G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile

Buell Forum » Quick Board » Archive through September 07, 2021 » Theology, Philosophy, Free Speech & Unalienable Rights} » God and the constitution » Archive through April 01, 2020 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2020 - 08:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Why Western elites should stop lecturing Hungary
https://nypost.com/2019/10/02/why-western-elites-s hould-stop-lecturing-hungary/

I was reading this article and there's this interesting quote by the Hungarian foreign minister:

He goes on: “Our constitution starts with the word God: ‘God bless Hungarians.’ In our constitution, we recognize the role Christianity has been playing in maintaining our statehood.” That liberal opinion would stigmatize Hungary for honoring the Continent’s Christian patrimony only underscores liberal elites’ extreme secularist cast of mind.

Do you think more countries should mention God in their constitution?

(Message edited by Sami on March 16, 2020)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

H0gwash
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2020 - 12:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I think state constitutions are more political documents than they are philosophical documents. I say no, because IMHO it is a vague term, but politics will prevail and it will get put in there somewhere interesting and people will argue what it means.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2020 - 07:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

H0gwash,

Indeed, if people want it, then it will get in there. I was surprised to see that states such as Indiana actually mention (Almighty) God in their constitution. Here it is:

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
https://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst.html

PREAMBLE

TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.


Some other U.S. states mention God as well, but the American constitution doesn't mention God.

U.S. Declaration of Independence is a philosophical document, it mentions that rights come from the ''Creator''. You're right that people argue what it means. That's why it would be better to be more precise as the Hungarians have been by mentioning the God of Christianity and not some vague reference to it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ourdee
Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2020 - 10:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Us Hoosiers know all other god's are false gods.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2020 - 04:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The Founders were fairly diverse in their religious beliefs, but early America was predominantly Protestant, and of several sects, some of which fled persecution back in England.

( Insert Pilgrim Joke here )

I'm too lazy to look it up in the Federalist papers,etc. but I recall a lot of arguing about not offending anyone, thus Creator.

I'll have to think about my opinion on the wording.

My opinion on if God(s) should be mentioned, though, is yes. It gives philosophical foundations to the logical arguments and solutions the Constitution makes.

The Purpose of a Constitution is to define the relationship between the people, and the small portion of the people, who want to run things.

I'm biased, since I grew up with ours, so it seems natural. And stating up front you are modeled after an established moral code is wise.

Declaring any single subset of monotheism to be prime source is, problematic, however.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Friday, March 20, 2020 - 02:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Aesquire,

Hungary has declared the God of Christianity in their constitution, see here:

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Hun gary_2011.pdf

Here are two proclamations, for example:

We are proud that our king Saint Stephen built the Hungarian State on solid ground and made our country a part of Christian Europe one thousand years ago.
...
We recognise the role of Christianity in preserving nationhood. We value the various religious traditions of our country.


It seems to me that not declaring Christianity would be more problematic to Hungary, because then they have to deny their own history and the role that Christianity has played in shaping their nation. Of course, Hungary has received a lot of slack from Western elites for giving credit to Christianity. Also related:

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2017/august/chr istian-hungary-on-collision-course-with-european-u nions-islamic-blackmail

Could you name some problems that would arise from mentioning Christianity in a nation's constitution?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, March 20, 2020 - 03:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I don't think it's a problem for Hungary. Fairly uniform population, and they've been invaded and conquered by the Ottoman Empire, ( Islamist rule ) unlike here, so they have a perspective on Faith that we lack here.

Or they aren't Woke, and foolishly believe in Imaginary Spirits, a bunch of moronic bumpkins! ( The Leftist atheist mantra for "stupid" Jews and Christians. But not Muslims. ( because Jews and Christians won't murder them for blasphemy ) ) ; )

However, Americans are diverse. The wretched refuse that fled religious persecutions everywhere else. In some cases, because they were so annoying. : )

Which is still, today, a major reason Leftist atheist types dislike judeo-christian faiths. That whole sin thing cramps their fun. Oh, and they are utterly intolerant of competition.

