Constitutional Amendment : Slippery Slope

by patio34 41 Replies latest social current

  • Simon
    Simon

    I think it was lack of money and food that destroyed the USSR, not lack of 'god'. I also don't see how 'religion' makes a country strong. It's just rehetoric.

    Religion should be kept totally out of government and I think being a devout or fundamental religionist is almost enough to diqualify you from office because you have a conflict of interest and other alliegence.

    I always find it funny watching religious people want to push their agenda. Censorship is a wonderful example - whatever things they'd like to ban though never works out because the bible would always be covered by whatever strict rules they try and come up with.

  • gitasatsangha
    gitasatsangha

    If the USSR had not spent so much of it's money on defense, and more speficially on giving away weaponry to friendly countries, it would still be around.

  • CountryGuy
    CountryGuy
    We cannot let God be taken out of our nation. We do not want nor will we tolerate the ACLU and atheistic judges and courts destroying our beloved nation.

    ThiChi,

    Who said anything about taking God out of our nation? This has nothing to do with the removal of God from the United States. But that line is a great way to stir up those small minded in the religious right. Some gays, like some straights, do not want anything to do with religion. Other gays, like other straights, do. Those that wish to have God in their life, put him there.

    The main point about the proposed ammendment is that it designed to deny rights based on an uncontrolable characteristic. Prohibiting gays from getting married would be like prohibiting anyone with green eyes from getting married. This ammendment would discrimnate against an entire class of people. This would make the country that you (and I) hold so dear the "Land of the Mostly Free."

    CountryGuy

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    70 years without God destroyed the USSR.

    Many countries that have God on their side fare no better. (Afghanistan springs to mind). Perhaps there are other reasons that the USSR fell; perhaps because it promoted collectivism rather than individualism, where the rights of the individual were always subordinate to the whims of the state. One of the things that has made America so successful has been its respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.

    I don't think governments should be involved in the marriage business at all, but to amend the constitution in order to allow discrimination against a minority is reprehensible and anti-American.

  • gitasatsangha
    gitasatsangha
    Well, the way I look at it, that proposed Constitutional amendment is very very unconstitutional.

    And Amendment cannot be unconstitutional. They become part of the constitution. That's why they are called amendments. They make IT constitutional. Most of the supreme court battles have been over issues concerning current amendments to the constitution, not to the original document. In some cases it's been good to ament the constitution (for instance, black people weren't considered entirely human in the unamended constitution, and there was no guaranteed right to bear arms), on the other hand some dumb things have been made constitutional in the past (federal income tax, prohibition).

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    ""Religion should be kept totally out of government ""

    "I think it was lack of money and food that destroyed the USSR, not lack of 'god'""

    The fact of the matter is that most of our fundamental laws are based on religious views, the Decalogue, the Magna Carta and I can go on and on. To dismiss this is to dismiss history.

    A pure Secular society like what Stalin had, was atrocious and in the end, The End...

    The persecution in the USSR had evoked a religious response more direct than that contained in the antiquarian and environmental movements. At its simplest level, this response had taken the form of small Christian nuclei. These tiny groups have no central or connecting organization but they are very solidly based. Among intellectuals, they often begin with face - to - face relationships in prison or as simple religious - philosophical discussion groups on the outside. Many of these small circles progress naturally into devotional groups. Among ordinary working people, religious nuclei have been formed to respond to daily needs. Pentecostals had organized in family groups, strengthening the family as a unit. Adventists had organized private day - care centers. These groups have helped many uprooted people to overcome their feelings of isolation and worthlessness. One of the human failures of full employment Soviet - style has been the vast number of people who have no real function in their enormously inefficient economy: women handing out keys on every floor of the hotels, or sweeping streets with primitive brooms, just to keep them on some kind of job roll. The new Christian nuclei give these people a sense of worth, of belonging somewhere.

    Since the American academic establishment generally tends to view the entire subject with skeptical condescension, it is perhaps not surprising that most of the important work on the role of religion in Russia has been done elsewhere: by Bohdan Bociurkiw in Canada and by Michel Bourdeaux and Christel Lane in England. Even basic facts about religious life in the USSR are moire likely to be found in Wheaton, Illinois, or Keston, England, than in the great information centers of Washington and New York.

    America still awaits its chronicler of the process of secularization of its "university - media complex" in the post - cold war world - the institutionalization of a special new norm of freedom from religion for intellectuals in place of the classic ideal of freedom of religion for all Americans. What David Riesman has called "the bigotry of the enlightened" has not only reduced intellectual variety at home but also made it harder for Americans to understand many changes abroad.

  • gitasatsangha
    gitasatsangha

    ThiChi,

    As far as I understand it, the MagnaCarta is a Brittish document, and we politely asked them to leave in 1776. :-) As for our own nation's fathers, many of them were deists. I don't think the deists' views on religion would sit well with the current neocon dittoheads.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Are you insinuating that the Founders would approve of Gay Marriage if brought back today? Rubbish.....

    Your simplistic views and the labeling of the Founding Fathers in this way contradicts many of the actions and writings of the same. Do a Search, I have provided much information that refutes your claims....

