|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Mar 25, 2020 18:23:19 GMT -8
Again, I'll repost it, something you seem averse to for some reason. *sarcasm*
of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
"things that are NOT regarded as...spiritual, or sacred". Hope that's settled once and for all. Your definition of secular is off. Got it? Things that are NOT spiritual.
Now the full amendment is kind of prohibiting religion in some circumstances. So is the full amendment endorsing religion? What about the Establishment Clause?
Again, our definitions are the same. The 1st amendment does not prohibit religion (even "kind of"), it stops the state from infringing on others religious beliefs. It promotes religious freedom because it considers religion to be important enough to deserve such protection. That action is non-secular, meaning that your theory that the Constitution is a secular document is incorrect. Sorry folks, I had to get the last word in 
Not actually the "last word", I dare say. To wit: Semantic nitpicking notwithstanding, the United States Constitution makes nary a mention, let alone gives authority to, "spiritual" thingys, "spiritual" myths and superstitions, "spiritual" rituals or, and especially "spiritual" doctrine. It creates no "spiritual" office or gives power to such an evil thing, either. No matter how vigorously you spin it, our founders wrote no "Christian" testimony in-between-the-lines of the United States Constitution. Secular is a perfectly apt description of it and the representative republic it governs. Indeed, no rational person can miss the fundamental tenet of Constitution: the individual citizen is immutably sovereign. Instead, in stark and antithetical contrast, "religions" (and you don't mean anything but the Christianism, I'm confident) proffer that the individual is utterly subservient and wholly beholding to an (invisible, no less) absolute sky-monarch who makes all law, judges all wrong doers and punishes all miscreants. No other way to describe Christianism but that its profoundly un-American and mocks a host of American ideals. |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,378
|
Post by SK80 on Mar 25, 2020 19:15:42 GMT -8
In a nutshell...., without the diatribe....,
America did not have a Christian Founding in the sense of creating a theocracy, its Founding was deeply shaped by Christian moral truths.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 25, 2020 19:33:20 GMT -8
Tuba:
Not actually the "last word", I dare say. To wit: Semantic nitpicking notwithstanding, the United States Constitution makes nary a mention, let alone gives authority to, "spiritual" thingys,.. Indeed, no rational person can miss the fundamental tenet of Constitution: the individual citizen is immutably sovereign. Instead, in stark and antithetical contrast, "religions" (and you don't mean anything but the Christianism, I'm confident) proffer that the individual is utterly subservient... Well, ok, if you want to sub in for our dearly departed, no problem. However, lets stay with the original point, DeadDave's claim that the Constitution is completely secular. The 1st amendment provides for freedom of religion and restrains the government from stopping worship or defining how it must be. That is an admission that practicing religion is a fundamental right and such a stance is not secular. A secular Constitution would not provide protections for worship or would outlaw them all together. So as to the point that was being discussed, you are incorrect. Sorry to shatter your confidence, but when I mention spirituality or religion, I am not speaking of Christianity, Judiasm or any other religion. I am referencing the belief in a Supreme being, the details which are of no matter to me. So you are wrong about that one as well and considering the snarky way you wrote it, you owe me an apology. Are you an atheist? I ask because i have never seen a group so hate filled towards religion as atheists. One would think the last person who gave a rats ass about the details of religious beliefs would be an atheist, but no, the stereotypical atheist spends day and night mocking religious beliefs. The irony is that atheism, like any religion, is a belief. It can be neither proved nor disproved. In that way, atheism is just another religion, something that its followers mock. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Mar 25, 2020 20:14:55 GMT -8
Again, our definitions are the same. The 1st amendment does not prohibit religion (even "kind of"), it stops the state from infringing on others religious beliefs. It promotes religious freedom because it considers religion to be important enough to deserve such protection. That action is non-secular, meaning that your theory that the Constitution is a secular document is incorrect. Sorry folks, I had to get the last word in
Not actually the "last word", I dare say. To wit: Semantic nitpicking notwithstanding, the United States Constitution makes nary a mention, let alone gives authority to, "spiritual" thingys, "spiritual" myths and superstitions, "spiritual" rituals or, and especially "spiritual" doctrine. It creates no "spiritual" office or gives power to such an evil thing, either. No matter how vigorously you spin it, our founders wrote no "Christian" testimony in-between-the-lines of the United States Constitution. Secular is a perfectly apt description of it and the representative republic it governs. Indeed, no rational person can miss the fundamental tenet of Constitution: the individual citizen is immutably sovereign. Instead, in stark and antithetical contrast, "religions" (and you don't mean anything but the Christianism, I'm confident) proffer that the individual is utterly subservient and wholly beholding to an (invisible, no less) absolute sky-monarch who makes all law, judges all wrong doers and punishes all miscreants. No other way to describe Christianism but that its profoundly un-American and mocks a host of American ideals. Tuba.....this will be my last post to you on this topic for two reasons: 1. RSM made a perfectly reasonable and ACCURATE assessment of the how the 1st Amendment treats the matter of religion. In neither prohibits nor mandates "religion." All Americans are free to believe and practice their faith, and are similarly free to not believe in any god or practice any religious faith. None of us are in disagreement on this. Your--again--complete STRAWMAN response, however, is not, as you say, "semantic nitpicking." You proceed to make an exaggerated--and disrespectful--display in denying what no one asserts the Constitution is saying. The Constitution and "religions" are not an either/or proposition. They largely concern completely different realms of authority; why you cannot understand that is beyond me. We say, "The Constitution protects my right to practice my religion." To which you respond, "You're wrong. The Constitution does not force me to believe in a sky-monarch." This is a complete non sequitur. You are either unwilling or unable to engage in honest debate, so there's no point in trying to reason with an unreasonable person. To add to this, Christians--precisely because of our belief in free will and the primacy of conscience --respect your right to reject belief in God. I disagree, but it's a free country. You, on the other hand, clearly have nothing but mocking contempt for what you call "Christianism." Your comments also indicate that you have no basic understanding of Christianity beyond an impoverished 8th-grade Fundamentalist catechism. That, my friend, is unfortunate.
And from your earlier response to me: 2. I am highly skeptical of your anecdotal tale above. What and where is this public school district? If this really happened it would national news, so I'm not buying it. Your citation of the wedding-cake baker (and other cases) has been discussed ad nauseum on another thread on this site. Without rehashing it all over again, in none of these cases was anyone denied service because they were "gay" or otherwise "LGBTQ." These cases all rest on what the majority of people believe (reasonably, according to the Supreme Court) about the definition of marriage. What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is of no legal concern to "Jebus" believers. What we will never accept is any attempt by the government to force us to believe in or otherwise participate in the legal fiction of so-called "same-sex" marriage. Live and let live. Go to another baker down the street. And spare us the false comparisons to Jim Crow laws or Loving vs. Virginia. These are apples and oranges. You may disagree all you want but the civil law, the natural law, and history is on my side on this. |
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Mar 26, 2020 8:55:38 GMT -8
In a nutshell...., without the diatribe...., America did not have a Christian Founding in the sense of creating a theocracy, its Founding was deeply shaped by Christian moral truths. I'd argue the representative-republic our "Founders" created was deliberately antithetical to the "moral-truths" that comprise Christian doctrine. To wit: There is an invisible and jealous absolute monarch who makes all law, judges all wrong-doers and punishes all miscreants, which all citizens must worship and obey. Even a casual reading of the United States Constitution would disabuse you of the notion our founders used those Christian "moral-truths" as their model. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Mar 26, 2020 9:11:59 GMT -8
In a nutshell...., without the diatribe...., America did not have a Christian Founding in the sense of creating a theocracy, its Founding was deeply shaped by Christian moral truths. I'd argue the representative-republic our "Founders" created was deliberately antithetical to the "moral-truths" that comprise Christian doctrine. To wit: There is an invisible and jealous absolute monarch who makes all law, judges all wrong-doers and punishes all miscreants, which all citizens must worship and obey. Even a casual reading of the United States Constitution would disabuse you of the notion our founders used those Christian "moral-truths" as their model. Are you of the opinion the founders of the Constitution weren't influenced by Christian principles? |
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Mar 26, 2020 9:46:21 GMT -8
Tuba:I'd argue the representative-republic our "Founders" created was deliberately antithetical to the "moral-truths" that comprise Christian doctrine. To wit: There is an invisible and jealous absolute monarch who makes all law, judges all wrong-doers and punishes all miscreants, which all citizens must worship and obey. Even a casual reading of the United States Constitution would disabuse you of the notion our founders used those Christian "moral-truths" as their model. Are you of the opinion the founders of the Constitution weren't influenced by Christian principles? "Christian principles" covers a lot of ground. But, generally, it's plain their relative affinity for "Christian principles" notwithstanding, they created a representative-republic which is the exact antithesis of the Christian model in spite of them. . |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Mar 26, 2020 10:09:01 GMT -8
If we were to start with the bill of rights, would that be an agreeable authority to have this discussion?
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Mar 26, 2020 10:34:49 GMT -8
This is an interesting notion.
In 1776, a group of religious men imbued with Christian principles and values, wrote and passed a declaration of independence replete with references to a supreme being. They insisted on a "separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." They insisted "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." They appealed to "the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions." And they declared their intent by stating "and for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Those are all references to God.
Tuba is asking us to believe that only 11 years later, most of those same men forgot or ignored those same religious principles and values and intentionally wrote a constitution that sets aside the God that governed their lives. He asks us to believe this despite the fact that the very first amendment to that document held religion and the freedom to practice it by all Americans so sacrosanct that they felt the need to protect it in perpetuity.
That's quite a leap I'm not sure many are willing to take.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Mar 26, 2020 11:45:16 GMT -8
I had assumed the Founders were greatly influenced by, or based the Constitution upon Christian principles. I'm pretty sure we have a few guys here that have spent a lot of time understanding the Constitution, so I'm hoping we could supply some specific objective authority supporting the arguments - pro or con. A friend of mine who teaches US History, a liberal BTW, referred me to Federalist 10. I'm going to move some posts here that seem topical that I noticed in other areas.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Mar 26, 2020 11:48:35 GMT -8
Gee, I wouldn’t worship that guy, either... hmmmmm, let’s see:
He made laws for the Israelites back when He was their monarch. That’s what monarchs do: They make laws. In this case, His laws were about evenly divided between the science, which at that time, only God knew, and the societal benefit like no killing each other. Eventually, they rebelled against Him and demanded a human monarch who, it turned out, had a much looser grip on what he needed to do, it still some did manage to be better than others.
by now, we don’t have laws so much as God gave us examples (or, more accurately, an example) to follow.
He doesn’t judge all wrong-doers, per se. I mean, eventually we will ALL be judged so, yes, since wrong-doers are a subset of “all,” He does judge them, but no easier nor harsher than He judges any of us. Similarly with the punishment, He doesn’t hang around just waiting for you to do something wrong. But eventually, yes, you will be punished but not because you’re a miscreant (whether or not you are, I don’t know): IF you get punished, it will only be because you did not accept Jesus Christ’s free gift of salvation.
There is no “must.” The offer is there, and you do or you don’t worship as you please. Same with obeying Him. No force, no “must,” only your own will: All He does is offer, and, then, wait.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 26, 2020 13:50:56 GMT -8
Tuba's description of Christianity leads us back to another subject, that might get spun off into another thread. Why do such a huge percentage of atheists hate religion with such passion that they feel the need to mock it at every turn?
Religion, no matter the specificity, is a matter of faith. What one believes typically can be neither proved nor disproved. Atheism is exactly the same. That is why atheism is the other side of the same coin as most religions, a set of beliefs underpinned by faith. Why atheists believe their religion to be so much superior than others religion is a stumper for me.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Mar 26, 2020 13:55:34 GMT -8
Why atheists believe their religion to be so much superior than others religion is a stumper for me. Wouldn't you say that's true of most religions? We've had people imply that all non-Christians are going to hell because they don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 26, 2020 14:09:16 GMT -8
Why atheists believe their religion to be so much superior than others religion is a stumper for me. Wouldn't you say that's true of most religions? We've had people imply that all non-Christians are going to hell because they don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. I would say that most religions look upon themselves as being correct and that other religions are incorrect, but not necessarily inferior. I know the Catholic church has changed its view of other religions from back when you or I were in grade school, much more accepting of other faiths without demeaning them for believing differently. Athiests typically seem to act superior because of their beliefs, as if their faith was a sign of intelligence. Atheism is the only religion whose members do that from what I have witnessed. To mix faith and intelligence is quite odd. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Mar 26, 2020 20:25:54 GMT -8
This is a great discussion topic, but there's no point in trying to debate Tuba here, as he clearly cannot--or will not--acknowledge important distinctions between Christianity as a religion, individuals who act upon Christian principles, and a theocracy. To him these are all one and the same. If ones element is missing, then it's indicative of the literal "opposite" of "Christianism." This kind of integralism, if you will, is actually more reflective of the theocratic mindset of Islam.
As Tuba said in earlier response, "Christian principles" covers a lot of ground. But, generally, it's plain their [the Founders] relative affinity for "Christian principles" notwithstanding, they [the Founders] created a representative-republic which is the exact antithesis of the Christian model in spite of them. [my bold for emphasis]
In fact, there is no one-size-fits-all "Christian model" of government. Over 2,000 years, the Church has operated under every conceivable type of government, from secular (that is, non-confessional) republics to monarchies under which kings claimed the right to approve the appointment of bishops themselves. St. Paul and St. Augustine, as far back as the very first centuries of Christianity, recognized the concept that the Church and the State governed two very different realms of authority. Sometimes these overlapped, but usually not too often, lest they risk the kinds of conflicts that led to the martyrdoms of people like Thomas Becket and Thomas More.
And even if the Founders had the desire to establish a more explicitly Christian nation, likely one of the reasons they didn't was to avoid the very problem that many of the first settlers of North America had fled in the first place: officially established national churches (like the Church of England) that penalized those who didn't belong to them. Had there been an effort to privilege the Anglican Church (which held claim to the largest number of people in the colonies at the time) at the Federal level, the Constitution probably never would have been ratified in the first place.There really is no such thing as a generic "Christianity." What there is, on the other hand, are Christian churches of various denominations. The "freedom of religion" protected by the 1st Amendment clearly had these various churches in mind (as well as the small number of Jews in the colonies). Trying to establish "Christianity" per se in the Constitution would have been an invitation to a cul-de-sac of endless squabbling over which version would enjoy primacy of place.
"Separation of Church and State" (which words do not appear in the Constitution, but come from a letter of Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist congregation in CT that was concerned the Federal government would infringe on its freedoms) simply means that the Constitution does not establish an "official religion"; that is, there is no National Church of the United States of America. That being said, this is not the "antithesis" of Christianity. The Church precedes the State and does not need the State to justify or provide for its existence, and has operated quite well even under various forms of persecution.
Interestingly, the Constitution--under the often now ignored 9th and 10th Amendments--did not prohibit the individual states from having officially established churches, and most of them did. Those states, for various reasons, eventually abolished these by the 1840's. That's called federalism.
|
|
