You should recheck the signers of the D of I. They were not all Christians, but they all did have a belief in God in one form or another. I know for a fact that Thomas Jefferson was a Diest. Most if not all the signers belonged to a Masonic order in one form or another.
WTF?
“The constitution mentions God many times”
WRONG!
I think it is high time that you read the constitution.
That is too funny.
[quote]Phileaux wrote:
Masonic order in one form or another.[/quote]
Ahh…the so called ‘illuminati’.
It’s apparent from many posts here that the definition of “morality” is unknown or misunderstood. Here it is straight from the American Heritage Dictionary:
“1) The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2) A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct:
3) Virtuous conduct.
4) A rule or lesson in moral conduct”
Many of you must think that the idea of “morality” is somewhat limited to sexual conduct. It’s not. Read the definition. I think many are trying to say that the government should not legislate certain types of sexual morality. Fine. That is a much narrower topic.
What I take issue with is lemmings who walk around repeating the politically correct mantra, “You can’t legislate morality” when “a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct” (see definition #2 above) is exactly what a foundation of laws is and is exactly what any society needs in order to exist for very long.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
WTF?
“The constitution mentions God many times”
WRONG!
I think it is high time that you read the constitution.
That is too funny.[/quote]
I said the D of I states it many times, it’s right in the first paragraph. Read it for yourself dork:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Lorisco,
At the risk of starting a religious debate here (which seems to happen in these types of threads), I ran a search on the U.S. Constitution and neither “God” nor “Creator” are mentioned anywhere in the text. The following is an online plain-text version that includes all of the Amendments. The word “Christian” is not in there either. See for yourself.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
And I just want to add that Massif’s definition of the purpose of law is very good. Cheating on your wife, or buggering another man’s wife, may be immoral, but it really doesn’t harm or disrupt society to the point that it would require taxpayer money to be spent on prosecuting and incarcerating the would-be Lothario. This is something many people lose sight of - the money factor. It costs money to prosecute people and even more money to keep them in prison. If you want lower taxes, you will need to let go of some of the moral laws. That’s just how it is.[/quote]
I stated the D of I mentions God:
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
WTF?
“The constitution mentions God many times”
WRONG!
I think it is high time that you read the constitution.
That is too funny.
I said the D of I states it many times, it’s right in the first paragraph. Read it for yourself dork:
[/quote]
The Declaration of Independence is a nice editorial but it has absolutely no bearing on the governance of my country (the great USA).
Our laws are derived from the Constitution that does not even come close to mention ‘god’.
The D of I mentions God once and creator once.
You state: “The constitution mentions God many times”
That is factually false. You need to read the Declaration of Independence again. The D of I does mention creator once so ‘the almight being’ is mentioned twice (which can be called a ‘few times’ but definitely not ‘many time’)
Keep posting. This is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Read it for yourself dork:
[/quote]
Nice!
Name calling is proof that your assertions are busted because you have nothing left to offer but defeat.
ROTFLMFAO!
Okay, is it just me, or are people still trying to take it literally.
You can’t “legislate morality” because people’s beliefs are not created by the creation of the laws.
You can say drugs are against the law, but people still take them.
You can ban steroids, but people still take them as well.
You can declare laws and crimes, but people will still commit them.
The legislation does not create a moral populace. Morals are something that are internal to the people, and they are learned from beliefs of right and wrong, which we form growing up.
We don’t go sit in the legislature or go to the law library as children to determine what might be right and wrong.
So, while the laws can attempt to reflect the morals of the majority of the population, you cannot, in fact, actually create a moral population by passing laws dictating behavior.
People may obey the law, they may not obey the law, but their beliefs have not been dictated by the law.
So, in particular, if the majority of the population feels a law it stupid, the law won’t be followed. Perhaps the best example of it being pointless trying to legislate morality – consider in this light the concept of prohibition which failed miserably.
Sigh, once again, the phrase is not meant to be taken literally, because obviously you can “pass laws” for or against anything. The phrase is not suggesting otherwise. It is suggesting something a bit more subtle, in that the law does not mold public opinion to reflect the law.
The good senator quoted in the intial post is simply a fool for not understanding the meaning of the item, or instead he is simply a populist grandstanding on a meaningless emotional point. Neither is good.
On a side note and just to clear up something - the Declaration of Independence is our country’s FOUNDING document.
The Constitution is the framework for how our FEDERAL government should operate. Incidentally, it is the SECOND document that established a federal government. The Articles of Confederation was our first and it described the limits and powers of our federal government for several years before our current constitution was ratified.
The Declaration of Independence mentions God several times, the Constitution doesn’t mention Him at all. The D of I is no less of an important document than the Constitution. They were two separate documents written over a decade apart and for distinctly different reasons. The fact that God is not mentioned in the document that empowers and limits the powers of the federal government does not necessarily mean that God has no place in any shape, form or fashion in government because the D of I specifically DOES address the necessity of God in the forming of a nation.
I write this because many Americans don’t really seem to know the difference between the two documents. They don’t understand their form or function. But they’re more than happy enough to run ‘round yappin’ about them as if they did.
I also believe that the vast majority have never read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in their entirety and they rely on others to tell them what is says and doesn’t say. This is sad and pathetic… &^$%ing lemmings! Let me put this another way…if you’re too lazy to read both documents - ALL OF IT - then stay out of the debates about it. Makes you look like a walrus who showed up to audition for the role of Flipper.
Yeah, that’s right. Don’t type another fuckin’ word about what either document says or doesn’t say until you READ THEM! BTW, you could read both of them in less time that it takes to read many of the threads on this website.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Read it for yourself dork:
Nice!
Name calling is proof that your assertions are busted because you have nothing left to offer but defeat.
ROTFLMFAO!
[/quote]
Does this apply to Harry Reid and Howard Dean also? Or just the people you disagree with?
Hmmm, the D of I mentions "God and “Creator”, two mentions is not “many”. Okay, it also mentions “Divine Providence”. Anyway, I would say the Constitution has more of a bearing on our daily lives than the Declaration.
Either way, ours is not a Christian nation. Here’s something I found:
In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington’s presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.
Finally, maybe the saying should be “You cannot legislate INDIVIDUAL morality”.
Lorisco - Sorry, but you did state that the Constitution mentioned God. Here is a quote from your actual post: “The constitution mentions God many times.”
Throttle 123 - I don’t know if I have ever read the ENTIRE Constitution but I have read a good portion of it as well as the history behind its drafting.
As for the D of I mentioning God and a Creator, I do not dispute that the Founding Fathers believed in a Supreme Being. I myself tend to believe in the existence of a Supreme Being. The question is whether the Founding Fathers, by acknowledging the existence of a God, meant that they recognized that the God in which they believed was the same God in which Christians believe. I don’t know. Many philosophers of that time, and the Founding Fathers were well read in philosophy, believed in Deism which aknowledged that a Supreme Being started the universe but who no longer interfered with human affairs.
I don’t think you can make the assumption that acknowledging the existence of a Supreme Being necessarily means a belief in Christianity. As someone mentioned, many of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons.
Even if the Founding Fathers were Christians, they certainly did not believe that religion should play a role in government. See the following from Article VI of the Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of
the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Note that this clause also applied to the states.
Also, the Constitution was not simply an enumration of federal powers; it was meant to be the supreme law of the land. This is another quote from Article IV:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Finally, see the Treaty of Tripoli which expressly states that the United States is not a Christian nation. As the Constitution makes clear, Treaties are part of the law of the United States. Here is the text:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
My point here is not to bash Christians or Christian morals. I myself conduct my life according to Christian morality. My point is that Christian morality is not necessarily the basis of law, nor should it always be.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
It’s apparent from many posts here that the definition of “morality” is unknown or misunderstood. Here it is straight from the American Heritage Dictionary:
“1) The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2) A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct:
3) Virtuous conduct.
4) A rule or lesson in moral conduct”
[/quote]
Let’s suppose there’s a guy, call him Bob, who is a completely immoral, selfish jerk. Bob may even have some murderous impulses - he might think it’d be kinda fun to shoot a man in Denver just to watch him die. However, Bob is mindful of the possibility that someone else might want to bust a cap in his own selfish jerk ass. Accordingly, Bob consents to be governed by laws prohibiting murder. He accepts such a law not because he is a virtuous guy who wants to do what’s right, but merely to protect himself.
In light of this, can someone explain the claim that laws against murder are rooted in morality? Sure, lots of moral authorities want laws against murder. But so does a wicked fellow like Bob – and not for any moral reason.
Laws can be agreed upon by people who don’t share the same moral code, or even have one at all, simply as a means to get along in a civilized society. There are lots of things that I would never do because I find them immoral, but I don’t think they should be illegal. Morality and legality are different standards, even though they may occasionally overlap.
[quote]FridgeRaider wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
It’s apparent from many posts here that the definition of “morality” is unknown or misunderstood. Here it is straight from the American Heritage Dictionary:
“1) The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2) A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct:
3) Virtuous conduct.
4) A rule or lesson in moral conduct”
Let’s suppose there’s a guy, call him Bob, who is a completely immoral, selfish jerk. Bob may even have some murderous impulses - he might think it’d be kinda fun to shoot a man in Denver just to watch him die. However, Bob is mindful of the possibility that someone else might want to bust a cap in his own selfish jerk ass. Accordingly, Bob consents to be governed by laws prohibiting murder. He accepts such a law not because he is a virtuous guy who wants to do what’s right, but merely to protect himself.
In light of this, can someone explain the claim that laws against murder are rooted in morality? Sure, lots of moral authorities want laws against murder. But so does a wicked fellow like Bob – and not for any moral reason.
Laws can be agreed upon by people who don’t share the same moral code, or even have one at all, simply as a means to get along in a civilized society. There are lots of things that I would never do because I find them immoral, but I don’t think they should be illegal. Morality and legality are different standards, even though they may occasionally overlap.
[/quote]
I think this example would follow under the “golden rule”–the most basic of universally accepted truths. Do one to others has you would have done to your self the the same exact situation.
[quote]CDM wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Read it for yourself dork:
Nice!
Name calling is proof that your assertions are busted because you have nothing left to offer but defeat.
ROTFLMFAO!
Does this apply to Harry Reid and Howard Dean also? Or just the people you disagree with?[/quote]
F Reid and Dean!
They are crooks!!
Just because I don’t abide by Uncle Ronnie’s 11th commandment does not mean I have anything to do with Democrats.
Nice try.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
On a side note and just to clear up something - the Declaration of Independence is our country’s FOUNDING document.[/quote]
It is a nice editorial. Nothing more. Throwing a tantrum to express your view does not change that.
Good point
The Declaration of Independence technically only mentions the word ‘god’ once and religion has always been a part of any successful society since the beginning of time. It helps explain the unexplainable for those that need comfort.
[quote]I write this because many Americans don’t really seem to know the difference between the two documents. They don’t understand their form or function. But they’re more than happy enough to run ‘round yappin’ about them as if they did.
I also believe that the vast majority have never read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in their entirety and they rely on others to tell them what is says and doesn’t say. This is sad and pathetic… &^$%ing lemmings! Let me put this another way…if you’re too lazy to read both documents - ALL OF IT - then stay out of the debates about it. Makes you look like a walrus who showed up to audition for the role of Flipper.
Yeah, that’s right. Don’t type another fuckin’ word about what either document says or doesn’t say until you READ THEM! BTW, you could read both of them in less time that it takes to read many of the threads on this website.[/quote]
The last 3 paragraphs are a little too angry for this discussion.
Are you having a bad day or something?
The Ten Commandments were old law .With the purpose of civil behavior being the goal.
I am not sure where I heard that ?all laws were nothing more than theft ?for example if you kill some one (you steal his life) if you molest children you steal there innocence. You get the picture.
Maybe some one knows the origin of that quote
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The Declaration of Independence technically only mentions the word ‘god’ once and religion has always been a part of any successful society since the beginning of time. It helps explain the unexplainable for those that need comfort.
Are you having a bad day or something?[/quote]
How do you explain the “unexplainable”? Doesn’t it seem starnge to you that for all our modern scientific wonders that science still doesn’t know and can’t prove how humans came to be on this earth?
Vroom and FridgeRaider (nice handle) are both on to something here. Let’s take another example a little less severe than murder and one not based on the Golden Rule (i.e., I won’t kill you if you don’t kill me). A few years back there were some rumblings from various groups, mostly religious and conservative, that the no-fault system of divorce had ruined the American family by making divorce too easy. Their solution was to make divorce more difficult for couples with children.
Presumably, childless couples could still get an easy divorce since there really wasn’t a “family” there worth saving. Let’s ignore the Equal Protection issues such a law would create. Let’s also assume that morality played a role in shaping this idea. Granted, this idea was not shaped purely by moral considerations as there is evidence that children raised in two-parent households are better off than children raised by single parents. Personally, I agree that a couple with children should really think twice about getting a divorce because I do believe in the idea that it is better for kids to be raised by both parents.
I conduct my personal life accordingly. I do not cheat on my wife, or beat her, and she would have to do something pretty bad before I would consider getting a divorce. However, I think that a law that made divorce harder would just…make divorce harder. It would not two people who hate each other to suddenly grow to love each other, it would not prevent an abusive husband (or wife, since wives have been known to beat husbands; it’s just never reported) to stop beating the crap out of his wife. It wouldn’t force a deadbeat spouse to get a job, or stop a spendthrift spouse from spending money on crap.
And it wouldn’t force parents to spend more time with their kids. In short, it won’t produce a stronger marriage for the benefit of the kids, which presumably would be the whole point of enacting tougher divorce laws.
Bottom line: You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. It’s an old cliche but very appropriate for this debate.