Score 1 for America!

[crabcakes66]

Granted, but its just a word. Theres no way to make it apply to absolutely every religion, but the basic sentiment is understandable.

Countless millions have died in relation to that "word".

pledge is brainwashing..

Pretty much...but do to the fact that most americans either

A. Dont care
or
B. Are Christians


It wont be changing in our lifetime.

He has a right not to say those particular lines in the pledge, but forcing it on the whole nation due to his problems is disgusting.

I think you have your shit backwards there.....

It disgusting that we still have to say/use it.

 

[jimbones]

yeah, I'm thankful that I'm not turned into an oaf of allegiance over here..

 

[Apos]

yeah, I'm thankful that I'm not turned into an oaf of allegiance over here..

Was that what you meant to type? Pretty funny either way.

 

[Rupertvdb]

Nonsense. If so, then why was this sort of language explictly rejected when people wanted to put it in the constitution? How can we have both a first commandment, which commands people worship the one true god, and a first amendment which says that people are free to believe whatever they want?

I didn't say that religion played no role in our society, but few people back then thought that religion was a sound basis for civil law. Preachers would enforce the religious law: the government existed to keep the civil peace. Jefferson himself wrote a book about this, part of which concludes that the common law (the basis for our system of law) is not based on Christianity. Where in the Bible do you find the concept of an adversarial system? The right to own firearms? The concept of a bicameral legislature?

I'm sure someone could dig up some references...anyways, i think the point was that moral systems and concepts of justice present in America are based on Christian principals.

Equaility amoungst men is just one example that springs to my mind, the American dream is a very Christian based paradigm. Other cultures would not think to try and place everyone on an equal standing.

Bicameral legislature was not based on biblical teachings (heaven and hell...wait a minute...could have been) but you do not find a lot of things, society has obviously progressed beyond simple evangelical interpretations (for the most part).

Firearms law wasn't really an issue at the time but back then being armed was not viewed in nearly the same way, you are taking a slightly literal approach to the message of the bible.

 

[jimbones]

Was that what you meant to type? Pretty funny either way.

yeah, that was intentional..

:cheers:

 

[Apos]

I'm sure someone could dig up some references

In the Bible. To FIREARMS? All the other stuff would be a goofy stretch too, made up on the spot out of random verses taken out of context. The very liberal enlightenment (which was secular and often anti-established religion by the way) concepts that were at the core of the founder's philosophy wouldn't exist for centuries and was utterly foriegn to the people who lived during Bible times.

Equaility amoungst men is just one example that springs to my mind, the American dream is a very Christian based paradigm.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters"? "Women must always be silent in church" Nowhere in the Bible is there the concept that civil decisions are best made through a political process which allows factions to block each other. Nowhere is there a sense that everyone should have equal political power via voting. Indeed, the core idea seems to be: wise people are best qualified to lead the ignorant. At the very least, it's not anywhere a major concern of the Bible and can't be played up as being one. Political systems outside the temple/state and apostolic authority (which is hardly democratic!) just aren't a concern at all. And I'm not sure why a materialistic dream of success is particularly Christian either, given Jesus' feelings about those who strive to attain earthly goods.

Firearms law wasn't really an issue at the time but back then being armed was not viewed in nearly the same way, you are taking a slightly literal approach to the message of the bible.

If you don't take SOME sort of sensible approach, you could claim that Moby Dick is the foundation of our government. The point is precisely that the legal protections and ideas of our government ARE quite literal and temporal, and they weren't inspired by religious ideas, but rather by the political thinking and contentious political issues of the day. The amendment about not being forced to house soldiers doesn't come out of the Bible: it comes out of the fact that Americans hated it when the British forced them to quarter British soldiers.

 

[Direwolf]

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters"? "Women must always be silent in church" Nowhere in the Bible is there the concept that civil decisions are best made through a political process which allows factions to block each other. Nowhere is there a sense that everyone should have equal political power via voting. Indeed, the core idea seems to be: wise people are best qualified to lead the ignorant. At the very least, it's not anywhere a major concern of the Bible and can't be played up as being one. Political systems outside the temple/state and apostolic authority (which is hardly democratic!) just aren't a concern at all. And I'm not sure why a materialistic dream of success is particularly Christian either, given Jesus' feelings about those who strive to attain earthly goods.

I have to point out that not everything Christian is in the Bible. Like any other religion certain culture has become attatched to the Christian faiths. Part of that throughout history has been a Christian duty to help others (no matter how misguided it may be at times).
I think saying that either the government was based upon the Christian faith, or that it was done in the vacuum of religion is silly. Of course many of the founders were somewhat influenced by what they thought was right and wrong, ideas that probably came from their ideas of religion. At the same time they also surely took into account the ideas and problems of the time. The Constitution didn't pop out of thin air, it was an evolution of many ideas and many other documents that they borrowed from and changed for their purposes.

 

[Pogrom]

No pledge here. Hell, we usually give the boot to the second verse of the national anthem, 'cos it's just more of the same :E.

hehehe, funniest post of the day!

"Beneath our radiant Southern Cross,
We'll nnnnghg blehh hwhw dhhhe llee"

 

[Apos]

I have to point out that not everything Christian is in the Bible.

Sure I agree to that, but only you agree that not everything that's in the Bible is inherently Christian. For instance, it's not like the Jewish people invented the concept of prohibitions against murder. Or Jesus was the first to observe that you should do onto others as you would wish done to you.

I think saying that either the government was based upon the Christian faith, or that it was done in the vacuum of religion is silly.

Of course it wasn't done in a vacuum. But Christianity wasn't even, by far, the biggest influence in the mix. The biggest influence, by far, were the political philosophies of the day and the moral understanding of liberty that came out of the humanist enlightenment.

Of course many of the founders were somewhat influenced by what they thought was right and wrong, ideas that probably came from their ideas of religion.

Did they? Most of the founders believed that morality was discernable via reason, not Biblical authority, and the moral texts they read were by other recent European thinkers of philosophy and so forth. Jefferson, for instance, believed that Christ was an excellent moral thinker, but didn't hold him to be divine. In fact, he famously took a pair of scissors to the Bible and cut out all the things he considered to be mythical nonsense.

But the main point is that no matter how much of a part you think religion might have played, you have to acknowledge is that what made the American experiment special, what made it unique, is how LITTLE of a part religion played, comapred to all the other countries. The founder's idea was that if the business of religion and the business of government were kept separate, both would thrive. And they were right: we have the form of government everyone else would ideally like to have, and we are one of the most religious of all the Western democracies: religious belief has thrived here where it has withered away in Europe and the UK.

 

[Moto]

Yay! I don't think some guy who is athiest should be allowed to change the way the whole country recites the pledge of allegiance.

 

[outpost]

I never really thought that it mattered to much. Hell, you eigther say it if you don't care or if you don't want to say it, you don't. I have friends at school who don't say it because it mentions god. Does anyone care? Nope.

 

[Apos]

Yay! I don't think some guy who is athiest should be allowed to change the way the whole country recites the pledge of allegiance.

Oh, but it was okay for Christians to change it first so as to make it more exclusionary? That's not hypocritical or anything...

I want to be able to say the pledge. I love my country. But thanks to a bunch of bigots, I either have to not say the real official pledge along with everyone else, or be a hypocrite myself. Nobody should be in that position. Put yourself in the shoes of another person for once.

 

[Kyorisu]

Me too, I always thought that pledging to the flag in the us was stupid. Just something to brainwash children.

I agree we had to sing the entire National Anthem at every assembly in primary school. Well atleast thats what happened at the school I went to.

 

[thehunter1320]

ummmmmm..... m'kay.... i guess we all hate america's ideas.... and we obviously don't care about countless who have died so you can spout off about you hating your own damned country! if you hate it, move! i'm sure we won't miss you!

or is it the religion that gets you? cause that i agree... not everyone is christian... but if you don't want to say it, then don't! Amendment Numero Uno shall protect you!

 

[Apos]

ummmmmm..... m'kay.... i guess we all hate america's ideas....

Please: cite where anyone said that they hated American ideas. In my case, it's the exact opposite.

This is a really dishonest way to attack people: by calling into question their patriotism.

and we obviously don't care about countless who have died so you can spout off about you hating your own damned country! if you hate it, move! i'm sure we won't miss you!

Again, this is sinking pretty low on your part. Who here said that they hate America or said anything about.

And what a totally unamerican attitude you have, telling people to move just because they don't agree with YOUR view of america.

or is it the religion that gets you? cause that i agree... not everyone is christian... but if you don't want to say it, then don't! Amendment Numero Uno shall protect you!

