Alabama Supreme Court

[Lincoln]

Kind of makes you think revisionists need quite a few years before they can make their alterations to history believable doesn't it? Study of the original documents however makes the later Supreme Court decisions appear exactly what they are: Legislating from the bench.

[Boris Godunov]

Yeah, except the revisionism from those trying to claim a Christian legal basis is the real problem:

"A determined faction of Christians has fought against this wise and time-tested policy throughout our history. In the mid 19th century, several efforts were made to add specific references to Christianity to the Constitution. One group, the National Reform Association (NRA), pushed a "Christian nation" amendment in Congress in 1864. NRA members believed that the Civil War was divine punishment for failing to mention God in the Constitution and saw the amendment as a way to atone for that omission.

The NRA amendment called for "humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, [and] His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government." Ten years later, the House Judiciary Committee voted against its adoption. The committee noted "the dangers which the union between church and state had imposed upon so many nations of the Old World" and said in light of that it was felt "inexpedient to put anything into the Constitution which might be construed to be a reference to any religious creed or doctrine.""

If Congress was smacking down the notion of ours being a Christian nation back in 1864, I don't think that bolsters the case much.

[Lincoln]

First of all I don't personally think that America was ever a Christian nation. The point is that our laws were established on theistic principals and Christianity had a great influence. Your earlier assertion that "Creator" can also mean a materalistic creation is absurd for example.

[Ned]

Boris, interesting quote. However, the unabridge dictionary states that common law in the US is the entire body of English law as it stood when we adopted the constitution - this included statutes of general applicability. Common law may have originated in the 5th century, but it is not limited to that era.

However, note that in the area concerning marriages and divorces, wills and the like, ecclesiatical law was predominate and controlled in England and for that reason was part of the US Common law.

[Lincoln]

There is a big storm here so I have to go. I must leave you all with a quote from John Locke in his letter of toleration 1689:

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.


Of course John Locke had no influence on the founding of the United States did he???

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Your earlier assertion that "Creator" can also mean a materalistic creation is absurd for example.

Yeah, except the guy who wrote the passage referencing "the Creator" explicitely stated otherwise.

Regardless, the DoI isn't a legal document and thus has no legal force on our system of government, so saying it is somehow proof our laws are based on theism is simply false. It is a philosophical statement, not a legal one.

[Lincoln]

"Yeah, except the guy who wrote the passage referencing "the Creator" explicitely stated otherwise."

Please show where he said that.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"Yeah, except the guy who wrote the passage referencing "the Creator" explicitely stated otherwise."

Please show where he said that.

It's in his original draft, the changes to which he strongly objected:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Note that "equal creation" has no necessary theological implications whatsoever.

[Lincoln]

Here is Jeffersons's rough draft of the Declaration:

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, & to assume among the powers of the earth the equal & independent station to which the laws of nature & of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change.

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; . . .

Who exactly is "natures god" and why did you omit that portion of his draft?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Lincoln
What is being illegally established now in America is atheism. Two wrongs do not make a right. I couldn't care less if the commandments are removed or not but the silly reasoning of atheists who wish to establish their own form of belief on government is not convincing either.

What a load of horse****.

If atheism were being established, there would be a big monument in the Alabama Supreme Court saying "THERE IS NO GOD." The Pledge would say, "...one nation, under no god..." Our money would say, "We trust in no god."

There is a gigantic different between government not acknowledging the existance of a deity either way, and a government denying the existance of all deities.

It is absolute ****ing hysteria to say that atheism is being established. You're smart enough to know that, Lincoln.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Of course John Locke had no influence on the founding of the United States did he???

What's the relevance if they didn't they agree with his theological views? Obviously they didn't, since they didn't enshrine such a principle in law and atheism is as protected as theism.

Funny you should quote Locke. Would you think they shared his views on Catholics?

[DinoDoc]

I find it interesting that Boris would only quote the part that supports his position and ignore the rest.

[Lincoln]

That's how you do effective revisionism Dino...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Who exactly is "natures god" and why did you omit that portion of his draft?

I omitted it because it wasn't relevant, since we were discussing the use of "Creator." You're now trying to shift it to something different, and understandably so.

"nature's god" (not capitalized, you'll note) is a reflection of Jefferson's Deism:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2615

"Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ."

The Ten Commandments certainly aren't going to hold any sway over a deist nor what a deist thinks of the law. Look into the deist view god, and you'll see that it is a view far more akin to secular atheism than to theistic religion. The deist view is that the creator does not meddle in human affairs, and thus doesn't hand out laws. Mankind develops the laws:

"that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men."

Laws are of men, not any god.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I find it interesting that Boris would only quote the part that supports his position and ignore the rest.

Nice try, but see my response to Lincoln above. And I didn't selectively quote anything, as the source I pulled the text from only had the one paragraph on it, which was all I was looking at.

Any more red herrings you guys have to avoid the subject?