US Constitution based on Secular or Judeo-Christian values

[Missileman]

In what way?

"Freedom of religion", AKA "worship whichever god you choose" violates "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods but me".

[Jeep Driver]

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.

[Psychoblues]

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.

[Classact]

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.

My idea was to debate the idea that the founders were just a bunch of rich guys looking to get richer and they wrote a constitution that the people rejected... the people refused to ratify it. Later the people, the religious people, ratified it after removing much of the power from the federal government while protecting the power of the people from the government. The very fact that 99.9% of the population were Christians including the rich fat white powerful folks running things would indicate this is a Christian nation and the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights reflects the religious values of "the people". How does it do it without saying cause God says so... it does it by the amendments associated with common law and judge by jury... Christians will make the moral laws they like and they will be the determining judge of fact and not a rich fat white powerful government official. I would like everyone to consider that there is a possibility that the founders did not have the people's best interest at heart at that time.

Look at the historian Charles Beard. and look at rebellions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion and now look at this guys prospective... http://americareads.blogspot.com/200...rigins-of.html

Is everyone aware that the first printing of the American bible was authorized and printed by the first Congress of the US? It is a matter of Law. The American version of the King James Bible... Government Printing Office...

[Jeep Driver]

My idea was to debate the idea that the founders were just a bunch of rich guys looking to get richer and they wrote a constitution that the people rejected... the people refused to ratify it. Later the people, the religious people, ratified it after removing much of the power from the federal government while protecting the power of the people from the government. The very fact that 99.9% of the population were Christians including the rich fat white powerful folks running things would indicate this is a Christian nation and the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights reflects the religious values of "the people". How does it do it without saying cause God says so... it does it by the amendments associated with common law and judge by jury... Christians will make the moral laws they like and they will be the determining judge of fact and not a rich fat white powerful government official. I would like everyone to consider that there is a possibility that the founders did not have the people's best interest at heart at that time.

Look at the historian Charles Beard. and look at rebellions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion and now look at this guys prospective... http://americareads.blogspot.com/200...rigins-of.html

Is everyone aware that the first printing of the American bible was authorized and printed by the first Congress of the US? It is a matter of Law. The American version of the King James Bible... Government Printing Office...

I have to agree with your intent to expose commerce as the priority.
The stamp act got most of the Revolution started in the first place.
And had it not been for
Shay's rebellion We would not even have a Bill of Right's .
Shay's was over money as well. Farmers being thrown into jail
because of unfair taxes.
Religion did to some degree help to unite the colonies ( States) .
But it was commerce that drove the rebellion .

It takes me a while to reply sometimes . I have only one good hand to type with.

[diuretic]

I think that the Constitution was founded on ideas that sprang out of the Enlightenment and that would mean that religious (or as it was put, Judeo-Christian values) wouldn't have been the philosophical underpinning given that the Enlightenment was a reaction against the stifling hand of religion.
It was a realisation that humans were rational, thinking creatures and not pushed around willy nilly by an interventionist god or a monarch who claimed to have derived authority from a god. So I reckon it was secular.

[Hobbit]

I think that the Constitution was founded on ideas that sprang out of the Enlightenment and that would mean that religious (or as it was put, Judeo-Christian values) wouldn't have been the philosophical underpinning given that the Enlightenment was a reaction against the stifling hand of religion.
It was a realisation that humans were rational, thinking creatures and not pushed around willy nilly by an interventionist god or a monarch who claimed to have derived authority from a god. So I reckon it was secular.

That's a myth. The Enlightenment was was a religious movement, and all of the figures portrayed as rebelling against the church weren't rebelling against Christianity, just the dogmatic Catholics. What inspired the Enlightenment was that God gave us an intellect and curiosity to unravel the mysteries of the universe and that it was high time we use it. Those pioneers of the movement weren't rejecting God. On the contrary, their desire to know God better drove them to great discoveries.

The atheist movement, as well as the secular movement, on the other hand, didn't really gain steam until the 20th century. Until then, most people believed in some kind of god and nobody obsessed over trying to extract all traces of God from certain things.

[diuretic]

That's a myth. The Enlightenment was was a religious movement, and all of the figures portrayed as rebelling against the church weren't rebelling against Christianity, just the dogmatic Catholics. What inspired the Enlightenment was that God gave us an intellect and curiosity to unravel the mysteries of the universe and that it was high time we use it. Those pioneers of the movement weren't rejecting God. On the contrary, their desire to know God better drove them to great discoveries.

The atheist movement, as well as the secular movement, on the other hand, didn't really gain steam until the 20th century. Until then, most people believed in some kind of god and nobody obsessed over trying to extract all traces of God from certain things.

The Enlightenment was not a religious movement, it was a movement of secular rationality. It wasn't about atheism either, It is entirely possible to be religious, to believe in a deity and yet allow that humans are capable of rationality and that not everything is moved by a god. That's the driving intellectual force behind the Enlightenment. It was a force that moved humans away from being dominated by superstition and into rationality. Remember it was Nietzsche who declared God was dead, but that wasn't until much later. The Enlightenment was a rejection of the terrible fatalism that some religions visit upon their faithful. The struggle was to prove that humans could exercise rationality and free will and weren't subject to the overwhelming influence of the unholy alliance between church and state.

There is no "atheist movement". There have always been voices sceptical of gods and the claims made about them. It's just that these days the punishment for being an atheist is much less harsh than it used to be (well in secular liberal democracies anyway).

[Little-Acorn]

It was a realisation that humans were rational, thinking creatures and not pushed around willy nilly by an interventionist god or a monarch who claimed to have derived authority from a god.

That's more or less what I said, but about the Constitution itself, not the ENlightenment. The Framers wrote it to provide the maximum of freedom while leaving the Fed govt enough power to do what it needed to... and then LIMITING the govt to those powers only.

So I reckon it was secular.

"Secular" only in the sense that the Constitution did not put any kind of religious facet into law. But the purpose of doing that was not to EXCLUDE religion from society or even from government. It was to leave people free to choose whatever religion they wanted, if any.

There's a lot of that in the Constitution - many things not addressed, so as to leave people free to decide them for themselves.

Later the 1st amendment was added, expressly forbidding the Fed govt from imposing or restricting any particular religion.

[diuretic]

That's more or less what I said, but about the Constitution itself, not the ENlightenment. The Framers wrote it to provide the maximum of freedom while leaving the Fed govt enough power to do what it needed to... and then LIMITING the govt to those powers only.


"Secular" only in the sense that the Constitution did not put any kind of religious facet into law. But the purpose of doing that was not to EXCLUDE religion from society or even from government. It was to leave people free to choose whatever religion they wanted, if any.

There's a lot of that in the Constitution - many things not addressed, so as to leave people free to decide them for themselves.

Later the 1st amendment was added, expressly forbidding the Fed govt from imposing or restricting any particular religion.

I can take all your points but I do think that the Founders wanted to avoid the mix of state and religion. They had experienced the corrupting influence of religion in government under the British, who had and have a state religion (albeit that its influence is now greatly diminished). Yes, religious tolerance is a must for a free society, people should be free to worship as they wish so long as their worship doesn't transgress the secular laws.

[Classact]

"Freedom of religion", AKA "worship whichever god you choose" violates "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods but me".

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".

[glockmail]

"Freedom of religion", AKA "worship whichever god you choose" violates "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods but me".

AKA "worship at any church you choose, any religion that you choose, or none at all", AKA: "exercise your free will".