Is the U. S. Constitution defective, as the "National Reform Association" claimed, because it does not once name God?

If your answer is yes, explain why it is defective.

If no, also explain why.

Question:
Is the U. S. Constitution defective, as the "National Reform Movement" claimed, because it does not once name God?

Choices:
Yes
No
I don't know
I don't care
What is the "National Reform Association?"

 

How would that make it defective? I don't understand.... our founding fathers (in majority) weren't even christians (they were deists generally).

Fuck the whole concept of this being a "christian nation". Where'd they get that notion?!

Deists on a good day. Probably more pantheists in the Spinoza-ist sense. The ones that were'nt outright logical positivists. Once again, rational people are allowing the Christian right to frame the terms of the debate. If those of us who object to the theocratization of our nation (whatever our individual religious orientation) are not pro-active, then we will be constantly behind these evangelical types.

quote:

Originally posted by b0arder753:
How would that make it defective? I don't understand.... our founding fathers (in majority) weren't even christians (they were deists generally).

Fuck the whole concept of this being a "christian nation". Where'd they get that notion?!

You must not be familiar with the National Reform Movement of the 1870's. If you want to learn about it, I will post some information on the subject.

quote:

...our founding fathers (in majority) weren't even Christians (they were deists generally)...

The men who wrote and/or adopted the U. S. Constitution were probably liberal Christians who believed that:

The power of the civil magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the civil authority, regularly and legitimately constituted.

--Art. XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrate; The Thirty-nine Articles of the American Episcopal Church adopted by the General Convention held at Trenton, New Jersey, Sept. 3–12, 1801

Because they believed that, "the civil magistrate ...hath no authority in things purely spiritual," they adopted a Constitution of Government that granted the civil magistrate no authority whatsoever over religion or "things purely spiritual."

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
Deists on a good day. Probably more pantheists in the Spinoza-ist sense. The ones that were'nt outright logical positivists.

I don't think so.

quote:

rational people are allowing the Christian right to frame the terms of the debate.

I refer to them as Anti-Christian/Anti-American Satan Worshipers who despise the Lord's commandment to distinguish the things that are God's from those of Caesar, and not entangle the two.

quote:

If those of us who object to the theocratization of our nation (whatever our individual religious orientation) are not pro-active, then we will be constantly behind these evangelical types.

...take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.

--James Madison

quote:

I refer to them as Anti-Christian/Anti-American Satan Worshipers who despise the Lord's commandment to distinguish the things that are God's from those of Caesar, and not entangle the two.

I would like to clear up that simply because someone is not of the same faith as you, does not mean that they hate your religion or country. That mindset, is one of ignorance and bigotry that is of no benefit to anybody. If you are, however, interested in a religious debate, you can find one here.


With regards to this thread, the concept of a "Christian" America is one that I do not support due to the millions of people in America who are either of a different faith or do not claim a faith, proclaiming support for one particular group would be horrific.

quote:

I refer to them as Anti-Christian/Anti-American Satan Worshipers who despise the Lord's commandment to distinguish the things that are God's from those of Caesar, and not entangle the two.

Who exactly are you referring to with this comment? In other words, who is your "them"?

quote:

Originally posted by less_success:

quote:

I refer to them as Anti-Christian/Anti-American Satan Worshipers who despise the Lord's commandment to distinguish the things that are God's from those of Caesar, and not entangle the two.

Who exactly are you referring to with this comment? In other words, who is your "them"?

"Them" is the "Religious Right." "Them" includes David Barton, James Dobson, D. James Kennedy and the other "Liars for Christ" who claim that Separation of Church and State is a Myth, and that the founder's were in favor of civil authority over religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

quote:

I refer to them as Anti-Christian/Anti-American Satan Worshipers who despise the Lord's commandment to distinguish the things that are God's from those of Caesar, and not entangle the two.

I would like to clear up that simply because someone is not of the same faith as you, does not mean that they hate your religion or country.

If they do not acknowledge the authority of the Lord and his commandment not to render unto Caesar the things that are God's, then they do not follow Christ and have no claim the title "Christian."

If they do not acknowledge the "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution, then they reject, what the great expositor of Jeffersonian Republicanism, held to be the "most powerful cement of the federal government", "the violation of" which "will prove the most powerful engine of separation [of the Union].

