Now you are claiming the Constitution is "intentionally absent of religious dogma". For the moment, let's forget you completely contradicted yourself and are now in total agreement with me for the moment. You are correct that the framers never intended to create a theocracy!
Now for you let's return to your obvious contradiction. You want the Constitution to be secular when it's convenient for your assertions. However, you characterize the Constitution as non-secular when it's convenient for a different assertion. The obvious conclusion to draw from your penchant to say one thing here and the opposite thing there is that you don't know what the **** you're talking about! Piss off now and have a nice Day!
I didn't contradict anything. The Constitution is not Secular or Theocratic.
You are arguing that the Constitution is "Secular" and I am opposing that argument.
The lack of theocratic dogma doesn't mean it's secular.
Secular is the absence of anything related to spiritual or religious beliefs. The Constitution is rooted in and based upon a spiritual and religious concept of individual freedom endowed by our Maker. What part of this are you failing to grasp?
You're trying to argue the lack of theocratic dogma within the Constitution proves it's secular and that's not true. It's not supposed to be chock-full of theocratic dogma, we weren't establishing a theocracy and a theocracy is impossible to ever have no matter how much Christians or any other religion would like to do so. But it's still not secular... it's still rooted in a non-secular concept of individual liberty endowed by a Creator and inalienable by man.
You wrote this!
Secular is the absence of anything related to spiritual or religious beliefs. The Constitution is rooted in and based upon a spiritual and religious concept of individual freedom endowed by our Maker. What part of this are you failing to grasp?
And you wrote this?
The Constitution is certainly NOT secular by design. It is intentionally absent of religious dogma because it's not intended to establish a theocracy.
Any reasonable person would spot the conflict between those two passages in one(1) reading! You just want to have it both ways, but really don't want anyone to mention the inconvenient truth that both statements cannot be true, create a conflict, are not in accord!
You stated unequivocally that the Constitution is "absent" of any religious dogma. The Constitution being absent of a religious "
principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true", there is no other conclusion to be had other than the US Constitution is a secular document by definition. It can't be neither or both!
~~
dogma: definition of dogma in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US) ~~
Given your first statement is false and your second statement is true it is obvious to any normal person that the two are in conflict. Further, your admission that the Constitution lacks ANY religious dogma substantiates the proposition that the Constitution is secular in nature because it certainly isn't non-secular by your own acknowledgement.
Certain passages in the DOI may reflect a non-secular bias, but that does not contaminate the Constitution with a religious taint simply because the DOI predated it!! That would be akin to an atheist hearing a hymn as he passed a church on the sidewalk and declaring he was no longer free of all religious dogma! A foolish and stupid, stupid proposition!
Do you have a ******* clue what theocratic means, shit for brains? Look it up, fool! It sure as hell is not what you think it means in your post! Damn you are thick!
The Constitution being absent of a religious "principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true", there is no other conclusion to be had other than the US Constitution is a secular document by definition.
The Constitution isn't "absent" this-- it's
based upon it. That's the part you don't seem to be getting. The Constitution would not exist if not for "the truths we hold to be self-evident..."
Certain passages in the DOI may reflect a non-secular bias, but that does not contaminate the Constitution with a religious taint simply because the DOI predated it!
No, the opening preamble states this as a self-evident truth... not a "reflection of bias." It is the centerpiece of our founding intent. It doesn't matter that it predates the Constitution... it's SUPPOSED to predate it! When else would you have the founding basis for the country the Constitution applies to? AFTER it? This isn't some kind of evolution where the DOI was some sort of makeshift document to get us by until the Constitution and now we can just disregard it. It establishes the foundation for our country, what we're about, why we're doing this and later, the Constitution will apply to it.
I don't know what you mean by "contaminate with religious taint" here. I've already said the Constitution isn't chock-full of religious dogma... it's not supposed to be... we weren't establishing a Christian theocracy.
You stated unequivocally that the Constitution is "absent" of any religious dogma.
And I've asked you repeatedly, why would anyone expect it to unless we were forming a theocracy? The absence of religious dogma inside the Constitution
doesn't make it secular. Again.. secular means the absence of any religious/spiritual basis. The foundation and basis on which the Constitution exists is very clearly non-secular. So we cannot state the Constitution is secular.
Now you can say that the Constitution is written without deference to any particular religion. But again, what is a document that articulates religious freedom supposed to contain? It;'s intentionally written this way but that doesn't make it secular. To be secular, it would have to NOT be based on the premise of individual liberty endowed by our Creator. You cannot MAKE that be the case just because you think it should be or want it to be. Sorry... it doesn't work that way.
The Constitution being absent of a religious "principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true", there is no other conclusion to be had other than the US Constitution is a secular document by definition.
The Constitution isn't "absent" this-- it's based upon it. That's the part you don't seem to be getting. The Constitution would not exist if not for "the truths we hold to be self-evident..."
You bloody fool! you are the one who wrote the Constitution was absent religious dogma here;
The Constitution is certainly NOT secular by design. It is intentionally absent of religious dogma because it's not intended to establish a theocracy. You are interpreting that as being secular but secular is the absence of religious or spiritual basis, and that's not the Constitution. It's basis is very much spiritual/religious... that all men are created equal and endowed inalienable rights by a Creator.
Now you claim it isn't. Just another example of you trying to have it both ways and writing what is convenient at the moment. Move the goal posts much you dumb ****?
Certain passages in the DOI may reflect a non-secular bias, but that does not contaminate the Constitution with a religious taint simply because the DOI predated it!
No, the opening preamble states this as a self-evident truth... not a "reflection of bias." It is the centerpiece of our founding intent. It doesn't matter that it predates the Constitution... it's SUPPOSED to predate it! When else would you have the founding basis for the country the Constitution applies to? AFTER it? This isn't some kind of evolution where the DOI was some sort of makeshift document to get us by until the Constitution and now we can just disregard it. It establishes the foundation for our country, what we're about, why we're doing this and later, the Constitution will apply to it.
The opening paragraph of the DOI states;
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Shit on ******* toast, you don't even know the construction of the DOI! It was a document dealing with the question of separation and sundering a political relationship rather than unification and combining politically! Where the Hell do you get these outlandish notions of fancy? Further, the passages of the second paragraph of the DOI certainly DO present a religious bias and certainly can't be considered secular in nature as shown here;
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
What sprang from that? The
Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union later known as the Articles of Confederation were created in 1777. However, to claim the DOI founded anything at all it a
gross exaggeration of the facts and false on its face. The DOI simply created a
political vacuum as a natural reaction relating to its purpose of severing its political ties with England and King George III. The DOI created a need for self governance among other important aspects not related to governance alone, dimwit. The DOI, in and of itself did not create a government, it created the
NECESSITY for a government.
Therein lies the genesis of your abject ignorance of the action and reaction of those times and those necessities! Creating the need for a new government is NOT creating the BASIS OF the new government to come later, fool.
You stated unequivocally that the Constitution is "absent" of any religious dogma.
And I've asked you repeatedly, why would anyone expect it to unless we were forming a theocracy? The absence of religious dogma inside the Constitution doesn't make it secular. Again.. secular means the absence of any religious/spiritual basis. The foundation and basis on which the Constitution exists is very clearly non-secular. So we cannot state the Constitution is secular.
Now you can say that the Constitution is written without deference to any particular religion. But again, what is a document that articulates religious freedom supposed to contain? It;'s intentionally written this way but that doesn't make it secular. To be secular, it would have to NOT be based on the premise of individual liberty endowed by our Creator. You cannot MAKE that be the case just because you think it should be or want it to be. Sorry... it doesn't work that way.
Your self-admission that the Constitution is absent any religious dogma is proof that we agree on that point! If there was evidence of such dogma, that would be proof positive that the Constitution were non-secular. You also assert that the Constitution is non-secular by claiming the mere existence DOI makes it so. Your unfounded assertion that the DOI was the
basis of the Constitution and therefore non-secular in nature is notwithstanding.
One can easily claim the Constitution is secular in nature because it is based on
MORAL principles, which are the very basis of religiosity. Religiosity itself is based on those same
MORAL principles. For that matter, the DOI is based on those same MORAL principles. Given the facts that religiosity, the DOI and the Constitution all have their foundational basis in
MORAL principles and ONLY the DOI has religious dogma that is merely referenced as a
MORAL JUSTIFICATION for action to rebel against a despotic ruler, there is no proof or evidence that the DOI, in and of itself, as you asserted, formed a non-secular basis for the Constitution.
I've already shown above the that the DOI created the
NECESSITY for a new government. That new government was tried in 1777 with the Articles of Confederation, which were found to be unworkable because that union was permitted to allow faction, avarice and petty jealousy to exist from its inception without any checks on a States' form of governance one to another. That created the
NECESSITY to change that form and type of union to another. In other words, chump:
Secular Constitution
≠ Non-Secular Constitution
&
Political Necessity
≠ Non-Secular Constitution
&
Political Necessity
= Constitution Necessity
∴
Political Necessity
= Secular Constitution
Q.E.D.
Just my two cents. There are a lot fewer actual "liberals" than you think there are. I think a lot of what YOU would label "liberal policy" is just common sense. The big money guys squeal like pigs and use every trick in the book like broad brushing policy that will dent their bank heists as "liberal". Then someone like you just parrots the bird calls.
