Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Okay let's open our books to "'God' and the Declaration and Constitution"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 09:12 AM
Original message
Okay let's open our books to "'God' and the Declaration and Constitution"
Edited on Tue Dec-07-04 09:13 AM by underpants
Last night...CLASS! class settle down...nowlast night I was flipping around the TV channels and came upon some sort of skunk-man named Hannity discussing a lawsuit in California (I believe it was) where a Superintendent of Schools decided that no religious based documents could be taught or taught about in class. A teacher seems to be suing to be able to teach about the US Declaration of Independence regardless of its mention of "God". This seemed strange to me because I did not recall seeing a reference to "God" in the Declaration at least not the Christians' "God" so let's look both at that document as well as the living document that is the basis of our law and government shall we?

In the Declaration of Independence there are THREE references

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and 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 separation.


Hmm that seems not really to be GOD but a reference to a more secular or perhaps Deist interpretation of "God".

Then there is the next paragraph
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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Again that (given the parameters established above) could be see as a more Deist "Creator" but notice that "God" is not mentioned.

At the very end of this document we find this more direct reference to what sounds or has been made to sound more in line with Christian beliefs.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Full text here (note that only the Delaware, New Jersey,and Georgia legislatures ratified this document unanimously):
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Now let us look at the US Constitution


"God" is not mentioned in the US Constitution. Let us remember that the First Amendment applicable here is widely considered to be a protection against state establishment of religion as the founding fathers were weary of the effects and influence that religion can have on government.


The only religious reference is found in the end of the document:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

Well there you have a direct reference to a higher power though the word "God" is not mentioned, but then there is the end of that sentence:

...and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth

Hmm seems to put the country itself on equal footing with some people's "Lord" at least in the measurement of time.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Okay questions? Comments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
chelsea0011 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. Repukes are funny
when god is mentioned in the Pledge, it is not the religious god, but rather a benign mention of the word god with no real forceful tact forcing a belief one way or another. But when they are now fighting for the use of god in the Declaration and Constitution, well this is the all powerful being that the fore fathers talked with personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Well looky looky it is an "orthodox Christian" bringing the suit
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1124041declar1.html

Steven Williams contends that brass at Cupertino's Stevens Creek School have recently rejected his use of "curriculum-related handouts" like the Declaration, various state constitutions, George Washington's journal, John Adams's diary, and writings by William Penn. Williams alleges that the San Francisco-area school's principal, Patricia Vidmar, banned the use of these handouts because "many original source documents from the founding era contain references to God and Christianity." Williams alleges that Vidmar cracked down on his lesson plans in May, shortly after he distributed an example of a presidential proclamation. The document he chose was one issued by President George W. Bush dealing with a National Day of Prayer. Williams, who describes himself as an "orthodox Christian," states in his complaint that he "understands and admits that he is not permitted to 'proselytize' or seek to convert his students to Christian beliefs during instructional time."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. THis could be more clearly presented--let me ask two questions
Edited on Tue Dec-07-04 10:07 AM by bryant69
1. Did the school board (or principle or other school authorities) restrict this gentleman and this gentleman alone from handing out the declaration of independence (and some other early documents) because they contained references to God? That seems to be his complaint, which is different than what I've heard previously (which is that such materials were generally banned).

2. What is the school boards side of the story? Even this website basically gives his side of the story in the sketchiest of terms, and mentions his use of President Bush's declaration of a national day of prayer. What is the context? What did he say as he passed it out? If Williams was using these documents to prove, for example, that only good Christians could be good Americans, than some sort of action is mandated (that he tried to pass out a document entitled "What great leaders have said about the bible might be a signal).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. First off Mr.Wiliams is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund
So far all I have been able to find (hardly any mention on google's news page) is all straight from the right and in the ADF's case the religous right. It seems to be a story of their own creation but I will keep looking.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/jbell_20041206.html

The Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing Williams in the case of Stephen Williams v. Cupertino Union School District, said other material that was considered inappropriate for the students were the diaries of George Washington and John Adams and the writings of William Penn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Those are the "disputed" diaries of George Washington
See my post below - the Eriposte site has good info on the validity of the George Washington prayer diary. The rest of the stuff in the lawsuit seems to be cherrypicked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Okay so far Cal Thomas , Rush, and The Pitt Post-Gazette are all over this
I can't find any response from the school board other than (see below) no comment-their lawyers are looking at it.

This seems to be the best context that I have been able to find but again this whole story (many editorials already -google "declaration lawsuit") seems to be completely from Williams and the ADF's point of view, they are framing this on their terms.

The filing, in U.S. District Court in San Jose, says the principal prevented Williams from using handouts excerpting such texts as America's Declaration of Independence, ``The Rights of the Colonists'' by Samuel Adams and President Bush's 2004 Day of Prayer proclamation.

Williams told the Oakland Tribune that use of the texts responded to a student's question on why the Pledge of Allegiance includes ``under God.''

After a parent complained, the principal started monitoring his lesson plans and handouts.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/12/04/f4.rel.lawsuit.1204.html









http://www.thebakersfieldchannel.com/education/3955595/detail.html

District officials said they received the lawsuit and referred it to their attorneys, but wouldn't comment further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marnieworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. The declaration of Independence is not law
He could speak of vishnu and jesus having a party together but it would be irrelevant. It was a great document and is a founding principle and spirit of USA but it is not law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Right
IT is interesting how Jefferson got around mentioning GOD directly and seemed to have editorialized his own beliefs into it huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bzmtq5 Donating Member (42 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. Okay "teacher", help me understand...

How:

"the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven" can possibly be misinterpreted to avoid understanding the reference "our Lord" is to Jesus Christ.

I know this sounds like something from a fundie but without fundamentals, you wouldn't be able to post messages on this site via a computer designed and manufactured by engineers whose grasp of math fundamentals is essential. Fundamentals are the foundation of everything built upon them, be they about God or man.


Perhaps this is the same question but how could:

"the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven" mean anything other than 1787 anno Domini? (One definition of anno Domini I understand is stated: "In a specified year of the Christian era"...this, and more detail, including the latin root is at dictionary.com, not to mention less fundamentally based sites)


No comment regarding the leap of faith required to believe the writers of the Constitution "put the country itself on equal footing with some people's "Lord" at least in the measurement of time" for though I'm a student, I want to encourage faith. I feel obliged to caution about what one puts their faith in however for it is possible to put faith in lies and that, by definition, is the wrong path.


"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." - G.K. Chesterton; Chapter 19, What I Saw In America, 1922
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. The entire sentence contains two measurements of time
It is actually striking to see the second one in this day and age. The mentioned of the date "of our Lord" surely is a reference to Jesus Christ and of the Christian measurement of time but the second seems to be the founding fathers going out of their way to point out that that is but one measurement of time and they included another.

I agree about putting faith in the wrong path. I would also point out that "faith" itself is a leap that Deists (I have done some reading on this lately) reject wholey.

AS far as Mr.Chesterton I have no opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. The only "founding father" who claimed to be a deist was FRanklin
Edited on Tue Dec-07-04 01:42 PM by Cheswick2.0
The rest attended church on a regular basis. And they founded a secular nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. "Endowed by their creator"
I was created by my parents. The Declaration is clear about many areas, but does not specify the nature of "creator." Doubtless we all have a creator; we are all ceatures, but they certainly were ambiguous about what and whom the creator was.

They could have said "by their Creator, Jesus Christ," but they left to each to determine who their creator is.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. I seriously doubt they meant mommy and daddy
What is a Creator other than God? God is just one name for Creator. I call it God, you might say "the energy that connects us all to the universe. It's all the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. I don't know what they meant, except...
that they didn't specify. And they didn't say THE creator, or A creator, but MY creator. I know who created ME and that was MY PARENTS!

You can believe whatever you want, that's the beauty. They worded it in such way as to cover the natural as well as the supernatural. I wouldn't say "the energy that connects us all to the universe." Because that has no meaning. If you want to say God, then call it God.

You see, how beautiful that phrase is, they left the interpretation open. You don't have to think my parents created me, you can think I sprung from the head of Zeus, or was farted out by the Great Turtle. Nevertheless, I can claim my inalienable rights.

I can name quite a few creators, Bach, Picasso, Edison, Jefferson, etc. Gods? To some, maybe.

--IMM

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. Honestly, if that is the best argument, then your case is quite pathetic
"The year of our lord" is the same as "AD", and is the basis for our calendar.

Talk to an atheist, they will tell you that this is the year 2004. If you catch them being formal, they may even add "AD". Saying "The year of our lord" is an eloquent way of being specific.

You are grasping at straws. Nowhere does it say "In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom we all firmly believe and upon whose religion we want all of our laws to be based..."

And, then, your comment about fundimentalists is just way off. I don't know where you come up with such a bullshit way of thinking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. Not only that--
They may say that this is 2004 C.E. which has largely replaced A.D. It stands for Common Era, thereby disproving the existance of God.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realisticphish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. the amusing thing
is that it is STILL based off the conjectured date of the birth of Christ. you could call it the 2004th year of the onion dip, and it wouldnt change anything


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. Dating conventions are not support of religion
:eyes:

Please, read the document. Your attempts are foolish on their face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Actually
Edited on Tue Dec-07-04 01:47 PM by H2O Man
they are very accurate in the context of which he speaks. It doesn't change the fact that there is a clear intention to keep the state from interfering with religion. But to pretend that the Founding Fathers were not highly precise word-smiths is not a serious argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
25. Remnants of the Roman Empire
Their calendar works but they are...gone. Anno Domini is Latin. Why isn't the Constitution in Latin?

I'm puzzled at your pupose here. Like distributing the "Watchtower" at a Bar Mitzvah. Are you researching how to unenlighten people?

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CornField Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
7. Yup, Deists
The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not bible-believing christians; they were deists.

Thomas Jefferson was suspicious of the traditional belief that the bible is "the inspired word of god." He rewrote the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament and compiled his own gospel version known as The Jefferson Bible, which eliminated all miracles attributed to Jesus and ended with his burial.

Jefferson said, "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823).

In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson said of this religion, "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy," Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33).

In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," James Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.

The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, preached a sermon in October 1831 in which he stated that "among all our presidents from George Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism" (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15). He went on to describe Washington as a "great and good man" but "not a professor of religion." Wilson said that he was "really a typical eighteenth century Deist, not a Christian, in his religious outlook" (Ibid).

The Reverend Bird Wilson, who was just a few years removed from being a contemporary of the so-called founding fathers, said further in the above-mentioned sermon that "the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected _not a one had professed a belief in Christianity_" (Remsberg, p. 120, emphasis added).

The last and least skeptical of these rationalists loaded his First Inaugural Address with appeals to the "Great Author," "Almighty Being," "invisible hand," and "benign parent of the human race," but apparently could not bring himself to speak the word "God" ("The United States in 1787," 1787 The Grand Convention, New York W, W, Norton & Co., 1987, p. 36).

Whatever else it might turn out to be, the Convention would not be a `Barebone's Parliament.' Although it had its share of strenuous Christians like Strong and Bassett, ex-preachers like Baldwin and Williamson, and theologians like Johnson and Ellsworth, the gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country--the New Englanders Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, the Southerners Episcopalians, and the men of the Middle States everything from backsliding Quakers to stubborn Catholics--and most were men who could take their religion or leave it along. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim that his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit" ("The Men of Philadelphia," 1787 The Grand Convention, New York W. W. Norton & Company, 1987, pp. 147-148, emphasis added).

At the constitutional convention, Luther Martin a Maryland representative urged the inclusion of some kind of recognition of Christianity in the constitution on the grounds that "it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." How ever, the delegates to the convention rejected this proposal and, as the Reverend Bird Wilson stated in his sermon quoted above, drafted the constitution as a secular document. God was nowhere mentioned in it.

As a matter of fact, the document that was finally approved at the constitutional convention mentioned religion only once, and that was in Article VI, Section 3, which stated that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Lynn R. Buzzard, executive director of the Christian Legal Society (a national organization of Christian lawyers) has admitted that there is little proof to support the claim that the colonial population was overwhelmingly Christian. "Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian," Buzzard wrote, "but the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776" (Schools They Haven't Got a Prayer, Elgin, Illinois David C. Cook Publishing, 1982, p. 81).

Historian Richard Hofstadter says that "perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790" (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82) and goes on to say that "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," noting that "in 1800 about one of every fifteen Americans was a church member" (p. 89).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thank you
That is excellent and gives me all kinds of stuff to research and read further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datasuspect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
36. ***crickets***
funny how the religionists avoid posts like yours . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
11. Atrios had some good links for this fiasco
The original post I read at Atrios.

A good primer on the lawsuit at Eriposte.

Seeing the Forest has more on it also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. OUTSTANDING
I saved it as a favorite and will read it at lunch. I KNEW this was bogus from the get go. Thanks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Yep. The crazy thing is that they do this all the time
I was in the environmental community in the 90's, and the "Wise Use" movement (the bad guys) did the same thing - over and over again. Take some story and feed it to the echo chambers to blow out of proportion and spin "the right way" and don't worry about a proper representation of the truth. If your story fails, then wait three weeks and try again. There doesn't seem to be any consequence for their behavior, so why shouldn't they use this method? The anti-Democratic stuff in the last year (first Dean, then Kerry) follows the same pattern, except more of their lies (let's call them what they are) seem to gain traction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Have you read "Big Lies" by Joe Conason?
That is what this is the Big Lie-see expecially chapter 8 on W's "spritual advisor" and the ties to the Domninion theorists.

Also look up Lewis Powell's 1971 letter to the US Chamber of Commerce and read it. You will see where the entire RW machine started (and expounded on Powell's direction) all funded by the Four Sisters.

Though HL MEncken would say that everyone does it.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Thanks!
I am a regular reader of Conason, but I haven't read his "Big Lies" book. I will see if I can find a copy at the local used bookstore.

I have found and printed the Lewis Powell stuff and a Media Transparency article on him. I will read them later today, but skimming the article I found it to be interesting. The letter will take a little longer to digest...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
19. The Declaration is a position paper, the Constitution is the Law
Think of the Declaration as a big, elaborate press release.

Smart buncha fellas, all right. They couldn't figure out that white guys without property should be able to vote (that was 1836) or that women should (that wasn't 'til 1920) or that you should be able to vote directly for a Senator (that was something like 1914). Hell, they couldn't even figure out that enslaving people based on race was untoward in the Land of the Free, but they knew that religion had no place in government. They were clear in saying that religion should be protected and we should be protected from it.

Regardless of the glancing references at religion in the Declaration, it should be taught in school; separating human history from religion is impossible, and as a big fan of reality, I don't see what the problem is. Teaching it ACCURATELY, however is the key, and we all know that proselytizing fundies will seize upon any misrepresentation to further their scalp-gathering to please the Sky Chief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
20. For sake of accuracy:
If you were to post the entire sentence that follows Article VII, it certainly does mention "Lord" in a context that is connected to Christianity ("... in the Year of our Lord ....") It is an error to say that the Constitution does not make reference to the culturally accepted "Lord" of the times.

Having said that, there is still a mountain of evidence that shows a support of the concept of keeping government out of religion; though none to support the claim that religion was supposed to remain out of government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. to be accurate
I did
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Yep.
You did ..... which makes your misinterpretation that much more curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Nope
I didn't read anything into it that isn't there like the word "God". Post #21 does a very good job of further explaining it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. God is not as specific
as "year of our Lord," which can only be a reference to Jesus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
really annoyed Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. "In The Year of Our Lord"
Doesn't that prove that our Founders wanted a Christian nation?

No.

This is an easy one, even though I’ve had it presented to me as if it were unanswerable evidence of our allegedly Christian heritage. When presented with this one, ask your critic if he worships the Sun god or the Moon god or the Germanic god Tiu or Norse gods Woden and Thor or the Norse goddess of love or the Roman god of agriculture or the Roman gods Janus or Mars. If he says “No,” insist that he stop referring to the days of the week as Sunday (named in honor of the sun god), Monday (after the moon god), Tuesday (the goddess Tiu’s Day), Wednesday (Woden’s Day), Thursday (Thor’s Day), Friday (Freya’s Day), Saturday (Saturn’s day). He’ll have to come up with new names as well for January (named after Janus) and March (after Mars). (It’s not hard to find other examples among names of months—and even place names can be relevant, since many who use the name of the largest city in California don’t believe in angels and probably no one worships Europa, princess of Greek mythology.)

The main point is simple: conventional forms of dating have nothing to do with religious commitment or belief, and everything formal in 1787 was dated “in the Year of our Lord.”



The framers also included a more recent conventional dating form, one that has not persisted as perhaps they hoped: they added, “and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.” The absence of religious reference in the body of the Constitution (other than the very positive “negative” about religion found in Article VI: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”) matters more. And the prescription for religious liberty found in the First Amendment is what really counts.

Well... I got this from a "secular" source, so you will probably not take much stock into it.

But it is true.... A "conventional form of dating" doesn't equal a Christian nation.

We are a free nation composed mainly of Christians. However, we allow freedom for religious minorities.

We were founded by religious men who founded a secular government. Our modern dating system is based on Christianity. It is no shock that The Constitution would be dated in that way. You MUST take it in a historical context also...

It's not politically correct to say the Founders were skeptical of religion these days, so I'm not even going to bring it up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. I'm not sure
why you bothered to post that. No one said the Founding Fathers wanted to make this a Christian nation. Hence, your post is a debate limited to yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC