Religious Liberty or Secularism?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is a platitude voiced by the Left that conservatives oppose change, or are even reactionary and would like to see the return of eras which were hostile toward various segments of our population.

It’s not a ‘platitude,’ it’s a fact.

The proof of this is conservative opposition to immigration reform, opposition to marriage equality, and opposition to privacy rights, to name but a few.

It’s part of conservative reactionary dogma designed to resist change, stifle dissent and diversity, and return America to an idealized past that never actually existed to begin with.

But, there is a ‘change’ that I would resist….The trend in our nation is toward a brand of secularization that promotes overt hostility toward religious institutions. Pop culture and many in the political sphere demonize and ridicule the religious in an attempt to remove any influence of religion from public life.

There is no ‘hostility toward religious institutions,’ that's a rightist contrivance and myth; rejecting religious intolerance, ignorance, and extremism in the context of the Constitution’s mandate that church and state remain separate is not ‘hostility.’

People of faith are depicted as ignorant, intolerant, and behind the times on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.

If people of faith seek to codify religious doctrine into secular law, then they are indeed exhibiting ignorance, intolerance, and reactionaryism.

People of faith are free to be ignorance, to hate homosexuals, and not have abortions, for example; but they are not free to attempt to foist those subjective, religious beliefs on the Nation as a whole.

Our approach rests on a literal constitutional interpretation. For conservatives, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

Ignorant reactionary nonsense.

Constitutional interpretation is part of the process of judicial review; where jurists use precedent/case law and facts and evidence of a given case to determine the constitutionality of laws and policies. It was never the intent of the Framers that the Constitution be perceived ‘literally’:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas (2003), writing for the majority striking down Texas’ un-Constitutional and repugnant ‘anti-sodomy’ law.

The Constitution therefore exists only in the context of its case law; ‘but that’s not in the Constitution’ is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

Conservatives reject Establishment Clause jurisprudence because they perceive it taking from them their status as a Christian ruling elite, and placing in jeopardy their political advantage:

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community…Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

Lynch v. Donnelly

The Bible is the wisdom of the West

The bible was written by men, the repository of their fear, ignorance, and hate. The Framers were wise to protect the people from that fear, ignorance, and hate by erecting a wall of separation between church and state, as codified by the First Amendment; it’s the principle of safeguarding the people from the bane of religion that made America great, not religion.

 

[Hollie]

You confuse rote memorization / cutting and pasting of history gleaned from the web with an understanding of American history.

You mightnot know the difference I most certainly do. I know this area of US History better than you can even imagine Hollie.

You forgot to append your comment with "because I say so".

You are incorrect. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

Otherwise, how is it the Christian cannot be forced by law to believe in Islam or Judaism? Clearly, the Christian is free from believing in the State religion. This is a fundamental point of the freedom of religion issue. Your inability to see this is coloring your post, as it is the keystone upon which your entire argument seems to rest.

Incorrect. Freedom from religion implies the right to prevent religion in the public square, to avoid even the exposure to same.. Governmental coercion involves the unpermitted establishment of religion.. You should know the difference Hollie.

Nonsense. You can pray, thump your bible, hallelujah down the public square if you wish.

What you can't do is force others to do the same. I am free from believing in your gods. Now you know the difference.

Why, since I do not practice christianity here.?

See? I have freedom from your religion.

You are really not at al knowledgable regarding these issues.



I have done so on numerous occasions... once more:

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

Clear and unequivocable reference to the Christian diety.[/quote]
Except that it appears nowhere in the language of the constitution.

You did not answer my question regarding where in the constitution the christian gawds are referenced.

You really should quit lying Hollie, it weakens your credibility. Now, are you going to answer my question about a religious cross placed erected (permanently I might add) on federal property? If you have freedom of religion such symbol should be removed from your sight, right?

Why are you lying? I have asked repeatedly for you to identify where in the language of the constitution we find references to your gawds.

Backpeddle?

 

[Hollie]

The Way of Improvement Leads Home: The U.S. Constitution and "the Year of our Lord"


The United States Constitution does mention God. In Article VII, the Constitution states:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....

I am often asked about this reference when answering questions about my book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation: A Historical Introduction.

The phrase "Year of our Lord," which is the only reference to God in the United States Constitution, was, of course, a standard eighteenth-century way of referencing the date. It reminds us that the Constitution was written in a different world than our own. Today we do not usually refer to the date this way. In the eighteenth century they did. The past is indeed a foreign country.

How did this reference to "the Year of our Lord" find its way into the Constitution?

We know that the phrase "Year of our Lord" was not included in the draft of the Constitution that was approved by the Convention. On Monday, September 17, 1787, James Madison moved that
the Constitution be signed by the members and offered the following as a convenient form viz. "Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th of Sepr. & c.---In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."

After some more discussion that day (unrelated to the "Year of our Lord" phrase) most of the members voted to approve the document. The wording of the final clause that they approved was different from the wording that would eventually appear in the final Constitution. The new wording included the phrase "Year of our Lord."

In case you want to research this for yourself, check out:

Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume II, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911). pp. 643ff.

So, once again, how did this phrase make it into the draft we have today? I don't know. The phrase was not in the draft that the members of the Convention voted on and it may not have appeared on the draft that the framers signed. Daniel Dreisbach, in a 1996 article in the Baylor Law Review (Vol. 48, p. 967) suggests that the reference to "The Year of our Lord" at the end of the Constitution "may have been merely a scrivener's touch." (He also cites a 1991 doctoral dissertation from the University of Dallas: Archie P. Jones, "Christianity and the Constitution: The Intended Meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, p.258, note 5).

The evidence available suggests that the phrase "Year of our Lord" was not part of the document approved by the members of the Constitutional Convention, but was probably added to the document sometime after the meeting.

 

[LittleNipper]

The Way of Improvement Leads Home: The U.S. Constitution and "the Year of our Lord"


The United States Constitution does mention God. In Article VII, the Constitution states:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....

I am often asked about this reference when answering questions about my book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation: A Historical Introduction.

The phrase "Year of our Lord," which is the only reference to God in the United States Constitution, was, of course, a standard eighteenth-century way of referencing the date. It reminds us that the Constitution was written in a different world than our own. Today we do not usually refer to the date this way. In the eighteenth century they did. The past is indeed a foreign country.

How did this reference to "the Year of our Lord" find its way into the Constitution?

We know that the phrase "Year of our Lord" was not included in the draft of the Constitution that was approved by the Convention. On Monday, September 17, 1787, James Madison moved that
the Constitution be signed by the members and offered the following as a convenient form viz. "Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th of Sepr. & c.---In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."

After some more discussion that day (unrelated to the "Year of our Lord" phrase) most of the members voted to approve the document. The wording of the final clause that they approved was different from the wording that would eventually appear in the final Constitution. The new wording included the phrase "Year of our Lord."

In case you want to research this for yourself, check out:

Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume II, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911). pp. 643ff.

So, once again, how did this phrase make it into the draft we have today? I don't know. The phrase was not in the draft that the members of the Convention voted on and it may not have appeared on the draft that the framers signed. Daniel Dreisbach, in a 1996 article in the Baylor Law Review (Vol. 48, p. 967) suggests that the reference to "The Year of our Lord" at the end of the Constitution "may have been merely a scrivener's touch." (He also cites a 1991 doctoral dissertation from the University of Dallas: Archie P. Jones, "Christianity and the Constitution: The Intended Meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, p.258, note 5).

The evidence available suggests that the phrase "Year of our Lord" was not part of the document approved by the members of the Constitutional Convention, but was probably added to the document sometime after the meeting.

Obviously, the signers could have all had the document rewritten and the phrase removed... But they didn't. They had no probblem with the obvious.

 

[Hollie]

The Way of Improvement Leads Home: The U.S. Constitution and "the Year of our Lord"


The United States Constitution does mention God. In Article VII, the Constitution states:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....

I am often asked about this reference when answering questions about my book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation: A Historical Introduction.

The phrase "Year of our Lord," which is the only reference to God in the United States Constitution, was, of course, a standard eighteenth-century way of referencing the date. It reminds us that the Constitution was written in a different world than our own. Today we do not usually refer to the date this way. In the eighteenth century they did. The past is indeed a foreign country.

