Originally posted by
aCultureWarrior View Post
God was already mentioned numerous time in the preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence. It was established in that great document that man's rights come from God. Not Buddha, not Allah, nor the many pagan gods and goddesses of Hinduism, but the God of the Holy Bible.
The Declaration of Independence is a writing of divorcement.
You forgot the most important part: The creation of a new nation (minor details). 56 men signed the document that advised England that the colonialists established a new nation whose citizens rights come from God, (39 signed the Constitution 12 years later).
If all our nation had was the Declaration of Independence, we wouldn't have very much at all.
Every nation needs a foundation to govern upon, and the Founding Fathers establishing that man's rights come from God is a very solid foundation.
The Constitution is the document that secured our rights and established the brand new system of government that made America the unique "experiment" that it is today.
Why do you think that the founders put freedom of religion (remember, they only embraced the Christian religion and none other) in their first amendment? Sounds to me that they took their worshipping of God pretty seriously.
PS) Do you really think the reference to "Nature's God" is an orthodox Biblical one? You're aware of etymology of the phrase, right?
"According to Lord Bolingbroke [a mentor of Thomas Jefferson], the law of nature’s God is the Law which is found in God’s Word. This was the definition which was intended by Jefferson, and this was the manner in which his words were understood by our forefathers. The law of nature’s God upon which our nation was founded is nothing less than the Bible itself."
https://thefederalistpapers.org/curr...of-natures-god
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I suppose an elected government official putting his or her hand on the Holy Bible as he or she is sworn into public office would be an act, as well as an opinion huh?
What it is, is meaningless. And unbiblical.
And here I thought that the 30 or so references in the Bible dealing with vows and oaths were very meaningful (and since those verses are in the Bible, that makes them..."biblical".
I did not know that s man taking a vow before God and his wife to be faithful to her is...."unbiblical". Nor did I know that a elected civil official "vowing" before God and the people he is representing to uphold the pro biblical based laws of the land were..."unbiblical" either.
Sigh, the things one learns on the internet.
The solemn power granted to elected officials doesn't come from some vain tradition of vowing over a holy book. It comes from the consent of the governed. Politicians are absolutely free to swear to the Book of Mormon, a rabbits foot, the Quran or the Necronomicon on their own time and in their own place of worship. Again, such personal opinions about deities and ancient texts are utterly irrelevant to the State.
Yet they all took their oath on the Holy Bible.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
That was something that was required by the respective States at one time. [religious oaths].
That is correct. But once again, the mere existence of a law, a practice or a cultural tradition in history, is not a prima facie argument for its Constitutionality.
"Religious requirements for political office in the United States were unconstitutional on the national level of the
federal system of government established by the
Constitution of the United States since the ratification of the articles of the Constitution in 1788. The
No Religious Test Clause of
Article VI of the Constitution expressly stated that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". Additionally, the
Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution, explicitly prohibiting the
Congress of the United States from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion", was ratified as part of the
Bill of Rights only a few years later. Neither protected the
civil rights safeguarded by the Constitution from the authorities of the
individual states of the United States, as the Constitution was only deemed to apply to the
central government of the country. The state governments were therefore able to legally exclude persons from holding public offices on religious grounds.
[2]
As a result of the
incorporation of the Bill of Rights after the
American Civil War, the protections of the Bill of Rights were extended to the individual states on the basis of the
Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
State requirements for political office were not entirely abolished until 1961,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi..._United_States
Evidently is was considered "constitutional" for close to 200 years for the respective States to have religious qualifications for holding public office.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Do tell what other religions the Founding Fathers "practiced" during the colonial years.
According to the rule of law of this nation-- specifically the Bill of Rights-- they were free to practice any religion and worship any god (or none) of their choosing-- without undue intrusion or penalty from the State.
If they were an elected official, as long as they held a position with the federal government (see my above link).
The notion that there was one acceptable way for citizens to believe or that the State would weigh religious opinions of citizens, is the kind of theodemocratic tryanny that make you chub up, but is antithetical to the distinctly American notions of liberty that make this great nation unique.
They practiced none other than the Christian religion.
