[quote]Legionary wrote:
…It’s very consistent with science so I could see it appealing to someone who admires the mathematical eloquence of Atheism…
[/quote]
Hence my oft repeated statements elsewhere that scientism and atheism ARE religions.[/quote]
More accurately they are personal philosophies. Only strong atheism could be qualified as religious. You should quote my whole post for context. Pandeism doesn’t equal “scientism” btw. Freethinking philosophies are far more varied and complex than you may want to believe.
The Constitution of the United States establishes a government without religion.
[/quote]
No. It establishes a federal government and prescribes that no national religion be instituted by Congress. The reason? Because the colonies consisted of disparate Christian denominations who had escaped religious persecution in Britain and didn’t want it transferred to the New World. They were not creating a secular nation, rather a nation free from the sectarian conflicts of the old world.
You argued that the nation was founded as a “secular nation.” That assertion is utterly false. [/quote]
See my enumerated argument addressed to Push above.
You contort yourself in order to believe what there’s no evidence for. You look to the Declaration and ignore the Constitution because the former contains a pair of perfunctory allusions to a nameless “Creator” and “Nature’s God” (written, note, by a non-Christian who took a literal razor to the New Testament in order to dispense of the vast swaths of nonsense therein) whereas the latter does not. You do this despite the fact that the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land and the foundational and prescriptive instrument of the US government, is the relevant document in this discussion. The Declaration of Independence, by contrast, was created as a moral and logical justification for separation from Great Britain. Its legal power extends not a millimeter beyond that purpose–a purpose whose accomplishment relegated the Declaration to the museum wall and the pages of history.
The Constitution of the United States establishes a government without religion.
[/quote]
No. It establishes a federal government and prescribes that no national religion be instituted by Congress. The reason? Because the colonies consisted of disparate Christian denominations who had escaped religious persecution in Britain and didn’t want it transferred to the New World. They were not creating a secular nation, rather a nation free from the sectarian conflicts of the old world.[/quote]
The reason is irrelevant: the Constitution is supreme and it endorses neither a particular sect of Christianity nor Christianity itself. It makes no mention of God or Jesus. It is not the foundation of a government with a particular religious flavor, or a religious flavor at all. That is overwhelmingly obvious.
See my enumerated argument addressed to Push above.
[/quote]
I saw. But there’s no point in going around in circles.
I can assure you I have no dog in this fight. I’m putting forth the same argument based upon the facts, that I expressed long before I was a believer.
I haven’t denied that the Constitution founded the federal government. I said it was based upon the principles espoused in the Declaration. To suggest otherwise requires an extraordinary feat of mental gymnastics. But as I said, we’re going around in circles. You think the Declaration should be relegated to a museum wall. I believe otherwise.
The Constitution of the United States establishes a government without religion.
[/quote]
No. It establishes a federal government and prescribes that no national religion be instituted by Congress. The reason? Because the colonies consisted of disparate Christian denominations who had escaped religious persecution in Britain and didn’t want it transferred to the New World. They were not creating a secular nation, rather a nation free from the sectarian conflicts of the old world.[/quote]
The reason is irrelevant…[/quote]
No, the reason explains the intent of the founders.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You think the Declaration should be relegated to a museum wall. I believe otherwise.[/quote]
In the sense that it is not the animating legal force that the Constitution is.
I don’t mean to suggest that it isn’t profound or consequential, or that the spirit with which it was created should not be emulated by people looking to cast off the shackles of tyranny today.
The Constitution of the United States establishes a government without religion.
[/quote]
No. It establishes a federal government and prescribes that no national religion be instituted by Congress. The reason? Because the colonies consisted of disparate Christian denominations who had escaped religious persecution in Britain and didn’t want it transferred to the New World. They were not creating a secular nation, rather a nation free from the sectarian conflicts of the old world.[/quote]
The reason is irrelevant: the Constitution is supreme and it endorses neither a particular sect of Christianity nor Christianity itself. It makes no mention of God or Jesus. It is not the foundation of a government with a particular religious flavor, or a religious flavor at all. That is overwhelmingly obvious.[/quote]
Of course it is overwhelmingly obvious. But you’re arguing with people who want the document to be different. So they point to other documents or other quotes by the people who wrote that document as an attempt to say “see, they think like I do!” They are the same who will point to the second amendment (which I support wholeheartedly, it’s just an example) and say see here it is clear as day! Well it’s clear as day that the founders could have put religion in our most important document, and they did. To say it should never serve as the basis for being elected. NOTHING else. Nothing anyone else says or finds changes this undeniable fact though they will apparently bend over backwards to try and argue other things do.
FWIW, if it was backwards and the Declaration made no mention of a creator and the Constitution did they would be arguing the EXACT opposite and you know this is true. Acting as if the D has no significance and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Anything to fit into exactly what they are attempting to argue.
FWIW, if it was backwards and the Declaration made no mention of a creator and the Constitution did they would be arguing the EXACT opposite and you know this is true. [/quote]
This deserves to be highlighted. It is exactly true.
And to take it a step further: suppose that the Declaration of Independence made no mention of God, but the Constitution was rife with appeals to the Almighty and stuffed full of Abrahamic imagery and made Christianity an explicitly preferred or “official” religion.
Would I deny the (Christian) religious character of the government of the United States as evidenced by the plain language of its Constitution on the grounds that the Declaration of Independence implied otherwise? No; I’d be a fool to do that, because the former is the relevant document in this matter and the latter is not.
The reason is irrelevant: the Constitution is supreme and it endorses neither a particular sect of Christianity nor Christianity itself. It makes no mention of God or Jesus. It is not the foundation of a government with a particular religious flavor, or a religious flavor at all. That is overwhelmingly obvious.[/quote]
Wrong. There is no hierarchy among the documents with the Constitution trumping the Dec of Ind.
Rather they are compatible documents, each serving a different purpose.[/quote]
A very different purpose: one to justify separation with Great Britain, the other to create the government under which we still live today.
Oh stop it, the overwhelming majority of the founders were Christian. And…you know it
No, not really. .[/quote]
Yes REALLY! Stop denying the truth. The overwhelming majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christian. Before I post proof would you like to back off?
[quote]H factor wrote:
You can trap righties in terms of Obama by pointing at Reagan when he does the same thing. [/quote]
Yes, both Obama and Reagan breathed air but that is where the similarity ends. Sure Reagan pushed the debt up by a couple of billion over 8 years (he also created 20 million private sector jobs to Obama’s ZERO) as he never had both houses of congress republican. Obama on the other hand could have done anything that he wanted during his first two years as both houses of congress were democrat. What did he do? He passed the single most unpopular bill in modern times and one that will spend us into oblivion Obamacare. He also raised the debt more than from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.
Really, I know Reagan wasn’t perfect in this area but don’t compare him to Obama you only lose credibility.
[/quote]
Talking points, talking points, opinion on Obamacare, and more talking points. Reagan tripled the motherfucking deficit. How many times do we have to paint this for you? Obama RECEIVED a deficit much larger than Ronald Reagan. The interest is much higher on it than Reagan ever saw. He received two very costly wars in the midst of one of the worst recessions in American history coupled with a housing crisis. I’d say it’s a little early to write the book on him as you want to do. We can judge Obama when he’s finished. I don’t think it looks good for him, but unemployment was quite high at this point in Reagan’s term (where Obama is) as well. If you wrote the book on Reagan at year three of his Presidency it wouldn’t be anywhere near as good as at year 8. Now that I said I don’t expect Obama to have a solid track record in 4 years, but your comparing 8 years to 4. He’s going to get 8 years like Reagan did.
Reagan exploded the size of the federal government. So did Obama. They have much more in common than you will ever begin to admit. It was a huge deal when Obama raised the debt ceiling. Ronald Reagan did this 18 times. All I’m asking for is a little consistency. Probably asking way too much I realize. [/quote]
I like that, “we can judge Obama when he’s finished.” But we are not allowed to judge his first term? Huh? Why can’t we talk about the unmitigated disaster that is his first term. Yeah…I think I will talk about it.
Obama grew the the debt more than from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.
And since you want to make a comparison Reagan was handed a lousy economy by Jimmy Carter. Interest rates were something like 17%, unemployment 8%.
Funny thing about Reagan though he never mentioned Carter after he was elected. Never blamed him or anyone else. He just went to work for the American people and created 20 million new private sector jobs.
Obama doesn’t deserved to be mentioned in the same sentence with Ronald Reagan–Oops I just did it.
Jefferson was brilliant. He was also an odd duck. The two often go together.[/quote]
This is very true. Somewhere around my office I have a letter that he wrote to a woman while living in France. It’s full of thinly-veiled, old-fashioned dick jokes. Hilarious and also slightly unsettling to see one of the most prodigious thinkers in American history engaging in the same kind of humor that drives the American Pie movies. I’ll try and find it.[/quote]
The Declaration of Independence was just that…a declaration of independence. It didn’t found a nation and it isn’t the foundational document of the United States of America–that is the Constitution…
[/quote]
Completely, utterly, patently false.
The United State of America existed well before 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation guided the federal government before Madison ever picked up a pen in regards to the Constitution.
The EXACT thing the Declaration of Independence did is found a nation.
Smh, did Pittbullllll get your sign-in password?[/quote]
It’s a moot point. Jefferson was a Deist.
[/quote]
By the way, what does smh’s outrageously false assertion have to do with Jefferson’s deism and why is his absurdity in that regard a moot point?[/quote]
Because you are trying to equate the word “Creator” with Christianity.[/quote]
I don’t have to. John Adams did it for me. Scroll up, hombre.
My delayed posting status is hindering my prompt discussion here.[/quote]
Yeah, I’m with you this thread has moved along quickly leaving me in the dust. Too much work lately trying to figure out who to lay off and whose hours to cut before Obamacare hits. And also how to reduce slaries so that when the socialist in chief hikes my taxes I will not be taking the hit alone.
I wonder how deep the next recession will be because of Obama’?
Oh stop it, the overwhelming majority of the founders were Christian. And…you know it
No, not really. .[/quote]
Yes REALLY! Stop denying the truth. The overwhelming majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christian. Before I post proof would you like to back off?[/quote]
I’ve already addressed this in this thread:
"You can produce primary evidence in support of your cause, I can produce primary evidence in support of mine. If the breadth of your evidence is greater, it’s in proportion to the number of eggshells upon which a critic of Christianity was forced to tread in the past.
It doesn’t do a thing to change or nullify the quotes I’ve produced. And I still contend, as I’ve been doing since the start of this discussion, that a believer as devout and passionate as Tirib would not consider a man like Jefferson any kind of Christian at all (he’s said as much before, so this isn’t exactly groundbreaking)."
You can see where the discussion stands as of now: the Declaration and the Constitution. No point in going back to “my quote proves Adams’ disdain for Christianity” vs. “my point proves Adams was a pious and God-fearing man.” Because the truth is that the founders–and particularly the most influential ones–can best be described as ambivalent toward Christianity. In some cases they lauded the institution, in others they scolded it. At times the professed to be Christian and at times they endorsed deist heresies.
The more important point–and one that doesn’t require that we try to look into the hearts of men who died centuries ago by reading piecemeal and often contradictory excerpts of their personal writings–is that this country rests all of its considerable weight upon a Godless Constitution. That is all I really need.