Senior Member
US Constitution based on Secular or Judeo-Christian values
Is the US Constitution based on secular, Judeo-Christian values or Social Darwin theory?
I believe the US Constitution, as amended is based on Judeo-Christian values which supports a free market capitalism system based on Social Darwinist's form of government.
The constitution itself without the amendments is a stand alone proof of Social Darwinist's value... the amendments added shortly after represent Judeo-Christian values.
Do you agree or disagree and why?
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)
Senior Member
Neither. The biggest inspiration is the Magna Carta, the failures of the Articles of Confederation, and Cato. The Federalist Papers go into great depth on what and why the nation should ratify the new document. The Papers also discuss the origins of many of the ideas and concepts incorporated into the new government being proposed and how they would be better than any document before for the people. That in itself is counter to any religious belief that God was first. While we may trust in God all others pay cash!
A chance for a new beginning, like a dawn of reconciliation.
The Ghin Tzu Master
Better yet, specifically why do you believe those things. I am not a social darwin kind of guy (illiterate in that area) nor have I ever viewed the Constitution from a religious point of view.Originally Posted by Classact
I'm Phil -- 40 something heterosexual white male, fairly self sufficient, great with my kids, wed 29 years to the same woman, and I firmly believe that ones actions have logical consequences. How much more out the box can you get nowadays? -- MSgt of Marines (ret)
Senior Member
Why did the Articles of Confederation fail? Why didn't they have a Constitution from the git go? The Constitution failed too... it couldn't be ratified.
The term Social Darwinists is defined as the pecking order... Darwin was not born yet, but the definition does relate. If you read the constitution it is written in a way that reflects the value of persons based on their wealth and power, a person's value is in their accomplishments of wealth and power. For an example the constitution is set up like free market capitalism... the best of the best stay in business... those with poor management fall to the wayside. Here I'm speaking of the constitution without the amendments.
Examples of the above are the construction of the Senate, who selects them... The election of the President, who selects them... In the original constitution only rich, powerful property owners could select Senators and the President... The vote of "the less than rich and powerful" was subordinated to the judgement of the Electoral College (rich, powerful folks from each state)...The Senate was appointed by the State Legislators... The Electoral College was likewise appointed. The House of Representatives that reflects "the people" is elected by the people... but if you look at the above powers given the Senate and President you must admit that the rich and powerful were to be selected by and amongst the rich and powerful. Look at the powers of the President... he can dismiss Congress or he can call them in at 6:00AM every day if he so desires under the established constitution... Would you not agree that is Social Darwinist? About the House of Representatives... Who could vote at the time? In the North "Property Owners", down to small shops could vote... in the deep South only plantation owners ports authority voted in federal elections.
So how is the Bill of Rights based on religious values? Can we agree that John Locke was the father of the Bill of Rights? He was a religious philosopher who visited the colonies and made friends with the NC Governor... the governor was impressed with his philosophy and created a State Bill of Rights... VA and other states did likewise... Does this guy qualify as religious?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#HumNatGodPurAccording to Locke, God created man and we are, in effect, God's property. The chief end set us by our creator as a species and as individuals is survival. A wise and omnipotent God, having made people and sent them into this world:
…by his order and about his business, they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's.
It follows immediately that ”he has no liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, yet when some nobler use than its bare possession calls for it.“ (II. ii. 5) So, murder and suicide violate the divine purpose.
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)
Transplanted Yankee
Henry Ford was a religious man. That doesn't mean his cars were a product of religious values.
The first amendment is contrary to Judeo-Christian values as it violates the first commandment.
Senior Member
My point was the constitution alone only supports government power while the Bill of Rights recognize and secure the rights of the people. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights have the same origin and that is Locke... Well Madison imported them from VA but the origin was Locke... So the Bill of Rights do in fact support the religious values of the people because the people were and are religious. The keys were the citizens rights to common law and trial by jury... in other words the law reflected the religious morals of the people and were judged by the people.
In what way?The first amendment is contrary to Judeo-Christian values as it violates the first commandment.
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)
Gunny's nightmare
Since the Constitution starts off with "to secure the Blessings of Liberty" and ends with "The Year of Our Lord", it is fairly obvious that the basis is Christianity.
Transplanted Yankee
"Freedom of religion", AKA "worship whichever god you choose" violates "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods but me".
Yes that is a .50
The Articles Failed because the states were still to divided to defend America.
"We needed to join or die. ( Ben Franklin). "
I know that quote was earlier than 1787 but it was still true for us.
It was natural evolution . brought on by necessity.
Your post is a great question . But where will we go with this?
Are you trying to assess our religious commitment as a country today?
Form a religious standard to approach future policy direction?
Question how much religious infulence is nessary?
Debate is fine , and fun. I just wondered if you are looking toward a
resolution to some loose ends found in the Constution. or Bill of Rights.
For Freedom's battle once begun ,
Bequeathed by bleeding sire to son,
Though battled oft' Is never won.
Corporal. 15th Combat engineers 77-80
Banned
The Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence were all based on the ideas of freedom, justice and above all the equality of mankind. Seems some folk failed in the interpretations through the years and they are still failing, miserably.
Senior Member
The First Amendment means "worship whichever denomination of the Protestant religion you choose but the government will, unlike Europe choose a winner to associate with".
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)
Extra Heavy
Main Entry: spe·cious
Pronunciation: \ˈspē-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, visually pleasing, from Latin speciosus beautiful, plausible, from species
Date: 1513
1<i> obsolete</i> : showy
2: having deceptive attraction or allure
3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic [<i>specious</i> reasoning]
"... whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." - Lysander Spooner
Gunny's nightmare
AKA "worship at any church you choose, any religion that you choose, or none at all", AKA: "exercise your free will".
Last edited by glockmail; 11-26-2007 at 09:01 AM.
Gunny's nightmare
Deflection. Look it up yourself.
Extra Heavy
Securing "the Blessings of Liberty" is not the same thing as securing "the Blessings of Christ", and using the idomatic convention "The Year of Our Lord" to establish the date of an event is not the same as an establisng principle. Your argument is specious, and pointing that out is not deflecting.
"... whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." - Lysander Spooner
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote