exists in all of nature. Spinoza's influence,
along with Newton's, profoundly affected English thinkers. Mary Astell
(1666-1731), perhaps the earliest influential English feminist, lauded
rational thinking and cited Newton as proof of an ordered universe. Such ideas
were given more credibility by John Locke (1632-1704), the famous English
philosopher. Back home from exile in Holland after the Glorious Revolution of
the 1680s, Locke applied Newton's recently published principles to psychology,
economics, and political theory. With Locke, the Enlightenment came to
maturity and began to spread abroad.

In the section “The Reaction Against Reason”

Beyond the material world was a realm unapproachable by science. Moral and
religious truths, such as God's existence, could not be proved by science yet
were known to human beings as rational creatures. Reason, according to Kant,
went beyond the mere interpretation of physical realities.

In Kant's philosophic system, pure reason, the highest form of human
endeavor, was as close to intuition as it was to sensory experience. It
proceeded from certain subjective senses, built into human nature. The idea of
God was derived logically from the mind's penchant for harmony. The human
conscience, according to Kant, might be developed or be crippled by
experience, but it originated in the person's thinking nature. Abstract
reason, apart from science and its laws, was a valid source of moral judgment
and religious interpretation. Thus Kant used reason to give a philosophic base
back to mystical religion. ^10

[Footnote 10: See Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason (New York:
Collier, 1902.)]http://history-world.org/age_of_enlightenment.htm
These assumptions seem very hard to refute, read the Declaration of Independence, your comments please.