American beliefs

[jblomenberg16]

I think that the beauty of our Constitution is that while it does draw on Christian principles, it can exist in a secular nation.

"That all men are created equal" stands just as true, whether you believe in God, Allah, Buddah, or nothing at all. It is the basic principle that a lot of fairly non Christian organizations use as their foundation for their civil rights pushes.

What is also beautiful about our Constitution is that while again, founded one what are very typical Judeo Christian values, they also do not force anyone to follow a particular religions, which is vastly different than most religious states around the world, where you must join that religion to have all the rights afforded to citizens of that nation.


Further, while certain items of human morality differ as it pertains to human sexuality, by in large, even an atheist would agree to many of the same principles of right and wrong. Is stealing wrong? Yes. Is murder wrong? Yes. The list goes on.


Its amazing that a set of religious principles that largely underpin western society as we know it, afford us the freedom to completely try to buck said religious influence, yet many of the same tenants of morality are exactly the same. But some how since they are man made vs. based on religion, they are now so much better than before.

 

[jblomenberg16]

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.

I 100% agree with you...our founders believed (independent of their religious convictions) that our nation needed to have a very limited federal government, to ensure the citizens had the maximum amount of freedom. But I would argue we don't need an entirely new constitution, we just need to go back to following the one we already have. It is actually pretty good as written and provides protection for everyone equally. It was only in later years we perverted it to discriminate.

 

[ModernGunner]

Perhaps it would be helpful, for those who aren't familiar, to study the authors and source of the U.S. Constitution. Not just the signers, but the authors. The concepts must've come from somewhere, not just created 'out of thin air'. And they did.

Perhaps understanding the creators, in their time and in their environment, would be illuminating.

It's actually fairly easy to understand that the Founding Fathers were not intending to create, nor did they create, a "Christian" society. In fact, the evidence is found in the very writings to which the snarky misanthrope is so derisive.

The concept is: research, comprehend, understand, assess. Then one can present a persuasive viewpoint.

Most folks understand this. The misanthrope tends to develop their view, then searches only for those bits of information which they hope support that view, ignoring all else.

Oh well, that's what makes 'em misanthropes!

 

[ATM]

I think that the beauty of our Constitution is that while it does draw on Christian principles, it can exist in a secular nation...

A secular nation needs something more than a great Constitution to make it free. No Constitution could restrain the sort of government we now need to rule over us.

Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of freemen. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Patrick Henry
​

 

[KG1]

Is this an attempt at convincing the need to re-write the Constitution based upon Libertarian principles?

 

[Lowe0]

Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of freemen. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

What, specifically, makes secularists "bad men?"

 

[caverjamie]

What, specifically, makes secularists "bad men?"

Since he is dead now, not sure you're going to get an answer. Well, unless there are more quotes somewhere...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

In looking at the posts here, I'm not sure that some of you aren't missing the point: Judeo-Christian principles and beliefs, as reflected in the common laws and early ordinances, were the "water" in which our nation was "swimming." And, like many other nations before us, if we somehow find ourselves out of that particular "water," - by which I mean the moral and ethical principles that the founders saw as necessary to create and maintain a republican form of government - we can see that we're in the process of "suffocating."

I don't see any particular set of secular beliefs which holds the same promise of individual freedom while simultaneously calling for individual self-control and the love of fellow-man which seems to be necessary in a society to bind it together. In any case, while I hate to say it, I expect we'll be seeing a continuing decline in our society as Judeo-Christian principles are pushed out of public life and marginalized in private. I suspect only a war which involves an invasion of CONUS or a nationwide catastrophe will create the circumstances under which people will wake up and scale back their governing apparati to what the Constitution actually says and what the Founders intended. And lest anyone think I'm "advocating" the R-word; I'm not. I think it would take an external invasion to create the circumstances which would cause Americans to take a good look at what is important for a society to survive, and which would encourage them to discard the minutiae and hair-splitting and just general "lawyering" which is tying our society in knots these days, to the detriment of "common sense" and good citizenship.

 

[ATM]

Is this an attempt at convincing the need to re-write the Constitution based upon Libertarian principles?

Nope, just poking at a largely misunderstood sacred cow. So many think our Constitution defines America in some way, but it doesn't. Our modern national government bears little reflection of the limited federal government as enacted by that document.

The Constitution did not "create" or define any society at all, as others may believe, indeed a society already existed. They were a virtuous and religious society with little need for an intrusive or overbearing ruler. The minimalist Constitution proposed a minimalist fed which would be suitable for such a society (and only for such a society).

Our Revolution and the Declaration were our documents of definition (the WHY and WHAT of America). These were how we defined ourselves.

They can't be historically unlinked. The Constitution contains literally none of the story of America and I have no idea why it has become so highly regarded or enshrined as if it were anything but a charter for a limited federal government which was never supposed to define us.

 

[PaulF]

I like this, if I understand correctly:

So, the founding fathers setup a government that would function best for them. The result was our constitution. Now, those people shed blood and coin to be for the right to have the government they asked for.

The government we have now is not that. Many of the people alive now don't want the government we have, and they don't want the government that our founding fathers envisioned. If I understand ATM correctly, he is asking: why not allow people a chance to craft a government that they do want, today, so that it operates with actual consent of the governed.

It sounds scary, but if there were a chance we could breakup and reorganize the current federal system, loosen the grip of the republicrats on the electoral system...

The Constitution had lots of good ideas, but most of them were literal afterthoughts. Maybe it should be revisited. Sacred cows make tender cuts.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I like this, if I understand correctly:

So, the founding fathers setup a government that would function best for them. The result was our constitution. Now, those people shed blood and coin to be for the right to have the government they asked for.

The government we have now is not that. Many of the people alive now don't want the government we have, and they don't want the government that our founding fathers envisioned. If I understand ATM correctly, he is asking: why not allow people a chance to craft a government that they do want, today, so that it operates with actual consent of the governed.

It sounds scary, but if there were a chance we could breakup and reorganize the current federal system, loosen the grip of the republicrats on the electoral system...

The Constitution had lots of good ideas, but most of them were literal afterthoughts. Maybe it should be revisited. Sacred cows make tender cuts.

You have opened the door for an interesting exercise. I have given thought to the changes I would make in the Constitution. I would not really be inclined to start over from scratch with something entirely new. I am satisfied that revisions would do the job nicely, as follows:

1. Make violation of the oath of office a capital offense. In a society where a man was measured by his honor, an oath in and of itself was sufficient. That is no longer the case, so it needs some teeth in it.

2. Since accepting the notion that Emmerich deVattel's book was used as the standard reference at the Constitutional Convention and accepting its definitions as our founders did is apparently too much to ask, I would spell out the definintions of such things as 'natural born citizens' (which, for example, Obama is not, even if you accept the notion he was born in Hawaii) as found in the book. Significant clarification on words such as 'regulate', 'infringe', and 'militia' would be in order. As that goes, I would remove the militia reference from the Second Amendment and go to the proposed text recognizing our right to 'every terrible instrument of the soldier' and would add prohibition against any federal, state, or local interference including but not limited to licenses, taxes, fees, or proficiency tests. I would eliminate the direct election of senators. I would clean up the language in the Thirteenth Amendment granting citizenship to slaves to apply only to those who had been in servitude with subsequent descendants treated in the standard manner as previously established (i.e., revert to deVattel's standard of being born to citizen parents, not simply being dropped on American soil).

3. I would put teeth into violations of enumerated rights including making proposal of legislation by an elected official violating those rights an impeachable offense.

4. I would return voting age to at least 21 years old, maybe 25. Young voters lacking critical thinking skills and swaying with trends rather than applying understanding of the proper function of government has caused us much harm.

5. Taxation would be authorized only for performing functions authorized by the Constitution and for the enforcement of enumerated rights. No taxes would be raised for extraconstitutional functions of government nor could taxes be levied for the purpose of redistribution. Further, chicanery like alternately calling government levies 'taxes', 'fees', 'penalties', or anything else would not be recognized as allowable for the purpose of circumventing this provision, or any other provision. If the government takes money from you for any purpose other than postage it is considered a tax for constitutional purposes. Period.

6. Foreign national and/or immigrants may NOT be given preferential treatment in taxation.

7. The federal government may not use tax money to extort the states into compliance with otherwise unenforceable mandates.

8. Term limits would be 2 terms for president, 2 terms for senate or 6 terms for HR, or 12 years or less split between senate and HR.

9. All federal laws violating the Tenth Amendment or any enumerated right are null and void.

I may have to revisit this when fully awake, but this should convey a reasonable idea of what I'm thinking.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I like this, if I understand correctly: So, the founding fathers setup a government that would function best for them. The result was our constitution. Now, those people shed blood and coin to be for the right to have the government they asked for. The government we have now is not that. Many of the people alive now don't want the government we have, and they don't want the government that our founding fathers envisioned. If I understand ATM correctly, he is asking: why not allow people a chance to craft a government that they do want, today, so that it operates with actual consent of the governed. It sounds scary, but if there were a chance we could breakup and reorganize the current federal system, loosen the grip of the republicrats on the electoral system... The Constitution had lots of good ideas, but most of them were literal afterthoughts. Maybe it should be revisited. Sacred cows make tender cuts.

The problem I have with your thesis is that the folks who might be minded to "re-write" the Constitution to "better suit their ideas of government" are the types of folks who are likely to disbelieve in any individual freedoms that transcend what their chosen government chooses to grant them. That puts the rest of us squarely in the center of the crosshairs of whatever societal majority happens to control that government. One of the problems with our society today is that a sizable segment of it has rejected the concept of a higher "morality" than what their government chooses to allow - and the rest of us are slowly being frozen out of any opportunity to argue about the situation.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The problem I have with your thesis is that the folks who might be minded to "re-write" the Constitution to "better suit their ideas of government" are the types of folks who are likely to disbelieve in any individual freedoms that transcend what their chosen government chooses to grant them. That puts the rest of us squarely in the center of the crosshairs of whatever societal majority happens to control that government. One of the problems with our society today is that a sizable segment of it has rejected the concept of a higher "morality" than what their government chooses to allow - and the rest of us are slowly being frozen out of any opportunity to argue about the situation.

,

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Blackhawk2001 again.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It has been insinuated that religion has no connection with our country's governance, and also the reverse, that the two are inextricably intertwined. I believe the latter. That said, I believe that the intent was that one's religious beliefs are intended to guide his/her actions and be the basis of his/her behavior, much as a juror is expected to bring his/her knowledge and reason into both the jury box and the jury room.
Evidence: From Mr. Washington's inauguration forward, all Presidents have sworn the oath of office with their hand on the Bible.
Evidence: From the first Congress, the proceedings have opened with prayer. The oath of legislators calls for God's help as well, IIRC.
Evidence: in a court of law, one swears that testimony given shall be truthful with one's hand upon the Bible. Further, SCOTUS opens with the prayer, "God save the United States and this honorable Court!" and a judge's oath also invokes the aid of Deity.

When all three branches of our government have Deity invoked in their proceedings, and have from their inception, I find it difficult to believe that that was not the intention.

That our current government officials disregard the intention as have so many of their predecessors is not the fault of the Founders. I suggest that instead of rewriting our current Constitution and opening the door for totalitarianism as those in power would surely impose, we instead should return to our Founders' principles and enforce what's there as they meant it. For the record, no, I do not mean that slavery or subjugation of any people should be enshrined, but rather that the admonition be held, that all men are created equally, and yes, I know that's from the DoI, not the Constitution.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Twangbanger]

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.

Ok, so let's duly note your subtle shift away from your original theme, which was distinctly secular v. religious:

So, now that "religion" need not be artificially purged from discussion...//... If we are to (or have) become a secular nation or government, shouldn't a more appropriate Constitution be drafted?

...

...and your ever-so-deft pivot back towards the safe and well-traveled footpath of INGO, namely, Libertarian objection to the overarching nanny state (and also duly note your failure to note which text of the Constitution is so irreconcilable with a secular society, before this thread goes the predictable 647-page route).

Hmph. All that struggle to get religion officially recognized on the forum...only to beat a safe retreat back into the Libertarian bushes at the first sign of critical examination? Tch, tch!

Ok.

Nice cast...happy trolling!

 

[IndyDave1776]

It has been insinuated that religion has no connection with our country's governance, and also the reverse, that the two are inextricably intertwined. I believe the latter. That said, I believe that the intent was that one's religious beliefs are intended to guide his/her actions and be the basis of his/her behavior, much as a juror is expected to bring his/her knowledge and reason into both the jury box and the jury room.
Evidence: From Mr. Washington's inauguration forward, all Presidents have sworn the oath of office with their hand on the Bible.
Evidence: From the first Congress, the proceedings have opened with prayer. The oath of legislators calls for God's help as well, IIRC.
Evidence: in a court of law, one swears that testimony given shall be truthful with one's hand upon the Bible. Further, SCOTUS opens with the prayer, "God save the United States and this honorable Court!" and a judge's oath also invokes the aid of Deity.

When all three branches of our government have Deity invoked in their proceedings, and have from their inception, I find it difficult to believe that that was not the intention.

That our current government officials disregard the intention as have so many of their predecessors is not the fault of the Founders. I suggest that instead of rewriting our current Constitution and opening the door for totalitarianism as those in power would surely impose, we instead should return to our Founders' principles and enforce what's there as they meant it. For the record, no, I do not mean that slavery or subjugation of any people should be enshrined, but rather that the admonition be held, that all men are created equally, and yes, I know that's from the DoI, not the Constitution.



Blessings,
Bill

Very well said. I would point out that all manifestations of religion found without the American culture of the time would have yielded very similar practical behavior in the public square in spite of doctrinal differences that could make for some thorny disagreements. That said everyone within the Judeo-Christian tradition could live with a system of government in which so long as you followed the Ten Commandments and paid your taxes you would never have any real contact between government and your life aside from voting ever so often and going to the post office.

 

[MisterChester]

It has been insinuated that religion has no connection with our country's governance, and also the reverse, that the two are inextricably intertwined. I believe the latter. That said, I believe that the intent was that one's religious beliefs are intended to guide his/her actions and be the basis of his/her behavior, much as a juror is expected to bring his/her knowledge and reason into both the jury box and the jury room.
Evidence: From Mr. Washington's inauguration forward, all Presidents have sworn the oath of office with their hand on the Bible.
Evidence: From the first Congress, the proceedings have opened with prayer. The oath of legislators calls for God's help as well, IIRC.
Evidence: in a court of law, one swears that testimony given shall be truthful with one's hand upon the Bible. Further, SCOTUS opens with the prayer, "God save the United States and this honorable Court!" and a judge's oath also invokes the aid of Deity.

When all three branches of our government have Deity invoked in their proceedings, and have from their inception, I find it difficult to believe that that was not the intention.

That our current government officials disregard the intention as have so many of their predecessors is not the fault of the Founders. I suggest that instead of rewriting our current Constitution and opening the door for totalitarianism as those in power would surely impose, we instead should return to our Founders' principles and enforce what's there as they meant it. For the record, no, I do not mean that slavery or subjugation of any people should be enshrined, but rather that the admonition be held, that all men are created equally, and yes, I know that's from the DoI, not the Constitution.



Blessings,
Bill

I would like to point out that every instance where a bible is brought out to be sworn on is pretty much completely optional. It comes from the idea that you swear on something that you hold near and dear to you, whether it be a bible or something else important to you. Atheists and whatnot don't have to swear on bibles when giving testimony. Many would swear on the constitution itself because it's important to them. I'd swear on the constitution before a bible any day, because that's more important to me than the latter.

 

[poptab]

Christians are forbidden from swearing at all so that does seem a bit odd.

 

[MisterChester]

You have opened the door for an interesting exercise. I have given thought to the changes I would make in the Constitution. I would not really be inclined to start over from scratch with something entirely new. I am satisfied that revisions would do the job nicely, as follows:

1. Make violation of the oath of office a capital offense. In a society where a man was measured by his honor, an oath in and of itself was sufficient. That is no longer the case, so it needs some teeth in it.

2. Since accepting the notion that Emmerich deVattel's book was used as the standard reference at the Constitutional Convention and accepting its definitions as our founders did is apparently too much to ask, I would spell out the definintions of such things as 'natural born citizens' (which, for example, Obama is not, even if you accept the notion he was born in Hawaii) as found in the book. Significant clarification on words such as 'regulate', 'infringe', and 'militia' would be in order. As that goes, I would remove the militia reference from the Second Amendment and go to the proposed text recognizing our right to 'every terrible instrument of the soldier' and would add prohibition against any federal, state, or local interference including but not limited to licenses, taxes, fees, or proficiency tests. I would eliminate the direct election of senators. I would clean up the language in the Thirteenth Amendment granting citizenship to slaves to apply only to those who had been in servitude with subsequent descendants treated in the standard manner as previously established (i.e., revert to deVattel's standard of being born to citizen parents, not simply being dropped on American soil).

3. I would put teeth into violations of enumerated rights including making proposal of legislation by an elected official violating those rights an impeachable offense.

4. I would return voting age to at least 21 years old, maybe 25. Young voters lacking critical thinking skills and swaying with trends rather than applying understanding of the proper function of government has caused us much harm.

5. Taxation would be authorized only for performing functions authorized by the Constitution and for the enforcement of enumerated rights. No taxes would be raised for extraconstitutional functions of government nor could taxes be levied for the purpose of redistribution. Further, chicanery like alternately calling government levies 'taxes', 'fees', 'penalties', or anything else would not be recognized as allowable for the purpose of circumventing this provision, or any other provision. If the government takes money from you for any purpose other than postage it is considered a tax for constitutional purposes. Period.

6. Foreign national and/or immigrants may NOT be given preferential treatment in taxation.

7. The federal government may not use tax money to extort the states into compliance with otherwise unenforceable mandates.

8. Term limits would be 2 terms for president, 2 terms for senate or 6 terms for HR, or 12 years or less split between senate and HR.

9. All federal laws violating the Tenth Amendment or any enumerated right are null and void.

I may have to revisit this when fully awake, but this should convey a reasonable idea of what I'm thinking.

Some good ideas here, but I massively disagree with point 4. It is tyrannical to not let citizens vote if they are eligible for service on account of age. Unless you raise the bar and only let 21 or 25 year olds sign up at the minimum. Also, I think it would discourage younger people to get involved with the democratic system. I believe all adults who want to be involved should at least have the right to vote. There are wise young people and stupid older people after all.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Some good ideas here, but I massively disagree with point 4. It is tyrannical to not let citizens vote if they are eligible for service on account of age. Unless you raise the bar and only let 21 or 25 year olds sign up at the minimum. Also, I think it would discourage younger people to get involved with the democratic system. I believe all adults who want to be involved should at least have the right to vote. There are wise young people and stupid older people after all.

I can go along with this reasoning. This is the least important thing I would consider adjusting, and more important, I neglected specifically prohibiting the federal government from involving itself in education aside from military academies and diplomatic missions.