    Regarding the Magna Carta, my only claim is that "religion" is the foundation of many laws.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi
    Thomas Paine and the Age of Reason

    Thomas Paine is sometimes grouped with the Founding Fathers. Your daily newspaper might reinforce this view with editorials like this:

    Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Paine and most of our other patriarchs were at best deists, believing in the unmoved mover of Aristotle, but not the God of the Old and New Testaments.[1]

    It would be difficult to name a single one of the Founding Fathers who approved of Paine's Age of Reason, his famous tract attacking religion in general and evangelical Christianity in particular. Even less-than-evangelicals like Benjamin Franklin and the "Unitarians" all denounced Paine's book.

    Before Paine published his Age of Reason, he sent a manuscript copy to Benjamin Franklin, seeking his thoughts. Notice Franklin's strong and succinct reply, and keep in mind that those on all sides of the religion question would concede Franklin to be one of the least religious Founders:

    I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that . . . the consequence of printing this piece will be a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits into the wind, spits in his own face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? . . . [T]hink how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue . . . . I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person . . . . If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? I intend this letter itself as proof of my friendship.[2]

    Samuel Adams was not quite as cordial as Franklin:

    [W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States. The people of New England, if you will allow me to use a Scripture phrase, are fast returning to their first love. Will you excite among them the spirit of angry controversy at a time when they are hastening to amity and peace? I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet upon the principles of your Age of Reason. Do you think your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?[3]

    John Adams certainly spoke harshly of such anti-Christian propaganda:

    The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.[4]

    Far from opposing "the God of the Old and New Testaments," Adams defended the Bible as the basis for government in a Christian nation:

    Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." [5]

    This was, in fact, the basis for the system of government in America, as Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:

    The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. [6]

    • Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickenson that Paine's Age of Reason was "absurd and impious."[7]
    • Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as "blasphemous writings against the Christian religion."[8]
    • John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration and mentor to many other Founders, said that Paine was "ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith."[9]
    • John Quincy Adams declared that "Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution." [10]

    Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation -- a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. In a letter to his daughter, Susan, Boudinot described his motivations for writing that rebuttal:

    I confess that I was much mortified to find the whole force of this vain man's genius and art pointed at the youth of America. . . . This awful consequence created some alarm in my mind lest at any future day, you, my beloved child, might take up this plausible address of infidelity; and for want of an answer at hand to his subtle insinuations might suffer even a doubt of the truth, as it is in Jesus, to penetrate your mind. . . . I therefore determined . . . to put my thoughts on the subject of this pamphlet on paper for your edification and information, when I shall be no more. I chose to confine myself to the leading and essential facts of the Gospel which are contradicted or attempted to be turned into ridicule by this writer. I have endeavored to detect his falsehoods and misrepresentations and to show his extreme ignorance of the Divine Scriptures which he makes the subject of his animadversions -- not knowing that "they are the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth [Romans 1:16]."[11]

    Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as "the puny efforts of Paine." However, after reading Bishop Richard Watson's Apology for the Bible written against Paine, Henry deemed that work sufficient and decided not to publish his reply.[12]

    When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered:

    Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God? Oh shame, where is thy blush? Is this the way to continue independent, and to render the 4th of July immortal in memory and song?[13]

    Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, warned:

    [W]e cannot sufficiently reprobate the beliefs of Thomas Paine in his attack on Christianity by publishing his Age of Reason . . . . He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers . . . . No language can describe the wickedness of the man who will attempt to subvert a religion which is a source of comfort and consolation to its votaries [devout worshipers] merely for the purpose of eradicating all sentiments of religion.[14]

    John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack:

    I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds, and I think they who undertake that task will derived advantages. . . . As to The Age of Reason, it never appeared to me to have been written from a disinterested love of truth or of mankind.[15]

    Many other similar writings could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that Paine's views were strongly rejected even by the least religious Founders. In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that -- as Franklin predicted -- he spent his last years in New York as "an outcast" in "social ostracism" and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.[16]

    Yet, even Thomas Paine cannot be called an atheist, for in the same work wherein he so strongly attacked Christianity, Paine also declared:

    I believe in one God . . . and I hope for happiness beyond this life.[17]

    The Founding Fathers simply were not atheists -- not even one of them. As Franklin had earlier explained to his European hosts while in France:

    [B]ad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country, without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an atheist or an infidel.[18]

    While members of the Supreme Court have held that government cannot show "respect" for religion, Franklin says the opposite.

    [See David Barton, Original Intent, 130-34 for words in blue.]

  • Gopher
    Gopher
    The fact of the matter is that most of our fundamental laws are based on religious views, the Decalogue, the Magna Carta and I can go on and on. To dismiss this is to dismiss history.

    The decalogue -- the ten commandments, is certainly based on religious views. A lot of its wording is about how to treat or respect the Israelite God.

    However to compare the Magna Carta to the decalogue seems like apples vs. oranges. The Magna Carta (while mentioning God and the Church of England at its very beginning) is more about common law and rights and how people should be treated under the law of the time.

    A pure Secular society like what Stalin had, was atrocious and in the end, The End...

    And nations have tried theocracy -- like Iran and Iraq, and they've been atrocious too. Atrocity comes in all shapes and sizes, and it depends on the will of the rulers and not whether the form of government was secular, theocratic, or somewhere in between.

    To say governments base their laws on religion is over-generalizing. It seems that both religion and government draw their laws from conscience and common sense (hopefully). They run parallel, rather than one strictly being derived from another.

    Or am I wrong?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit