The U.S. Constitution is not divinely inspired, even incompatible with Christianity (1 Viewer)

[SystemShock]

Who has not seen the picture of the Founding Fathers surrounding Jesus, who's holding a freshly written U.S. Constitution? Because, you know, the U.S. is a Christian nation founded on Christian values. But not only would you be hard pressed to find any "value" in the U.S. Constitution not found outside Christianity (you can't), the U.S. Constitution, much like science, is incompatible with Christianity.

And you don't have to go any further than the 1st Amendment and the 1st and 2nd Commandments.

Most people will point out that the 1st Amendment gives us freedom of religion, which is usually interpreted (at least for what I see in my personal experience) as being able to practice Christianity without persecution (as if). That is true. However, if you read the 1st Amendment carefully, you will notice that the very first freedom it gives you is freedom from religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...

Further, the second sentence, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, gives us freedom to exercise any religion, not just Christianity.

In contrast, the 1st and 2nd Commandments say:

I am the Lord thy God
Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Without heeding those commands, which under the U.S. Constitution you don't have to heed, you are not going to get to the kingdom of the Christian God. I am not aware of any Christian document, divinely inspired or otherwise, that does not command you to have no other god in front of Yahweh, or that offers salvation when you exercise freedom of religion.

 

[Rawlings]

The 1st, you mean. I don't know how you can read the first sentence of the 1st and not conclude it states "freedom from religion".


Of course I don't.
You can't point me in the direction of a Christian religious text that says you have the freedom of having gods other than one, or no god at all. Go ahead.
I'll wait.

In Christian context, "free will" is not the same thing as "freedom from religion" or "freedom of religion"; there is a substantial penalty for not believing in God or believing in other gods.


There are no "natural rights", and there is no "natural law" either. Further, the 2nd Amendment just states " being necessary to the security of a free State". That's it. It doesn't specify anything remotely resembling any golden rule. And Native Americans will tell you, they didn't feel the neighbor's love.


There is nothing in the Bible that had not been established as ethical centuries before its books/letters were written.


There is nothing historically unique about the "Christian Golden Rule" other than it mentions yet another god.

The concept of human rights is a secular concept, a man-made concept. If you read the Bible, you'll notice there are a lot of people who didn't have and don't have any rights.

You're seriously confused. See above.

 

[SystemShock]

You're seriously confused. See above.

Of course I am

 

[Saintman2884]

The 1st, you mean. I don't know how you can read the first sentence of the 1st and not conclude it states "freedom from religion".


Of course I don't.
You can't point me in the direction of a Christian religious text that says you have the freedom of having gods other than one, or no god at all. Go ahead.
I'll wait.

In Christian context, "free will" is not the same thing as "freedom from religion" or "freedom of religion"; there is a substantial penalty for not believing in God or believing in other gods.


There are no "natural rights", and there is no "natural law" either. Further, the 2nd Amendment just states " being necessary to the security of a free State". That's it. It doesn't specify anything remotely resembling any golden rule. And Native Americans will tell you, they didn't feel the neighbor's love.


There is nothing in the Bible that had not been established as ethical centuries before its books/letters were written.


There is nothing historically unique about the "Christian Golden Rule" other than it mentions yet another god.

The concept of human rights is a secular concept, a man-made concept. If you read the Bible, you'll notice there are a lot of people who didn't have and don't have any rights.

In the American or Anglo-Saxon historical interpretation of secularism or faith vs. separation of church and state is meant or the term "freedom from religion" isnt seen as lets say, the French Revolutionary ideals of strict separation of church and state, or la caise, IIRC where the state sorts of adopts this vigorous, suspicious, from time to time perhaps, antagonistic or caustic views toward believers of any religion(Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc.) as opposed to state neutrality towards religion or religious believers. You seem to hold views more in line with French Republican strict seperation of church and state.

I think we can agree at least we don't want Soviet Union Marxist-Leninist or their Eastern European Cold War satellite Warsaw Bloc states policies where mosques, churches, or synagogues were ransacked, burned, defiled, destroyed, believers were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, sent to gulags or put in prisons, or at the very least, put under constant police harassment or surveilance.

 

[Rawlings]

Of course I am

I know,, right? It's a good thing I'm here to straighten you out.

 

[Roofgardener]

The constitution is a series of instructions to Congress, relating to its function as a legislative body.
The Bible is a series of coded instructions to an individual, acting as an individual.

Why would you expect them to be consistent with one another ?

 

[Yggdrasill]

Actually, the sociopolitical theory on which America was founded—the classical liberalism of natural law—was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Christianity's unique promulgation of the Golden Rule: Love God above all other things, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Hence, God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights. These rights are inalienable. They cannot be given, taken or transferred. They can only be violated. Everyone knows that to violate the life, liberty or property of another is evil, as everyone knows they would not wish that their life, liberty or property be violated by another. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. —Declaration of Independence​

The foundation of America's rule of law is the promulgation of God's sociopolitical will on Earth. God's theological will is that all men freely come to the foot of the cross, as it were, repent and trust in Christ.

I don't see how the classical liberalism of natural law was extrapolated from the "sociopolitical ramifications of the Christianity's unique promulgation of the Golden Rule..." Please draw that line a little more directly.

You say that, "God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights." But the Declaration of Independence section you quoted specifically describes government as the human-derived vehicle to secure these rights.

Finally, how do you know what God's theological will is. Are you privy to some divine channel that the rest of us aren't?

 

[SystemShock]

I don't see how the classical liberalism of natural law was extrapolated from the "sociopolitical ramifications of the Christianity's unique promulgation of the Golden Rule..." Please draw that line a little more directly.

You say that, "God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights." But the Declaration of Independence section you quoted specifically describes government as the human-derived vehicle to secure these rights.

Finally, how do you know what God's theological will is. Are you privy to some divine channel that the rest of us aren't?

He gone.

He was just regurgitating William Lane Craig's arguments.

 

[Roofgardener]

I read a Dan Brown novel.. can't remember what it was called - but it highlighted some of the religious symbolism in the Capitol Building, including a fresco built into the roof of the Rotunda called 'The Apeothis of Washington, which is DRENCHED in religious symbolism (though not necessarily christian)

The Apotheosis of Washington - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Yggdrasill]

I read a Dan Brown novel.. can't remember what it was called - but it highlighted some of the religious symbolism in the Capitol Building, including a fresco built into the roof of the Rotunda called 'The Apeothis of Washington, which is DRENCHED in religious symbolism (though not necessarily christian)

The Apotheosis of Washington - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's cool. I had not heard of that fresco.

 

[bird]

Actually, the sociopolitical theory on which America was founded—the classical liberalism of natural law—was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Christianity's unique promulgation of the Golden Rule: Love God above all other things, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Hence, God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights. These rights are inalienable. They cannot be given, taken or transferred. They can only be violated. Everyone knows that to violate the life, liberty or property of another is evil, as everyone knows they would not wish that their life, liberty or property be violated by another. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. —Declaration of Independence​

The foundation of America's rule of law is the promulgation of God's sociopolitical will on Earth. God's theological will is that all men freely come to the foot of the cross, as it were, repent and trust in Christ.

Um, no. Rights did not, do not and never will exist outside of the body politic. Jefferson’s rhetoric in the Declaration was just that, rhetoric. The founders could not bring themselves to actually believe it which can be seen by their fear of democracy and unwillingness to deal with slavery not to mention ignoring women or the unpropertied. As for God’s will or Inshallah? Who defines God’s will? The Protestants who slaughtered Catholics? The Catholics who slaughtered Protestants? The Muslims who impose dhhimitude? The Hebrews who slaughtered those who were living in the area called Canaan? The constitution derives far more from Locke than from Scripture of any kind.

 

[Hamish Howl]

What's interesting is that Jesus only mentioned government a few times, and when it did, it was injunctions to obey and/or get along with said governments, and that being Godly was totally disconnected from that. Render unto Caesar and all that.

Our constitution is compatible with any religion that doesn't convert by force (legal or physical).

 

[bird]

What's interesting is that Jesus only mentioned government a few times, and when it did, it was injunctions to obey and/or get along with said governments, and that being Godly was totally disconnected from that. Render unto Caesar and all that.

Our constitution is compatible with any religion that doesn't convert by force (legal or physical).

What is more intriguing is that scriptural comments regarding governments such as obeying them or that said governments were instituted by deity were completely ignored by the founders.

 

[Hamish Howl]

What is more intriguing is that scriptural comments regarding governments such as obeying them or that said governments were instituted by deity were completely ignored by the founders.

Well, yes. They were either in agreement or weren't relevant, so why mention them?

 

[bird]

Well, yes. They were either in agreement or weren't relevant, so why mention them?

It goes back to the “Christian Nation” and “this country was founded by and/or has a deity sanctioned destiny”. The constitution is not so much compatible with any religion as it is unconcerned with religion generally. There are certain, one would say limited, instances where government steps into the religion muddle but they are and should be few and far between. The same applies on the flip side. When religion and politics mix you get politics.

 

[Hamish Howl]

It goes back to the “Christian Nation” and “this country was founded by and/or has a deity sanctioned destiny”. The constitution is not so much compatible with any religion as it is unconcerned with religion generally. There are certain, one would say limited, instances where government steps into the religion muddle but they are and should be few and far between. The same applies on the flip side. when religion and politics mix you get politics.

Oh, sure, it's obvious to anyone who reads the constitution that religion was never supposed to be involved in American politics or vice versa.

It is my view that tax exemptions for churches that step across that line should be revoked and taxes backdated to the action that caused the revocation.

 

[Saintman2884]

Um, no. Rights did not, do not and never will exist outside of the body politic. Jefferson’s rhetoric in the Declaration was just that, rhetoric. The founders could not bring themselves to actually believe it which can be seen by their fear of democracy and unwillingness to deal with slavery not to mention ignoring women or the unpropertied. As for God’s will or Inshallah? Who defines God’s will? The Protestants who slaughtered Catholics? The Catholics who slaughtered Protestants? The Muslims who impose dhhimitude? The Hebrews who slaughtered those who were living in the area called Canaan? The constitution derives far more from Locke than from Scripture of any kind.

Actually, if one closely reads John Locke's classical Enlightenment philosophy and how it influenced Jefferson's own political views, philosophy, Jefferson actually knowingly changed one of Locke's most famous sayings about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property", the last part to " Happiness ". John Locke wasnt some unwilling nationalist revolutionary, politically he believed that English form of common law, Parliamentarism served as the best, most realistic form of safeguards against tyrannical despots, which is why, ironically, he likely would've been part of Oliver Cromwell Parliamentary faction during the English Civil War from 1642-1649 against King Charles I's Royalists even though Cromwell wanted to install(and sort of did set up) a Puritan-styled, repressive re!igious autocracy called the Commonwealth by English historians.

And some political historians have casted doubt on whether Locke really had such an optimistic affirming view of human rights or were some of his views maybe a little like John Hobses, who viewed democracy as mob rule, barbaric, and held a pessimistic view towards human nature and if anything, may have been more of a Machiavellian type philosopher with a scientific bent and focus to it. Leviathan does at times at different parts have sections that sound like more scientific, intellectual arguments found in Machiavelli's The Prince. John Locke, himself, may have had some Machiavellian sympathies or believed some of his ideas had merit to them.

Compared to later European Enlightenment philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, and even existentialists like Blaine Pascal, or my personal favorite Nietzsche, I wouldn't classify John Locke a classical idealist or a political democrat in the same fashion as Rousseau and Voltaire were and are.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire were the intellectual and moral underpinnings and idealogical drive of the French Revolution, in all its good, bad, and violent, dangerous furies of historical relavence, posterity it has descended down to us to be reviewed, analyzed, and incessantly debated over some 232 years later.

 

[Saintman2884]

It goes back to the “Christian Nation” and “this country was founded by and/or has a deity sanctioned destiny”. The constitution is not so much compatible with any religion as it is unconcerned with religion generally. There are certain, one would say limited, instances where government steps into the religion muddle but they are and should be few and far between. The same applies on the flip side. When religion and politics mix you get politics.

In the case of British government sort of getting involved in a religious/political sectarian divide and it invariably leads to nearly a century of bombings, attacks and counter-attacks, assassinations and retaliatory shootings, killings, murders, look at the issue of 1919 Irish independence and essentially British negotiators telling their Irish/Sinn Fein/IRA counterparts the 5 predominantly Protestant Ulster counties would never agree to join a united, Catholic Ireland and be discriminated against.

I know there's a tendency, even now, by some outsiders to view the northern Ireland issue as a religious-based, sort of sectarian civil war, and in some respects maybe more in the last then now, it sort of was but it really isn't, still it's a good example of separating a island nation or region or subcontinent based around religious/ethnic lines like how the British are IMHO, mostly responsible for the extreme riots, sectarian violence, communal destruction between Indian Hindus and Muslims after the disastrous Indian partition of 1947 which saw the world's largest, mass-migration of people across two soon-to-be-independent nations where they had lived there for centuries and were suddenly uprooted, in human history. Its been estimated that between 500,000-800,000 Indian Muslims and Hindus were killed due to this forced resettlement, mass relocation via starvation, disease, rapes, murders, or individuals or entire families committing suicide to avoid being hunted down, burned to death, shot and killed, or their wives or daughters raped or killed.

Ironically, it wasnt the British imperial authorities who killed Gandhi, it was fanatical members of a Hindu ultranationalist sect who hated his supposed, passive acceptance of Indian partition that shot and killed him, viewing him as a traitor. Strangely enough, about a week before his murder, Gandhi in a way sort of foreshadowed his own death when he told a colleague maybe he didn't belong in this new, independent India after a previous assassination attempt to bomb his lodgings at a Hindu temple, failed. I believe Gandhi always knew or maybe privately accepted subconsciously he'd die a violent death or be assassinated, but I'm not entirely sure he ever seriously considered the possibility a fellow Hindu would've committed it.