"Those who prize the union of the states", wrote Saint George Tucker, "will never think of touching this article with unhallowed hands. The ministry of the unsanctified sons of Aaron scarcely produced a flame more sudden, more violent, or more destructive, than such an attempt would inevitably excite."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WhammerJammer,

quote:

Originally posted by WhammerJammer:
If they do not acknowledge the authority of the Lord and his commandment not to render unto Caesar the things that are God's, then they do not follow Christ and have no claim the title "Christian."

That's a little harsh don't you think? I don't feel it's our place to make that determination.

I understand your arguments and agree that any one religion shouldn't be promoted over others in government. Religious freedom was one of the prime motivations for the Revolutionary War and the founding of the U.S. It's also important to note that the founders wanted freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion. I don't think they ever intended for all traces of religious expression to be removed from public view, so as not to offend those of other views. I also don't believe that a politician should have to leave their religious convictions at the door once they are elected. I'm sure many of those who opposed slavery, did so because of a religious conviction that all people are equal in the eyes of their creator. It's just a matter of doing what is in the best interest of the country as a whole. If a politician's religion teaches them to rest on Saturdays or Sundays, they shouldn't push a law banning work on those days. That wouldn't be in the country's best interest. There's a balance that has to be found.

In answer to the poll:

No, no, no, no and another "No" thrown in for good measure. This is such a ridiculous question I'm not sure it was worth a poll -- only extremely hardcore, born-again Christians would answer Yes.

I am a firm believer in freedom of religion, particularly because I'm not religious. This makes me more of a target than most if I express my views, and thus I appreciate the liberties offered by my country.

Sadly, radical groups like the National Reform Movement are gradually eroding these freedoms, and I fear someday they may disappear. And when God is written into the constitution, when the intolerant have their ways and start enforcing their religion upon me, that will frankly be the beginning of the end. I'd move to Canada.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dork,

quote:

Originally posted by SDF:

quote:

Originally posted by WhammerJammer:
If they do not acknowledge the authority of the Lord and his commandment not to render unto Caesar the things that are God's, then they do not follow Christ and have no claim the title "Christian."

That's a little harsh don't you think?

Nope. They make the harsh claim that if the government does not bow to Christ, then it is atheistic.

quote:

I don't feel it's our place to make that determination.

Why not?

quote:

I understand your arguments and agree that any one religion shouldn't be promoted over others in government.

Religion should be separated from civil government and exempted from its authority. Religion should not be promoted over the non-religious.

quote:

Religious freedom was one of the prime motivations for the Revolutionary War

The Declaration of Independence made no complaint regarding government interference with religion.

quote:

Religious freedom was one of the prime motivations for the founding of the U.S.

Huh? At the founding, there was already separation of church and state in most of the states.

quote:

It's also important to note that the founders wanted freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.

What does that mean?

quote:

I don't think they ever intended for all traces of religious expression to be removed from public view, so as not to offend those of other views.

That all depends on whether those "traces of religious expression" constitute an attempt by civil authority to influence purely spiritual things.

Supporting ministers of the gospel from public funds to be Chaplains is an exercise of civil authority over a purely spiritual thing (the duty of a man to contribute to the financial support of religion), and the evil practice should be abolished. The duty of a man to contribute to the financial support of religion is a purely religious obligation, not a secular duty.

The federal legislation that placed "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins is another attempt by civil authority to influence purely spiritual things, and should be repealed.

quote:

I also don't believe that a politician should have to leave their religious convictions at the door once they are elected.

Why not? As civil magistrates they have no legitimate authority over religion. The only thing that matters is that they have good morals and proper social values.

quote:

I'm sure many of those who opposed slavery, did so because of a religious conviction that all people are equal in the eyes of their creator.

The obligation to acknowledge and respect the equality of all men man is a civil/secular duty owed to one's fellow man. It is not a purely religious matter. "Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals." Slavery is not a matter "between [only] God and individuals." Slavery is a matter that involves other men. For that reason, slavery is a moral/civil/secular/political matter, not a purely religious/spiritual matter.

Relax, Whammer. No one is really disagreeing with you here.

quote:

Originally posted by WhammerJammer:



[LIST] The power of the civil magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the civil authority, regularly and legitimately constituted.

