And endowed by their "CREATOR"
Now if you don't beleive in a Creator where are you in the Declaration?
Now if you don't beleive in a Creator where are you in the Declaration?
all laws of the US must meet constitutionality. hence all laws are just subsets or descriptions of that which is found in the constitution. any law that is deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL is stricken from the law books.
What bush is proposing here and what is at issue here however IS a constitutional amendment so, i'm not sure what your point is.
hey, i do believe in a creator. I am a christian, devout, i'm a deacon at a local congregation. i attend church every weekend. i donate a significant portion of my income to my church and DESPITE all that, i still have to disagree with a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment that BANS homosexuals from marrying. from a civil union.
i know that true marriage in the christian sense can ONLY be ordained by god, so IF god finds homosexuals union OFFENSIVE in his eyes he WON'T ordain it and guess what, as far as i'm concerned that's HIS prerogative and he doesn't need my input one way or the other.
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: conjur
So's mine!
hmmm, then we must all have your parents as our creators, as the language clearly indicated ALL men were created by the same creator.
Whoops, kind of forgot about this thread. For the record though, the mention of Creator in the DoI has nothing to do whatsoever with the Christian god. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. In a nutshell, deists believe that God created humanity and then retreated to let it "run its course". That wasn't included in there to justify any kind of Christian assertion that our nation should be built upon Christian precepts--it was to give a source for natural law. I mean, if that was the intention of the founding fathers, don't you think they would have tried to be a little more clear? Perhaps something like "for a listing of laws to be upheld in our new union, please open your bibles and refer to the following verses".
The absence of any kind of religious dogma in our foundational documents speaks volumes about the founding fathers' intention to keep the two fully separated.
l2c
The absence of any kind of religious dogma in our foundational documents speaks volumes about the founding fathers' intention to keep the two fully separated.
l2c
"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson
"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." --Thomas Jefferson
"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson
"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." --Thomas Jefferson
"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
uhhh, since i have a masters in theology, i'd say i'm rather well read on theology.
Master's in theology... but cheated on all of your tests.
Originally posted by: Brassman
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
uhhh, since i have a masters in theology, i'd say i'm rather well read on theology.
Master's in theology... but cheated on all of your tests.
oh that was soo clever.
most grad work, particularly in the humanities, writing skills (as in masters thesis etc) count for a lot more than tests.
oh and when you are doing a thesis defense cheating really isn't an option.
A general reply to those who don't understand the anger from the "anti-religion" crowd:
You may feel that you have to fight against the tide of secularism in your personal life if you are a devout Christian. You may feel that the "secularists" are demoralizing and undermining the foundations of humanity, and that we are just lost lambs that cannot for whatever reason, accept the light and love of God in our lives.
That's all fine and well, and if some choose to pity us, and some choose to hate us, (us meaning non-religious people) that they may do. In this country, however, they may not choose to force us to accept the Christian or other theistic framework of laws and morality. Christians may not legislate their opinions about abortion and marriage etc.. into the laws that govern this country. Past laws that have been found to have no basis other than in Christian theology have been subsequently overturned. We are moving beyond the place where a monotheistic view from our lawmakers can pass muster with the populace. Unfortnately, many of our elected representatives choose to align themselves with the Christian majority rather than form their own opinions about things, but one can expect such behavior from politicians. I believe the real issue here is whether or not religious morailty should be imposed upon the US, not so much whether it will be this time around or not.
The point is that I just don't agree with y'all (religious folks). Many people don't need or want the teaching and rules of the Bible to be the framework of their lives. We don't believe because it doesn't make sense to us to accept one set of rules to explain a virtually infinite amount of variation. I don't "believe" because my mind isn't comfortable with settling for an "answer" to life's questions. Is there anything that you can answer just one way all the time? Almost every single complex issue has more than one answer or possibility, or there is a counterexample to the theory, or it's a theory not an answer etc.. Math has answers, but hey we made it up to explain things in terms we could understand! Maybe we did the same thing with the Bible.
Things may fall on the Christian side this time around (consitutional amendment issue), but wow, does it mean something that there is even public debate about an issue that 10 yrs ago was pretty much under the table taboo.
You may feel that you have to fight against the tide of secularism in your personal life if you are a devout Christian. You may feel that the "secularists" are demoralizing and undermining the foundations of humanity, and that we are just lost lambs that cannot for whatever reason, accept the light and love of God in our lives.