How did this reference to "the Year of our Lord" find its way into the Constitution?

We know that the phrase "Year of our Lord" was not included in the draft of the Constitution that was approved by the Convention. On Monday, September 17, 1787, James Madison moved that
the Constitution be signed by the members and offered the following as a convenient form viz. "Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th of Sepr. & c.---In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."

After some more discussion that day (unrelated to the "Year of our Lord" phrase) most of the members voted to approve the document. The wording of the final clause that they approved was different from the wording that would eventually appear in the final Constitution. The new wording included the phrase "Year of our Lord."

In case you want to research this for yourself, check out:

Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume II, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911). pp. 643ff.

So, once again, how did this phrase make it into the draft we have today? I don't know. The phrase was not in the draft that the members of the Convention voted on and it may not have appeared on the draft that the framers signed. Daniel Dreisbach, in a 1996 article in the Baylor Law Review (Vol. 48, p. 967) suggests that the reference to "The Year of our Lord" at the end of the Constitution "may have been merely a scrivener's touch." (He also cites a 1991 doctoral dissertation from the University of Dallas: Archie P. Jones, "Christianity and the Constitution: The Intended Meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, p.258, note 5).

The evidence available suggests that the phrase "Year of our Lord" was not part of the document approved by the members of the Constitutional Convention, but was probably added to the document sometime after the meeting.

Obviously, the signers could have all had the document rewritten and the phrase removed... But they didn't. They had no probblem with the obvious.

There would have been no reason to re-write the entire document. The origin of term "Year of our Lord" being included in the closing salutation was of apparent unknown origin.

Apparently, the framers of the constitution did have a problem with the inclusion of "Year of our Lord". AS noted in the linked article, the term wasn't included in the draft of the Constitution that was approved by the Convention.

 

[koshergrl]

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Wow hollie, you are an Epic Moron.

I just can't say it enough times. Your argument with your own quotes is especially entertaining and intelligent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a platitude voiced by the Left that conservatives oppose change, or are even reactionary and would like to see the return of eras which were hostile toward various segments of our population.

It’s not a ‘platitude,’ it’s a fact.

The proof of this is conservative opposition to immigration reform, opposition to marriage equality, and opposition to privacy rights, to name but a few.

It’s part of conservative reactionary dogma designed to resist change, stifle dissent and diversity, and return America to an idealized past that never actually existed to begin with.

But, there is a ‘change’ that I would resist….The trend in our nation is toward a brand of secularization that promotes overt hostility toward religious institutions. Pop culture and many in the political sphere demonize and ridicule the religious in an attempt to remove any influence of religion from public life.

There is no ‘hostility toward religious institutions,’ that's a rightist contrivance and myth; rejecting religious intolerance, ignorance, and extremism in the context of the Constitution’s mandate that church and state remain separate is not ‘hostility.’



If people of faith seek to codify religious doctrine into secular law, then they are indeed exhibiting ignorance, intolerance, and reactionaryism.

People of faith are free to be ignorance, to hate homosexuals, and not have abortions, for example; but they are not free to attempt to foist those subjective, religious beliefs on the Nation as a whole.



Ignorant reactionary nonsense.

Constitutional interpretation is part of the process of judicial review; where jurists use precedent/case law and facts and evidence of a given case to determine the constitutionality of laws and policies. It was never the intent of the Framers that the Constitution be perceived ‘literally’:



The Constitution therefore exists only in the context of its case law; ‘but that’s not in the Constitution’ is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

Conservatives reject Establishment Clause jurisprudence because they perceive it taking from them their status as a Christian ruling elite, and placing in jeopardy their political advantage:

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community…Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

Lynch v. Donnelly

The Bible is the wisdom of the West

The bible was written by men, the repository of their fear, ignorance, and hate. The Framers were wise to protect the people from that fear, ignorance, and hate by erecting a wall of separation between church and state, as codified by the First Amendment; it’s the principle of safeguarding the people from the bane of religion that made America great, not religion.

I always find posts by C_Chamber_Pot interesting.
Irritating, perhaps...but always interesting.


Not in a good way but in a sad, pathetic way.

It is similar to the way I felt when the Blade Runner, Oscar Pistorius was revealed to have killed his beautiful girlfriend: so much potential wasted.

And...C_Chamber_Pot....so much potential, wasted.



Clearly, Chamber_Pot is not stupid, but his weak character sent him down a path of poor judgement, and the total acceptance of sophistry rather than actual learning.
He can memorize, true.

But lacks the strength of mind, and character, to question. That is, of course, what is a defining characteristic of Liberals.



Because he refers to legal decisions, one could assume he passed through law school. But he never heard of Pound or Langdell, the progressives who destroyed the study of law. They gave priority to judges decisions rather than the Constitution. And Pot attempts to use such decisions as though dispositive. They are not.


And his references to religion reek of government schooling: he says "The bible was written by men, the repository of their fear, ignorance, and hate."


The irony.

He should respect the Bible, as David Mamet writes:
"The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden."


In short, it is clear that C_Chamber_Pot was the kind of student who never questioned his teachers, or the concepts that they propounded, and lapped up every morsel of propaganda.
Less like a scholar, more like Pavlov's dog.


In reading his post, I couldn't help but recall the DSM-IV manual, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Smart....but so bent out of shape, he will never recover.

 

[koshergrl]

It's doubtful he had any teachers of quality in the first place....these pseudo intellectuals who give away their lack of learning by their abuse of the language and the inability to grasp simple concepts are not higher learning types..though they like to pretend they are.

 

[legaleagle_45]

You forgot to append your comment with "because I say so".

No need. You did not even pick up on the reference to Elliot's so obviously you are not as well versed in this area as I am and you did not even respond to my inquiry as to why Hamilton, Madison and Jay were initially opposed to a Bill of Rights. Did you know that it was correspondence with Jefferson (who was in France) which changed Madison's mind about a Bill of Rights? Of course you did not because you have no real understanding of what the FF were all about... sheesh you even believe most of them were not Christian!!! ROFLMAO!!!

You can pray, thump your bible, hallelujah down the public square if you wish.

Thereby exposing you to religion and violating a non existent right you claim to have to be free from religion. What you wish to proclaim as "freedom from religion" is actually to be freedom from governmental coercion. Because certainly private coercion is not only allowed, but protected by freedom of religion. Thus a street preacher has a constitutional right to subject you to his religious beliefs as he preaches on the sidewalk... Of course you can try to avoid him and you can cover your ears, but you can not silence him. Of course "freedom from religion" would extend beyond merely governmental sponsored religion. You could, if your thesis is correct, sue your mom for forcing you to go to Sunday School.

See? I have freedom from your religion.

Nope, because you can not prevent them pesky Christian Scientists from knocking on your door... see they have a constitutional right to knock on your door and bother you... even if you have a “no solicitation sign” attached to your front door. You of course can slam the door in their face but you can not prevent them from bothering you. As you walk through the airport, the Hare Krishnas have a constitutional right to dance all around you and offer you a flower. You of course have a right to not accept that flower and run away from them Hare Krishna dudes screeching in terror. Your Mom had a Constitutional right to force you when you were a minor to go to Sunday School and you had no legal recourse to prevent it... thus, no "freedom from religion". You can not even sue her now for doing so, if in fact she had done so... thus no “freedom from religion”

You did not answer my question regarding where in the constitution the christian gawds are referenced.

You really should quit lying Hollie, it weakens your credibility. I have clearly and expressly answered your question on numerous occasions. Now, are you going to answer my question about a religious cross placed erected (permanently I might add) on federal property? If you have freedom of religion such symbol should be removed from your sight, right?

 

[koshergrl]

Sky Dancer used to say parents should be prosecuted and their children removed, and raised by the state, if they took their children to church.

She also said Christians should not be allowed to teach (even if they didn't mention religion) or work in public office.

That's the mindset of progressive fascists.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The Way of Improvement Leads Home: The U.S. Constitution and "the Year of our Lord"


The United States Constitution does mention God. In Article VII, the Constitution states:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....

