Democrats Start Positioning Themselves For Prohibition End

[ladajo]

You seem to be implying that only students go to universities.

Nope. But you do seem to be sensitive about being young.

In my experience, it is also a small percentage of folks that take time to go to libraries, and they do tend to stick to the ones they have access to.

That small majority tends to revovle around young folks who are in the educational process, the even fewer "older" that are in the graduate educational process, the even fewer fewer adult education programs, and some old folks who just like to read.
Odds are, especially based on the way you post, you probably fall into the first category.

This is not meant in malace, merely an observation.

[Stubby]

And then there are some whose wife is in university administration and where 2 of the university libraries have copies to which she has free access.

hey do you need my long form birth certificate now?

[Stubby]

Interesting choice of language digot. Not playing word games are you?
Governing Document indeed. I sense an attempted AHA moment from you in the near future.

Yeah, you caught me. It IS a trap, and you sensed it. It's difficult to phrase it in such a way so as to prevent it from smelling like a trap, but I did the best I could.

In general principle on any given subject, I look at the available evidence before making any judgement. If new evidence shows up, it is analyzed to see if is applicable.

There is no overtly religious language in your Constitution (or are you calling it a Governing Document now?).

I have a hidden card. Do you think you can figure out what it is? You are sniffing in the right direction, i'll give you that.

Still waiting for your AHA evidence.

[ladajo]

And then there are some whose wife is in university administration and where 2 of the university libraries have copies to which she has free access.

hey do you need my long form birth certificate now?

Only if you were born in Hawaii. (Btw, made me smile when I read that.)

I still think you are young. But it matters not, really. Just an observation.

[Diogenes]

Still waiting for your AHA evidence.

Oh, I hadn't forgotten. I was just waiting for some of the side discussions to die down. Here's a clue as to where I'm going.



When was the United States founded as an Independent government from England?



(That will probably tip you off.)

[Stubby]

Quoted here to continue the conversation and not derail the other thread.

I think this is as good of time and place as any to continue the previous discussion with stubby regarding what the Founders of the United States thought about the role of God in government.


Though my attempt to trick stubby into admitting he was wrong (if I could prove our Governing document explicitly espousing Religion) has failed, still the point remains. Our original governing document (Which preceded the US Constitution by about ten years) does indeed explicitly acknowledge God. Most people are just unaware of this. From the Original founding document of the United States:











In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the state of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the third year of the independence of America.


http://www.archives.gov/publications/pr ... r/big.html


It wasn't an accident or archaic custom stubby, they put "God" in there at least three times.

[Stubby]

Again the 'Year of our Lord' argument. A reference to the common usage of the time for dates is irrelevant. i hope you are not counting these as proof.

Absolutely correct for the other references. The Articles of Confederation were such a success that after a pale 10 years they were scrapped and completely rewritten without the reference to the 'governor' or 'engage the faith'. There were many many reasons for the rewrite (taxation, commerce disputes among others). To even bring up a failed constitution to try to prove a point, is troubling. Our conversation is happening in 2013 not 1778-1887.

The US was founded by people who were mostly protestant christian but they chose a secular government. Of the people signing the failed Articles, 98% were protestant christians. The people signing the Constitution 96.4% were protestant. And yet no mention of the 'governor' (why does that make me think of the Walking Dead?) or faith in the Constitution.

Article VI specifically says "...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Why would the FF include this in your Constitution? It certainly was not put there to protect atheists or jews or muslims or mormons as there were very few if any of them around and none were signatories. I don't believe it was to placate the 3.6% who were catholic. It was put there to protect themselves from each other. No group, not the 54% who were episcopalians, or any other group or coalition of groups, would be able to dictate religious policy to the others. They had fled that kind of religious persecution in Europe, they made sure the persecution would not be renewed.

You say there is a christian influence of the laws enacted. I can say that whatever influence there is, it is not unique to christianty or even any religion.

[Diogenes]

Again the 'Year of our Lord' argument. A reference to the common usage of the time for dates is irrelevant. i hope you are not counting these as proof.

And your response begs the question. Why was this the common form of usage? You are making my argument for me.

Absolutely correct for the other references. The Articles of Confederation were such a success that after a pale 10 years they were scrapped and completely rewritten without the reference to the 'governor' or 'engage the faith'. There were many many reasons for the rewrite (taxation, commerce disputes among others). To even bring up a failed constitution to try to prove a point, is troubling. Our conversation is happening in 2013 not 1778-1887.

Your criticism of it's failings is irrelevant to the point. This was the Document the nation was originally founded with. It demonstrates the universal reverence of the times. That references to God exist on the highest legal document because the entire culture of that era was infused with it. Especially the legal system. It was so commonplace that it was taken for granted within our laws.

It has four references to God and Religion. The US Constitution has two. Were the modern theory correct, they both would have none. Just for kicks and grins, let's take a look at the constitution of one of the ratifying states. How about we pick a really liberal one?

Massachusetts.

II.--It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great creator and preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

III.--As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of GOD, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

Yeah, no overt references to God in there. Remember, these guys had to RATIFY those other documents.

The US was founded by people who were mostly protestant christian but they chose a secular government.

They chose a non-denominational government. Not the same thing at all.

Of the people signing the failed Articles, 98% were protestant christians. The people signing the Constitution 96.4% were protestant. And yet no mention of the 'governor' (why does that make me think of the Walking Dead?) or faith in the Constitution.

Why beat the point to death in a working document? More references to God would have added nothing salient to it. Remember, this was a rewrite, and a much shortened one at that.

Article VI specifically says "...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Why would the FF include this in your Constitution?

Very simple. Maryland was Predominantly Catholic, Pennsylvania was Quaker, Virginia was Anglican, Puritans in Massachusetts, and so on. Nobody wanted a religious test when it might be created by someone from a different denomination. They simply had to work with anyone who was elected from any state, regardless of their religious differences.

In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches.

Link.

It certainly was not put there to protect atheists or jews or muslims or mormons as there were very few if any of them around and none were signatories. I don't believe it was to placate the 3.6% who were catholic. It was put there to protect themselves from each other. No group, not the 54% who were episcopalians, or any other group or coalition of groups, would be able to dictate religious policy to the others. They had fled that kind of religious persecution in Europe, they made sure the persecution would not be renewed.

Not at all. Religious persecution continued in the various states under state authority. What the US constitution did was require people from different states to work with each other at the federal level, without regard to the various States religious preferences.

The states had the power to MAKE you participate in their religion, and some did. The Feds HAD to be non-denominational just to make the attempt at Unionization work.

You say there is a christian influence of the laws enacted. I can say that whatever influence there is, it is not unique to christianty or even any religion.

While other religions may share some of the Tenets of Christianity, it is Anglo-Christian culture which informed the US governing document and laws.