Declaration of Independence unconstitutional

[Pythagoras]

Umm... Why does theism have form the basis for laws or morality? Maybe morals are based on the experience gained by societies through time on what societies that survive do. Those nations that have relatively strong morals are more tightly knit and wont sink into obscurity. Maybe there is a psychological basis for morality. Maybe things people do that are 'wrong' are due to some sort of psychological tension that was laid on them by horrible life experiences. Maybe those two facts interact, societies that dont beat their kids wont have psychopaths? Maybe it is based on religion and maybe God has something to do with it.

But who knows? I demand the right to decide MYSELF. And I want my kids to feel like they can to.

And the word "God" is only constitutional when the government mandates it be spoken.

[Lincoln]

Well you are in the right country then.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Do remember, most of the US Founding Fathers were Deists

No they weren't. Ben Franklin, Thomas Payne, Samuel Adams were. Thomas Jefferson was until the end of his life. I go to a church built on land he donated. George Washington, George Mason and James Madison actually participated in the formation of the Protestant Episcopal church. Patrick Henry tried to establish a state church in Virginia. John Hancock and John Adams had their own pews in a church in Boston. Most of the members of the continental congress belonged to one church or the other.

[Lincoln]

Don't confuse 'em with too many facts Doctor.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The Declaration is the foundation upon which this nation stands. That is why today is a national holiday. The fact is the great majority of the founders were theists and they formed the laws from that basis. In order to change the foundation it is necessary to have a revolution. It does little good to ignore history.

Most of the founding fathers were slave holders too. It doesn't mean we have to be. There were some brilliant men in that group, but no one is perfect. The Constitution was designed to allow for change. The Declaration was never meant to govern us.

I lived in Thailand for 5 months and I did not feel forced to accept Budahism.

There is no need for the government to promote a religion, or religion in general. That is not it's purpose. Teaching history with religious implecations is different than teaching religion. The DoI as used in the classroom should remain history.

It is a fact however that Thailand is a Budahist nation. It is also a fact that the United States was founded on the precepts of the Christian religion with the guarantee of freedom of worship for all. That just happens to be a fact.

It doesn't matter what the philosophical or moral reasons the founding fathers had. What matters is the law they formed to govern us, the Constitution.

If you read the article from John Locke that I referrenced you will see that he agrees that religion should not be forced on anyone, but theism forms the basis of our laws.

Excerpt from John Locke:

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.

He's applying his own morals here. Maybe he would lie uncontrollably if not basing his statements upon an oath to God, but that doesn't mean everyone else would. A Christian can lie, an Atheist can tell the truth, and vice versa. As long as people follow the laws, it doesn't matter what their motivation for doing so is.

[Lincoln]

You miss the point. John Locke's views on religion and state were written into the constitution. He believed in a seperation between the two but he also believed that God was not a forbidden word in civil government or in oaths etc..

Unless you believe that original intent can be seperated from existing law and their interpretation then you must accept the founder's intentions when they wrote the Constitution. Nothing in it refutes the principles of the Declaration of Independence. If one seperates original intent then he is on the road to absurd conclusions as we are today and as the Supreme Court affirmed in Holy Trinity v. United States,

[Aeson]

I'm not arguing that it is a forbidden word. If the government is promoting one religion over any other it is unconstitutional though.

Teaching about the DoI in a historical context is not.

Implying (in the classroom) that to be a good american you have to subscribe to the founding fathers views on religion is.

It has nothing to do with the term 'God'.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Pythagoras


I dont care if 30% of them were islamic or if they were all atheists, or if they followed Belzor the Pizza God. The point is that little kids should not BE FORCED in a school that THE GOV'T REQUIRES THEM TO ATTEND to state a belief that the nation is founded under God, Ala, under a Godless Sky, Vishu, Barfo the Hamburger God, Ronald Macndonald the Hamburger Antichrist, Isus, that cow thing in "Ten Commandments", or anyone. The 1st ammendment exists solely independent of the popular religion of America. (or so I thought before that sellout in cali. gave into public pressure)

Did you go to school in Virginia? When I was a lad we had some three years of Virginia history in addition to two years of US history. We read or recited the D of I each of those years and treated it like a religious article. Then again we treated Virginia history as a whole like some kind of religion.