That's all fine and well, and if some choose to pity us, and some choose to hate us, (us meaning non-religious people) that they may do. In this country, however, they may not choose to force us to accept the Christian or other theistic framework of laws and morality. Christians may not legislate their opinions about abortion and marriage etc.. into the laws that govern this country. Past laws that have been found to have no basis other than in Christian theology have been subsequently overturned. We are moving beyond the place where a monotheistic view from our lawmakers can pass muster with the populace. Unfortnately, many of our elected representatives choose to align themselves with the Christian majority rather than form their own opinions about things, but one can expect such behavior from politicians. I believe the real issue here is whether or not religious morailty should be imposed upon the US, not so much whether it will be this time around or not.
The point is that I just don't agree with y'all (religious folks). Many people don't need or want the teaching and rules of the Bible to be the framework of their lives. We don't believe because it doesn't make sense to us to accept one set of rules to explain a virtually infinite amount of variation. I don't "believe" because my mind isn't comfortable with settling for an "answer" to life's questions. Is there anything that you can answer just one way all the time? Almost every single complex issue has more than one answer or possibility, or there is a counterexample to the theory, or it's a theory not an answer etc.. Math has answers, but hey we made it up to explain things in terms we could understand! Maybe we did the same thing with the Bible.
Things may fall on the Christian side this time around (consitutional amendment issue), but wow, does it mean something that there is even public debate about an issue that 10 yrs ago was pretty much under the table taboo.
and (sorry for the long posts) here is some rationale for my feelings about religion. May it help to clarify the feelings of some of the anti-relgion peeps, for those that don't get where we're coming from.
My general feelings about religion can be summed up with the following quote from the Tao te Ching:
"The more you know, the less you understand"
What do I think that means? The more things in ones life that one puts aside as "solved" and does not examine, the less they are truly understanding about their world. The more rigid one becomes, the less they are able to understand new things. Fundamentalist Christianity (or any fundamentalist religion) is a rigid, fragile structure that cannot withstand the onslaught of "newness" that the world is throwing at it. So, it rebels by trying to force everything back "where it belongs" so that it can continue to function.
Here's an analogy just for fun: Trying to force everyone to run Win 95 and it's relavant generation of applicaitions because anything else is "evil". Some people run multiple OS's.. Some people need to use an app that Win 95 can't support.. but too bad for them because that app is against the framework of what is right and good. We'll let some things slip through from time to time, but in general, everyone should be running Win 95. Some people run Win XP, or Win 2000, but they are just variations from the real "true" OS. The linux people are good at computer stuff and they can put their systems with ours, but they really aren't the "right" answer to computing. They are sorta like us tho, so we'll let them be.. try and convert them maybe or something, but there are a lot of them, and they're kinda crazy. Then, there are those freak balls that use Macs.. wow, they are nutjobs.. the whole group of them make me cringe with their icons for everything and no DOS underneath. They freak me out man.. We should make that whole thing illegal.. it's just not right. Keep it where we can understand it. And for the sake of M$, don't let them put their gross Mac's in my PC network. Their filesystems aren't as good as ours are, they have weird processors, and pretty interfaces. They aren't real computers. Their mice have only one button.. gah, that is so sick. Mice were meant to have two buttons everyone knows that. Two buttons minimum! One button mice aren't natural..
ok ok I'll stop (and no, Mac users aren't gay so don't even start)
My general feelings about religion can be summed up with the following quote from the Tao te Ching:
"The more you know, the less you understand"
What do I think that means? The more things in ones life that one puts aside as "solved" and does not examine, the less they are truly understanding about their world. The more rigid one becomes, the less they are able to understand new things. Fundamentalist Christianity (or any fundamentalist religion) is a rigid, fragile structure that cannot withstand the onslaught of "newness" that the world is throwing at it. So, it rebels by trying to force everything back "where it belongs" so that it can continue to function.
Here's an analogy just for fun: Trying to force everyone to run Win 95 and it's relavant generation of applicaitions because anything else is "evil". Some people run multiple OS's.. Some people need to use an app that Win 95 can't support.. but too bad for them because that app is against the framework of what is right and good. We'll let some things slip through from time to time, but in general, everyone should be running Win 95. Some people run Win XP, or Win 2000, but they are just variations from the real "true" OS. The linux people are good at computer stuff and they can put their systems with ours, but they really aren't the "right" answer to computing. They are sorta like us tho, so we'll let them be.. try and convert them maybe or something, but there are a lot of them, and they're kinda crazy. Then, there are those freak balls that use Macs.. wow, they are nutjobs.. the whole group of them make me cringe with their icons for everything and no DOS underneath. They freak me out man.. We should make that whole thing illegal.. it's just not right. Keep it where we can understand it. And for the sake of M$, don't let them put their gross Mac's in my PC network. Their filesystems aren't as good as ours are, they have weird processors, and pretty interfaces. They aren't real computers. Their mice have only one button.. gah, that is so sick. Mice were meant to have two buttons everyone knows that. Two buttons minimum! One button mice aren't natural..
ok ok I'll stop (and no, Mac users aren't gay so don't even start)
Originally posted by: AEnigmaWI
and (sorry for the long posts) here is some rationale for my feelings about religion. May it help to clarify the feelings of some of the anti-relgion peeps, for those that don't get where we're coming from.
My general feelings about religion can be summed up with the following quote from the Tao te Ching:
"The more you know, the less you understand"
What do I think that means? The more things in ones life that one puts aside as "solved" and does not examine, the less they are truly understanding about their world. The more rigid one becomes, the less they are able to understand new things. Fundamentalist Christianity (or any fundamentalist religion) is a rigid, fragile structure that cannot withstand the onslaught of "newness" that the world is throwing at it. So, it rebels by trying to force everything back "where it belongs" so that it can continue to function.
Here's an analogy just for fun: Trying to force everyone to run Win 95 and it's relavant generation of applicaitions because anything else is "evil". Some people run multiple OS's.. Some people need to use an app that Win 95 can't support.. but too bad for them because that app is against the framework of what is right and good. We'll let some things slip through from time to time, but in general, everyone should be running Win 95. Some people run Win XP, or Win 2000, but they are just variations from the real "true" OS. The linux people are good at computer stuff and they can put their systems with ours, but they really aren't the "right" answer to computing. They are sorta like us tho, so we'll let them be.. try and convert them maybe or something, but there are a lot of them, and they're kinda crazy. Then, there are those freak balls that use Macs.. wow, they are nutjobs.. the whole group of them make me cringe with their icons for everything and no DOS underneath. They freak me out man.. We should make that whole thing illegal.. it's just not right. Keep it where we can understand it. And for the sake of M$, don't let them put their gross Mac's in my PC network. Their filesystems aren't as good as ours are, they have weird processors, and pretty interfaces. They aren't real computers. Their mice have only one button.. gah, that is so sick. Mice were meant to have two buttons everyone knows that. Two buttons minimum! One button mice aren't natural..
ok ok I'll stop (and no, Mac users aren't gay so don't even start)
Oh yes that just clarified everything.... very rational.
You don't understand Christianity then. There has been a whole lot of "newness" since Jesus has died and resurrected, and it has survived very well despite all those changes.
Since we like to toss around quotes here's one for you and I'll even make it religiousque:
Have a clue about what you speak, so that you may speak intelligently.
I'm sorry but you are yet again wrong. You must follow the law of the land or lose your freedoms. The law of the land is based from English Common Law, the traditional unwritten law of England. When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066 he combined the best of the Anglo Saxon Law with Norman law to derive English Common Law.
Here is a quote form Norman Law as it was written:
"First that above all things he wishes one God to be revered throughout his whole realm, one faith in Christ to be kept ever inviolate, and peace and security to be preserved between English and Norman's"
The Charter of Liberties 1100 AD:
1. Know that by the mercy of God and the common counsel of the barons of the whole kingdom of England I have been crowned king of said kingdom; and because the kingdom had been oppressed by unjust exactions, I, through fear of god and the love which I have toward you all, in the first place make the holy church of God free, so that I will neither sell nor put to farm, nor on the death of archbishop or bishop or abbot will I take anything from the church's demesne or from its men until the successor shall enter it. And I take away all the bad customs by which the kingdom of England was unjustly oppressed; which bad customs I here set down in part:........
Then we have the Magna Carta:
First, that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity. We have also granted to all free men of our realm, for us and our heirs forever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:
Read some history my friend and you will see that the basis (English Common) for our current Law is Christianity. We do not need to force it to make it so. The framework as you put it has always been there and always will be.
as a reply to dnuggett:
>>Have a clue about what you speak, so that you may speak intelligently.
Why do you have to go and make this a personal attack on me? I don't think that I was targeting any specific person and implying they were stupid or otherwise. I really have a hard time taking you seriously when you throw out flame comments like that. One has to wonder about people who have to turn to angry spiteful comments to make their point.
That being said, we can address your assertion that those who made our laws used some Christian inspired documents as reference points... Yes, they did, although I am not going to pretend to know to what extent those speicific things were used. I will comment, however, that it really doesn't make a whit of difference. The comment has been made, and it's a factual one, that the word God does not appear in the consitution. It certainly does in the documents you mentioned...
The writers of the Consititution did not want God to be a part of the document. Plain and simple. I have read the bible, and I have read many other religious texts and comments. It hardly makes anything I write "Christian inspired." If I write a top ten list, is that inspired by the Ten Commandments? Maybe the idea of a list of 10 things is from there.. but any other link is pretty weak. The writers of the consitution were using their higher order thinking skills to synthesize information from many sources (not just the ones you mentioned thank you) into a new document. The constitution is not a regurgitation of the laws that they were trying to escape by coming to America!
Regurgitation of "facts" is hardly impressive, nor is the ability to cut and paste bits of various documents into a thread. I know enough history to have a discussion about this, and it appears you do as well. Let's have a discussion instead of a flame war hmm?
>>Have a clue about what you speak, so that you may speak intelligently.
Why do you have to go and make this a personal attack on me? I don't think that I was targeting any specific person and implying they were stupid or otherwise. I really have a hard time taking you seriously when you throw out flame comments like that. One has to wonder about people who have to turn to angry spiteful comments to make their point.
That being said, we can address your assertion that those who made our laws used some Christian inspired documents as reference points... Yes, they did, although I am not going to pretend to know to what extent those speicific things were used. I will comment, however, that it really doesn't make a whit of difference. The comment has been made, and it's a factual one, that the word God does not appear in the consitution. It certainly does in the documents you mentioned...
The writers of the Consititution did not want God to be a part of the document. Plain and simple. I have read the bible, and I have read many other religious texts and comments. It hardly makes anything I write "Christian inspired." If I write a top ten list, is that inspired by the Ten Commandments? Maybe the idea of a list of 10 things is from there.. but any other link is pretty weak. The writers of the consitution were using their higher order thinking skills to synthesize information from many sources (not just the ones you mentioned thank you) into a new document. The constitution is not a regurgitation of the laws that they were trying to escape by coming to America!
Regurgitation of "facts" is hardly impressive, nor is the ability to cut and paste bits of various documents into a thread. I know enough history to have a discussion about this, and it appears you do as well. Let's have a discussion instead of a flame war hmm?
Originally posted by: dnuggett
I'm sorry but you are yet again wrong. You must follow the law of the land or lose your freedoms. The law of the land is based from English Common Law, the traditional unwritten law of England. Read some history my friend and you will see that the basis (English Common) for our current Law is Christianity. We do not need to force it to make it so. The framework as you put it has always been there and always will be.
Hmm. kind of.
English law is based on christianity, just as it is based on the divine rights of kings. Both influences, however, have proved somewhat flexible. When the basic tenets of Christianity proved a trifle inconvenient (specifically all those pesky rules on divorce and remarriage), the ruler of the time didn't hesitate rewrite both the rules of christianity and of English law to suit himself.
A while later the whole divine rights business became unpopular, and so was dropped away. Y'see. the basis of english law is not christianity but, much more simply, pragmatism. Thats also why there's no written constitution. Instead the country relies on the balance of the inertia of tradition against the needs to change to reflect changing circumstances.
So yes, English law is rooted in christianity, but it is not defined nor constrained by it. Luckily for us all, as a citizen you are bound by the law of the land, but not by the rules of any one christian sect. Not unless you choose to be, of course.
There was no attack here. There was no anger and the comment was not written to spite you. You stated that my faith and Religion was rigid and fragile, rebellious and forcing. So much as you believe that about my religion I believe you haven't a clue. It's really a simple concept, and there doesn't need to be a flamewar, you just need to understand what you have said and expect a retort.
I agree completely. My illustration was to show the framework and roots of English Common Law was Christianity and we both agree.
No problem with the retort, the problem is with the tone of the comment you left out of the above quote, which was
"Have a clue about what you speak, so that you may speak intelligently"
I believe that implying or implicitly stating that I "haven't a clue" and am not speaking intelligently can be fairly interpreted as a bit spiteful. Comments about a religion in general are not about you personally unless you choose to take them that way. Since you have, then why not come back with an answer to the cluess statements I made to prove me wrong? I see that you don't agree with me, but you really didn't give much of a reason for my alleged cluelessness other than the assertion that it is so. Let's hear why Christianity isn't any of the things I said. Then we can actually have a discourse instead of thumbing our noses at each other. I am truly interested, or I wouldn't be asking.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter