Traditional Values Defined

[LuvRPgrl]

Please understand that I'm not - by any means - calling the Declaration irrelevant to this discussion, LuvRPgrl; it is anything but that. It was the impetus of the Constitution; it is who our founders were.

What I AM saying, though, is that it is not necessary to cite the Declaration as proof that the Constitution is, in fact, the brass-tacks implementation of an enlightened Christian worldview - particularly as regards the matter of temporal government. The Constitution's own singularity in all of human history is ample proof of that - all by itself.

Its a two pronged attactk! You continue to handle that end, as you are currently doing quite well, and I will continue to hammer from my end.

Funny how MissleM wants to blame Christians for govt that were corrupt, but doesnt want to give one iota of credit to the one that isnt.

His agenda comes first, then he makes reality fit in.

Fact is, there is a ton more evidence that the US is a Christian dominated and guided govt than those of Europe that he refers to. Those countries were run by Kings, ours is run by a Constitution, written by Christians, who carefully state in many, many documents, that the Constitution is in fact inspired and given to us by God.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried. There very easily could have been a declaration of war without a DoI. And at the conclusion of the war, a government would have been established.

The DoI and COTUS are two separate and unrelated documents, each capable of standing on their own. There isn't a single reference to the other in either.

You are talking about what "could have happened", but sorry to inform you, it didnt happen that way.

You didnt adress my vehicle contract.

You didnt address the FACT that the WAY IT DID HAPPEN is that the Dec. of Ind GAVE the Constitution its authority. If you ever read law, it ALWAYS starts with how, when and why those claiming the authority to write, interpet and enforce such laws, get that authority.

Try again. Stick to the two issues. Mine are reality, now, real, yours is a "coulda, shoulda, woulda"

 

[LuvRPgrl]

It wasn't oppression by individual Christians, but by the Christian establishment. You seem reluctant to admit that persecution was a part of the doctrine of the time, as was coercion.

And I'm sure you are going to disagree, but IMO, freedom of religion IS a secular ideal. And, here's the basis for that statement. There is a certainty of "right" that comes with faith. Even among the different denominations of Christianity, there is disagreement about the "how's, why's, right's, wrong's", etc. Given the power to do so, any religion would seek to impose it's sense of "right" on everyone, if for no other reason than to save everyone from themselves. A religion-run government would most assuredly become as tyrannical as a government-run religion. That is why our secular government, with clear boundaries separating church and state has endured.

You cant cite a Christian establishment without including Christians. Do you think that Christian establishment was run by Muslims?????

This is typical blind thinking by liberal proponents

You are wrong about your reasoning. Show in the NEW TESTAMENT, where Jesus said "go impose these beliefs on others"\

Every secular organization disagrees on the "how's, why's, right's and wrong's" also. Bad example.

You think our country has had clear boundries of seperating Chruch and State?
how about the individual states, colonies and commonwealths having STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS? How is that a seperation? Please respond and stay on topic.

The doctrine you speak of wasnt Christian, but man's hiding behind Christianity. Now, if you care, since you made the accusation, cite a specific doctrine. Then the Biblical basis for it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

OMG So much bullshit.

First amendment has nothing to do with separation between church and state?

I guess you must know more about the issue than THOMAS JEFFERSON, who coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," in 1802, or James Madison (father of the Bill of Rights) who said “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.”

Yeah, I guess you must know more than both of them

Not only did you get their intentions wrong, but you're also 100% legally wrong.

The supremacy clause dictates that no state or local law can ever trump the constitution, therefore all STATES are BANNED from establishing a religion.

But hey, you keep making shit up. Maybe nobody else will notice.

Yea, you notice they are talking about a wall with the FEDERAL GOVT? Thats what I said EXACTLY. If there is suppose to be a "wall" for all levels of govt. then why did individual states have STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS?

The ONLY explanation is that the writers didnt want a complete seperation, but they wanted a seperation between the FEDS and the Church. Thats why they followed it with, and the freedom to exercise religion.

IT was and is a states vs. feds arguement. Show me where Im wrong. If you cant, then you are wrong. You can cite Jefferson and whoever all you want, it doesnt prove what I said wrong.

EXPLAIN STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS that existed by the same people who wrote and signed the first amendment.
EXPLAIN STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS that existed by the same people who wrote and signed the first amendment.

EXPLAIN STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS that existed by the same people who wrote and signed the first amendment.

EXPLAIN STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS that existed by the same people who wrote and signed the first amendment.

EXPLAIN STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS that existed by the same people who wrote and signed the first amendment.

EXPLAIN STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS that existed by the same people who wrote and signed the first amendment.

EXPLAIN STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS that existed by the same people who wrote and signed the first amendment.

EXPLAIN STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS that existed by the same people who wrote and signed the first amendment.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You brought up Newton. Do you know that he had to hide his religious beliefs because they were not acceptable to surrounding Christian society? At the time, hair-splitting between Trinitarians and others was heresy.

Newton's religious situation is just another reason to support a complete separation of church and state, and even to wonder whether so-called "Christian" colleges make sense at all.

I do agree with you that Newton was likely the smartest person in history. I've always considered the calculus to be mankind's most beautiful invention. So why did an overly conformist Christian society force him to hide his religious beliefs?

You also mentioned da Vinci. An interesting person to bring in a "traditional values" thread, since he is believed to have been gay.

Both da Vinci and Newton would have been far better off--and more productive--in a secular humanist society than a Christian-dominant one.

Mariner.

Wrong on all points.

AT THAT TIME, they would have been no better off in a secular govt.

It could be argued that the govts were secular hiding under the guise of Christianity. Jesus attacked the scribes and pharisees, and declared they wouldnt enter the kingdom of Heaven. The reason is that organized religion, when it becomes too big, (i.e. Catholic church), it becomes distorted and serves man instead of God after some time.

The same thing happened in Europe.

You claim they would have been doing better under a secular govt, but why? Was there a secular govt at the time more advanced than the religious ones, or so called religous ones?

Do you know one reason God gave the Jews the laws he did? Because the secular, or polytheistic govts/cultures at that time practiced barbaric practices.

Religion has civilized many parts of the world.

If you want to be honest, you cant compare modern day govts to govts from the "dark ages"

Unless you have proof Davinci was gay, it shouldnt be included in the discussion. Its nice for thought, but not for substantiating ones posisition unless their is verifiable evidence

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The 14th Amendment was what made it so States could not legally establish a religion, or make laws in violation of Federal Rights.

And yet the current liberal justices cite the first amendment when imposing their "seperation" concept. The justification is supported by the "living and breathing" document (COTUS) concept. The living and breathing concept makes the COTUS worth nothing more than the paper it is written on.

I have long held we are no longer under the COTUS, and unless we rescind many laws, and go back to original intent and strict reading, AND include an amendment preventing the judiciary from such a power grab again, we will continue to be a country of laws, but the basis of those laws stem from the judiciary, NOT THE COTUS.

The justices hide behind the cotus not any less than religious leaders of old Europe hid behind the Bible and Jesus.

Washington
Jefferson
God
Jesus

they all scoff at them.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

religions, e.g. the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, and Mao, might have been "secular," but by definition they were not "humanist."

Yes, we had a more secular humanist society before Bush became president than after. We had a more secular humanist society before we added "under God" to our coins and to the pledge of allegiance than after.

I have absolutely nothing against religion, per se. I do have a problem with defining "traditional values" based on one particular religion or with making one religion more primary in some way than others. I also have a problem with excessive religious involvement in government. For example, I am strongly against a variety of things most Republicans support in this regard, e.g. using public vouchers for religious schooling, providing government funding for 'faith-based' aid organizations, school prayer, or faith-based abstinence-only sex education rather than science-based real, effective sex education. I also oppose the Bush policy of withholding funding from international agencies that teach sex ed or provide contraception. These are all real-world problems where I believe Bush's fundamentalist Christianity would be better replaced by a secular humanist philosophy.

Secular humanism can be thought of as pro-religion, not anti. It promotes everyone being able to practice his/her religion equally and comfortably--it just keeps it out of the schools, government buildings, and government policies.

Mariner.

Your last paragraph is the usual liberal Orwelllian double talk clap trap.

It can be thought of that way, but not by any honest thinking person.

Fact is, if you have a problem with religion being in all those things, then you should recognize that the federal govt doesnt even have the authority to be involved in those things anyways. Please show me in the Constitution where it specifically says that the FEDERAL govt should be taxing and using those taxes for public education. It doesnt exist.

If you want to cite some vaguery, like "general welfare" DONT BOTHER. ITS BULLSHIT. You could use that term to mean anything. ANYTHING.

The COTUS also says any powers not given to the federal govt in that document, is reserved to the states.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

There is no "Christian doctrine" as such - there is only the Word of God. Admittedly, man's ability to understand God's principles - and apply them to temporal governance - took a while to evolve, even after the Reformation. It did, though, and the happy result was the U.S. Constitution.



I do disagree. In the first place, religion is the means by which we attempt to understand the transcendant - that which exists outside ourselves. By that definition, secularism - particularly as practiced by the modern-day American Left - is most assuredly a religion. In the second place, this modern-day, self-worshipping socialist wolf in sheep's clothing is the most brutally intolerant worldview in history. Trust me, MM - there's no room for dissent in the Brave New World. There'll be no freedom of religion if secularists have their way.



I believe you are wrong, sir - and I offer America as proof. A Christian theocracy could not exist; it is a contradiction in terms. By violating Christianity's bedrock principle of man's free agency, it would cease to be Christian. By respecting it, it would cease to be a theocracy.



I believe that you are right. At the precise moment the U.S. Constitution became the law of the United Christian States of America, it would cease to be grounded in Christian principle.



Man's understanding of Christian principle in temporal governance was slow in coming, but I think our founders managed nicely. No other worldview in history has regarded government so severely - as a necessary evil, and a potentially dangerous enemy - to be kept on a short, jealously-guarded leash. This is a uniquely Christian mindset, grounded in the Biblical certainty of man's essentially corrupt nature. Contrast this with the utopian pipe-dream of socialism: man as somehow "perfectible"; a workers' paradise here on earth. It can't be. Man isn't built for it.

The clear boundaries you speak of recognize government - the creation of corruptible man - as the enemy. They protect freedom of worship from the state - period.

excellent point. The religous nature of the writers of the Constitution, and the signers, lent them to try to limit govt.

The secularist, atheistic states of communism trys to increase it.

 

[Abbey Normal]

You brought up Newton. Do you know that he had to hide his religious beliefs because they were not acceptable to surrounding Christian society? At the time, hair-splitting between Trinitarians and others was heresy.

Newton's religious situation is just another reason to support a complete separation of church and state, and even to wonder whether so-called "Christian" colleges make sense at all.

I do agree with you that Newton was likely the smartest person in history. I've always considered the calculus to be mankind's most beautiful invention. So why did an overly conformist Christian society force him to hide his religious beliefs?

The only problem Newton had with the religion of the day was his belief that there could be only one true God, and therefore the doctrine of the Holy Trinity wasn't acceptable to him. Besides that, he was in all respects a very strong bible-believing Christian man, and for you to try to frame him as anything less is disingenuous and deliberately misleading.

 

[MissileMan]

You are talking about what "could have happened", but sorry to inform you, it didnt happen that way.

You didnt adress my vehicle contract.

You didnt address the FACT that the WAY IT DID HAPPEN is that the Dec. of Ind GAVE the Constitution its authority. If you ever read law, it ALWAYS starts with how, when and why those claiming the authority to write, interpet and enforce such laws, get that authority.

Try again. Stick to the two issues. Mine are reality, now, real, yours is a "coulda, shoulda, woulda"

The reality is that there is no reference to the COTUS in the DoI, nor a reference to the DoI in the COTUS. The preamble to the Constitution doesn't say, "By the authority of the DoI, We the people..."

Our government isn't based on the DoI, it's based on the COTUS. You want to drag the DoI into the conversation because it makes reference to a creator where the COTUS does not. You can't stomach the fact that the COTUS, while written by Christians, is secular in nature, establishing a separation of church and state.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The reality is that there is no reference to the COTUS in the DoI, nor a reference to the DoI in the COTUS. The preamble to the Constitution doesn't say, "By the authority of the DoI, We the people..."

Our government isn't based on the DoI, it's based on the COTUS. You want to drag the DoI into the conversation because it makes reference to a creator where the COTUS does not. You can't stomach the fact that the COTUS, while written by Christians, is secular in nature, establishing a separation of church and state.

Here's how it goes: The EXISTENCE of our country is based upon the DOI. Our laws and structure are based upon the COTUS. Any questions?

 

[MissileMan]

Here's how it goes: The EXISTENCE of our country is based upon the DOI. Our laws and structure are based upon the COTUS. Any questions?

Yeah, do you suppose LuvRPgrl has a clue as to what secular means?

 

[musicman]

Once again, I need to express my gratitude to the USMB, for the invaluable service it provides me - to wit: the lively conversations I enjoy here compel me to - occasionally - get off my ass and find answers to the questions that trouble me.

One such question is this: How did our federal government make the convenient leap (for enemies of religion, states rights, and limited central government, that is) whereby the establishment clause of Amendment I somehow magically applies to the states as well as Congress? Does this not confound constitutional design by inserting the federal government in the matter of religion, where it is expressly forbidden to go?

The answer, as I suspected, is that this "leap" has no basis whatever in the U.S. Constitution; it is - like so many other travesties visited upon the citizenry by an elitist, agenda-driven judiciary - the result of a horribly flawed interpretation of Amendment XIV - the weapon of choice for self-appointed, unelected, and unaccountable social engineers. Here's a piece from the link:

"The best evidence of the nation's founders intent, regarding religion, is the law itself, which gave the states unlimited power to freely establish religion, and the states did, up until 1833, with Massachusetts the last one to follow Jefferson's lead and eliminate the practice, more on practical grounds than ideological, in contending with various differing religions.

The war between the States, just 30 years later, resulted in new amendments to the Constitution, granting former slaves the right of citizenship and freedoms that go with it. The resulting Fourteenth Amendment would 80 years later be used for stripping the states of their long held and exclusive constitutional power regarding religion, and giving Washington complete domination over the states, a power expressly denied by the Constitution.

The case was Everson v. Board of Education, and the year was 1947. It involved a rather mundane matter of the use of public transportation for private religious schools. No earthshaking decision was made; the Court found in favor of the practice; but the seed had been placed that would soon begin stripping religion from the public landscape, with a legal precedent which applied the prohibition on Congress from establishing religion directly to the States, so that a state 'shall not make any law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'.

The vehicle was the old civil rights law; the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Court surely had no idea that they had made a grave error in law. The amendment had carefully preserved the separation of powers between Washington and the States, yet provided a guarantee that the laws of a state will be applied equally and equitably, in two important clauses applicable to the states called due process and equal protection; but the Court, in one fell of the pen, turned this important balance of powers on it's head."

http://www.liberty-ca.org/articles/a_history_of_modern_religious_pr.htm

The supremacy clause of XIV no more prohibits the establishment of religion by states than the establishment clause of I magically makes "Congress" and "the states" mean the same thing. It's all judicial smoke and mirrors. Religion is - by constitutional design - the exclusive purview of the states, and absolutely none of the federal government's business.

Do you wonder why the elitist left grows more hysterical with each election cycle? Conservatives, promising to rein in the runaway federal judiciary, are winning elections hand over fist. This is the sound of ordinary Americans taking their country back, and liberal tyrants don't like it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The reality is that there is no reference to the COTUS in the DoI, nor a reference to the DoI in the COTUS. The preamble to the Constitution doesn't say, "By the authority of the DoI, We the people..."

Our government isn't based on the DoI, it's based on the COTUS. You want to drag the DoI into the conversation because it makes reference to a creator where the COTUS does not. You can't stomach the fact that the COTUS, while written by Christians, is secular in nature, establishing a separation of church and state.

You are being intentionally obtuse. The white dot on the black paper is all you can see.

You fail to answer many questions. One is, if the so called seperation clause in the first amendment prevented ANY laws that would create a state established religion, then why did the SAME GUYS WHO WROTE AND SIGNED THE CONSTITUTION, MAKE LAWS ESTABLISHING RELIGIONS IN THEIR VARIOUS STATES???????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Max Power]

Yea, you notice they are talking about a wall with the FEDERAL GOVT? Thats what I said EXACTLY. If there is suppose to be a "wall" for all levels of govt. then why did individual states have STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS?

The ONLY explanation is that the writers didnt want a complete seperation, but they wanted a seperation between the FEDS and the Church. Thats why they followed it with, and the freedom to exercise religion.

IT was and is a states vs. feds arguement. Show me where Im wrong. If you cant, then you are wrong. You can cite Jefferson and whoever all you want, it doesnt prove what I said wrong.

I already proved you wrong, but apparently you weren't paying attention, so I'll do it again.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution
The Supremacy Clause
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 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

So, you see, all states are restricted from establishing a religion by the establishment clause of the Constitution.

http://www.answers.com/topic/supremacy-clause

 

[Max Power]

Once again, I need to express my gratitude to the USMB, for the invaluable service it provides me - to wit: the lively conversations I enjoy here compel me to - occasionally - get off my ass and find answers to the questions that trouble me.

One such question is this: How did our federal government make the convenient leap (for enemies of religion, states rights, and limited central government, that is) whereby the establishment clause of Amendment I somehow magically applies to the states as well as Congress? Does this not confound constitutional design by inserting the federal government in the matter of religion, where it is expressly forbidden to go?

The answer, as I suspected, is that this "leap" has no basis whatever in the U.S. Constitution

Umm, no, it's specifically spelled out in the constitution that state law can never trump the Constitution. The states cannot establish religion any more than they can limit free speech.

Did you REALLY think that states can limit free speech at any time, and only the fed can't?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Umm, no, it's specifically spelled out in the constitution that state law can never trump the Constitution. The states cannot establish religion any more than they can limit free speech.

Did you REALLY think that states can limit free speech at any time, and only the fed can't?

You continue to ignore my question. If the 1st Amendment doesnt allow States to establish religion, then why did the same men who wrote and signed the amendment also make laws within their States establishing religions?

I guess you know more of what they intended than they did

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I already proved you wrong, but apparently you weren't paying attention, so I'll do it again.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution
The Supremacy Clause
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 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

So, you see, all states are restricted from establishing a religion by the establishment clause of the Constitution.

http://www.answers.com/topic/supremacy-clause

You didnt answer the question, if the 1st Amendment prohibits the States from establishing state religions, then why did the guys who wrote and signed it also make state religions?

Its obvious they didnt read the document the same way you do. But again, I guess you know more than they did what they meant.

 

[musicman]

Umm, no, it's specifically spelled out in the constitution that state law can never trump the Constitution. The states cannot establish religion any more than they can limit free speech.

Please do me the courtesy of actually reading my posts before you respond.

Did you REALLY think that states can limit free speech at any time, and only the fed can't?

Is this your sly attempt at constructing a straw man? It's really hard to tell; you've brought the intelligence level of this discussion down so far - so fast - that I think my ears just popped.

 

[Mariner]

AbbeyNormal,

I agree that Newton was probably important enough that if he had come out with his heretical thinking he probably wouldn't have been burned at the stake. On the other hand, we shouldn't forget the long history of religions persecuting scientific heretics, which to me is one of the best reasons to support a secular government.

In support of this view, here's the intro paragraph from a paper in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1999:

"Isaac Newton, Heretic: the strategies of a Nicodemite
STEPHEN D. SNOBELEN
...
Isaac Newton was a heretic. But like Nicodemus, the secret disciple of Jesus, he never made a public declaration of his private faith – which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs.
"...His one-time follower William Whiston attributed his policy of silence to simple, human fear and there must be some truth in this. Every day as a public figure (Lucasian Professor, Warden – then Master – of the Mint, President of the Royal Society) and as the figurehead of British natural philosophy, Newton must have felt the tension of outwardly conforming to the Anglican Church, while inwardly denying much of its faith and practice. He was restricted by heresy laws, religious tests and the formidable opposition of public opinion. "

http://www.isaac-newton.org/

Mariner