Herer in Lynchburg Jerry Falwell's Liberty U is celebrating the 4th of July with a historic re-enactment - of a Civil War battle - which the Confederacy won. Is that patriotic gratitude or what?

[Lincoln]

I don't think anyone has to subscribe to the founding fathers views on religion. The fact remains however that they are intrenched in tradition and provided for in official government functions. There is no way to escape this influence without another revolution that produces another state. I feel comfortable in all countries regardless of their religious influence, whether state supported or not (except for nations like Iran). It would seem to me that true convictions are made more firm in adversity. Christian kids and children of atheists and Muslims seem to get along fine in countries like Thailand where Budah is on every corner. This whole thing seems like a storm in a teapot to me.

[Pythagoras]

Strangelove - No we didnt have anything nearly on that level. We had maybe half a year out of a US history class in VA history. Actually in 4th grade we had considerable VA history and visited Jamestown. There's so much crap taught in public school history classrooms these days, but thats a seperate issue. I went to school in VA Beach, generally I had a good educational experience. I have to agree that we probably have a larger concentration toward VA history, maybe because of our role in US independence and history.

I have no problem with the word "God" being used in government, just not in a mandatory fashion. I do believe that the word "God" is purposefully left out of the constitution.

[Provost Harrison]

Yep, the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional, and is considered revoked. Notice of repossession is on it's way to the President

[Aeson]

I agree that it's a subject that has been blown all out of proportion. So why did you feel it was necessary to bring it up?

As far as needing a revolution to change the wording of pledge, the founding fathers did not see fit to give us a pledge of alliegance. So why do we have one, and why is one needed at all? Also, our court system has already allowed for those who don't believe in God to give their word in court, without swearing on the Bible. Traditions can change.

We can't change the founding father's views on religion obviously, and I don't think anyone is trying to. We can change the wording of oaths/pledges without having to revolt though.

That's the difference between the DoI and the Pledge. The DoI is a historical document that we study in school. It's wording shouldn't be changed because that's how it was worded. We don't (or shouldn't) use the DoI as a confirmation of morality. The Pledge is not used as history, but rather as a confirmation of patriotism. It isn't necessary to believe in God to be a patriot, so the words 'under God' aren't necessary in the Pledge.

[Lincoln]

"So why did you feel it was necessary to bring it up?"

I guess I was just bored.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You miss the point. John Locke's views on religion and state were written into the constitution. He believed in a seperation between the two but he also believed that God was not a forbidden word in civil government or in oaths etc..

Unless you believe that original intent can be seperated from existing law and their interpretation then you must accept the founder's intentions when they wrote the Constitution. Nothing in it refutes the principles of the Declaration of Independence. If one seperates original intent then he is on the road to absurd conclusions as we are today and as the Supreme Court affirmed in Holy Trinity v. United States,

Any appeal to "original intent" has to be to the original intent of the signators of the constitution, not John Locke, however influential he might have been.

[Jack the Bodiless]

If you read the article from John Locke that I referrenced you will see that he agrees that religion should not be forced on anyone, but theism forms the basis of our laws.

Excerpt from John Locke:

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 effect of a government not tolerating atheists is to force religion on people.

What were the religious beliefs of those directly responsible for the words of the Declaration of Independence?

Because, regardless of whether it is "constitutional" or not, it is un-Christian!

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...

Nope, not according to Christianity. Christian theology teaches that we are all sinners deserving of death. We have no "rights". That is the justification for Biblical atrocities: God, or those acting with God's authorization, can do anything to us, for any reason or no reason. We have no right to expect anything better. We have no right to salvation either, no matter how good or pious we have been.

The closest Christianity gets to the concept of a "right to life" is the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill", more properly translated as "Thou Shalt Not Murder" (i.e. no killing without authorization: there is a lot of authorized killing in the Bible). Again, this represents a lack of rights: only God and his approved agents have the right to kill.

Christianity teaches that everything we commonly think of as a "right" is an undeserved gift for which we should be grateful. This is diametrically opposed to the notion of inalienable "human rights".

Maybe this is why Thomas Paine, who wrote "The Rights Of Man", was definitely not a Christian!