Fox News And God Proclamation

“This country has been based on God” from its earliest days, Jones said, and there’s nothing wrong with declaring the facts of history.

The Continental Congress called for days of prayer and fasting, Jones noted. He said “90 to 95 percent of our Founding Fathers had strong [religious] beliefs” that are evident in their writings, public and private
Click to expand...

Sigh. The first part of the quote is an ambiguous statement that is correct that religion was a large part of the life of many of the early citizens of our nation, but it's incorrect to say that our Constitution recognizes a deity of any sort (except in the dating of course) or to say that our governmental system is God ordained or created.

He then goes on to support his nebulous concept with a citation from the Revolutionary period (before our "country" per se) and then appeals to the authority of the founders beliefs and not what they enumerated in the Constitution.

Concepts like freedom are not unique to the Bible nor is commerce which were two of the biggest, if not the two biggest concepts this country was founded on.

Sigh.. time to write a check to Citizens United for Separation of Church and State again...
 
Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner Concepts like freedom are not unique to the Bible nor is commerce which were two of the biggest, if not the two biggest concepts this country was founded on.
Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist. I'm sure Unrepentant knows this but I'm writing for all.

He even wrote his own revision of the Bible leaving out the supernatural parts. This is available from Prometheus Books under the title The Jefferson Bible.

The Declaration of Independence opens thus:

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.

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 -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
Click to expand...

Definitely sounds like belief in God, but it's not the Biblical one, if you ask me. Nor that of early American preachers such as Cotton Mather or Jonathan Edwards. Nothing about witches or being a loathesome insect or anything like that.

As for the Constitution (unamended), article VI says in part:

... no religious Test shall ever be required as as Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Click to expand...

And the ninth amendment authorizes sodomy. :D
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
He even wrote his own revision of the Bible leaving out the supernatural parts. This is available from Prometheus Books under the title The Jefferson Bible.

As for the Constitution (unamended), article VI says in part:
Click to expand...

Also availible on the web.

And let us not forget how the Constitution opens. We The People - we derive our rights and the justness of our laws and governmental system not from Mt. Saini or a Mandate of Heaven, but from ourselves and our collective social agreement.
 
You ignored the phrase " ... they are endowed by their Creator ... "; do you think the founders thought governments 'created' mankind?

The other piece of bs oft cited is in a treaty with Barbary pirates, which imo was an attempt to avoid jihad, not deny "god".
 
hammegk said:
You ignored the phrase " ... they are endowed by their Creator ... "; do you think the founders thought governments 'created' mankind?

The other piece of bs oft cited is in a treaty with Barbary pirates, which imo was an attempt to avoid jihad, not deny "god".
Click to expand...

It says "their Creator" not "the Creator". The phrase is deliberately ambiguous. "Their Creator" can mean anything and is left up to the individual to interpret. Nice try Hammy.
 
NightG1 said:


It says "their Creator" not "the Creator". The phrase is deliberately ambiguous. "Their Creator" can mean anything and is left up to the individual to interpret. Nice try Hammy.
Click to expand...

Certainly more on the point than that response.

How would you "interpret" it? Ah, I know; your great great aunt was pond scum some billions of years ago. Good Theory; you "Prove It".
 
A few comments about the words: "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...."

First, our current interpretation of the words "all men are created equal" is quite different from what the signers had in mind. Certainly dark-skinned men were not the equal of white men, nor were the native American savages the equal of white men. And of course, women were not the equal of men. Arguably, when the signers said "all men," they meant "all white property-owning men."

Second, there was a general consensus at the time that rights of citizens have come from somewhere. In the English view, rights came from the king, who in turn ruled by divine right as sanctioned by the Christian Church. To say that rights of men "are endowed by their Creator" is to deny the English view.
 
Brown said:

First, our current interpretation of the words "all men are created equal" is quite different from what the signers had in mind. Certainly dark-skinned men were not the equal of white men, nor were the native American savages the equal of white men. And of course, women were not the equal of men. Arguably, when the signers said "all men," they meant "all white property-owning men."
Click to expand...
Or even more arguably, the founders recognized that no agreement would have been forthcoming had those defenders of "ALL Created equal" not compromised.


Second, there was a general consensus at the time that rights of citizens have come from somewhere. In the English view, rights came from the king, who in turn ruled by divine right as sanctioned by the Christian Church. To say that rights of men "are endowed by their Creator" is to deny the English view.
Click to expand...
Interesting slant. Do you believe that that removed The Creator from the picture??
 
hammegk said:
Do you believe that that removed The Creator from the picture??
Click to expand...
The notion that endowment of rights did not come from the king was contrary to prevailing Christian principles, which held that the king's power came from God. In the push for independence, many people were reluctant to challenge what they viewed as the king's divine right to rule. Publications such as Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" persuaded many that the purported divine right wasn't legitimate.

Some see the reference to the "Creator" as embracing the Christian viewpoint. And yet, independence itself was fundamentally contrary to the Christian viewpoint that the king ruled by divine right.
 
Brown said:

Some see the reference to the "Creator" as embracing the Christian viewpoint. And yet, independence itself was fundamentally contrary to the Christian viewpoint that the king ruled by divine right.
Click to expand...

Ergo, what persuades you "Creator" is the Xian Creator? By my interpretaion of what I've read I suspect that belief in xianity was not prevalent among the FF's.
 
hammegk said:
Ergo, what persuades you "Creator" is the Xian Creator?
Click to expand...
Hmm? I'm not sure where you came up with this notion, that I was persuaded that the Creator is the Christian creator.
 
C'mon,

Everyone knows that Christianity is the only religion with a creation story.

Therefore, if you cite a creator, there's only one possible religion or worldview you could subscribe to, the Christian God!
 
hammegk said:
...The other piece of bs oft cited is in a treaty with Barbary pirates, which imo was an attempt to avoid jihad, not deny "god".
Click to expand...

The piece of bs you refer to is the Tripoli Treaty, Nov 4, 1796, Article 11:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Click to expand...
 
I can't believe I'm about to do this...

But I think I could maybe clarify one of Hammegk's points.

It seems to me as though he's saying either his argument, or the argument of the man being interviewed is NOT that American law and structure is rooted in a CHRISTIAN creator belief, but that there is evidence that it is rooted in SOME belief in a divine creator.

Yes the FFs as he calls them were Deists (in many cases) but not necessarily Christian. So arguing that the constitution does not advocate Christianity is pointless, because that's not the crux of the issue, the issue is wether it advocates SOME sort of belief in a creator.
 
Andonyx said:
Yes the FFs as he calls them were Deists (in many cases) but not necessarily Christian. So arguing that the constitution does not advocate Christianity is pointless, because that's not the crux of the issue, the issue is wether it advocates SOME sort of belief in a creator.
Click to expand...
This sounds reasonable. It sounds wonderfully ecumenical. I suspect many people today would agree with this view.

Historically, however, the view of the "Creator" as viewed by Deists was deemed to be heretical to Christians, and Christianity was unquestionably hostile toward it.

In "The Age of Reason, Part I," Thomas Paine (who also authored "Common Sense") described at length his Deistic view of the Creator, and he further outlined his views as to how Chrisitianity was distinct from the Deist view. The reaction of Christians was not a pleasant "Well, at least we agree that there was some sort of a Creator." On the contrary, Paine received heaps of fury from Christians. In the minds of many Christians, Paine's Deism was indistinguishable from atheism, and Teddy Roosevelt famously referred to Paine as a "dirty atheist."
 
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the founders are saying we were created by the Christian God, that does not mean that our nation is founded on God, or a recognition of God. They would simply be setting the stage, describing the world in which they were acting.

Notice that governments are instituted "among men", not by God. And they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, not from God.

It doesn't matter what the Creator they were talking about actually was. They ascribe no authority, ask no benefit, and give no credit to this creator for any aspect of the governance of man. It could hardly be more clear that they were intending to create a nation governed by principles of humanism, and not religion.
 
hammegk said:


Certainly more on the point than that response.

How would you "interpret" it? Ah, I know; your great great aunt was pond scum some billions of years ago. Good Theory; you "Prove It".
Click to expand...
Evasion noted. Why don't you tell me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom