[constrictor]

An interesting article...

This is an interesting, albeit lengthy, opinion piece from CBSNews.com (I know, I know).

I hear so much about this country being founded on Christian principles these days, and so much being justified because of this "fact."

Discuss.

[NYCFarmboy]

I guess CBS never read the constitution:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html


Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

GO WASHINGTON--Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

[IceBreaker]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I guess CBS never read the constitution:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html


Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

GO WASHINGTON--Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

Article VII was obviously left out of the "constitution" manufactored for the CBS story.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I guess CBS never read the constitution:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html


Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

GO WASHINGTON--Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

Good point! But do you think a reference to the Year of our Lord in our Constitution provides sufficient logical justification for those that argue our country was founded on "Christian principles"?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Good point! But do you think a reference to the Year of our Lord in our Constitution provides sufficient logical justification for those that argue our country was founded on "Christian principles"?

well it only demonstrates the idiocy of those who make such statements (referring to CBS) that the constitution of the United States is "Godless" ....when in fact "Lord" specifically in this instance refers to Jesus Christ himself.....


.... therefore to those without a strong grasp of the obvious..... the very document we govern ourselves by acknowledges the Lordship of the Son of God.



and.. furthermore, the document that started our great democracy:



The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

Last edited by NYCFarmboy on 02-06-2005 in the year of our Lord at 09:12 PM

[Face Ache]

Try reading the article.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
well it only demonstrates the idiocy of those who make such statements (referring to CBS) that the constitution of the United States is "Godless" ....when in fact "Lord" specifically in this instance refers to Jesus Christ himself.....


.... therefore to those without a strong grasp of the obvious..... the very document we govern ourselves by acknowledges the Lordship of the Son of God.



and.. furthermore, the document that started our great democracy:



The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

Last edited by NYCFarmboy on 02-06-2005 in the year of our Lord at 09:12 PM

So, then you would agree that these few mentions of a deity--I can't just say God because different terms were used in different documents--provides sufficient logical justification for those that argue our country was founded on "Christian principles". I don't want to know what you suppose the founding father's thought, I want to know what you think. Thanks!

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Try reading the article.

I did: from the CBS article: Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate.


It is just a blatent flat out lie to state that... You obviously are lacking in a grasp of the obvious so let me make it crystal clear once again:




http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html


Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

GO WASHINGTON--Presidt. and deputy from Virginia






I really wonder what the people at CBS have been smoking...just amazing they have sunk to this sub sewer level of lowness.... I mean this is just a flat out time again of yet another instance of CBS lying. They have just lost their marbles..... it is just bizarre.

[Hawkeye_a]

I guess ill have to answer that question with a question (sorry ). So what if America was founded on Christian principles ? is that a bad thing ?
India was probably founded on Hindu principles, Saudi Arabia (and the entire middle east with no exception) was founded on islamic principles, etc,etc... So what ?

Thus far, America and some of the other nations in the 'New World' are far more tolerant of other religions than nations other nations. Tolerance is a good thing. In the end it dosent matter what the dominant/most influencial religion in a country is, as long as the laws and accomodate for others without discrimination. For example...
In America, you dont want to eat Pork or Beef, dont eat it, if you do, your welcome to. If you want to wear a scarf over your head go ahead. In saudi Arabia, good luck in trying to find Pork products, alcohol or a woman without a scarf. In India, try to find a resturant that serves beef, heck even McDonalds dosent serve 'real' hamburgers there.

It's got nothing to do with religion in the end, not even culture, so theres really no point arguing about it. The 'real' issue is religious tolerance, and i think America, when compared to most other nations has done a much better job. Thats my opinion anyway.

Cheers

[RonnieoftheRose]

The use of "the year of Our Lord" was common speak at the time. Even non-religious people used it. I really means very little because there's no such thing as a year of anyone's lord anyway.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
The use of "the year of Our Lord" was common speak at the time. Even non-religious people used it. I really means very little because there's no such thing as a year of anyone's lord anyway.

They should have used the Chinese calendar.

... done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of the Monkey, 4237 and of the Independence of the United States of America...

[Kilbey]

This is not a CBS piece.

It is from The Nation. Here's the original.

If you look at the CBS page that someone linked, right near the article's headline is the refrence to The Nation.

And The Nation isn't a liberal paper in any way /SARCASM!!!]

And people wonder why CBS is considered liberal. Look who they sleep with!

[undotwa]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
The use of "the year of Our Lord" was common speak at the time. Even non-religious people used it. I really means very little because there's no such thing as a year of anyone's lord anyway.

That is true. It is a translation of the phrase 'Anno Domini' (A.D.) which is used by almost everyone.

[Millennium]

Actually, they missed two other religious terms from the Declaration of Independence: "We find these truths to be self-evident" and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

"Self-evident", contrary to popular belief, does not mean "obvious". The term comes from John Locke's brand of Christianity, and it refers to grand cosmic truths which literally make themselves true, to the point where they exist independently of the existence of God. "The pursuit of Happiness" has similar origins, and refers to the idea that humans seek pleasure and flee pain. Locke argues that because humans were created this way by God, the ultimate moral being, then the state itself must be inherently moral, thus an inalienable right.

Although most of the Framers rejected the mainstream Christianity of the time as corrupt, more than a few were followers of Locke. Most modern Christians would be unlikely to recognize their faith as such, however. Not that much of this matters, because there is a reason that terms like this appear nowhere in the Constitution or any otherlegally-binding document. Although the words 'separation of Church and State' never appear in these either, the conspicuous absence of references to faith in a document written by people who peppered everything else they wrote with such references speaks volumes on the subject.

As for the "year of Our Lord", that is nothing more than the common reckoning for dates: the literal translation of anno domini, properly abbreviated to AD and placed before the year number. The Framers were very careful to excise every reference to any faith -even their own- from the Constitution, but in this one instance they were stuck, as there was no other widely-used way of reckoning dates (CE notation not being due to arrive for several centuries yet).

[Millennium]

By the way, calling Jefferson a secular humanist would probably be considered quite insulting to both Jefferson himself and most modern secular humanists, albeit for entirely different reasons. For one thing, for Jefferson to describe himself as deist automatically excludes him from secular humanism, which makes quite a point about being atheist. There is a religious form of humanism as well, which more closely matches Jefferson's beliefs.

All told, though, once again he seems to follow Locke's brand of Christianity -including rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, which would cause many Christians then and now to reject it as a heresy- more than anything else.

[ebuddy]

There's a very good reason why our founding documents reference "our Lord" and "Creator", and why it's necessary to swear on a Bible in a court of law. This is a representative democracy and the overwhelming majority of it's colonists were practicing Christians. This country was in fact, founded upon Christian principles. Ironically, Jefferson supported and encouraged daily Bible reading in school. The "Wall" was not designed to create indifference to Christianity, it was to avoid the state-sanctioned national practice of religion. i.e. Church of Scotland, Church of England, etc... and to keep government out of beliefs, not beliefs out of government. There was no movement at the time, of eliminating prayer from school, or Congressional prayer, or mention of God. That's simply the ACLU's interpretation of it today.

[cpt kangarooski]

ebuddy--

it's necessary to swear on a Bible in a court of law.

It's not necessary. In fact, it's pretty unusual; mostly I've seen secular affirmations (which can be requested in any event because not all people are willing to swear oaths).

The "Wall" was not designed to create indifference to Christianity, it was to avoid the state-sanctioned national practice of religion. i.e. Church of Scotland, Church of England, etc... and to keep government out of beliefs, not beliefs out of government.

They can't be separated. If religions can exercise power over government they rapidly end up using it to fight one another. Basically, religions cannot be trusted with secular power, both because they will abuse it, and because it will corrupt the religion into mere power seeking. The safest thing all around is to keep them both safe from one another, since the combination has been disasterous every single time it has happened for the whole length of history.

Now, if someone wants to be religious, that's fine. And if that someone holds office, that is also fine; I'm not suggesting opposition to religion or religous adherents. But when a religious person is acting in their official capacity, they need to set aside their religious beliefs, just as we expect them to set aside their personal feelings and to instead act according to the requirements of their job. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be there. But most people have no problem with it.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Millennium:
By the way, calling Jefferson a secular humanist would probably be considered quite insulting to both Jefferson himself and most modern secular humanists, albeit for entirely different reasons. For one thing, for Jefferson to describe himself as deist automatically excludes him from secular humanism, which makes quite a point about being atheist. There is a religious form of humanism as well, which more closely matches Jefferson's beliefs.

It's very simple to sort out, really. Jefferson, like almost all the other polititians of his day, was a mason. And, to be a mason it's required that you have a belief in God. Of course, this can be as broad as the belief in a universal spirit, or as flexible as the concept of Deism.

Though, I imagine that it would be difficult to go through many of their rites and rituals without having at least some belief in the Judeo-Christian God. They make reference to Jesus and YHWH more times that I can count.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Although most of the Framers rejected the mainstream Christianity of the time as corrupt, more than a few were followers of Locke. Most modern Christians would be unlikely to recognize their faith as such, however. Not that much of this matters, because there is a reason that terms like this appear nowhere in the Constitution or any otherlegally-binding document. Although the words 'separation of Church and State' never appear in these either, the conspicuous absence of references to faith in a document written by people who peppered everything else they wrote with such references speaks volumes on the subject.

Most of the framers rejected mainstream Christianity? I don't think I can agree with that statement. Maybe I could agree that most of the framer rejected polticized catholocism. Maybe I could agree that most of our framers rejected a state sponsored church...but I cannot agree that our framers rejected Christianity. CHristianity was a major part of life for the elite and the masses.

As for the absence of references to faith...very nice point. Although, I don't necessarily equate the absence of such language to be a firm statement of a nation founded without God. I would assume that the absence of non-Christian religions in colonial America made it understood that this was a nation built upon Christian principles.
In other words, I would submit that we have to look at more than language to define the motivation of our forefathers.

Perhaps we need to look beyond the writing of the Constitution and examine the practices of the legislature and other btancges of government.

For example, if we were not a nation founded on Christian principles, why would congress hire a chaplain? Here is an interesting article.
http://chaplain.house.gov/histInfo.html

[BRussell]

Throughout virtually all of human history up until the 18th century, the church was synonymous with the state. Religious institutions were heavily tied up in governments. It's hard to think of an example where there wasn't an official religion tightly linked to the government. The King of England was the head of the Church of England. The Pope was, to say the least, heavily influential in the Roman empire. Etc.

The Enlightenment/Age of Reason, the era in which the US was founded, was a period of human history where that changed. It was based on natural philosophy and science, and humanism was the ethic. It was a period in which religion diminished in importance in governing people's lives.

Yes, most of the founders were Christians. But it was their de-emphasis of the importance of religion that was historically unique about them, not their religiousness.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
ebuddy--
It's not necessary. In fact, it's pretty unusual; mostly I've seen secular affirmations (which can be requested in any event because not all people are willing to swear oaths).

We're talking about the history of it and it's use at it's inception, though I understand your point.

They can't be separated. If religions can exercise power over government they rapidly end up using it to fight one another. Basically, religions cannot be trusted with secular power, both because they will abuse it, and because it will corrupt the religion into mere power seeking. The safest thing all around is to keep them both safe from one another, since the combination has been disasterous every single time it has happened for the whole length of history.

Like legislation adopted to better care for society's poor? This is an inherintly Christian ideal. Is the welfare program as designed give thrust to theological idealism in government? Where is the line drawn? Is it possible for a President (who happens to also be Christian) to offer solutions to complex problems without it being viewed as forwarding Christian agenda? This happens time and again. People abuse power period. This is not exclusive to religion, this is a trait of human kind. In that you're correct. You cannot separate human nature from it's goverment.

Now, if someone wants to be religious, that's fine. And if that someone holds office, that is also fine; I'm not suggesting opposition to religion or religous adherents. But when a religious person is acting in their official capacity, they need to set aside their religious beliefs, just as we expect them to set aside their personal feelings and to instead act according to the requirements of their job.

I've rarely if ever, heard a leader claim he's enacting policy because "The Bible says so" , but no matter, he will be accused of such. The relationship has become adversarial first, productive second. This is unfortunate. There are those that would like to interpret the Wall Clause as meaning complete societal divorce and indifference to religion when this is nowhere to be found in our founding documents.

