You have provided nothing to see. Repeatedly you have been asked to provide evidence of Christianity in the Constitution and to date you have not provided one scrap of evidence.
I have given ‘Evidence’; however, you seem to be torn between acknowledging it or rebutting it.
Even though people use it as such today; ‘Christianity’ is not just a catch phrase that is attached to a religious doctrine; or group of religious doctrines.
The evidence for Christianity being in the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is vested in the people who framed the Constitution; what they lived for, what they fought for; what they stood for, and who they were.
This is why I bring up the Declaration of Independence. A document is not ‘Christian’ because it mentions ‘God’, ‘Christ’, ‘Heaven’, Etc. It is Christian if it is written by ‘Christians’, for ‘Christians’, to the edification of God All Mighty.
I have offered the ‘Decoration of Independence’ as evidence of Americas Christian roots; saying that it has no barring because “It is not a US government document. It is a document prior to the formation of the United States.” is like saying that the concrete foundation is not part of the house because it was poured before the building went up.
The evidence for Christianity being in the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is vested in the people who framed the Constitution; what they lived for, what they fought for; what they stood for, and who they were.
And apparently what they lived for, what they fought for, and what they stood for was not putting Christianity in the Constitution in any way, shape, or form. Which is why they didn't.
This is why I bring up the Declaration of Independence. A document is not ‘Christian’ because it mentions ‘God’, ‘Christ’, ‘Heaven’, Etc. It is Christian if it is written by ‘Christians’, for ‘Christians’, to the edification of God All Mighty.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence edified God All Mighty?
Wow...heavy hitters.
But since the Constitution wasn't written for Christians but for all citizens, by your logic it is not a Christian document.
Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale? -Shakespeare
I would love to address every point you made; however, our posts would only get longer and longer. So I will only address two of your points.
Sorry.
Dr Adequate writes:
JRTjr writes:
If that is so then the Supreme Court has no grounds to demand the removal of a “Bible sitting in a display case
No, you're not following this.
It's not "free exercise", so it's not protected. It is "establishment", so it's forbidden.
Where, in the Constitution of the United States of Americas, is “establishment” Forbidden?
Dr Adequate writes:
JRTjr writes:
Also, I guess you have forgotten that, until recently, when a witness was sworn in at any court proceedings, in any court in this land, they placed their right hand on a Bible and swore to tell “the Truth, the hole Truth, and nothing but the Truth”. Not only that, but the end of that oath was “So help me God.”
They still do. One can take the oath on the Bible, or on the Koran, or one can "affirm" --- it's a personal choice.
That's free exercise.
Where, in an American Court, has any book (other than the Bible) ever been used to affirm the Oath to tell the truth?
Where, in an American Court, has any book (other than the Bible) ever been used to affirm the Oath to tell the truth?
North Carolina Judge: Court Witnesses Can Take Oath With Koran
RALEIGH, N.C. — A Wake County judge ruled Thursday that any religious text can be used to swear in a witness or juror in the state's courtrooms, not just the Bible.
The American Civil Liberties Union argued a law that some judges said required the state's courts to use the Bible alone is unconstitutional because it favors Christianity over other religions.
The ACLU sought a court order clarifying that the law is broad enough to allow the use of multiple religious texts, or else declare the statute unconstitutional.
This is why I bring up the Declaration of Independence. A document is not ‘Christian’ because it mentions ‘God’, ‘Christ’, ‘Heaven’, Etc. It is Christian if it is written by ‘Christians’, for ‘Christians’, to the edification of God All Mighty.
So, in this case then, as it is written by Deists, so the Constitution is Deist, yes?
quote: ... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ...
Clearly a Deist reference. NOT your Christian "God All Mighty" ... sorry.
Or your logic sucks (just one of many possibilities).
Message 290: Where, in the Constitution of the United States of Americas, is “establishment” Forbidden?
It's easy to actually read the documents involved you know.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Bold added. Doesn't get clearer than that. All amendments become part of the constitution by definition.
Simply stated the congress cannot pass any laws that favor or disfavor any of all the world's religions.
Still no evidence I see. Gee, colour me surprised.
Are you ready to admit there is no evidence of christianity in the US Constitution?
The evidence for Christianity being in the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is vested in the people who framed the Constitution; what they lived for, what they fought for; what they stood for, and who they were.
I am not sure what this mumbo-jumbo means, but I think you are trying to say that it is what you believe so it is true. Am I right?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
…everybody know's that "Nature's God" is not a reference to the Christian God but instead to a Deistic god.
Everybody knows Santa Claus lives at the North Pole to; that does not make it so. ;-}
Your “Deistic god” theory would hold water if most or all of the signers were modern day Deists; However, as I pointed out in post #231 at least 75% of the signers were Christians. So, unless you can provide substantial evidence to the contrary I stand on the evidence that says it is the Christian God being spoken of.
The Framers of the Constitution were not interested in religious affiliations
Hi Theodoric,
The evidence for Christianity being in the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is vested in the people who framed the Constitution; what they lived for, what they fought for; what they stood for, and who they were.
I am not sure what this mumbo-jumbo means, but I think you are trying to say that it is what you believe so it is true. Am I right?
Amusingly we have this little document of historical import:
William Pierce, of Georgia, spoke very little at the Constitutional Convention, but his contributions to what we know of the other delegates to the Convention are invaluable. He wrote short character sketches of each of the delegates; he himself had to leave the Convention early for business reasons. He died two years later; his sketches were published in the Savannah Georgian in 1828. Pierce wrote his sketches in order of state; they are reproduced here in alphabetical order. The Library of Congress has the sketches in their original order as reported in Farrand's Records, Volume 3. Note that Pierce misspelled some names - these misspellings are retained here.
Curiously, though each member is described, only one has any mention of religious affiliation listed. From this we can easily conclude that the religious affiliations of the members was not a matter of importance among those writing the constitution.
Christians keep trying to re-write history, but unfortunately - for them - history is not so kind as to change because they want it to.
If you read carefully you will see that I do not "say two mutually exclusive things." I say that there is no Christian Creation story. Note, that is singular. That is also a fact. Christianity, Islam and Judaism have several creation myths, the newer myth found in Genesis 1 and the much earlier primitive story found in Genesis 2&3. Two Creation myths. And they are mutually exclusive, if one is true then the other is false. Of course we know that neither one is factually correct, and both are refuted by the evidence of the universe itself.
Jar, please, listen to your self; first you say “there is no Christian Creation story. Note, that is singular. That is also a fact.”
So, according to you, there is no “Christian Creation story”
Then you say “Christianity, Islam and Judaism have several creation myths (Stories)”
So which is it: ‘No Creation story/myth’ or ‘several Creation stories/myths’?
Lastly, can you give me an example where Geneses Chapter 1 directly contradicts Chapters 2 or 3?
In a “comparative religion class” it would be up to the teachers/school board with religions would be represented in there creation myths.
Since the original question did not mention a class of study I simply assume the question was aimed at science since that is where the controversy lays.
I am sorry, however, I will only be able to respond to one or two of your comments.
Rrhain writes:
…you don't seem to understand what DNA is. It does not "insure that the child will be of the same species as the parents." In fact, given all our observations of DNA, it never remains stable but rather always mutates from generation to generation, guaranteeing the creation of new species. That's why we have seen speciation happen right in front of our eyes both in the lab and in the wild.
Really, so you can demonstrate this hu? Some one has actually seen a cow deliver a bat, or a cat bear a dog, or something like that? As far as I know, cats have always delivered cats; cows have always borne cows, etc, etc, etc.
Rrhain writes:
DNA is not an "information rich system."
Really, so, something like the equivalent of every letter, in every book, in the entire Library of Congress is not “information rich”?
™ Version 4.0 Beta
