America, The Founders and Religion.

FACT
1 : Separation is a Christian concept, not a government concept. You
find it nowhere in the constitution. In fact it did not exist as a
government principle until 1947. It seems before that none of the
founders or early leaders suggested secular beliefs.

FACT 2:
Secularism and Separation are opposing values. They do not mean the
same thing. In a secular society (ie Russia) the state is above the
Church.

FACT 3: The second amendment says nothing about what
government can do, say , or believe. Only that CONGRESS shall pass NO
LAW. It restricts congress and NO ONE else.

FACT 4: Since Secularists love the Danbury letter as “LAW”, why do they ignore J[...

America, The Founders and Religion.

FACT
1 : Separation is a Christian concept, not a government concept. You
find it nowhere in the constitution. In fact it did not exist as a
government principle until 1947. It seems before that none of the
founders or early leaders suggested secular beliefs.

FACT 2:
Secularism and Separation are opposing values. They do not mean the
same thing. In a secular society (ie Russia) the state is above the
Church.

FACT 3: The second amendment says nothing about what
government can do, say , or believe. Only that CONGRESS shall pass NO
LAW. It restricts congress and NO ONE else.

FACT 4: Since Secularists love the Danbury letter as “LAW”, why do they ignore J... read more»FACT
1 : Separation is a Christian concept, not a government concept. You
find it nowhere in the constitution. In fact it did not exist as a
government principle until 1947. It seems before that none of the
founders or early leaders suggested secular beliefs.

FACT 2:
Secularism and Separation are opposing values. They do not mean the
same thing. In a secular society (ie Russia) the state is above the
Church.

FACT 3: The First amendment says nothing about what
government can do, say , or believe. Only that CONGRESS shall pass NO
LAW. It restricts congress and NO ONE else.

FACT 4: Since
Secularists love the Danbury letter as “LAW”, why do they ignore
Jefferson’s later letter to Samual miller in 1808 where he wrote “the
power to prescribe religious exercise, or to assume authority in
religious discipline, has been delegated to the states, as far as it
can be in any human authority.”

FACT 5: Northwest Ordinance
passed by the same congress that enacted the first amendment states
this in Article III: “Religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary
to good government and shall forever be encouraged.” This is pretty
clear-cut.

FACT 6: ALL, but 3 states, invoke the name of God in their Preambles to their constitutions.

FACT 7: The SUPREME COURT opens each sessio

FACT 8: The US recognizes religious holidays, but not the religious holidays of every religion. I guess our government is a bit biased. Also - not secular.

FACT 9: The constitution states: ” no religious test shall be required,” which means we have freedom of religion, not secularism. Secularism would hold no religious test to be applied.

FACT 10: Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sworn public confessions were. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only three were deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin.

FACT 11: To...

FACT 8: The US recognizes religious holidays, but not the religious holidays of every religion. I guess our government is a bit biased. Also - not secular.

FACT 9: The constitution states: ” no religious test shall be required,” which means we have freedom of religion, not secularism. Secularism would hold no religious test to be applied.

FACT 10: Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sworn public confessions were. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only three were deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin.

FACT 11: To restrict religion would be to restrict freedom of religion. This is unconstitutional and it is the goal of Secularists.

FACT 12: The US recognizes religious holidays, but not the religious holidays of every religion. I guess our government is a bit biased. Also - not secular.

FACT 13: The framers intended political power to flow upward from the people. Given that 95% of the people believe in God, how can it be the government ( people) are secular. Your point illustrates how secular belief would not put faith in people, rather the State.

Liberty has nothing to do with religion or secularism except that they are in opposition. That is why the US is not Secular and it is not Theocratic. They are both opposed to freedom and liberty.

From Wikipedia: "The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a 'wall of separation' between church and state. The phrase was mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947."

"In the United States, the 'Separation of Church and State' is generally discussed as political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, ...

From Wikipedia: "The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a 'wall of separation' between church and state. The phrase was mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947."

"In the United States, the 'Separation of Church and State' is generally discussed as political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .' The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally, and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices not be restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the 'separation of church and state.'"

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

@ Willhelm:

There is nothing that prevents Michigan from becoming an Islamic State, if they want!

I have to say something to that. If Michigan were to become an Islamic state, it would seek to impose Islam on its citizens, which would be a violation of the First Amendment. The same if it were to become a Christian state.

The whole concept of separation of church and state (as Jefferson used it in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association) is that there is a one-way permeable membrane between religion and state; the church should be able to evalutate political candidates based on their doctrines, or endorse certain candidates who present an excellent moral example. Righ...

@ Willhelm:

There is nothing that prevents Michigan from becoming an Islamic State, if they want!

I have to say something to that. If Michigan were to become an Islamic state, it would seek to impose Islam on its citizens, which would be a violation of the First Amendment. The same if it were to become a Christian state.

The whole concept of separation of church and state (as Jefferson used it in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association) is that there is a one-way permeable membrane between religion and state; the church should be able to evalutate political candidates based on their doctrines, or endorse certain candidates who present an excellent moral example. Right now, by law, churches cannot do these things without losing their tax exempt status.