So I'm fine with Creator as the compromise for "God, Christian Protestant, one of." Despite the constant propaganda that "we aren't a Christian nation" ( partly true ) and the need to constantly re-tell the truth to combat it.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-the-ch ristian-nation-quote/

I'd also be fine if the wording of the Constitution said "Almighty God" instead of Creator. IMHO it would just change the details of the ongoing argument, not change it materially.

But full disclosure, my primary focus is religious freedom. If you want to be Jewish, or Muslim, or Pastafarian, I will defend your choice against those who would destroy you, to their deaths, if need be.

When I swore an Oath to defend the Constitution, I wasn't all that concerned about the import tax provisions. Still not my priority. The Freedom & Responsibility rights and obligations come first. Without them, the rest is just theater & committee rules.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, March 20, 2020 - 11:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/03/a merican_exceptionalism_under_attack.html

More on the Founders and today's rebellion against God.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Saturday, March 21, 2020 - 03:57 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Had a chuckle at this:

''These were the naďve Greta Thunbergs of the 60s and 70s whose utopian visions were boosted by LSD.''

Aesquire, my understanding of American exceptionalism is that the founding fathers were more concerned with America unto itself rather than America extending itself. The article mentions the failure of the Vietnam war, which was arguably an attempt to extend American exceptionalism to other places around the world. This attempt to extend American exceptionalism was repeated during the Iraq war. The paradox lies in the fact that if American exceptionalism is extended to other places, then America is no longer exceptional. The founding fathers understood this paradox, which is why they limited American intervention in foreign affairs. What got Trump elected was ''America First'', that is to say, America unto itself rather than America extending itself.

You're correct regarding Hungary's uniform population and their different perspective on faith than America.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Saturday, March 21, 2020 - 07:24 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Actually the Vietnam War was for oil. The French Colony of Indochina had rebelled, and the Soviet puppet state of N.Vietnam was trying to steal the corrupt ( funny, how you never read of corruption of Communist Soviet States, when we now know they were terrorizing hells run by the rich ) S.Vietnam. Where oil had been discovered.

Why do you think China is building fortresses on those islands? OIL. And territorial acquisition.

Iraq & Afghan fronts showed us 2 things.

1. Trying to impose a Republic on a people who had since Saddam/Taliban murdered the Way to the top, not had a functional tradition of Citizen responsibility, or never had one, is a waste of lives.

2. We should have stolen the oil, like the anti American press and politicians accused us of.

Ok, that's sarcasm.

2. Controlling the borders is necessary. Not allowing the enemy a safe haven to attack you is vital. Korea, Vietnam, then Afghanistan/Iraq.

The ultimate failure is refusing to admit the people murdering you are at war with you.

American exceptionalism is a RESULT of limited Constitutional government and separation of Church and State, not the cause.

However, the Founders were, indeed, exceptional. Name another popularly elected President/Leader after the Revolution that voluntarily stepped down from power. The list is nearly as short as women who were pregnant virgins. ( on second thought...)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Saturday, March 21, 2020 - 12:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Aesquire, China needs oil more than ever. Not so much territory, but oil certainly. Although, China is gaining a territorial foothold in Africa too:

What Is China Doing In Africa?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/20 18/08/04/china-is-treating-africa-the-same-way-eur opean-colonists-did/

Would the founding fathers have recognised modern America? A lot has changed since then, not always for the better. Would they have agreed with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Saturday, March 21, 2020 - 01:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The Founders were afraid of adventures overseas. OTOH, our first war was battling the Barbary pirates, and thus Afghanistan would have been understood. Iraq a bit less, but still probably considered worth it.

The reconstruction and nation building, however, would not have been approved. Jackson ( too young to be a founder ) especially would have been against staying there and being targets for the jihadists aided by Syria and Iran, although he might have approved rolling straight from Baghdad to Tehran, and exiting from both Afghan and Iraqi fronts through a burning Karachi.

And certainly China needs oil. So it's ok to conquer their neighbors to steal it?

I do admit to bias against the most murderous religious cult in human history.

This under estimates Mao's count by at least half, and maybe an order of magnitude.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Sunday, March 22, 2020 - 05:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Aesquire,

I agree that war is sometimes justified such as in case of defending one's nation against aggressors. Whether war is justified for the purpose of reconstruction and nation building, we seem to agree that it may not. One problem with such a war is that people perceive it as occupation. The founders understood that it is not the job of the military to occupy other nations for such purposes.

It's not ok what China is doing in that regard. The oil that China needs is also used for manufacturing. The West is heavily reliant on China for manufacturing, so if we want China to use less oil, then it would make sense to not rely on China for manufacturing. The less China manufactures for the rest of the world, the less oil it needs. This shows that dependency on China has its consequences. Bringing back those manufacturing jobs may be a good idea.

Mao's regime was definitely murderous, but I wouldn't describe it as a ''religious cult''. Religious people were persecuted and killed under his regime. Attributing Mao's death count to religion seems unfair to religion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Sunday, March 22, 2020 - 01:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The Marxist cults are by definition, religions. They certainly aren't economic systems, that's just the trendy language Marx & Engels used.

Why religion? Because, and excuse the Jesuit philosophy here, it's unprovable. It relies on assumptions about the Universe that have to be taken on faith, but have no physical evidence. They are perversions of religious beliefs, being stolen from early Christian communalists, like America's British rejects, the Puritan Pi!grims.( too annoyingly uptight for mainstream Protestants, the "Woke" folk of their day )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans

And also stolen concepts from Islam, specifically the blending of Church & State as One, utterly intolerant of any other Way, and the practice of Taqyaa, that to lie is a Mitzvah. ( a concept stolen from Judaism )

In fact there are no truly original ideas in Marxism, it's a wholly manufactured synthesis of religious and economic philosophical ideas from other, older "heresies". ( heresy, being in the eye of the beholder. Eh? )

And the fact that the basic principles of Marxism have failed to produce the promised results in 100% of the cases, is exactly like spiritualist con men promising to communicate with your deceased Great Aunt about where she kept her cookie recipes. An evil method of lying to manipulate. See also, Cold Reads & Confidence Game.

You might not like that Socialism is as much a religious faith as is Islam, or Judaism. Good that you don't, because the 18th (& 7th ) century man created con man/warlord movements are horrible Dark Side plagues upon mankind.

Just because they're evil doesn't mean they aren't religions. See also Baal, The Assassins, and Saint Greta of Thunburg's sponsors. ; )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Sunday, March 22, 2020 - 04:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

It has been said that Socialism is Christianity without Christ. So you could say that Socialism, Marxism and Communism are perversions of religious beliefs. They have the form of religion, but lack the substance of religion.

You're on point that Marxism is a mishmash of older heresies. Yet, you cannot have heresies without truth. After all, what is a heresy if not a belief contrary to truth?

Marxism, Socialism and Communism are heretical secular religions. Their principles are contrary to what is true and their constitution is one without God.

Many people have argued for example that prayer in schools help counter the spread of Marxism and Communism. A prayer a day keeps Marxism away ; )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Sunday, March 22, 2020 - 06:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Tuesday, March 24, 2020 - 05:53 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I was looking through the list of people who made prayer in schools illegal. Not to my surprise, they were Marxists by and large.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Tuesday, March 24, 2020 - 06:11 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Well, yeah. It's an intolerant faith. Cannot abide competition for the souls of men.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Monday, March 30, 2020 - 04:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Aesquire,

I agree. I've been looking into Marxism for quite some time and I've been intrigued by its social and cultural ''success''. Marxism has been quite successful in winning over the souls of men, or at least the souls of the (willfully) ignorant. My research has shown me that Marxism succeeds mainly by redefinition of terms.

For example, let's take the term ''freedom''. We all love freedom, don't we? Yet, Marxism hijacks terms such as ''freedom'' and redefines them to suit its own purposes.

We mentioned the founding fathers earlier. I don't live in America, yet I know a thing or two about them and their ideas. The founding fathers were smart enough to understand that freedom does not include obscenity. From Wikipedia:

''According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the First Amendment's protection of free speech does not apply to obscene speech. Therefore, both the federal government and the states have tried to prohibit or otherwise restrict obscene speech, in particular the form that is now called pornography.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_t he_United_States_Constitution#Obscenity

What does that mean in practice? It basically means that pornography cannot be considered as freedom (of speech). Freedom of speech does not apply to pornography for the simple reason that obscenity is not part of freedom of speech.

Let us consider Blake's rule:

''No censorship other than keeping discussion on-topic and within PG-13 family-oriented bounds.''

Blake's rule above is in agreement with the First Amendment. Pornography (obscenity) is not within PG-13 family-oriented bounds, therefore removing pornography (obscenity) from the forums is in accordance with the First Amendment. So far so good.

What about Marxism? One of the proponents of Marxism was Wilhelm Reich. Wilhelm Reich was a Marxist who instituted sexual revolution, and along with it, pornography.

For Marxism to succeed, pornograhpy has to succeed. Therefore, no pornography, no Marxism. Or at least, no cultural and social Marxism. There is always a chance for political Marxism to succeed even without pornography, but the fact remains that without pornography (that is to say, without obscenity), social and cultural Marxism has a far less likelihood to succeed in winning over the souls of men.

Blake's rule follows the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment. It keeps obscenity at bay, and along with it, Marxism. Marxism flourishes when obscenity flourishes.

(Message edited by Sami on March 30, 2020)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Monday, March 30, 2020 - 04:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I'd say you grasp the essential but it's both more & less complex than that.

Porn? The Leftist religion pushes for the destruction of family, which can be a rival to loyalty to the Holy State. In every aspect they can hurt, any support system, any romantic love, any values not Woke.

So that's why Epstien was pimping underage sex slaves to the rich & powerful. And why the Media refuse to mention him, at all. Many of their owners and managers were clients.

That's why the Balkanization of sex. It's not enough to demand equal rights and legal/tax/property law. They have to destroy any solidarity not dedicated to the Holy State, so they divide the gays from the bis from the sexually confused in tiny subdivision.

I haven't talked to one of these adolescent men who claim they want to be a girl so they can compete in High school athletics with the statistically weaker sex. I don't know who suggested taking unfair advantage of women and the Revolution. But it's surely not a libertarian notion.

As to redefinition of terms, that's only one way to lie. And to lie is necessary to advance the Revolution.

Marxism's PURPOSE is to replace the existing aristocracy with the self appointed new elite.

You can't admit to folk that you want them to be your slaves and get enough suckers to rule.

Read Rules For Radicals. It was Hillary's senior thesis subject. ( which was fairly well written. Wrong, and evil, but well written ) Alinsky's book is the Bible for the American Left. Dedicated to Lucifer, the First Rebel, it's basically a how to lie to power manual.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Monday, March 30, 2020 - 07:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Aesquire,

I'll give it a read, though I'm already familiar with it being Hillary's thesis subject. Wrong and evil, indeed. Speaking of, are you familiar with the father of the American Left? Let me introduce you to Herbert Marcuse, also known as the Father of the New Left. Herbert M. wrote in his book "Repressive Tolerance" that:

''Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. ''
https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s /1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html

As you can read, Marxists such as Herbert Marcuse redefine terms to suit their purpose. The term ''tolerance'' to Marxists means something other than what you and I mean by that term. What Marxists, or the New Left, mean by ''tolerance'' is intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. This is one reason why the New Left tolerates things such as pornography, because pornography is a movement from the Left rather than a movement from the Right.

Another thing that you may be familiar with is the ''Long march through the institutions''. Interesting to look into if you have the time. The long march through the intitutions is a Leftist movement from the sixties, the purpose of which is to slowly boil the frog, so to speak. By slowly (incrementally) introducing Marxism into the institutions (education, media, politics, etc.) Marxism would be established without a gun being fired.

''The Revolution won't happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.''
Max Horkheimer


Now you know why banning prayer in schools was key to the Marxist Revolution. Prayer is Kryptonite to Marxism. By removing prayer from schools, Marxists succeeded in achieving their long march through the institutions without a gun being fired.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2020 - 10:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

“If you’re angry at the guy shifting over his factory to produce 50,000 facemasks a day for medical professionals, you’re doing being human wrong.”

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/03/was -it-something-he-said-3.php

There is no God, there is Only Zuul The Holy State! ( not sarcasm, the Official State Religion of the Left )

Like you said prayer is hateful to evil men.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2020 - 10:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The Holy State is their god. Margaret Sanger, a Leftist who founded Planned Parenthood, even mentioned in her letter that a woman's duty is to the State. Here is the letter in which she argues for that:

We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. The eugenist also believes that a woman should bear as many healthy children as possible as a duty to the state. We hold that the world is already over-populated. Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app /documents/show.php?sangerDoc=143449.xml

People's foremost duty is to God, but to Leftists their foremost duty is to the State. John Adams understood that when people abandon their duty to God then the constitution loses its justification:

''Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.''
-John Adams.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2020 - 10:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Here is an argument:

The American Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
Leftists are immoral and anti-religious people, or at least they are amoral and areligious people.
Therefore, the American Constitution is wholly inadequate to the government of Leftists.

What this argument shows is that Leftism nullifies the American Constitution. A moral and religious people with a duty to God is needed, otherwise the constitution is inadequate in and by itself.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

H0gwash
Posted on Wednesday, April 01, 2020 - 08:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I think the American Constitution was made for "We the People," not "We the moral and religious People." However, I think your argument could be more interesting if you define your terms more precisely.
Are religious people who hate other religions anti-religious? If the religious people are Christians, probably no.
Are people who identify as Christians but who are 'bad examples' of Christians immoral people?
IMHO this is an attempt at 'legislating morality,' but maybe you've got another angle, I just can't see it yet.

(Message edited by h0gwash on April 01, 2020)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Wednesday, April 01, 2020 - 10:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

One of guys who wrote the thing disagrees with you, Gerard. Those are his own words.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Wednesday, April 01, 2020 - 10:44 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

H0gwash,

Legislating morality is not something to be eschewed. People should be tolerant towards good and intolerant towards evil. Thomas Mann said that “Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.” Are you tolerant of someone who robs your house and harms your family? Of course not, you would be intolerant towards that and rightfully so. We have legislation to not tolerate such things in society. The foundation of all legislation is morality.

Billy Graham also spoke on this issue, see ''The Sin of Tolerance'' which can be found here:

https://billygraham.org/story/the-sin-of-tolerance /

The American Constitution states:

''We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''

What is Tranquility, what is Welfare, what is Justice, what is Liberty? Can these things be had without a moral and religious people? What is the glue that keeps family and society together if not God?

George Washington's Farewell Address explains the indispensable support of morality and religion to political prosperity:

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.a sp

''Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?''

(Message edited by Sami on April 01, 2020)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

H0gwash
Posted on Wednesday, April 01, 2020 - 11:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Let's assume that you wish to pursue Washington's line of reasoning, or maybe you wish to extend it even further, that church and state should not be separated, and that church membership should be required for American citizenship or something along those line, your choice.

Which church memberships are acceptable then? Roman Catholic only or major denominations or all denominations? Regardless, if pagans and satanists are to be deported or something, those who want to stay will suddenly convert and become 'bad example' Christians. Maybe you're OK with that, your position on that is not clear to me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sami
Posted on Wednesday, April 01, 2020 - 12:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

H0gwash,

May I ask what your position is on this? What is your take on Washington's line of reasoning?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

H0gwash
Posted on Wednesday, April 01, 2020 - 12:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I disagree with "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." The other 95% of what he says I would endorse.

As pagans often say 'you don't need religion to be a good person, you only need religion to be a hypocrite.'

On the topic of the word God in the Constitution, I think it's fine so long as it is unenforced.

(Message edited by h0gwash on April 01, 2020)
« Previous Next »

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration