American beliefs

[ATM]

So, now that "religion" need not be artificially purged from discussion, as has been attempted in modern times from our American system of government, how might our own Constitution be supported, at odds with so many of the founders' and framers' beliefs?

How can it be historically unlinked from the American Revolution or Declaration of Independence?

Who could fathom that the original HOW would suffice to guide or bind us when the WHY and the WHAT have been so purposefully abandoned?

“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations … This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

–John Adams

If we are to (or have) become a secular nation or government, shouldn't a more appropriate Constitution be drafted?

This one seems no longer suitable, exactly as predicted.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

That's gonna take some serious consideration before any changes are made. People unrestrained from within will require restraint from without, to be ruled as subjects, in other words. I may be a kafir, but I am guided by principles that rise to the level of morality, and not willing to be ruled.

 

[MisterChester]

the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

From the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by John Adams.

 

[mrjarrell]

From the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by John Adams.

And the congress. And the Constitution makes no mention of a deity of any sort and only mentions religion in the 1st Amendment, as being protected. We are not, and never have been a "christian nation", no matter what the TEAvangelical revisionists like Barton contend with their lies.

 

[oldpink]

The only alternative "constitution" for a people so corroded from within that their religion and morality no longer circumscribe their society, is tyranny.
I will live in neither society.
I'll move to an island before that.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

This one seems no longer suitable, exactly as [STRIKE]predicted[/STRIKE]progressives planned.

It's all been designed to strip Christianity from the government first, and from society, now. They are succeeding.

 

[oldpink]

And the congress. And the Constitution makes no mention of a deity of any sort and only mentions religion in the 1st Amendment, as being protected. We are not, and never have been a "christian nation", no matter what the TEAvangelical revisionists like Barton contend with their lies.

 

[MisterChester]

The only alternative "constitution" for a people so corroded from within that their religion and morality no longer circumscribe their society, is tyranny.
I will live in neither society.
I'll move to an island before that.

You can have morals and not have religion. For the sake of argument, let's say religion didn't exist in an alternate timeline. I would think we would still have many of the same laws. Killing, stealing, cheating etc. are still very bad things. For the record I do not belong to a particular religion, and I do not consider myself a moral relativist.

 

[ATM]

From the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by John Adams.

That the government was not set up as a theocracy is obvious. Similarly obvious are that the general principles of Christianity permeated both the society and the design.

And the congress. And the Constitution makes no mention of a deity of any sort and only mentions religion in the 1st Amendment, as being protected.

Incorrect, better check your Constitution again.

We are not, and never have been a "christian nation", no matter what the TEAvangelical revisionists like Barton contend with their lies.

Go back a bit further in history and it was quite obvious.

You can have morals and not have religion. For the sake of argument, let's say religion didn't exist in an alternate timeline. I would think we would still have many of the same laws. Killing, stealing, cheating etc. are still very bad things. For the record I do not belong to a particular religion, and I do not consider myself a moral relativist.

For the sake of argument, I agree that there is a natural moral law which governs human interaction, the basis of natural law.

However, according to Voltaire, “If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him.”

The depth of that idea has profound significance IMO.

 

[IndyDave1776]

From the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by John Adams.

There are two things which need considered here. First is that our Constitution obviously didn't establish a theocratic government. It is a false dichotomy to argue that a government must either be a theocracy or else banish religious thought and principles from the process of governing. Second, in no situation would be accept a confession given under duress as acceptable which is essentially what the Treaty of Tripoli is.

 

[oldpink]

From the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by John Adams.

Oh! Oh!
Does that have the exact same legal weight as the letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association regarding the "separation between church and state?"

 

[Twangbanger]

...If we are to (or have) become a secular nation or government, shouldn't a more appropriate Constitution be drafted?

This one seems no longer suitable, exactly as predicted.

People believe a lot of things. Where exactly did these words actually make it into the Constitution? Last I checked, they didn't make the final cut. Hence, they aren't there.

Nah, I think the Constitution is fine as-written. Sorry...nice try though.

 

[mrjarrell]

That the government was not set up as a theocracy is obvious. Similarly obvious are that the general principles of Christianity permeated both the society and the design.




Incorrect, better check your Constitution again.



Go back a bit further in history and it was quite obvious.



For the sake of argument, I agree that there is a natural moral law which governs human interaction, the basis of natural law.

However, according to Voltaire, “If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him.”

The depth of that idea has profound significance IMO.

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

No mention of a deity other the date and that really doesn't count.

 

[ATM]

People believe a lot of things. Where exactly did these words actually make it into the Constitution? Last I checked, they didn't make the final cut.

Nah, I think the Constitution is fine as-written. Sorry...nice try though.

I haven't quoted any of the Constitution yet, that was the described 'net' which the current whale broke and swam through as if it didn't even exist.

My question is, should we craft a Constitution more suitable to containing our whale or would most rather just pretend that the broken remnants of the original net did anything to contain it?

 

[ATM]

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

No mention of a deity other the date and that really doesn't count.

You may believe that it doesn't count, but there it is.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Oh! Oh!
Does that have the exact same legal weight as the letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association regarding the "separation between church and state?"

Exactly. Taking outside documentation, most people will either hold it up as conclusive evidence of a point they like or declare it irrelevant if they don't like it without considering the context or legal weight of the document in question, like Jefferson assuring the good pastors that the .gov would not be screwing with the internal affairs of their churches.

People believe a lot of things. Where exactly did these words actually make it into the Constitution? Last I checked, they didn't make the final cut. Hence, they aren't there.

Nah, I think the Constitution is fine as-written. Sorry...nice try though.

While not part of the Constitution nor legally binding, I would consider the words of Adams to represent undeniable truth so far as our system of government cannot work with people who are not willing or are not equipped to be civil and relatively maintenance-free of their own volition. Adams obviously considered faith to be the most reliable vehicle for instilling that personal restraint which nullifies restraint applied by government force.

While I do not support scrapping the Constitution, ATM has a very valid point that the deficiencies in our government and society are based on this absence of personal restraint which cannot be externally corrected within the limits of the Constitution.

 

[Twangbanger]

I haven't quoted any of the Constitution yet, that was the described 'net' which the current whale broke and swam through as if it didn't even exist.

My question is, should we craft a Constitution more suitable to containing our whale or would most rather just pretend that the broken remnants of the original net did anything to contain it?

But it isn't a "net," or minnow-scooper, or a live-bucket or any other such foolishness. It's just somebody's personal belief, the text of which failed to make it into the finished work product which we are all (supposed to be) bound by. Which makes it interesting, especially to some with an axe to grind...but not really much more.

I'd be satisfied if you could just state which text of the _Constitution_ is incongruous with a secular society, since you are apparently still getting your notes together and haven't gotten around to that yet?

Because I'm pretty sure the whale stuff isn't it.

 

[ATM]

But it isn't a "net," or minnow-scooper, or a live-bucket or any other such foolishness. It's just somebody's personal belief, the text of which failed to make it into the finished work product which we are all (supposed to be) bound by. Which makes it interesting, especially to some with an axe to grind...but not really much more.

I'd be satisfied if you could just state which text of the _Constitution_ is incongruous with a secular society, since you are apparently still getting your notes together and haven't gotten around to that yet?

Because I'm pretty sure the whale stuff isn't it.

Perhaps you don't conceive what the Constitution was or is. It created a limited federal government to serve the states, not this nationalized leviathan to rule us all.

If our modern society requires this centralized nanny cartel to rule us and the rest of the world as subjects, shouldn't we at least give it a new document by which it may legitimately function?

We didn't need or want any such beast when it was originally formed. We had just defended ourselves from a smaller version of it at the time.

 

[ATM]

“I do not know if all Americans have faith in their religion – for who can read to the bottom of hearts? – but I am sure that they believe it necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions.”

“From the beginning, politics and religion were in accord.”

–Alexis de Tocqueville

It was evident to those who came to study the early days of this American experiment in Liberty.

What would they say of our experiment today? Of the ongoing maintenance of our republican institutions?

 

[poptab]

Atm good luck arguing with people who have battered women's syndrome.
they are going to defend thier abuser until it kills them.