If you paid any attention to the case at all, you'd know that it wasn't about what any private citizen says or doesn't say. So this is completely irrelevant.

If you want to complain about something, try understanding what it is you are even complaining about before you start.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

ummmmmm..... m'kay.... i guess we all hate america's ideas.... and we obviously don't care about countless who have died so you can spout off about you hating your own damned country! if you hate it, move! i'm sure we won't miss you!

or is it the religion that gets you? cause that i agree... not everyone is christian... but if you don't want to say it, then don't! Amendment Numero Uno shall protect you!

Eugh. I was going to refute that, but Apos already did a spot-on job. You know those 'countless who died' likely didn't give up their lives just for the power to make kids of all religions hail the christian god, right?

Your mentioning of them in this argument puts a bit of triviality on their respective plights.


Here in Canada, we were made to sing the national anthem before elementary school assemblies. I never sung along, not because I was unpatriotic, but because I didn't want to.

I agree that making children pledge allegience to christianity at a young age does have somewhat sinister overtones. All pledges and so on should be optional, or else the pledge is meaningless.
I'd like to also note that it's likely the many of the same people that are making children pledge allegiance to god are also those who object to violent video games 'warping' impressionable young kids.

I guess most christian parents aren't concerned with 'brainwashing', so long as it turns their kids christian. Other religions, obviously, have right to be dismayed.

I'm reminded of the simpsons episode where church and state were given restraining orders, never to come within 500 yards of eachother.

 

[Moto]

Oh, but it was okay for Christians to change it first so as to make it more exclusionary?

Yeah, well...wasn't that how it was originally written?

I don't think the "Under God" was added in later. The whole country shouldn't have to do what one guy wants. Honestly, I don't care. I'm not hypocritical. If the whole world wants it that way, fine. It won't matter to me. If they took it out, I could still say it. If they didn't, then the atheists could choose not to say the pledge at all. That's the beauty of the USA.

 

[burnzie]

well I'd be pissed if say I was Hindu and I had to swear allegiance to a christian god

He has a point...

 

[Moto]

He has a point...

No, he doesn't. If you are Hindu and you don't want to pledge allegience to a Christian God, then don't... it's your choice. Nobody has to say the pledge. Again, that's the beauty of living in America.

 

[Apos]

I don't think the "Under God" was added in later.

It was added in the 50s. Most of the older generation probably even remembers when it was changed.

The whole country shouldn't have to do what one guy wants.

The "whole country" isn't being asked to do anything. The government is being asked not to overstep it's bounds. That's the whole reason we have a constitution: to protect people's rights.

If they didn't, then the atheists could choose not to say the pledge at all. That's the beauty of the USA.

The beauty of the USA is in its founding principles and core idea of liberty, which "under God" steps all over. Atheists shouldn't be faced with the choice of not being able to participate in society or to lie. Nobody would stand for having that sort of choice forced on anyone else (say, if the pledge said "one nation, under Satan), but apparently, as long as it's minorities that it's being forced on, they don't give a toss.

 

[burnzie]

No, he doesn't. If you are Hindu and you don't want to pledge allegience to a Christian God, then don't... it's your choice. Nobody has to say the pledge. Again, that's the beauty of living in America.

i didnt realize that was the case...

 

[Apos]

No, he doesn't. If you are Hindu and you don't want to pledge allegience to a Christian God, then don't... it's your choice. Nobody has to say the pledge. Again, that's the beauty of living in America.

If nobody has to say the pledge: i.e. if it is exclusionary, then why have it be a part of the government at all? Why is the government in the business of creating national rituals that only special people can participate in? If people want to say religious pledges, nobody is stopping them.

The only reason you don't care is that you don't care about saying the pledge. But some people do. Some people are in the armed forces. They just want to serve their country. And for that, they are rewarded with being forced to choose between not fully and proudly participating in important ceremonies, or violating their beliefs or lack of beliefs. What, other than pure meanspiritedness, is the point of doing that to people? How can that be fit in with any sense of decency?

 

[Rico]

Apos you seem to think Christianity is some kind of disease that we are trying to spread. What makes you think people just added stuff to the consitution to spite people? Clearly it's a very dumb thing to do without reason unless you have support from the voters, otherwise it spells out doom for your career in politics.

Also I think you took my commandments comment out of context, what I mean is that natural and civil laws in America are very very closely related to the commandments. Lets look at it closely:

- Do not Kill
- Do not Steal
- Do not covet your neighbors wife
- You will not bear false witness to your neighbor (no lying under trial, many other things).

These are the main rules by which most decent human beings abide, these are the rules set by our society as a standard to be maintained by law. While the commandments may not be the only thing that influenced the justice system today you cannot deny that they influenced what was a mainly christian society.

Tell me Apos, do you have anything against Christianity?

To remove every single thing religious about America would be to completely change the nation, perhaps for the worst, as would making everything overtly religious would.

You need to strike a balance to achieve harmony.

PS: You also seem to forget that most of the procedures used in congress and the political system are just a matter of tradition. So whether you choose to aknowledge it or not, these things have been going on since the very beginning... Behold a direct quote from the declaration of U.S independence that proves that the belief in a single creator has been there all along:

"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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

[Bad^Hat]

I remember in high school saying the lord's prayer in assembly every day and all the brethren and stuff waited outside, then afterwards they were kind of ushered in. They got picked on for it a bit.

I honestly don't see why they have to do it in school. America seems to have many tired traditions that have absolutely no point.

 

[Apos]

Apos you seem to think Christianity is some kind of disease that we are trying to spread.

Did I say this, or anything like this? Why do you start out by accusing me of such nonsense? I happen to have a academic interest in history. I've written extensively onth importance of the Great Awakening (a religious movement) and the Reformation, on the course of American and European society, respectively. I don't object to Christianity's place in American heritage or history. I just don't happen to appreciate the "Christian Nation" movement's attempts to revise history all in order to help them win political battles in the present and undermine the SoCaS.

What makes you think people just added stuff to the consitution to spite people?

??? Nothing was added to the constitution (if it had, the SC couldn't rule against it). It was added by normal Congressional legislation.

Clearly it's a very dumb thing to do without reason unless you have support from the voters, otherwise it spells out doom for your career in politics.

I'm sure it was very popular: it was done at the height of the McCarthy hysteria, so no one could have objected without being labeled a traitor, probably being blacklisted, fired, and even sent to jail. Regardless, the bill of rights exists precisely for the purpose of preventing the majority from imposing its coercive will on the minority. It doesn't matter if it was popular at some point in history. If it's a violation of SoCaS, it has to go.

Also I think you took my commandments comment out of context, what I mean is that natural and civil laws in America are very very closely related to the commandments.

oh? Then why did Jefferson conclude otherwise? Where in the commandments does it describe an adversarial system, or endorse the classical liberal, anti-Platonic idea of truth. The common law was developed not to appeal to the lofty ideals of Christianity, but to resolve disputes among merchants in their very mundane and non-religious business. This is what our legal system is primarily built on, by the way.

- Do not Kill
- Do not Steal
- Do not covet your neighbors wife
- You will not bear false witness to your neighbor (no lying under trial, many other things).

You honestly think that any of these ideas are in any way unique or particular to the 10C? Most of the ones you list (apparently selecting the ones you think have the best case of finding refferents in our law) were all basic ideas in virtually every civilization that has EVER existed, before and after the 10C were listed. And regardless, these aren't the "main rules" of law. Legal codes have no "main rules" they simply have long statues covering all sorts of offenses. Where in the 10C does it lay out the idea that there are different degrees of murder, or that intent is the key to culpability in murder, but not necessarily in manslaughter? Do you really think people sat down with the 10C and said "now, how can we make this into law..."? These codes developed out of the needs of society and the courts to enforce civic order (something governments have been doing since recorded history began), not out of a theologians musings.

Furthermore, plenty of the commandments AREN'T enshrined in our laws, and in fact are explicitly REJECTED by our system of government. People CANNOT be jailed for making or praying to idols, or worshiping or not worshipping god, or working on the sabbath. There are few if any laws against adultery anymore. You can't go to jail for not appropriately honoring thy parents. So, what exactly is your point here? If anyone set out to enshrine the commandments into our law as the cornerstone document, you have to admit: they did a really awful job of it.

The commandments weren't meant as a basis for a civil law (indeed, even in the Bible, that comes later in the text), they are a basis for understanding morality in Jewish society.

And regardless, which version of the commandments do you mean? The first set, or the second set? The Protestant division, or the Catholic division? The usual so called "10 Commandments" aren't even called that in Bible (if you want to be litteraly, there are quite obviously more than 10 separate commandments even in the first stone tablet): ANOTHER set of commandments is called that (more obscure ones, like "all the firstborn are mine"). And among Judiasm, Protestants, and Catholics, all break them up differently: i.e. they count a different ten.

While the commandments may not be the only thing that influenced the justice system today you cannot deny that they influenced what was a mainly christian society.

Of course they did. However, the current hysteria about the commandments would have seemed a little odd to someone living in Madison's day. That the commandments have become a political symbol is something that is a modern concern, and that you focus so strongly on it pretty well shows that you are not thinking in terms of history, but are merely getting excited by the issues that people are propagandizing about today.

Tell me Apos, do you have anything against Christianity?

Nope, not in particular anymore than I have anything against the sport of football (though there are plenty of jerk football fans, the sport is too general and too diverse to have anything against it in particular). But I love how, when people try to mangle history and I object, this is what I get accused of. It's like asking "Rico, do you kill and eat human babies?" Such an innocent sounding question that conceals so many nasty implications.

 

[Apos]

To remove every single thing religious about America would be to completely change the nation, perhaps for the worst, as would making everything overtly religious would.

This is a giant straw man: you keep missing this point, again and again. No one is proposing to remove "every single thing religious about America." The whole POINT of the American system is that the government is not America. The government is a civil authority given limited power so it can serve the people, and regulated by politics. It's limited precisely so that civil society: individual liberty, can thrive. There are plenty of good reasons why the government shouldn't meddle with religious matters. But the most important is simply that it has absolutely no reason to. Religion is, as the founding fathers thought, best left to the responsibility of the people and their consciences. Keeping the government out of the religion business wouldn't HURT religion. In fact it would, as the founders believed, HELP religion, because religion functions best when out of the corrupting reach of politics. Removing "under God" from the pledge wouldn't wipe away religion in America. If anything, it would serve to help it. What good does a rote, banal phrase do for religion except demean it? Why would kids want a government approved recognition of god when they are already free to recognize any god they want, in any way they want?

If you miss everything else, don't miss this point: Religion has thrived in America, where church and state are separated and try not to jump on each other's turf. It has withered in many of the other western democracies, some of which have state religions (like the Brits), and others of which have adversarial relationships between government and religion (like the French). Yet, the American model has done pretty darn well for religion.

So, ask me again if what I want is to do away with all religion. Try to keep a straight face when you ask it. Because half my point is that it's DEPRESSING to see Americans clamoring for the government to play a role in religious controversies, to play favorites in acknowledging this or that religious view. You know what really makes me sad? All the people who declared that if the "under god" part of the pledge was overturned, that they would go out and say the pledge in protest. This is just painfully stupid. Not only because the case wouldn't have affected anyone's right to say the pledge any way they want, but more importantly, that these people seem to think that they need government leadership to be religious or patriotic: that if they government doesn't tell them what to do and when to do it, it's a REBELLION if they do it themselves. That's a really sad comment on people's total misunderstanding of their freedoms, and of their near slavish worship of the government bossing them around.

I can't think of anything more unamerican than that.

Behold a direct quote from the declaration of U.S independence that proves that the belief in a single creator has been there all along:

First of all, the Declaration of Independance is not the law. The Constitution is. The Declaration has a lot of historical significance, but it isn't what sums up the principles that founded the nation we currently live in.

Second of all, I'm getting the feeling that you don't really know much about Jefferson and his Deism, of what this "Creator" idea meant to him and people of his day. Almost everyone back then believed that there must have been an intelligent creator to have created the world. But in the case of diests, they didn't believe much more than that. They certainly didn't think that this creator had any concern for human affairs. What they believed was that the Creator made the world and man such that man could use his reason to discern right and wrong and solve all sorts of problems himself. This doesn't in any sense found those truths on a belief in the creator or any appeals to religious belief. It founds them on the use of reason to discern.

What you really need to do is read up on the liberal enlightenment. It was the major philosophical force behind the ideas of the founders. The Bible was certainly important to some of their personal lives, but they didn't ultimately look to the Bible to think about the founding of the country, because the whole point of this new form of government would be that it wouldn't pretend to have any sort of religious authority or approval from god, the way other governments do. Intead, it would be created based on the use of reason. It was meant to be a crude, utterly political and human affair, not to claim lofty aspirations to be something inspired by the rule of anyone's god.

Please, read things like the Federalist Papers, which lay out the actual reasoning behind our system of government and so forth. You are not going to find a lot of references to tenets of Christian belief. What you are going to find is a lot of shrewd reasoning about how men's interests can be played against each other in order to check the dominance of one group over another.

 

[Direwolf]

OK...
A)Apos, untighten the scews. This isn't exactly the hottest pressing issue, and coming down hard on every other poster is getting irritating.
B)Rico has somewhat of a point, admist a bunch of problems that you've pointed out. Lets assume that the founding fathers had nothing to do with religion their whole lives and were superhuman intellectuals that had never been influenced by religion (speaking hypotheticly here). They were still extraordinarily good planners, and were well aware that the majority of the country were of the Christian faiths. I wouldn't doubt that this had some effect upon their thinking when drafting the Constitution, even if all it did was keep them from adopting anything expressly counter to the Christian way of life. No matter what, even if indirectly, religion had some small effect upon the rise of the nation. I don't contest that it had less to do here than in almost any other country ever, because its a fact I'm proud of.
PS - Rico also pointed out exactly which commandments he was talking about. Its likely that they match the law system simply because they are basic tenants of human morality (or at least in most western cultures), rather than because they made it into the Bible.

 

[Apos]

Apos, untighten the scews. This isn't exactly the hottest pressing issue, and coming down hard on every other poster is getting irritating.

Man, what's that: too much discussion on a discussion board? I said myself that I don't think it's an important issue. But it's what we're discussing at the moment, so why not discuss it. If you'd prefer not to discuss anything, go read my info thread, where no discussion is allowed.

Rico has somewhat of a point, admist a bunch of problems that you've pointed out. Lets assume that the founding fathers had nothing to do with religion their whole lives and were superhuman intellectuals that had never been influenced by religion (speaking hypotheticly here).

You're attacking a straw man. I've never maintained that Christianity played no role or wasn't part of the context. I've just asserted that to say that the principles and laws from which the country was founded on are in some way essentially Christian is just flatly ahistorical. Anyone that knows anything about the founders, their internal debates, and their philosophies, knows that they were debating the concept of secular politics, not religion. And their main influences were the thinkers of the European enlightenment: a movement known precisely for turning the focus away from authority-driven subjects like religion to using human reason alone to figure things out. That was the framework they were working from. To them, Christianity was just one of the many dimensions to the many factions they were trying to balance out: not an inherent feature necessary to their arguments.

Now, of course Christianity played a role: it was part of the cultural context of the times, and many of the signers from the various states were Christians. If you read De Touqville and other great thinkers who wrote about American society, you will find a lot of insightful ideas about how Christianity played its part in making that society what it was, and why it was important to have that sort of culture to make democracy work. Of course, even here, you can't talk about "Christianity" because there is no central "Christianity": it was the particular beliefs of particular sects at particular times, such as the Unitarian belief that man should be free to worship as he chooses (which no doubt played a role in Jefferson's convictions).

But slavery, for instance, played a much bigger role than anyone's Christian beliefs: it was what created the need for a bicameral legislature, the 3/5ths rule, and so on. It was the main issue driving the discussions.

What you have to understand is that being Christian doesn't transform everything you do into an extension of Christianity. People didn't come to the Constitutional convention looking to argue theology, they came to fight for political power and make sure their investments wouldn't be hurt, and so on. That's sort of the neat thing about the U.S.' founding. The government was a slapdash and pretty much secular affair not because anyone hated religion, but because it rarely came up: people didn't think of this new government rising to the level where it needed to concern itself with anyone's religion. They had more material interests that concerned them at present. If the signers had to agree on religious principles, they wouldn't have been able to agree on them anyway. Some people DID in fact, want to add religious affirmations to the document. These suggestions were rejected, most famously by Washington.

I wouldn't doubt that this had some effect upon their thinking when drafting the Constitution, even if all it did was keep them from adopting anything expressly counter to the Christian way of life.

First of all, there was no coherent single "Christian way of life" in America at that time, or now. Did Jefferson live in the "Christian way of life"? He took scissors to the Bible!

Second of all, the constitution didn't concern itself with barring this or that way of life not because of Christianity, but because it was not it's purpose to get that specific. The states were the ones that would go on to make specific laws. The constitution created the larger framework of laws and, later, rights, that were to rein in those state laws.

Indeed, if you want to look for influences of Christianity, you would do much better to look at the various state governments at the time, some of which were deliberately and publically Christian. Of course, this didn't go for all states, and it dwindled as ime went on until it finally pretty much died with the incorporation doctrine after the Civil War.

PS - Rico also pointed out exactly which commandments he was talking about. Its likely that they match the law system simply because they are basic tenants of human morality (or at least in most western cultures), rather than because they made it into the Bible.

Which makes his point about the 10C being the foundation of american law moot. It's pretty obvious that they were not, not because I say so, but because nobody ever discussed them in the drafting of the Constitution, and because we get our legal system originally from a system originally designed to enforce merchant contracts and which evolved from there, not the 10C. Again, if someone really ever sat down and wanted to make the 10C the basis for American law, they failed. They flatly contradicted most of the commandments right out.

 

[thehunter1320]

mmmmmm.... well, aren't I the little bastard... i probably should've read the entire thread... but the posts were so long! i didn't know what to do... ;(

sorry

 

[Sprafa]

half of my county's pop. doesn't knows the national anthem, and no one ever did a pledge.....

 

[Direwolf]

Man, what's that: too much discussion on a discussion board? I said myself that I don't think it's an important issue. But it's what we're discussing at the moment, so why not discuss it. If you'd prefer not to discuss anything, go read my info thread, where no discussion is allowed.

You've been throwing out the equivilant of an intellectual body slam every time anyone says anything recently. Thats not exactly encouraging for anyone wanting to post.

You're attacking a straw man. I've never maintained that Christianity played no role or wasn't part of the context.

I was making a hypothetical point. It has nothing to do with what you've said so far, and wasn't an attack upon anyones viewpoint or comments. I was just using it for context of my argument.

Now, of course Christianity played a role: it was part of the cultural context of the times, and many of the signers from the various states were Christians. If you read De Touqville and other great thinkers who wrote about American society, you will find a lot of insightful ideas about how Christianity played its part in making that society what it was, and why it was important to have that sort of culture to make democracy work.

This has been my point all along, and I actually had a lot of Tocqueville's ideas in mind as I've been writing. Religion is a part of every society, and has some effect upon all of it, no matter how small. By the same coin its also not responsible or the basis for everything, which is fortunate.

First of all, there was no coherent single "Christian way of life" in America at that time, or now. Did Jefferson live in the "Christian way of life"? He took scissors to the Bible!

You're totally right here. Theres never any set path for members of a religion to follow, but there re some basic tenents. There aren't many opportunities for the Constitution to interfere with these since they're so basic, but the writers were certainly conscious of them and their part in American society, even if they didn't think highly of them (as in Jefferson's case).

 

[A2597]

Yea, Excellent news the case was dismissed. Shows there are still SOME true Americans out there...

 

[crabcakes66]

Yea, Excellent news the case was dismissed. Shows there are still SOME true Americans out there...

Define a TRUE American........ :|


I think it shows how bass ackwards our country really is, and that some of us like to pretend we are better and more righteous than anyone else.


I thought TRUE america was supposed to be about everyone.

 

[CptStern]

anybody else but me hear Ned Flanders voice when ever somebody talks about chrisitianity?

interesting read none the less

 

[Pauly]

The guy just wanted attention u know

 

[Direwolf]

If this is still the same case thats been in the courts for the last few years, then I love the fact that the guy is suing over his daughter who doesn't even care.

 

[Apos]

There aren't many opportunities for the Constitution to interfere with these since they're so basic, but the writers were certainly conscious of them and their part in American society, even if they didn't think highly of them (as in Jefferson's case).

Jefferson rejected the mythical elements of Christianity, but he liked the morality. But remember: to him, that was because he felt it was in accord with what reason told him, not the other way around.

This has been my point all along, and I actually had a lot of Tocqueville's ideas in mind as I've been writing. Religion is a part of every society, and has some effect upon all of it, no matter how small. By the same coin its also not responsible or the basis for everything, which is fortunate.

Then why are you bringing it up here if it was all just a hypothetical with no relation to anything anyone was maintaining?