I am often asked about this reference when answering questions about my book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation: A Historical Introduction.

The phrase "Year of our Lord," which is the only reference to God in the United States Constitution, was, of course, a standard eighteenth-century way of referencing the date. It reminds us that the Constitution was written in a different world than our own. Today we do not usually refer to the date this way. In the eighteenth century they did. The past is indeed a foreign country.

How did this reference to "the Year of our Lord" find its way into the Constitution?

We know that the phrase "Year of our Lord" was not included in the draft of the Constitution that was approved by the Convention. On Monday, September 17, 1787, James Madison moved that
the Constitution be signed by the members and offered the following as a convenient form viz. "Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th of Sepr. & c.---In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."

After some more discussion that day (unrelated to the "Year of our Lord" phrase) most of the members voted to approve the document. The wording of the final clause that they approved was different from the wording that would eventually appear in the final Constitution. The new wording included the phrase "Year of our Lord."

In case you want to research this for yourself, check out:

Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume II, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911). pp. 643ff.

So, once again, how did this phrase make it into the draft we have today? I don't know. The phrase was not in the draft that the members of the Convention voted on and it may not have appeared on the draft that the framers signed. Daniel Dreisbach, in a 1996 article in the Baylor Law Review (Vol. 48, p. 967) suggests that the reference to "The Year of our Lord" at the end of the Constitution "may have been merely a scrivener's touch." (He also cites a 1991 doctoral dissertation from the University of Dallas: Archie P. Jones, "Christianity and the Constitution: The Intended Meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, p.258, note 5).

The evidence available suggests that the phrase "Year of our Lord" was not part of the document approved by the members of the Constitutional Convention, but was probably added to the document sometime after the meeting.

The fact is that the engrossed copy containing the original signatures of the persons signing them has the words:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....

By their signatures they are acknowledging and approving the language as a matter of law. Further, the ratification of the document by the states created the Constitution as a legally binding document. The document which they ratified contained such language and it is therefore legally a part of the document itself, despite your protestations to the contrary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sky Dancer used to say parents should be prosecuted and their children removed, and raised by the state, if they took their children to church.

She also said Christians should not be allowed to teach (even if they didn't mention religion) or work in public office.

That's the mindset of progressive fascists.

I'm pretty sure that Sloth (carby) said that parents have no rights re: education of their children, in this thread....

Astounding.

Exactly what totalitarians believe.

 

[oldfart]

The primary reason the framers were "neutral" on religion within the Constitution was due primarily to the diverse number of different sects across all regions of the country. Although some of the "founding fathers" believed religion had no place in government (amongst these would be Madison, Jefferson and Franklin) some were quite religious and fundamentalist in nature (Sam Adams is oftentimes termed the last Puritan). Most were concerned that a regional dominance within the federal government would lead to the imposition of the dominant religion of that region. This is the primary reason religious neutrality is found in the Constitution. At the time of the formation of the Constitution some states had official state religions and this was unaffected by either the Constitution or the 1st Amend. Madison tried to include a proposed amendment in the Bill of Rights which would have prevented states from infringing upon "freedom of conscience", however (and even though it was Madison's favorite of all the proposed amendments) it was rejected by Congress and was not even sent to the states for ratification.

This is the best summary of the First Amendment religious clauses I have seen. Good work!

Could you give me a source for your information on Madison's proposed amendment? My main area of expertise is not the early constitutional period, but I find this fascinating. Thanks.

Jamie

 

[Hollie]

The Way of Improvement Leads Home: The U.S. Constitution and "the Year of our Lord"


The United States Constitution does mention God. In Article VII, the Constitution states:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....

I am often asked about this reference when answering questions about my book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation: A Historical Introduction.

The phrase "Year of our Lord," which is the only reference to God in the United States Constitution, was, of course, a standard eighteenth-century way of referencing the date. It reminds us that the Constitution was written in a different world than our own. Today we do not usually refer to the date this way. In the eighteenth century they did. The past is indeed a foreign country.

How did this reference to "the Year of our Lord" find its way into the Constitution?