What we have right now is a non-permeable membrane between religion and state; the government is slowly purging itself of religious influence. This is not what was intended in the First Amendment.

LawGuru.com
Edward Hoffman, Attorney at Law
Re: Does Federal Law always supersede State Law?

Where federal and state laws are in conflict, federal law *always* prevails in *all* situations. There aren't a lot of absolute rules in law, but this is one of them.

---
What would be the point in federal law if state law can supersede them? And to what authority shall people go when state laws appear unjust?

Yes, states do have rights and can make their own laws, but I don't think they can override the Nation's constitution. Otherwise we might still have slavery in the south. To wit:

David Beauvais, Attorney at Law

...

LawGuru.com
Edward Hoffman, Attorney at Law
Re: Does Federal Law always supersede State Law?

Where federal and state laws are in conflict, federal law *always* prevails in *all* situations. There aren't a lot of absolute rules in law, but this is one of them.

---
What would be the point in federal law if state law can supersede them? And to what authority shall people go when state laws appear unjust?

Yes, states do have rights and can make their own laws, but I don't think they can override the Nation's constitution. Otherwise we might still have slavery in the south. To wit:

David Beauvais, Attorney at Law

Re: Does Federal Law always supersede State Law?

The
Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution is the source of the doctrine
that federal law preempts state law enactments that are in conflict
with federal law.


Long story short: Religion in politics (even at the state level) can be appealed at the federal level where the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution takes over.

willhelms point is moot.

THE ONLY ENTITY restricted by the First Amedment is Congress and NO ONE ELSE.

No other entity supersedes Federal law, state or otherwise. Michigan could declare itself a Muslim state...right up until someone challenges it as against the law. Which law? Not state law, Federal law. (Though probably state law too.)

Then it will be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL based on the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

Which makes what you're saying MOOT.

The law of the land is governed by the law of the land; our Constitution! What you're saying about congress is completely and utterly irrelevant. MOOT. It has no bearing on the conversation.

We're not talking about congress oversteppi...

THE ONLY ENTITY restricted by the First Amedment is Congress and NO ONE ELSE.

No other entity supersedes Federal law, state or otherwise. Michigan could declare itself a Muslim state...right up until someone challenges it as against the law. Which law? Not state law, Federal law. (Though probably state law too.)

Then it will be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL based on the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

Which makes what you're saying MOOT.

The law of the land is governed by the law of the land; our Constitution! What you're saying about congress is completely and utterly irrelevant. MOOT. It has no bearing on the conversation.

We're not talking about congress overstepping its authority. We're talking about the authority of the constitution OVER the state where the state CONFLICTS with the Constitution.

My two supporting sources are from LawGuru.com not wikipedia; even though wikipedia disagrees with you too.

To recap:
1. Founding Fathers disagree with you
2. Constitution disagrees with you
3. Treaty of Tripoli disagrees with you
4. Law Guru disagrees with you
5. Wikipedia disagrees with you
6. I disagree with you
7. You disagree with you

You are simply in denial.

Regarding treaties with with foreign nations, it means that the individual and separate entities of the Republic (states) are bound by the treaty as it relates to the foriegn entity.
It means that the Federal head represesents the interests of all the States and that all the states are bound by the intent of the treaty toward the foriegn entity.

As far as the quote you highligted, it is simply an acknowledgement of the responsibility that judges at various levels have to respect the guidelines set forth in various agreements with international interests and an assurance to the foriegn entity of that fact.
Nothing set forth in a treaty can supercede the Constitution or alter the Con...

Regarding treaties with with foreign nations, it means that the individual and separate entities of the Republic (states) are bound by the treaty as it relates to the foriegn entity.
It means that the Federal head represesents the interests of all the States and that all the states are bound by the intent of the treaty toward the foriegn entity.

As far as the quote you highligted, it is simply an acknowledgement of the responsibility that judges at various levels have to respect the guidelines set forth in various agreements with international interests and an assurance to the foriegn entity of that fact.
Nothing set forth in a treaty can supercede the Constitution or alter the Constitution in any way. Only a Constitutional amendment can do that.
Treaties are not constitutional amendments.

Regarding treaties with with foreign nations, it means that the individual and separate entities of the Republic (states) are bound by the treaty as it relates to the foriegn entity.

That's right, because our Constitution "speaks for" all the states of the Republic.

So what's being related (spoken for) to the foreign entity under which the states are bound is..."the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..."

Now, why would those words be put in a Treaty if it wasn't true or didn't mean what it said?

You've been trying to undermine those words because they're in a Treaty.

But why would a treaty, (u...

Regarding treaties with with foreign nations, it means that the individual and separate entities of the Republic (states) are bound by the treaty as it relates to the foriegn entity.

That's right, because our Constitution "speaks for" all the states of the Republic.

So what's being related (spoken for) to the foreign entity under which the states are bound is..."the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..."

Now, why would those words be put in a Treaty if it wasn't true or didn't mean what it said?

You've been trying to undermine those words because they're in a Treaty.

