Should God's Law be the Law of the Land?

[Hollie]

Also the 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble were a compromise to avoid giving any religious authority license to use the Constitution to impose religious doctrine on anybody as well as protect religion from any coercion by the federal government. But it clearly referred to the wording of the Declaration of Independence that they, to a man, saw as the justification and purpose of the U.S. Constitution:



Further, almost all preambles to state constitutions begin with gratitude expressed to God for their liberties, and the very few who word it some other way manage to work that into to the body of the Constitution.

We cannot exclude that reverence for God and that understanding of rights given by God as being the core foundation of what this country was intended to be. And any who would take that understanding of God out of the equation are those who pave the way for us to return to bondage under government authority that will assign us the rights that we may have and can just as easily take them away.

It is my belief that God is still in his heaven and the supreme law of the land whether or not the people believe that or understand that or appreciate that. And we ignore it at our peril.

Still no mention of the Christian god.


"And any who would take that understanding of God out of the equation are those who pave the way for us to return to bondage under government authority that will assign us the rights that we may have and can just as easily take them away".

You're hoping to re-write and re-define the clear intent of the FF's. They knew that religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards themselves and poorly disposed towards competitive belief systems. We don't have to assume their intent -- even if they were Christians (and some of 'em were), the intent is clear: the state is precluded from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Hence, the First Amendment.

Actually AD (Anno Domini ) means 'in the year of our Lord' and it is spelled out in the Constitution. It is referring to Jesus.

Anno Domini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Damn you are one slow bitch.

Lovely folks those angry Christians.

Yet, after all your hurling of ad hominem attacks, you still haven't identified a single reference to the Christian god(s) in the wording of the constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Our Founders wanted to make sure that government could never again interfere with or oppress religious freedoms or establish one Christian denomination over another as the religion of state to the detriment of all others.

Wrong. They wanted only to ensure the federal government didn't. The several states did exactly that since they were colonies, and the FF wanted to ensure each state could continue to do so without interference from each other.

They wanted to ensure that the people were free to form whatever sort of society they wanted while being restrained from denying anybody else their unalienable rights. So the people themselves WANTED those theocracies and that is why they formed them. Nobody was prevented from going where there were no such rules/laws imposed on them. Those who wanted no religion at all were also allowed to form a society reflecting that.

This is what some don't understand. Self governance allows us to form the society we want to have. Freedom means nobody can tell us that we can't have the sort of society we wish to have. So if we want a narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community, we should be able to have that. If we want a pretty much lawless town in its hellfire days, we should be able to have that.

The Founders knew that a free people would be far more likely to get it right with trial and error than would ever be accomplished via an authoritarian government.

Incorrect.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution clearly documents it was the intent of the Framers that the laws passed by Congress and decisions by the Federal courts were supreme to the laws and courts of the states. That laws enacted by the states offensive to the Constitution are invalid, and that the states may not ‘nullify’ Federal law nor ignore Federal court rulings. See: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

“So if we want a narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community, we should be able to have that.”

Not if such restrictions prohibit the practicing of a minority faith, or disallow political participation of any person based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation. Or seek to deny public accommodations to any person based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation; or if such a community seeks to codify into secular law subjective religious doctrine and dogma in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Americans are free to revel in their ignorance and hate in the context of their personal lives, but they may not seek to make such ignorance and hate official and sanctioned policy through the authority of the state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They wanted to ensure that the people were free to form whatever sort of society they wanted while being restrained from denying anybody else their unalienable rights. So the people themselves WANTED those theocracies and that is why they formed them.

Then they should have been allowed to do the same thing at the federal level. Tyranny is tyranny regardless of scale. If it is wrong for one level of government to infringe upon someone's liberties, then it is wrong for another level of government to do the same.

Nobody was prevented from going where there were no such rules/laws imposed on them.

Like another country? Instead of going to war against the king?

Again, it is unlikely many, if any, of those who founded and guided the development of this country were saints. They put their pants on one leg at a time like everybody else. And they got some things wrong just as we do now.

As I said. Hence we should not pretend their writings or opinions are holy writ.

Indeed.

And this is something no libertarian or rightist has ever been able to reconcile. If libertarians and others on the right decry the ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government, how can they then endorse the tyranny of the states, where the tyranny of the latter is clearly evident, with regard to marriage equality and privacy rights, for example.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Our Founders wanted to make sure that government could never again interfere with or oppress religious freedoms or establish one Christian denomination over another as the religion of state to the detriment of all others.

Wrong. They wanted only to ensure the federal government didn't. The several states did exactly that since they were colonies, and the FF wanted to ensure each state could continue to do so without interference from each other.

They wanted to ensure that the people were free to form whatever sort of society they wanted while being restrained from denying anybody else their unalienable rights. So the people themselves WANTED those theocracies and that is why they formed them. Nobody was prevented from going where there were no such rules/laws imposed on them. Those who wanted no religion at all were also allowed to form a society reflecting that.

This is what some don't understand. Self governance allows us to form the society we want to have. Freedom means nobody can tell us that we can't have the sort of society we wish to have. So if we want a narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community, we should be able to have that. If we want a pretty much lawless town in its hellfire days, we should be able to have that.

The Founders knew that a free people would be far more likely to get it right with trial and error than would ever be accomplished via an authoritarian government.

So why all the rightwing fuss against Sharia Law? Isn't that just another form of "narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community" as any other "narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist Christian community"?

 

[varelse]

Of course, Clayton, it's always a matter of extent. For example, surely we'd all agree that slavery is tyrannical and serfdom and sharecropping are exploitive in nature. Is not taxation- or tribute- the same principle applied on a different manner or scale?

At what point do a few dissenters become an oppressed minority with just cause for revolt?

But that's anarchist talk....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Difference of kind, not degree. Taxation is not slavery, tyranny, serfdom, or share cropping. It is imposed by the legislature of We the People within the boundaries of our laws. Difference of kind, not degree.

 

[varelse]

Difference of kind, not degree. Taxation is not slavery, tyranny, serfdom, or share cropping. It is imposed by the legislature of We the People within the boundaries of our laws. Difference of kind, not degree.

It is imposed on one group by another in accordance with the law or system of rule in effect. If the group upon which it is imposed were so happy to have their wealth taken by another group, we wouldn't be having constant debates and political fights over the matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is a different question.

 

[varelse]

Not really. The FF were upset about, among other things, their wealth being taken in a system in which they felt they had no input or control, causing them to feel victimized and robbed. These are same complaints made by anarcho-socialists and the wealthy elite both, who feel they are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs and that those who confiscate their rightful wealth or property do so without concern for their wishes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, it is a different question no matter how you phrase it.

 

[turzovka]

Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.

"Many?" Define many.

And exactly which "absolute truths" are you referring to? Without being more specific, you are nothing more than a demagog. Apparently, that does not bother you?

More than a few.

The absolute truths that Christians believe in regards to their religion.

Why are you so defensive?

I am defensive because there are "many" out there who will hear you make these bold statements and buy into them because you sound so confident. And yet, you cannot talk to them yourself. Which of God's laws is the Christian faith trying to make the law of the land and make life so restricting for you and your pals? Since you sound so worried

 

[hortysir]

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

10. Thou shalt not covet.


The first four commandments have nothing to do with morals, ethics or anything of that nature. Those commandments have more to do with a jealous god; an egotistical god. Since commandments 1 through 4 don't really lay a foundation for good, moral standards, we'll throw those out. Now we have the Six Commandments.


My Ten Commandments

1. Thou shalt not kill.

2. Thou shalt not steal.

3. Thou shalt not abuse children.

4. Thou shalt not abuse your spouse.

5. Thou shalt not molest children.

6. Thou shalt not rape.

7. Thou shalt not destroy the property of someone else.

8. Be respectful of your fellow humans; bring no harm to them.

9. Take responsibility for your own actions.

10. Thou shalt not enslave another human.

1. Love the spiritual and not the material.

2. Do not play God, you will not impress God or anyone else.

3. Do not curse --- you'll only display ignorance.

4. Give life a break at least once a week, then everyone can get it together.

5. Honour parenthood.

6. Do not murder.

7. Do not commit adultery.

8. Don't take what belongs to someone else.

9. Always express the truth.

10. Don't lust after things you do not have.

Those are good ones.

We could just simplify them to:

Do not harm others.

Jesus already condensed the 10 for us"

Love your Lord thy God with all your heart
and
Love your neighbor as yourself

That covers 'em all

 

[Aristotle]

Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.

What think you?

No because Christiany is a splintered faith as it is. The ideals of Christians are not universal nor are the biblical interpretations. Laws should be rightfully secular as it ahould be able to apply to all people regardless of faith. What a Christian believes morally may not apply to a Jew and vice versa therefore any law whether moral or otherwise should be nonreligious and strictly on the basis of a universal ethic that most humans live by.

 

[Derideo_Te]

1. Love the spiritual and not the material.

2. Do not play God, you will not impress God or anyone else.

3. Do not curse --- you'll only display ignorance.

4. Give life a break at least once a week, then everyone can get it together.

5. Honour parenthood.

6. Do not murder.

7. Do not commit adultery.

8. Don't take what belongs to someone else.

9. Always express the truth.

10. Don't lust after things you do not have.

Those are good ones.

We could just simplify them to:

Do not harm others.

Jesus already condensed the 10 for us"

Love your Lord thy God with all your heart
and
Love your neighbor as yourself

That covers 'em all

All except one. Live and let live. (Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do.)

 

[hortysir]

Those are good ones.

We could just simplify them to:

Do not harm others.

Jesus already condensed the 10 for us"

Love your Lord thy God with all your heart
and
Love your neighbor as yourself

That covers 'em all

All except one. Live and let live. (Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do.)

Live and Let Live is the same as treating others as you would like to be treated.
That means it's the same as loving your neighbor as yourself

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can't we all just get along?

 

[varelse]

Can't we all just get along?

Hel no, you infidel!

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[LilOlLady]

GOD'S laws once they are know cannot be separated and control every aspect of our lives if we claim to be Christians. It virtually impossible for your religious beliefs to be a part of our every day life. It is part of who we are by being created in GOD's image. Obama ends his speeches with "god bless you and god bless america."

Impossible to separate church and state.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100716185748AAK2TN1

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not "church and state" but "religious value and state".

Or if atheist, "ethical value and state".