True, they held that Clergy, as well as Laity were required to "pay respectful obedience to civil authority," they did not hold any duty of the civil authority to pay any special respect or obedience to any religious tradition, or, even to the lack of religious altogether.
So, in Jefferson can say, "...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'"
Finally, as to the assertion that the founding fathers were "liberal Christians," I'll offer the following:
From the Treaty of Tripoli, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
I'm not claiming that, even during the height of the Enlightentment, that traditional western ethos didn't inform the ideas and beliefs of these men. The beliefs, like for example, the belief in the inferiority of women and the legitimacy of slavery, were, in some fashion, unavoidable. However, I think it's interesting that many of the drafters of the American experiment were struggling to reconcile their burgeoning rationalism with religious medievalism. On last quote from Jefferson, for good measure, puts, for me, at least, to rest the notion that the founding fathers were "christian" in any way other than culturally. "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823"

Nice work kendo. As an Australian watching the US closely, it's good to know people like you reside there.

quote:

As to the assertion that the founding fathers were "liberal Christians," I'll offer the following:

From the Treaty of Tripoli, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The view that civil governments did not have authority over the Christian religion was a liberal Christian view. (See the articles of faith of the Baptist and Protestant Episcopal religious societies in effect during the founding era)

PS: The Senate which ratified the Tripoli Treaty were not the same men who founded the republic.

quote:

From the Treaty of Tripoli, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion

The Government of the U. S. was founded on what James Madison believed was the "Just And Truly Christian Principle" of Separation of the Church from the State.

The Lord Jesus Christ preached on earth in the midst of a despotic government that exercised dominion over all things pertaining to human life and destiny. There was no distinction between civil and religious affairs. None was made, because none was known.

Religion was simply a part of the state, and therefore subject to human law equally with war or commerce. The Savior, with unerring accuracy, exposed the falseness of this view.

Christ did not oppose the authority of the rulers over civil affairs. Concerning it he pronounced no opinion except to declare that they, at least, who recognized it in any matters pertaining to it should obey it in all.

In making this decision the Lord drew for all coming time the line of separation between the state and religion. “RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CESAR'S, AND UNTO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD'S.” In accordance with his own decision, Christ utterly disregarded Caesar’s claim to authority over things belonging to God.

Jesus knew that civil authority over religion had no foundation and was maintained only by force. Consequently, the Son of God did not go to the civil authority for permission to promulgate the Gospel. When arraigned-concerning things pertaining to his mission as a prophet from God, the Lord demonstrated his contempt for civil authority over religion by declining to even plead a defense.

Instead, the Savior gathered the people around him and taught them, as a right which he of himself possessed, and to which they had an equal right to respond. He selected messengers also to proclaim his religion, and commanded them to make it known to every creature in the entire world. By these acts he asserted that, with respect to religion, his disciples and mankind were of right independent of all civil government. Power to restrict and silence them he knew existed. It was everywhere around them. It always had its hand on them. It might arrest, imprison, scourge them, and put them to death. Of this he warned them, yet gave them no sword for their own defense. On the contrary, he strictly forbade their using the sword.

Their own discretion, argument, flight, suffering and his mediatory care were all the resources he allowed them against the wildest fury of absolute temporal power. But the right of the civil government to arrest or hinder them the Savior ignored as a nullity. They were to go forth everywhere, obedient to him as their sovereign Lord in religious things, and so far independent of men. And their right to do so was finally to prevail over all opposing power.

This separation of religion from civil government was contrary to the theory and practice of mankind at the time it was announced. The Savior was the only being on earth who then perfectly understood it. Against it human power, thought and prejudice were at once arrayed.

During the last two thousand years, religion has been persecuted by hostile governments and corrupted almost to destruction by the foolish impious assumed authority of patronizing rulers. Every step of the advancement of separation of church and state has been won by endurance or bought with blood.

Christ proclaimed the independence of religion from civil authority. However, it has never been fully realized. The United States should be the first nation to establish a perfect separation of church and state.

All vestiges of civil power over the things that are God’s should be abolished.

Wow!
I'm an Australian, so this thread is not particularly pertinent to me, but it sure is providing some of the more interesting reading on these forums.
whammerjammer, I may be a hard core atheist, but I admire yr passion and conviction.
You'd be very useful on Capitol Hill slapping around those Christian lobby groups..go go gadget...

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaelscoffin:
whammerjammer, I may be a hard core atheist, but I admire yr passion and conviction. You'd be very useful on Capitol Hill slapping around those Christian lobby groups..go go gadget...

Who says they are Christians? I say they are evil demon worshipers posing as Christians. If they followed the teachings of Christ they would respect his ordinance against submitting religion to the authority of civil government. Let's call them "Counterfeit Christians."