US Constitution based on Secular or Judeo-Christian values

[Roadhouse158]

On the separation of powers, Montesqieu was heeded by the Founders and he wrote on the need for separation (although the idea had been around for a long time before him).

As for freedom from religion/freedom of religion. I suppose if the Founders had wanted a state religion they would have made sure it appeared in the Constutition.

I agree. The founders didn't want an Official religion. They also made law that the government could not stop ones religious expression. This happens everyday in this country. Christianity is in no way pushed on people by the government. Maybe by citizens. However, if a local city councilman ends a prayer with "In Jesus Name" there are lawsuits filed. This is clearly the government getting involved in someones religious freedom. One persons beliefs, no matter what his/her job, is not the government forcing others into accepting only that religion. It is one person, freely expressing his/her beliefs. That part is in the constitution. Not separation of church and state. I know that some would say that being against gay marriage is a religious belief, therefore religion is being pushed on the people. So what. Religous beliefs set certain standards as to what one thinks is right and wrong. People who aren't religious at all have standards of right and wrong. Should there be an amendment that states, Congress shall pass no law establishing what's right or wrong, as to others may not agree with you? I see no problem with a candidate being religious. As long as I am not told what religion I have to be.

[diuretic]

It does seem to me, from afar, to be a bit ridiculous at times, the reaction against isolated and personal instances of religion in government. I suppose the objectors, primarily the ACLU I think, are concerned about the slippery slope possibilities. Speaking only for myself, it wouldn't fuss me, heck all our parliaments here (federal and state) start with parliamentary prayers (and in hundreds of years not one parliament has lost its roof ). I suppose when we get our first Muslim MP they'll have to allow for his or her prayers otherwise they'll either have to dump the idea or be accused of hypocrisy (as if that would worry too many politicians).

Anyway I'm strongly in favour of people having the right to worship, I would be offended if it were any other way.

[Hagbard Celine]

It does seem to me, from afar, to be a bit ridiculous at times, the reaction against isolated and personal instances of religion in government. I suppose the objectors, primarily the ACLU I think, are concerned about the slippery slope possibilities. Speaking only for myself, it wouldn't fuss me, heck all our parliaments here (federal and state) start with parliamentary prayers (and in hundreds of years not one parliament has lost its roof ). I suppose when we get our first Muslim MP they'll have to allow for his or her prayers otherwise they'll either have to dump the idea or be accused of hypocrisy (as if that would worry too many politicians).

Anyway I'm strongly in favour of people having the right to worship, I would be offended if it were any other way.

It's a small minority of people who become outraged at issues regarding religion. More often than not, it's self-professed Christians who become outraged that there are people who dare have beliefs different from their own. Yet from reading the majority of posts on this forum, you'd think it was everybody in the US who votes Democrat.

[Psychoblues]

Dig that, HC.

It's a small minority of people who become outraged at issues regarding religion. More often than not, it's self-professed Christians who become outraged that there are people who dare have beliefs different from their own. Yet from reading the majority of posts on this forum, you'd think it was everybody in the US who votes Democrat.

But you can't convince these hypocrits of it in a million years!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[trobinett]

Dig that, HC.



But you can't convince these hypocrits of it in a million years!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ain't THAT the fucking truth.............

[Classact]

I found a new source to fully explain how the USA is based on Judeo Christian values while doing some research on individual rights on another debate site. I think everyone wondering about the religion involvement in the founding of our nation should read this...

In the history of modern man individual rights were not clearly defined until the age of enlightenment. Prior to that period all societies were ruled by might, there were courts that resolved disputes in the Roman Empire but they were primarily in place to limit irritating disputes between subordinated masses.

Please take time to read this entire link for it answers the questions of rights, nature, Creator and reason leading up to the recognition of individual rights. It’s a long read but shorter than this thread and full of great information. http://history-world.org/age_of_enlightenment.htm

[PostmodernProphet]

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!

I agree with neither, but fault you for overlooking the influence of John Calvin and the Geneva legislative system that he created (balance of power) that was imported into the British system by William of Orange.....

[PostmodernProphet]

It's a small minority of people who become outraged at issues regarding religion. More often than not, it's self-professed Christians who become outraged that there are people who dare have beliefs different from their own. Yet from reading the majority of posts on this forum, you'd think it was everybody in the US who votes Democrat.

it isn't that your beliefs are different from ours, it's that your beliefs are different from reality that bothers us.....

[Classact]

In the section “The Enlightenment And The Age Of Reason In Philosophy” in the link I posted in my last post Kant explains the basis of individual rights.

Before the eighteenth century, the Enlightenment was confined to Holland
and England. Its earlier Dutch spokesmen were religious refugees, like the
French Huguenot Pierre Bayle (1674-1706), whose skepticism and pleas for
religious toleration were widely known in France. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1687),
a Jewish intellectual and Holland's greatest philosopher, was a spokesman for
pantheism, the belief that God exists in all of nature. Spinoza's influence,
along with Newton's, profoundly affected English thinkers. Mary Astell
(1666-1731), perhaps the earliest influential English feminist, lauded
rational thinking and cited Newton as proof of an ordered universe. Such ideas
were given more credibility by John Locke (1632-1704), the famous English
philosopher. Back home from exile in Holland after the Glorious Revolution of
the 1680s, Locke applied Newton's recently published principles to psychology,
economics, and political theory. With Locke, the Enlightenment came to
maturity and began to spread abroad.

In the section “The Reaction Against Reason”

Beyond the material world was a realm unapproachable by science. Moral and
religious truths, such as God's existence, could not be proved by science yet
were known to human beings as rational creatures. Reason, according to Kant,
went beyond the mere interpretation of physical realities.

In Kant's philosophic system, pure reason, the highest form of human
endeavor, was as close to intuition as it was to sensory experience. It
proceeded from certain subjective senses, built into human nature. The idea of
God was derived logically from the mind's penchant for harmony. The human
conscience, according to Kant, might be developed or be crippled by
experience, but it originated in the person's thinking nature. Abstract
reason, apart from science and its laws, was a valid source of moral judgment
and religious interpretation. Thus Kant used reason to give a philosophic base
back to mystical religion. ^10

[Footnote 10: See Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason (New York:
Collier, 1902.)]

http://history-world.org/age_of_enlightenment.htm
These assumptions seem very hard to refute, read the Declaration of Independence, your comments please.