But why would a treaty, (under which the states are bound AND which represents the Republic of the United States), be somehow invalid when it disagrees with your opinion?

Why.

Now, why would those words be put in a Treaty if it wasn't true or didn't mean what it said?

Perhaps because we have always lived in a conflicted nation. Why was Prohibition repealed? Why do we have the Amendment system? Because people change their minds, tweak things to their advantage, and outright do stupid things sometimes.

Article 11 was removed 8 years later when the treaty was renegotiated.

Historically, the 1796 treaty was made when the U.S. was a relatively puny nation. The Barbary states were not particularly powerful, but most of the superpowers of the time bought them off to avoid the trouble of dealing with their piracy.

The U.S. was not a maritime po...

Now, why would those words be put in a Treaty if it wasn't true or didn't mean what it said?

Perhaps because we have always lived in a conflicted nation. Why was Prohibition repealed? Why do we have the Amendment system? Because people change their minds, tweak things to their advantage, and outright do stupid things sometimes.

Article 11 was removed 8 years later when the treaty was renegotiated.

Historically, the 1796 treaty was made when the U.S. was a relatively puny nation. The Barbary states were not particularly powerful, but most of the superpowers of the time bought them off to avoid the trouble of dealing with their piracy.

The U.S. was not a maritime power, and they had every reason to "suck up" to the Barbary states in the first treaty.

With the second treaty, however, the U.S. was in a position of power over the Barbary states; we had just beat them in a war. We had no need to mince words or kowtow.

Something to think about.

Something to think about.

You might be right. But we didn't seem to mince words against the greatest powerhouse in the world, England!

The Declaration of Independence showed balls extraordinaire. But let's assume that you are right.

Which constitutional amendments exactly were based on any religion, be it Christianity, bible, gospel of Jesus, or whatever?

Our constitution has no "thou shall worship no other gods before Jehovah", or thou shalt not make graven images, etc..

Where's the connection between "We the people...for the people...by the people...to "the Christian god rules our country?"

What does "we the people..for the people...by the people" mean, in light of Fo...

Something to think about.

You might be right. But we didn't seem to mince words against the greatest powerhouse in the world, England!

The Declaration of Independence showed balls extraordinaire. But let's assume that you are right.

Which constitutional amendments exactly were based on any religion, be it Christianity, bible, gospel of Jesus, or whatever?

Our constitution has no "thou shall worship no other gods before Jehovah", or thou shalt not make graven images, etc..

Where's the connection between "We the people...for the people...by the people...to "the Christian god rules our country?"

What does "we the people..for the people...by the people" mean, in light of For and By a Christian god? Where does one make such a connection?

And why does the 1st Amendment establish a separation between church and government if it did not intend to do so?

There is no religious test for anything government. And it says so!

But others continue to assert they are connected.

WHERE? And HOW?

But we didn't seem to mince words against the greatest powerhouse in the world, England!

Well, the action of trying to declare independence was pretty much suicide to begin with, so there was nothing to lose!

The Declaration of Independence showed balls extraordinaire.

Definitely.

Which constitutional amendments exactly were based on any religion, be it Christianity, bible, gospel of Jesus, or whatever?

You might be surprised to find that much of our society is based in religion. For example, the Golden Rule is a fundamental Biblical principle.

Our constitution has no "thou shall worship no other gods before Jehovah", or thou shalt...

read more»

But we didn't seem to mince words against the greatest powerhouse in the world, England!

Well, the action of trying to declare independence was pretty much suicide to begin with, so there was nothing to lose!

The Declaration of Independence showed balls extraordinaire.

Definitely.

Which constitutional amendments exactly were based on any religion, be it Christianity, bible, gospel of Jesus, or whatever?

You might be surprised to find that much of our society is based in religion. For example, the Golden Rule is a fundamental Biblical principle.

Our constitution has no "thou shall worship no other gods before Jehovah", or thou shalt not make graven images, etc..

True, because that would violate the First Amendment by forcing religion down people's throats. In fact, because of the First Amendment, we should expect that the first four commandments, which deal with man's relationship to God, will not be anywhere present in the Constitution.

Where's the connection between "We the people...for the people...by the people...to "the Christian god rules our country?"

I do not believe we live in a theocracy, so there is no connection. However, read the first few lines of the Declaration; it is apparent that the Founders felt that human rights and civil rights derive from God.

I contend not that we ought to live in a theocracy, but that the republic we know and love was founded on Christian principles.

And why does the 1st Amendment establish a separation between church and government if it did not intend to do so?

The judiciary is perhaps the most powerful group in the country; they are called upon to *apply* the law, but in reality they often have leeway to *interpret* it. The First Amendment does not separate church and state; it keeps the state from controlling the church.

The judiciary is perhaps the most powerful group in the country; they
are called upon to *apply* the law, but in reality they often have
leeway to *interpret* it. The First Amendment does not separate church
and state; it keeps the state from controlling the church.

Absolutely true. I would just like to add that they grafted in a Christian concept in the process. Jefferson's words were a conveyance to a Church to clarify the State and Church relationship in terms of a Christian world view. His words are an affirmation that the State is not above the Church. Also, that the State could not bully the Chruch. Jefferson even decalred it was under the authority of the individual stat...

The judiciary is perhaps the most powerful group in the country; they
are called upon to *apply* the law, but in reality they often have
leeway to *interpret* it. The First Amendment does not separate church
and state; it keeps the state from controlling the church.

Absolutely true. I would just like to add that they grafted in a Christian concept in the process. Jefferson's words were a conveyance to a Church to clarify the State and Church relationship in terms of a Christian world view. His words are an affirmation that the State is not above the Church. Also, that the State could not bully the Chruch. Jefferson even decalred it was under the authority of the individual states to decide the religious issues, concerns, or establishment of religious issues. It was Jefferson's conviction that the Chuch was the moral arbiter of society and there could be no conflict against the Church by the Federal Government.

Which constitutional amendments exactly were based on any religion, be it Christianity, bible, gospel of Jesus, or whatever?

This really is the heart of the matter; if I contend that our government was founded on Biblical principles, it is up to me to defend that assertion. And I apologize for not getting to this sooner.

I should also point out that the Constitution is a functional document; it outlines procedure quite explicitly, but does not meander into specific reasons or justifications for the procedure it sets forth.

The Constitution is therefore a very narrow document as far as focus goes. One cannot actually divine from its pages what the laws of the land actually ...

Which constitutional amendments exactly were based on any religion, be it Christianity, bible, gospel of Jesus, or whatever?

This really is the heart of the matter; if I contend that our government was founded on Biblical principles, it is up to me to defend that assertion. And I apologize for not getting to this sooner.

I should also point out that the Constitution is a functional document; it outlines procedure quite explicitly, but does not meander into specific reasons or justifications for the procedure it sets forth.

The Constitution is therefore a very narrow document as far as focus goes. One cannot actually divine from its pages what the laws of the land actually are.

The Constitution, in fact, only sets forth general guidelines that laws must adhere to.

Murder, use of certain drugs, and perjury are not outlined in the Constitution as being wrong, yet they are by law.

Here is a wikipedia link to a page on U.S. legal codes. If the United States was founded upon Biblical principles, then it is in the laws passed early in the nation's history that we should look for evidence of this fact.

See where I'm going with this?

Murder is legally wrong because "thou shalt not kill." If our nation were founded on a philosophy of social darwinism, I doubt we would even have a government, let alone such a principle undergirding our laws. Indeed, from the perspective of pure social expediency, it might be better to exterminate the homeless, prostitutes, druggies, reprobates, the disabled, the elderly, the mentally deficient.

Perjury is wrong because "thou shalt not bear false witness." There is nothing in Nature that dictates that human beings ought to speak truthfully. This is a biblical principle.

Indeed, probably every government on earth, to some degree, is founded upon some Biblical principle, whether by chance or design.

Indeed, probably every government on earth, to some degree, is founded upon some Biblical principle, whether by chance or design.

This implies no government had existence before Christianity!

I couldn't follow the moment you mentioned social darwinism. A straw man, as they say. And completely irrelevant. Then I realized...

You're assuming a false dichotomy in that if it's not biblical, it's social darwinism, or even anarchy.

Problem is, you haven't considered that secular philosophies as well as pre-Christian laws embraced the concepts of fairness and government long, long before Christianity!

(Thou shall not steal did not originate with Christianity. In fact, very few...

Indeed, probably every government on earth, to some degree, is founded upon some Biblical principle, whether by chance or design.

This implies no government had existence before Christianity!

I couldn't follow the moment you mentioned social darwinism. A straw man, as they say. And completely irrelevant. Then I realized...

You're assuming a false dichotomy in that if it's not biblical, it's social darwinism, or even anarchy.

Problem is, you haven't considered that secular philosophies as well as pre-Christian laws embraced the concepts of fairness and government long, long before Christianity!

(Thou shall not steal did not originate with Christianity. In fact, very few of the ten commandments did! Nor did the Sermon on the Mount, the Jesus story, or the Christian holidays!)

You might also want to consider WHY our founding fathers wanted away from England. Though many of our founding fathers of new America believed in a god, they all shared a good reason for not creating a clone of what they were escaping.

Look to that, and you'll see why America was the first country to develop a constitution unlike any that preceded it.

"We the people...by the people...for the people" was not ordained by King or God. It was not predicated on Divine Right of Kings, but on no authority but it's people.

To take that away, is to take away the very significance of why America was founded in the first place. Self rule by its people.

This implies no government had existence before Christianity!

No; you have only inferred that. This actually only implies that moral truth preexisted Christianity.

You're assuming a false dichotomy in that if it's not biblical, it's social darwinism, or even anarchy.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said it was one or the other.

Problem is, you haven't considered that secular philosophies as well as
pre-Christian laws embraced the concepts of fairness and government
long, long before Christianity!

I am a history major. I am well aware of Hammurabi's law codes, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. etc. I am well aware that many of the ...

This implies no government had existence before Christianity!

No; you have only inferred that. This actually only implies that moral truth preexisted Christianity.

You're assuming a false dichotomy in that if it's not biblical, it's social darwinism, or even anarchy.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said it was one or the other.

Problem is, you haven't considered that secular philosophies as well as
pre-Christian laws embraced the concepts of fairness and government
long, long before Christianity!

I am a history major. I am well aware of Hammurabi's law codes, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. etc. I am well aware that many of the things mentioned in the Bible appear in the writings of other cultures long before they appeared in Scripture. Again, you are making unwarranted assumptions.

In fact, if there is a God and an absolute morality, then if things were created perfect, we ought to be able to see vestiges of that truth (however far removed from actual truth they may be) in human culture long before the formation of "organized religion."

This implies no government had existence before Christianity!

No; you have only inferred that. This actually only implies that moral truth preexisted Christianity.

Yes, good morals (no such thing as moral truth) did preexist Christianity.

But you said "probably every government on earth, to some degree, is FOUNDED upon some Biblical principle."

It can't be founded on a biblical principle if the principle predates the bible. And a good government that predates the bible certainly is not founded on biblical principles. Thus my original statement.

I said:

"You're assuming a false dichotomy in that if it's not biblical, it's social darwinis...

read more»

This implies no government had existence before Christianity!

No; you have only inferred that. This actually only implies that moral truth preexisted Christianity.

Yes, good morals (no such thing as moral truth) did preexist Christianity.

But you said "probably every government on earth, to some degree, is FOUNDED upon some Biblical principle."

It can't be founded on a biblical principle if the principle predates the bible. And a good government that predates the bible certainly is not founded on biblical principles. Thus my original statement.

I said:

"You're assuming a false dichotomy in that if it's not biblical, it's social darwinism, or even anarchy."

You replied:

"Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said it was one or the other."

I'm sorry; I must have misinterpreted when you said:

"If our nation were founded on a philosophy of social darwinism, I doubt we would even have a government,.."

I'm not sure why this was mentioned if not to compare with biblical principles. But whatever...
--

You said:

"In fact, if there is a God and an absolute morality, then if things were created perfect, we ought to be able to see vestiges of that truth (however far removed from actual truth they may be) in human culture long before the formation of "organized religion."

Absolute morality? False assumption, false conclusion. Morality is largely cultural. Nor would it be arbitrary, even by a mind-changing god. It would be consistent.

Truth? Truth is fact, the actual state of affairs.

Any other usage refers to metaphor and axiomatic philosophies. They do not represent the real world, but the iconic world of subjective mind. There, one truth is as good an any other. There you will find superstition. Let us not "found" governments upon them. There are thousands of religions.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Of course, the other side will
just argue that our rights are inherent and that the Declaration is not
the defining document of our state, and is thus irrelevant.

That's fine if they do. However, the it can oly be that the Constitution is defined by the Declaration of Independence, because it is the Declaration of Independence the outlines the basic concept of "consent of the governed" and you cannot apply the "consent of the governed" to our Constition with the understanding of this defining principle. The Declaration of Independence is the "sunshine" by which the Constitution is to be read.

To say our rights are inherent is to say the...

I think you hit the nail on the head. Of course, the other side will
just argue that our rights are inherent and that the Declaration is not
the defining document of our state, and is thus irrelevant.

That's fine if they do. However, the it can oly be that the Constitution is defined by the Declaration of Independence, because it is the Declaration of Independence the outlines the basic concept of "consent of the governed" and you cannot apply the "consent of the governed" to our Constition with the understanding of this defining principle. The Declaration of Independence is the "sunshine" by which the Constitution is to be read.

To say our rights are inherent is to say there are no rights. Because rights cannot come from within. If they do, then rights mean different things to different people. However, only rights from God can be "unalienable".

It should also be understood that the Declaration of Independence defines thes truths as all-encompassing, not American. They say: ALL MEN are created equal. They did not say all Americans. This is a very imnportant point in understanding that the Declaration is not only "a" defining document, it is THE defining document by which to understand Man's relationship to government.

If our rights are derived from god, then why must we legislate them to exist?

"..Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

Rights are not inherent and the are not legislated. They are ENDOWED by our CREATOR and INALIENABLE (inalienable -- hence, NOT Mom and Dad).
What is legislated is the PROTECTION of these rights and limits on government.

It's not the separation of GOD and state I seek, it's the separation of
CHURCH and state I seek. That's a simple concept any fool should
understand

The separation exists as a separation of authority. That is Jefferson's point as it relates to Calvinist d...

If our rights are derived from god, then why must we legislate them to exist?

"..Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

Rights are not inherent and the are not legislated. They are ENDOWED by our CREATOR and INALIENABLE (inalienable -- hence, NOT Mom and Dad).
What is legislated is the PROTECTION of these rights and limits on government.

It's not the separation of GOD and state I seek, it's the separation of
CHURCH and state I seek. That's a simple concept any fool should
understand

The separation exists as a separation of authority. That is Jefferson's point as it relates to Calvinist democracy.

"..Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

True. This is called Liberty. The consent of the governed flows from the fact that individuals have the power. That power was granted by God in inalienable rights. Thus, WE THE PEOPLE lend (consent) our power to the government.

The power of truth lies in reality.

Again, true. However, you do not know what is reality . In fact, nor do I. We can, however, apply logic and reason ( without agenda ).
But I could ask you, How do you know the power of truth lies in reality? Whatever your answer is, how do you know that to be true?

Rights are not inherent and the are not legislated. They are ENDOWED by our CREATOR and INALIENABLE (inalienable -- hence, NOT Mom and Dad).

Then why must we legislate them to exist?

What is legislated is the PROTECTION of these rights and limits on government.

Cute play on words. But if our rights are inalienable by a Creator, there would be no need to protect them. Inalienable means they cannot be taken away. Legislation to do same would be superfluous if given by a god.

Can we legislate gravity? (God's law cannot be legislated.)

Ever heard of extraordinary rendition? Man made rights can be taken away by man easily. Inalienable? Hardly.

The laws...

Rights are not inherent and the are not legislated. They are ENDOWED by our CREATOR and INALIENABLE (inalienable -- hence, NOT Mom and Dad).

Then why must we legislate them to exist?

What is legislated is the PROTECTION of these rights and limits on government.

Cute play on words. But if our rights are inalienable by a Creator, there would be no need to protect them. Inalienable means they cannot be taken away. Legislation to do same would be superfluous if given by a god.

Can we legislate gravity? (God's law cannot be legislated.)

Ever heard of extraordinary rendition? Man made rights can be taken away by man easily. Inalienable? Hardly.

The laws of god, however, (Nature) cannot.

No government is run by the laws of Nature, god's laws. Governments are run by man. We the people...by the people...for the people, means exactly that.

The consent of the governed flows from the fact that individuals have the power. That power was granted by God in inalienable rights.

Mistake. God never wrote that. Men did.

How do you know the power of truth lies in reality? Whatever your answer is, how do you know that to be true?

Because I have defined truth to be "fact". Any other usage refers to metaphor and axiomatic philosophies.

In that sense, truth as fact IS reality. So, in that sense, they are the same thing.

Then why must we legislate them to exist?

Goodness, are you one thick person!

There ARE NO rights legislated. Our rights are PROTECTED by the Constitution. How can you legislate something that is "endowed" by our creator and "inalienable". If they were legislated that would mean we have NO rights other than those given us by the State. The Founders were clear that in order for a people to be free our rights had to flow from God to the individual then to the State. That is the ONLY way people are truly free. Otherwise we are slaves.
AL, You really need to read a few books. I'm not saying that if you educate yourself that you will change your mind. It is certainly OK to ho...

Then why must we legislate them to exist?

Goodness, are you one thick person!

There ARE NO rights legislated. Our rights are PROTECTED by the Constitution. How can you legislate something that is "endowed" by our creator and "inalienable". If they were legislated that would mean we have NO rights other than those given us by the State. The Founders were clear that in order for a people to be free our rights had to flow from God to the individual then to the State. That is the ONLY way people are truly free. Otherwise we are slaves.
AL, You really need to read a few books. I'm not saying that if you educate yourself that you will change your mind. It is certainly OK to hold your view, however wrong and ignorant it may be. There are a lot of educated people that agree with you. I know a few myself. However, you really need to educate yourself because you seem to not be able to grasp the most simple concepts that even secularists will admit.
The valid points that some of the Secularists I know make is that the Founders left it optional. They not only created a system of check and balances, but also one frought with some vague issues that would be open for further debate, They would say this was done to create an environment of perpetual dialogue to ensure the passion of each side of the debate could continue to develope the environment of government in a dialectical sense.

There ARE NO rights legislated. Our rights are PROTECTED by the Constitution. How can you legislate something that is "endowed" by our creator and "inalienable".

Ever heard of slavery? If not, then I forgive you. If so, then the thickness is in your head.

I am a black man. Please do not try to tell me god freed the slaves. Legislation freed the slaves. Nor were slaves "born" with inalienable rights. Legislation gave them their rights.

"Women's suffrage was permanently granted in 1920 with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It's called LEGISLATION.

In some places today in the Middle East, women have no right to...

There ARE NO rights legislated. Our rights are PROTECTED by the Constitution. How can you legislate something that is "endowed" by our creator and "inalienable".

Ever heard of slavery? If not, then I forgive you. If so, then the thickness is in your head.

I am a black man. Please do not try to tell me god freed the slaves. Legislation freed the slaves. Nor were slaves "born" with inalienable rights. Legislation gave them their rights.

"Women's suffrage was permanently granted in 1920 with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It's called LEGISLATION.

In some places today in the Middle East, women have no right to vote. Inalienable and god given? WAKE THE HELL UP!

Even your Christian bible condones slavery. God given inalienable rights, you say? Hogwash!

I don't know what books you think I should read to agree with the insane beliefs you have, but you clearly cannot conceptualize reality even at the most basic level.

From the Holocaust to modern day genocide, no god steps forward to support any inalienable right except the right to die.

Freedom has historically been waged by man against the authority of Kings, Popes, and dictators. And typically at the cost of much blood and life.

When you wake up from your deep religious stupor, you'll realize the truth of that.

AL,What man does to man in no way disproves the truth. You can be as ignorant as you want to be. As a black man, perhaps you do not mind the materialist/socialist, Nobel Prize winning scientist that recently stated black people have inferior intelligence. This scientist is a materialist, like you. In his view rights are determined by people. To him our rights are not endowed by our creator or inalienable. He, like you, is a Leftist, as are all Materialists.
Why do you complain about past and current injustices in the World. In your secular view, this is an acceptable and desired condition. See materialists: Darwin, Malthus, Hitler, Stalin, etc...

You suggesting that my view suggests that...

AL,What man does to man in no way disproves the truth. You can be as ignorant as you want to be. As a black man, perhaps you do not mind the materialist/socialist, Nobel Prize winning scientist that recently stated black people have inferior intelligence. This scientist is a materialist, like you. In his view rights are determined by people. To him our rights are not endowed by our creator or inalienable. He, like you, is a Leftist, as are all Materialists.
Why do you complain about past and current injustices in the World. In your secular view, this is an acceptable and desired condition. See materialists: Darwin, Malthus, Hitler, Stalin, etc...

You suggesting that my view suggests that human rights do not exist without human government is the epitome of your inability to understand my views. NOTHING could be further from the truth. It is, in fact, the opposite of my argument and it is YOUR argument. You are the one saying we legislate rights. My suggestion that you are thick was just the nicest way I could think to say you are NOT ignorant (to say you were ignorant would be a compliment).

According to your argument, human rights do not exist without human government. Therefore, prior to human government, there was no meaningful morality; how can you violate someone's rights if they have none?

You mean, prior to human government, there was no meaningful RIGHTS. (You mistakenly substituted rights for morals.)

You can easily violate someone's rights (by breaking the law, for example), and you can easily be immoral to someone without breaking the law.

"..ultimately, this means the answer to your question, "Do you need a god to tell you that raping a child is wrong?" is this: "Either I need a God to tell me that, or I need a government to do so, but witho...

read more»

According to your argument, human rights do not exist without human government. Therefore, prior to human government, there was no meaningful morality; how can you violate someone's rights if they have none?

You mean, prior to human government, there was no meaningful RIGHTS. (You mistakenly substituted rights for morals.)

You can easily violate someone's rights (by breaking the law, for example), and you can easily be immoral to someone without breaking the law.

"..ultimately, this means the answer to your question, "Do you need a god to tell you that raping a child is wrong?" is this: "Either I need a God to tell me that, or I need a government to do so, but without either, it really doesn't matter."

You didn't answer the question. You slightly rephrased it into "WHO do I need to tell me if raping a child is wrong?" That is the question you answered. (I'll assume the dishonesty wasn't intentional.)

The original question is: Is raping a child wrong? That's a yes, no, or maybe question. My answer is "YES". It is WRONG. Period. I need no god or government to answer such a basic moral question. (Why do you?)

Now, to the question: "Do you need a god to tell you that raping a child is wrong?" You have offered dichotomies that confuse once again rights with morals.

You answered with choices:

1.) Either I need a God to tell me that.. or
2.) I need a government to do so

Are there other alternatives? Of course!

3.) I need only my sense of fairness and empathy.

And if you like that answer, then there is something wrong with you.

I agree. There is something wrong with any adult who hasn't the personal sense of fairness and empathy to determine right from wrong on their own regarding child rape.

Question: Is raping a child wrong?
Question: Did you need a god to tell you that?

@willhelm

You can be as ignorant as you want to be.

You being plural.

As a black man, perhaps you do not mind the materialist/socialist, Nobel Prize winning scientist that recently stated black people have inferior intelligence.

Relevance?

This scientist is a materialist, like you.

Relevance?

In his view rights are determined by people.

True.

To him our rights are not endowed by our creator or inalienable.

True.

He, like you, is a Leftist, as are all Materialists.

Personal characterizations have no baring on the truthfulness of a proposition, even when the characterizations are unfounded and s...

@willhelm

You can be as ignorant as you want to be.

You being plural.

As a black man, perhaps you do not mind the materialist/socialist, Nobel Prize winning scientist that recently stated black people have inferior intelligence.

Relevance?

This scientist is a materialist, like you.

Relevance?

In his view rights are determined by people.

True.

To him our rights are not endowed by our creator or inalienable.

True.

He, like you, is a Leftist, as are all Materialists.

Personal characterizations have no baring on the truthfulness of a proposition, even when the characterizations are unfounded and stupid.

Why do you complain about past and current injustices in the World. In your secular view, this is an acceptable and desired condition.

Oh. I didn't know that. Did you know that your world view is exactly 180 degrees out of phase with reality?

You suggesting that my view suggests that human rights do not exist without human government is the epitome of your inability to understand my views.

Your wires are crossed.

You are the one saying we legislate rights.

Did you just now wake up?

My suggestion that you are thick was just the nicest way I could think to say you are NOT ignorant (to say you were ignorant would be a compliment).

Thank you. It's no secret that ad hominem fallacies continue to be the extent of your logical ability.

You mean, prior to human government, there was no meaningful RIGHTS. (You mistakenly substituted rights for morals.)

You're right; I assumed your definition of immorality would be violation of a basic human right, and I assumed incorrectly, apparently.

And I will answer your question, so that there is no doubt where I stand on it. The rape of a child is always wrong. Whether or not I need a God to tell me that is an impossible question to answer; either there is or there is not a God, and the answer to the question hinges entirely upon that.

So, let me try to get a handle on your view of morality. It does not come from God. It does not come from government. It therefor...

You mean, prior to human government, there was no meaningful RIGHTS. (You mistakenly substituted rights for morals.)

You're right; I assumed your definition of immorality would be violation of a basic human right, and I assumed incorrectly, apparently.

And I will answer your question, so that there is no doubt where I stand on it. The rape of a child is always wrong. Whether or not I need a God to tell me that is an impossible question to answer; either there is or there is not a God, and the answer to the question hinges entirely upon that.

So, let me try to get a handle on your view of morality. It does not come from God. It does not come from government. It therefore either comes from society (but then the question arises, "If there were no societies, would there be no morality?") or from the individual.

Since both individual and societal standards vary, how can you maintain that any morality has any meaning beyond preference?

The rape of a child is always wrong. Whether or not I need a God to tell me that is an impossible question to answer; either there is or there is not a God, and the answer to the question hinges entirely upon that.

But please notice, jstates1, you said The rape of a child is ALWAYS wrong! And with this, I agree. But this would seem to be an absolute (as in "always") moral.

Why, then, don't we all share it, if it were a divine (god given) value? [Do you know, there's not one single passage in the bible that protects children?] !

"So, let me try to get a handle on your view of morality. It does not come from God. It does not come from government. I...

read more»

The rape of a child is always wrong. Whether or not I need a God to tell me that is an impossible question to answer; either there is or there is not a God, and the answer to the question hinges entirely upon that.

But please notice, jstates1, you said The rape of a child is ALWAYS wrong! And with this, I agree. But this would seem to be an absolute (as in "always") moral.

Why, then, don't we all share it, if it were a divine (god given) value? [Do you know, there's not one single passage in the bible that protects children?] !

"So, let me try to get a handle on your view of morality. It does not come from God. It does not come from government. It therefore either comes from..."

It comes from our sense of fairness and empathy towards each other. (Though I admit society, culture, education and up-bringing tend to shape our morals greatly.) But here's a description from a more revered source:

The Dalai Lama has said that compassion and affection are human values independent of religion: "We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things." [2]

Since both individual and societal standards vary, how can you maintain that any morality has any meaning beyond preference?

To the extent that "not" raping a child has meaning, is the extent of that particular moral standard. (I don't know how else to answer the question of "meaning".)

Morality is a personal code of conduct towards other individuals. And it is a value based judgment. It's based on our sense of fairness and empathy towards one another.

But please notice, jstates1, you said The rape of a child is ALWAYS wrong! And with this, I agree. But this would seem to be an absolute (as in "always") moral.

Why, then, don't we all share it, if it were a divine (god given) value? [Do you know, there's not one single passage in the bible that protects children?] !

The argument that we don't seem to share values is a good one, and I would answer that we live in a fallen (imperfect) world where every individual is able to decide whether to follow God's laws or not. Just because we do not all follow God's law doesn't mean that it does not apply or that we will not be judged for disobeying it.

You're ri...

But please notice, jstates1, you said The rape of a child is ALWAYS wrong! And with this, I agree. But this would seem to be an absolute (as in "always") moral.

Why, then, don't we all share it, if it were a divine (god given) value? [Do you know, there's not one single passage in the bible that protects children?] !

The argument that we don't seem to share values is a good one, and I would answer that we live in a fallen (imperfect) world where every individual is able to decide whether to follow God's laws or not. Just because we do not all follow God's law doesn't mean that it does not apply or that we will not be judged for disobeying it.

You're right again when you say there is no Biblical passage protecting children. The Bible does refer to the issue in a rather indirect way: Fathers are not to provoke their children to wrath (the implication is that they should not do this through injustice, cruelty, etc.). Also, Christ says that it is better for a man to have a heavy stone tied around his neck and to be cast into the sea rather than be guilty of abusing a little one.

So there will be judgement for child abuse. God has a special place in His heart for children, and He will not forget an atrocity committed against a child.

Also, remember that the Biblical morality that applies to adults applies to children as well; treat others as you would like to be treated, do not commit immorality with one who is not your spouse, do not strike your neighbor without a cause, etc. etc.

The argument that we don't seem to share values is a good one, and I would answer that we live in a fallen (imperfect) world where every individual is able to decide whether to follow God's laws or not.

Fallen? Okay. Let's suppose the biblical story is true. And let's go all the way back before anyone "fell".

Would pre-sin pristine pure non-fall