What makes belief in a constitution any different than one's faith in any religion?

[Braznor]

Come to think of it.

Both, either a constitution of a country or a religious book defines acceptable set of behaviours by the followers of either.

When religious people believe in religion and religious guidelines, it makes them act accordingly to the rules of their religion.

When non religious people believe in a constitution and its guidelines, they too are convinced they are doing the right thing.

The highest form of similarity between these two forms of belief is that either kind of believers always desire compliance.

A religious person will always desire his compatriots compliance between their holy books and leadership behavior.

A secular person will again always desire compliance between the governmental personnel and the written constitution of their land defining the behaviour of various personnel of their country's government.

Both these forms of belief are always in pursuit of an 'ideal' behaviour in terms of that which will please the participants always. In this sense I guess God is that concept which enables the maximum happiness and freedom in our lives.

Both the constitution or religious compliance is almost the same and both are dependant on the faith of our fellow humans behaviour.

When one believes in a religious text, one thinks that that society should behave in accordance to the rules of their holy books.

When one believes in a constitution of a country, one thinks that citizens of that society should behave in accordance to the rules of that constitution.

So in essence either religion or the constitution are factors to be believed and followed according to one's sense of ethics.

So what makes belief in a secular constitution any different from a believer of a religious text?

Is it simply the principle of fairness and logic?

I'm posting this question here because I do not want to get attacked by trolls eager to prove Hindu terrorism.

Again what makes any belief in a constitution (a mere ancient paper of evaluating conduct and behavior) any different from the beliefs of any religion (again an ancient book of laws regulating conduct and behaviour)

 

[irishScott]

You're asking how faith in one thing is different from faith in another. Which is like asking how a road trip to California is different from a road trip to Florida using the same car.

Faith is faith, but the object of one's faith can imply one's ethical beliefs. Faith in a Constitution implies a belief in humanity and human goodness. Faith in a religion implies belief in a divine entity and divine goodness.

A Constitution is also a document that is completely man-made, and is typically derived and ratified through consensus. The people it governs agree to be governed by it. Religion typically teaches that it's superior and in charge whether a person, or people, believe in it or not.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't understand how "believing in the Constitution" is even an act of faith. Irish says above that it means having faith in the goodness of man, but that isn't true at all. The Constitution is a body of law. The premise of any body of law is that we do NOT have faith in human nature. That's why the law has teeth or it wouldn't be the law.

Belief in a religion requires belief in things for which there is no evidence, i.e. supernatural things. You don't need to believe in anything supernatural to support the Constitution. You might believe that the ethical underpinnings of the Constitution spring from either a deity (i.e. "inalienable rights") or else from secular humanism, something more akin the golden rule. Doesn't really matter because no set of specific beliefs is required. It is only required that the law be followed.

 

[Braznor]

You're asking how faith in one thing is different from faith in another. Which is like asking how a road trip to California is different from a road trip to Florida using the same car.

Faith is faith, but the object of one's faith can imply one's ethical beliefs. Faith in a Constitution implies a belief in humanity and human goodness. Faith in a religion implies belief in a divine entity and divine goodness.

A Constitution is also a document that is completely man-made, and is typically derived and ratified through consensus. The people it governs agree to be governed by it. Religion typically teaches that it's superior and in charge whether a person, or people, believe in it or not.

Again faith in a constitution is belief in the fairness of laws and justice.

Person A can believe in the fairness of a particular set of laws than Person B.

The only thing separating a secular constitution is one's trust in its logic and therefore its fairness.

Now again it is not all that much different from religion.

A person of a particular religion too can believe in a set of behaviors of his own faith and he can wish their imposition of them over other people thus amalgamating them into his general sense of fairness and due process of law.

 

[Braznor]

I don't understand how "believing in the Constitution" is even an act of faith. Irish says above that it means having faith in the goodness of man, but that isn't true at all. The Constitution is a body of law. The premise of any body of law is that we do NOT have faith in human nature. That's why the law has teeth or it wouldn't be the law.

Again the same is true of religion. Religious people do not have much faith in their own compatriots, but only faith in their fairness and justice of their own God.

Belief in a religion requires belief in things for which there is no evidence, i.e. supernatural things. You don't need to believe in anything supernatural to support the Constitution. You might believe that the ethical underpinnings of the Constitution spring from either a deity (i.e. "inalienable rights") or else from secular humanism, something more akin the golden rule. Doesn't really matter because no set of specific beliefs is required. It is only required that the law be followed.

[/QUOTE]

By the current state of this world of ours, we can again claim there is no true ethical base sense of behaviour. All of us are humans and therefore selfish. So is it true that base human behavior is selfless or selfish?

Is a secular constitution any sort of guarantee of such selfless behavior or only a guard against the violators of the same?

Really I'm just interested in a good debate on these concepts. People who want to attack me personally can take it to the PMs.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't understand how "believing in the Constitution" is even an act of faith. Irish says above that it means having faith in the goodness of man, but that isn't true at all. The Constitution is a body of law. The premise of any body of law is that we do NOT have faith in human nature. That's why the law has teeth or it wouldn't be the law.

Belief in a religion requires belief in things for which there is no evidence, i.e. supernatural things. You don't need to believe in anything supernatural to support the Constitution. You might believe that the ethical underpinnings of the Constitution spring from either a deity (i.e. "inalienable rights") or else from secular humanism, something more akin the golden rule. Doesn't really matter because no set of specific beliefs is required. It is only required that the law be followed.

If I understand him correctly, the Bible (or any other Holy Book) is in part, a body of laws (such as the Ten commandments)

You can indeed have faith that a document, such as the constitution, can and will be able to address changing needs and withstand scrutiny.

The thing is, faith is predicated on the "unseen" (such as God, and the future of our system of Governance) not tangible proof, contrary to the atheistic, fantastical, wrong-headed definition of "faith".

 

[woolfe9998]

If I understand him correctly, the Bible (or any other Holy Book) is in part, a body of laws (such as the Ten commandments)

You can indeed have faith that a document, such as the constitution, can and will be able to address changing needs and withstand scrutiny.

The thing is, faith is predicated on the "unseen" (such as God, and the future of our system of Governance) not tangible proof, contrary to the atheistic, fantastical, wrong-headed definition of "faith".

No, I agree with your definition of faith, which is exactly why it doesn't apply to the Constitution in the way you describe. One need not have faith in "the unseen" or anything without tangible proof to support the Constitution. It requires no faith to believe that a body of laws can work. Humans have had laws since time immemorial, and they work, to varying degrees.

Insofar as the Bible being a body of laws, sure, it could work as a body of law. But that isn't the part of the bible that requires faith. It's belief in the supernatural claims which requires faith.

 

[woolfe9998]

Again the same is true of religion. Religious people do not have much faith in their own compatriots, but only faith in their fairness and justice of their own God.

Where is the equivalent in having "faith in the fairness and justice of their own God" in people who support the Constitution? What does supporting the Constitution require us to have faith in?

By the current state of this world of ours, we can again claim there is no true ethical base sense of behaviour. All of us are humans and therefore selfish. So is it true that base human behavior is selfless or selfish?

From an evolutionary standpoint, both are probably true. Selfish instinct is well documented and so requires little further discussion. However, the selfless part is called "altruism" in evolutionary biology. It doesn't make us inherently good. It just means that in addition to selfish instincts, we may also have selfless instincts. But that is evidence based science, not religion.

Is a secular constitution any sort of guarantee of such selfless behavior or only a guard against the violators of the same?

It's a guard, not a guaranty of anything. If anyone thinks it is a guaranty, I suppose that would equate to faith. However, I'm not aware that anyone views it that way.

Really I'm just interested in a good debate on these concepts. People who want to attack me personally can take it to the PMs.

I hope you didn't perceive any personal attacks in my reply because there weren't any.

 

[sandorski]

No, I agree with your definition of faith, which is exactly why it doesn't apply to the Constitution in the way you describe. One need not have faith in "the unseen" or anything without tangible proof to support the Constitution. It requires no faith to believe that a body of laws can work. Humans have had laws since time immemorial, and they work, to varying degrees.

Insofar as the Bible being a body of laws, sure, it could work as a body of law. But that isn't the part of the bible that requires faith. It's belief in the supernatural claims which requires faith.

This.

A Constitution is written by Humans and everyone knows it. It can be changed by other Humans as needed.

A Holy book is written by, allegedly, some greater than human being who, often, will **** you up if you disobey. This often causes Believers to commit criminal acts against other Humans, because some higher being requires something or such and all means necessary to accomplish that is justified.

There's a huge difference between the 2. Attempts of equivocation are ridiculous. The biggest difference is that we can Know who wrote a Constitution, we can never, despite unprovable claims to the contrary, Know the alleged author of a Holy book.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, I agree with your definition of faith, which is exactly why it doesn't apply to the Constitution in the way you describe. One need not have faith in "the unseen" or anything without tangible proof to support the Constitution. It requires no faith to believe that a body of laws can work. Humans have had laws since time immemorial, and they work, to varying degrees.

Well, where "faith" comes in as far as the Constitution is concerned is when it deals with the future, which is "unseen". When we make laws, we really have no way of knowing that they'll hold up under any and ever circumstance, hence, why we 'amend' laws to apply them to "unseen" situations.

Actually, because of our limited perspective, all we really have is faith....faith that our laws will hold up, faith that we will be able to deter said act the law is designed to protect against, etc.

The sooner you accept this, the better.

 

[Perknose]

When man can amend the infallible word of God, OP, we'll talk.

When Hell hosts an appeals court, likewise.

When there are checks and balances to the Deity's power, ditto.

The Constitution is a living document, subject to change. The ten commandments are literally (if you believe the story) fossilized in stone.

 

[sm625]

When man can amend the infallible word of God, OP, we'll talk.

lol if the word of god were so infallible then we wouldnt have millions of idiot morons killing each other over their varying interpretations of the word of god.

 

[Retro Rob]

lol if the word of god were so infallible then we wouldnt have millions of idiot morons killing each other over their varying interpretations of the word of god.

Nice way to blatantly contradict yourself and defeat your own point. You actually admitted that the INTERPRETATIONS are the reason why "millions of idiot morons" kill each other... not the word of God itself.

A little forethought before trying to make a clever remark would have done you well. 🙄

 

[poofyhairguy]

Again what makes any belief in a constitution (a mere ancient paper of evaluating conduct and behavior) any different from the beliefs of any religion (again an ancient book of laws regulating conduct and behaviour)

Because our forefathers didn't base the constitution on the power of paper and faith. That is what makes our system so awesome- they setup a system of checks and balances so that no matter what the paper says the system should stay on the rails.

Honestly what the constitution says doesn't really matter at this point. So much hard coded stuff (such as about copyright or states rights) has been completely ignored over time, and the Proper clause has been abused to justify anything. Honestly our current constitution is a combination of different Supreme Court opinions. The originally document is the barebones that we use when it suites us and we don't use when it doesn't.

That is a FAR cry from religious faiths that state that their ENTIRE document is "the word of God" and therefore should be taken at face value. If Christianity (for example) was run like the USA than "The Purpose Driven Life" would be considered a higher authority than the Bible.

 

[sandorski]

Nice way to blatantly contradict yourself and defeat your own point. You actually admitted that the INTERPRETATIONS are the reason why "millions of idiot morons" kill each other... not the word of God itself.

A little forethought before trying to make a clever remark would have done you well. 🙄

He didn't contradict himself. The "word of god" is just too vague to avoid the inevitable.

 

[Retro Rob]

He didn't contradict himself. The "word of god" is just too vague to avoid the inevitable.

Ahh, here comes the apologist...right on time.

He said nothing about vagueness...he specifically spoke about the "infallibility", and the "various interpretations".

See, he was clear and you're interpreting his post, which was clear.

You've demonstrated why its the interpretation, and not his post itself.

Thanks for making my point.

 

[irishScott]

I don't understand how "believing in the Constitution" is even an act of faith. Irish says above that it means having faith in the goodness of man, but that isn't true at all. The Constitution is a body of law. The premise of any body of law is that we do NOT have faith in human nature. That's why the law has teeth or it wouldn't be the law.

Belief in a religion requires belief in things for which there is no evidence, i.e. supernatural things. You don't need to believe in anything supernatural to support the Constitution. You might believe that the ethical underpinnings of the Constitution spring from either a deity (i.e. "inalienable rights") or else from secular humanism, something more akin the golden rule. Doesn't really matter because no set of specific beliefs is required. It is only required that the law be followed.

And who designed the law? People. If you don't faith in the judgement of people, how can you have faith in the law? How can you have faith that our system is just, or even effective? How can you know good from bad if you don't have faith in your own judgement, which is the judgement of a "person"?

The law is an enforced code of behavior defined by society, nothing more. If a large enough segment of society did not have faith in it for whatever reason, then it would not be the law.

I don't get how you assert that the law means we have no faith in human nature, when it was humans, complete with human nature, that designed the law based on little more than their beliefs of what was right and just.

 

[Retro Rob]

And who designed the law? People. If you don't faith in the judgement of people, how can you have faith in the law? How can you have faith that our system is just, or even effective? How can you know good from bad if you don't have faith in your own judgement, which is the judgement of a "person"?

The law is an enforced code of behavior defined by society, nothing more. If a large enough segment of society did not have faith in it for whatever reason, then it would not be the law.

I don't get how you assert that the law means we have no faith in human nature, when it was humans, complete with human nature, that designed the law based on little more than their beliefs of what was right and just.