[cpt kangarooski]

ebuddy--

Like legislation adopted to better care for society's poor? This is an inherintly Christian ideal.

I'm sorry? You're saying that people cannot possibly set up a social welfare system without it being Christian? That's a big slam against people who are not Christian, and people who believe in doing such things for reasons unrelated to religion. And it's not true by any means.

Is it possible for a President (who happens to also be Christian) to offer solutions to complex problems without it being viewed as forwarding Christian agenda?

Yes, it is entirely possible. I'd even say it was typical. But just because someone is a Christian, that doesn't mean that they are going to spend every waking moment pushing their religion and improperly using the government to advance its fortunes. You seem to have this problem believing that people can set their religion aside when the occasion demands, but still follow a course of action that is ethical, or even compassionate, for entirely secular reasons. I assure you though, it's very common.

This happens time and again. People abuse power period. This is not exclusive to religion, this is a trait of human kind.

No, it's not exclusive to religion, but it is extremely prevalent with regards to religion. Plus you still haven't addressed the point that secular power corrupts religion and so in order to protect it adequately, it must be isolated.

[olePigeon]

I happen to think the Constitution was written with regards to a certain set of moral guidelines which are mostly (if not all) also included in Christian mythology. "In the year of our Lord" is just another way of saying A.D. Both Christians and "Pagans" use it as a point of reference. You don't have to be a Christian to acknowledge Jesus Christ was a real person or to design a calendering system around him (like the "Pagan" Romans did.)

Besides, even if the Constitution did state that the U.S. is a Christian nation, it does state that Religion and Government are two seperate matters and should stay that way.

[cpt kangarooski]

olePigeon--

You don't have to be a Christian to acknowledge Jesus Christ was a real person or to design a calendering system around him (like the "Pagan" Romans did.)

Uh, the Roman calendar was based on the founding of Rome, which happened a long-ass time before Jesus came along. Year 1 AUC (Ab Urbe Condita -- From the Founding of the City) is 753 BCE. Probably the only Romans that would've been interested in a calendar having anything to do with Jesus would be Christians.

Of course, I would've just put it as 5549 and been done with it.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
olePigeon--


Uh, the Roman calendar was based on the founding of Rome, which happened a long-ass time before Jesus came along. Year 1 AUC (Ab Urbe Condita -- From the Founding of the City) is 753 BCE. Probably the only Romans that would've been interested in a calendar having anything to do with Jesus would be Christians.

Of course, I would've just put it as 5549 and been done with it.

You're right, I was thinkging of the new Roman calendar and Constantine who was very much the Christian.

[Wiskedjak]

Does it really matter under what principles America was founded? Things change over time.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
It's got nothing to do with religion in the end, not even culture, so theres really no point arguing about it. The 'real' issue is religious tolerance, and i think America, when compared to most other nations has done a much better job. Thats my opinion anyway.

On the whole, I'm inclined to agree with this.

[Saad]

In the article they quoted the Tripoli Treaty:

"As the Government of the United States... 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 Musselmen -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."

It was the third unanimous vote in the senate.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Saad:
In the article they quoted the Tripoli Treaty:



It was the third unanimous vote in the senate.

Bush must've missed that one.

[saab95]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Good point! But do you think a reference to the Year of our Lord in our Constitution provides sufficient logical justification for those that argue our country was founded on "Christian principles"?

No it does not. It merely provides a reference point to the Gregorian calendar.

[saab95]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I happen to think the Constitution was written with regards to a certain set of moral guidelines which are mostly (if not all) also included in Christian mythology. "In the year of our Lord" is just another way of saying A.D. Both Christians and "Pagans" use it as a point of reference. You don't have to be a Christian to acknowledge Jesus Christ was a real person or to design a calendering system around him (like the "Pagan" Romans did.)

Besides, even if the Constitution did state that the U.S. is a Christian nation, it does state that Religion and Government are two seperate matters and should stay that way.

The Constitution makes no reference whatsoever to our country being a Christian nation.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by saab95:
It merely provides a reference point to the Gregorian calendar.

Much shorter. Thanks.