We know that the phrase "Year of our Lord" was not included in the draft of the Constitution that was approved by the Convention. On Monday, September 17, 1787, James Madison moved that
the Constitution be signed by the members and offered the following as a convenient form viz. "Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th of Sepr. & c.---In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."

After some more discussion that day (unrelated to the "Year of our Lord" phrase) most of the members voted to approve the document. The wording of the final clause that they approved was different from the wording that would eventually appear in the final Constitution. The new wording included the phrase "Year of our Lord."

In case you want to research this for yourself, check out:

Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume II, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911). pp. 643ff.

So, once again, how did this phrase make it into the draft we have today? I don't know. The phrase was not in the draft that the members of the Convention voted on and it may not have appeared on the draft that the framers signed. Daniel Dreisbach, in a 1996 article in the Baylor Law Review (Vol. 48, p. 967) suggests that the reference to "The Year of our Lord" at the end of the Constitution "may have been merely a scrivener's touch." (He also cites a 1991 doctoral dissertation from the University of Dallas: Archie P. Jones, "Christianity and the Constitution: The Intended Meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, p.258, note 5).

The evidence available suggests that the phrase "Year of our Lord" was not part of the document approved by the members of the Constitutional Convention, but was probably added to the document sometime after the meeting.

The fact is that the engrossed copy containing the original signatures of the persons signing them has the words:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....

By their signatures they are acknowledging and approving the language as a matter of law. Further, the ratification of the document by the states created the Constitution as a legally binding document. The document which they ratified contained such language and it is therefore legally a part of the document itself, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Yet, in spite of your attempts to force christianity into the constitution, nowhere in the wording of the constitution is there any mention of christianity. What we do know is that the FF's knew full well the dangers of Christian theocracies and framed a constitution that was entirely neutral toward religion.

I think you will have to find somewhere else to peddle your gods.

 

[koshergrl]

"Our Lord".

Lol....

 

[Underhill]

1. There is a platitude voiced by the Left that conservatives oppose change, or are even reactionary and would like to see the return of eras which were hostile toward various segments of our population.
This view is predominant among the most ignorant, the ‘low information voter.’

2. But, there is a ‘change’ that I would resist….The trend in our nation is toward a brand of secularization that promotes overt hostility toward religious institutions. Pop culture and many in the political sphere demonize and ridicule the religious in an attempt to remove any influence of religion from public life.

a. People of faith are depicted as ignorant, intolerant, and behind the times on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.

b. Somehow, the Left’s attempts to eradicate religious views from the public arena comes out of progressive media as the exact opposite....such as ‘your attempts to force your religion down our throats.’
Again…widely believed by ‘the low information voter.’






3. The conservative’s embrace of religious liberty is rooted in the values of the nation’s Founders, and a wish to preserve those principles. Our definition of religious liberty is to practice the religion of one’s choice, or none at all, in either a private or a public setting. Children’s voluntary recital of prayer in public school, or the President’s reference to God in a national address, or the use of federal funds of faith-based groups that aim to aid those less fortunate are all covered.

a. …in fact, all practices that do not violate, do not infringe on the unalienable rights or the liberties of another.

b. If one can simply turn off or ignore some advertisement that is annoying or offensive, the same options should apply here.

4. Our approach rests on a literal constitutional interpretation. For conservatives, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

a. So, when President Obama goes to Europe and declares that the United States is not a Christian nation, he is correct: this is not a Christian theocracy, nor do I know of any movement to make it so.

b. But the most rabid proponent of secularization is hard-pressed to deny that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and values. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and invoked God numerous times in the founding documents.

c. “The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.” David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge.”






5. And so, the argument comes down to the conservatives standing by what the Constitution actually says in the first amendment, and the spin of the secularist, attempting a colloquial argument based on wishes and interpretation.



“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

I would agree that there is a shift towards thinking religion is an archaic idea from times past and a bit silly.

But what does that have to do with the constitution? Public sentiment towards religion has nothing whatsoever to do with the constitution and everything to do with the image of the churches and their followers.

The constitution says people can believe what they like and that the government won't endorse or support it's own religion.

I support that. 100%. That has nothing to do with how I feel about religion or it's followers.

And the more you continue trying to turn this into a holy campaign against your faith the more people will laugh at you. Better to just turn the other cheek and move on. It seems I've read that somewhere....?

 

[Underhill]

"Our Lord".

Lol....

You forgot the rest of it.

"In the year of our lord..."

They are naming the date in the parlance of their time. Of course you know this as it has been explained to you before. You simply ignore it because it completely destroys your argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. There is a platitude voiced by the Left that conservatives oppose change, or are even reactionary and would like to see the return of eras which were hostile toward various segments of our population.
This view is predominant among the most ignorant, the ‘low information voter.’

2. But, there is a ‘change’ that I would resist….The trend in our nation is toward a brand of secularization that promotes overt hostility toward religious institutions. Pop culture and many in the political sphere demonize and ridicule the religious in an attempt to remove any influence of religion from public life.

a. People of faith are depicted as ignorant, intolerant, and behind the times on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.

b. Somehow, the Left’s attempts to eradicate religious views from the public arena comes out of progressive media as the exact opposite....such as ‘your attempts to force your religion down our throats.’
Again…widely believed by ‘the low information voter.’






3. The conservative’s embrace of religious liberty is rooted in the values of the nation’s Founders, and a wish to preserve those principles. Our definition of religious liberty is to practice the religion of one’s choice, or none at all, in either a private or a public setting. Children’s voluntary recital of prayer in public school, or the President’s reference to God in a national address, or the use of federal funds of faith-based groups that aim to aid those less fortunate are all covered.

a. …in fact, all practices that do not violate, do not infringe on the unalienable rights or the liberties of another.

b. If one can simply turn off or ignore some advertisement that is annoying or offensive, the same options should apply here.

4. Our approach rests on a literal constitutional interpretation. For conservatives, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

a. So, when President Obama goes to Europe and declares that the United States is not a Christian nation, he is correct: this is not a Christian theocracy, nor do I know of any movement to make it so.

b. But the most rabid proponent of secularization is hard-pressed to deny that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and values. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and invoked God numerous times in the founding documents.

c. “The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.” David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge.”






5. And so, the argument comes down to the conservatives standing by what the Constitution actually says in the first amendment, and the spin of the secularist, attempting a colloquial argument based on wishes and interpretation.



“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

I would agree that there is a shift towards thinking religion is an archaic idea from times past and a bit silly.

But what does that have to do with the constitution? Public sentiment towards religion has nothing whatsoever to do with the constitution and everything to do with the image of the churches and their followers.

The constitution says people can believe what they like and that the government won't endorse or support it's own religion.

I support that. 100%. That has nothing to do with how I feel about religion or it's followers.

And the more you continue trying to turn this into a holy campaign against your faith the more people will laugh at you. Better to just turn the other cheek and move on. It seems I've read that somewhere....?

What the heck took you so long to get here??

Got your answer waiting for you:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/283427-the-courts-and-religious-schools.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Our Lord".

Lol....

You forgot the rest of it.

"In the year of our lord..."

They are naming the date in the parlance of their time. Of course you know this as it has been explained to you before. You simply ignore it because it completely destroys your argument.

Aside from the one on top of your head, you might have a point.....

....if it had been written as you've attested.


But it was written this way:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....


You are entitled to the lack of respect shown by the lower case 'lord.'
I don't believe for a moment that your choice was random; bet you always write it that way.
Don't you.


The Founders clearly didn't feel the same.

 

[Underhill]

Sky Dancer used to say parents should be prosecuted and their children removed, and raised by the state, if they took their children to church.

She also said Christians should not be allowed to teach (even if they didn't mention religion) or work in public office.

That's the mindset of progressive fascists.

That's the mindset of a few.

The mindset of most progressives is that parents often do a terrible job raising their kids. They brainwash them on any number of subjects, often without even realizing it.

Heading down that path is a dangerous and silly one. And most progressives would agree with me. In fact, I would bet Sky Dancer would even admit to being cheeky and not entirely serious.

The point of a statement like that is to point out the damage parents often do to their kids by indoctrinating them. And it is a legitimate concern. But not one that can be legislated away any more than legislating away super sized drinks is the answer to America's weight problem.