You're correct, but just because it involves the word "faith", you won't get any agreement from him.

All jokes aside, why do you non-believers go through all these mental and logical gymnastics in a useless attempt to distance yourselves from words like "faith" and "belief"?

I mean, its really quite silly seeing the effort and irrational explanations put forth to defend yourselves against it.

Faith is simply a part of being human. You cannot avoid it.

What is it you fear?

 

[smackababy]

All jokes aside, why do you non-believers go through all these mental and logical gymnastics in a useless attempt to distance yourselves from words like "faith" and "belief"?

I would say most non-believers separate faith and belief. Faith is based on a lack of evidence, while belief is provable. I can prove gravity exists. While I can't prove why it is there, I can easily believe in gravity because it is demonstrable. However, it is rather hard to demonstrate a God exists (or doesn't exist), so it is easy to believe the absence of evidence is enough to prove the absence of existence for most people.

Faith is believing in the absence of proof; knowing it is true regardless of not being able to demonstrate any evidence towards the matter.

The constitution differs mainly from religious texts in that it is a living document. We can (and have) amend it to fit a better view of what we view it SHOULD stand for. That was the beauty of how it was set up. We can't go and change any of the 10 commandments, no matter how outdated some might eventually become. We can't rewrite the Bible, nor can we add an amendment to rectify a part that is unjust. That is why we can't base our government around it. The constitution can be changed to better server the people, the Bible (or any other religious text) cannot.

 

[soulcougher73]

Nice way to blatantly contradict yourself and defeat your own point. You actually admitted that the INTERPRETATIONS are the reason why "millions of idiot morons" kill each other... not the word of God itself.

A little forethought before trying to make a clever remark would have done you well. 🙄

I don't think you are able to grasp or understand what he was saying. He is correct in what he wrote, but if you can't think outside the box.. Well...

A little forethought before trying to make a clever remark would have done you well.

 

[Retro Rob]

I would say most non-believers separate faith and belief. Faith is based on a lack of evidence, while belief is provable. I can prove gravity exists. While I can't prove why it is there, I can easily believe in gravity because it is demonstrable. However, it is rather hard to demonstrate a God exists (or doesn't exist), so it is easy to believe the absence of evidence is enough to prove the absence of existence for most people.

So if I faith in my wife, that she'll remain totally faithful to me (which I do), I'm basing that on what? Lack of evidence?

Do you see my point? No, I cannot foresee that she will stay faithful, but I have faith in her, and I also believe she loves me.

Faith is believing in the absence of proof; knowing it is true regardless of not being able to demonstrate any evidence towards the matter.

This is a demonstrably false statement.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't think you are able to grasp or understand what he was saying. He is correct in what he wrote, but if you can't think outside the box.. Well...

A little forethought before trying to make a clever remark would have done you well.

Explain.

 

[soulcougher73]

What is it you fear?

I don't fear anything, which is why I don't need to make up something to believe in to cull my fear.

We either know something or we don't. I don't fear the unknown.

 

[alzan]

Actually, because of our limited perspective, all we really have is faith....faith that our laws will hold up, faith that we will be able to deter said act the law is designed to protect against, etc.

The sooner you accept this, the better.

and

You're correct, but just because it involves the word "faith", you won't get any agreement from him.

All jokes aside, why do you non-believers go through all these mental and logical gymnastics in a useless attempt to distance yourselves from words like "faith" and "belief"?

I mean, its really quite silly seeing the effort and irrational explanations put forth to defend yourselves against it.

Faith is simply a part of being human. You cannot avoid it.

What is it you fear?

Practicing your sermon for the unwashed masses again, Rob? Why all this comparison of apples to oranges? Can you not accept that a document that sets up how our government works is vastly different than various ancient scripts cobbled together into a holy book that dictates how a believer is to treat themselves and other people?

 

[Retro Rob]

and



Practicing your sermon for the unwashed masses again, Rob? Why all this comparison of apples to oranges? Can you not accept that a document that sets up how our government works is vastly different than various ancient scripts cobbled together into a holy book that dictates how a believer is to treat themselves and other people?

LOL -- my intentions aren't to compare the Bible and Constitution, which I don't think I was doing. My bad if I was.

However, faith is faith, secularists just have a different type...faith in the principles of science and technology, coupled with human nature.

What makes it a "faith" is the simple fact we're entrusting our unforeseeable future in the hands of lawmakers, politicians, science, technology, and our ability to "amend" the Constitution, etc.

So while no, religious people and non-believers do not posses the same type of faith, but we all have some variation of it.