Jesus is the only god mentioned in the Constitution

[HTacianas]

It says it right there towards the end.

 

[Dan the deacon]

Sounds great to me. I doubt our current government agrees with that.

 

[JackRT]

It says it right there towards the end.

OK, cite it.

 

[HTacianas]

OK, cite it.

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"

 

[JackRT]

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"

I still see no mention of Jesus.

 

[dzheremi]

That is a pretty common old timey way of noting the date (though I suppose back then it was just regular timey), since it directly translates "Anno Domini". I don't like to guess at what people of the past might've been thinking, but if it were meant as an endorsement of Jesus Himself as God it is the most bland and agreeable one there could be (which I guess fits with the original anti-sectarian framework of the government). I suppose if it were rewritten so as to not offend modern PC (non)sensibilities, it would say "In the year of the Common Era", though one might wonder what's so 'common' about it, then...

 

[dzheremi]

I still see no mention of Jesus.

Anno Domini or its English equivalent only make sense in a Christian context, as it was originally devised in the 6th century AD by Scythian monk Dionysius Exiguus as an alternative to the earlier Diocletian-related dating (still used in the Coptic Orthodox Church) of Anno Martyrum, as he felt it inappropriate to start the calendar according to the persecution of Christians.

So, since this was a calendar invented by a Christian out of consideration for Christians, relative to the birth of the central figure of Christianity, it is an implicit reference to Jesus. The "Domini" in question is without a doubt only Jesus Christ our God, not Zeus, or the Mohammedan Allah, or Caesar, or Vishnu, or whoever.

 

[Dan the deacon]

I still see no mention of Jesus.

Really? Who is "our Lord"?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It says it right there towards the end.

I have gathered some information you might find interesting concerning the list of men who signed the U.S. Constitution. I put this information research into a blog entry. Sure much more could be added and the entry represents but several hours of one day. For most of those men, "our Lord" did mean Jesus Christ.

 

[Dan the deacon]

Which ones did it not mean Jesus to?

 

[ewq1938]

Really? Who is "our Lord"?

Luk_24:3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

Luk_1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

We have two Lord's, Lord Jesus and Lord God (the Father).

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Which ones did it not mean Jesus to?

Benjamin Franklin comes to mind, he was quite a complicated fellow, interesting how his parents were Puritans. Here is a quote:

According to David Morgan,[188] Franklin was a proponent of religion in general. He prayed to "Powerful Goodness" and referred to God as "the infinite". John Adams noted that Franklin was a mirror in which people saw their own religion: "The Catholics thought him almost a Catholic. The Church of England claimed him as one of them. The Presbyterians thought him half a Presbyterian, and the Friends believed him a wet Quaker." Whatever else Franklin was, concludes Morgan, "he was a true champion of generic religion." In a letter to Richard Price, Franklin stated that he believed that religion should support itself without help from the government, claiming, "When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."[189]

In 1790, just about a month before he died, Franklin wrote a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University, who had asked him his views on religion:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure.[15]​

I would encourage people to do research on these men and where they stood on religion. I think most of them were Christians, but not all, in some cases one might not be able to reach a conclusion either way.

 

[Not David]

It might talk about the Father tho.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I still see no mention of Jesus.

"Our Lord" = Jesus.

 

[Yarddog]

It says it right there towards the end.

Well, one would have to look at who wrote the Constitution to get a feel for his view of the Lord may be or if it was just the usual means during those times to indicate the year.

James Madison wasn't a religious man and many historians say he leaned towards deism but others say he just had no need for any religion. One cannot say what Madison was saying when he wrote it.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Well, one would have to look at who wrote the Constitution to get a feel for his view of the Lord may be or if it was just the usual means during those times to indicate the year.

James Madison wasn't a religious man and many historians say he leaned towards deism but others say he just had no need for any religion. One cannot say what Madison was saying when he wrote it.

James Madison is far from being the sole person behind the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention was behind the Constitution. The Federalist Papers had much to do with ratifying the Constitution, and they were primarily written by Alexander Hamilton, but also John Jay and James Madison. All was not accepted as is without debates at the Convention, and those who signed the final revision, only did so after debate, revision, and coming to an agreement. Fifty five delegates are noted as "framers" of the Constitution. Madison's Virginia Plan was used as kind of a "blue print", but there was a first draft, debates and modifications, before the final draft and signing (nearly four month process).

An interesting quote here concerning the convention:

"A Philadelphia guest of Robert Morris, Noah Webster would write a pamphlet immediately after the signing. "Leading Principles of the Federal Convention" advocated adoption of the Constitution. It was published much earlier and more widely circulated than today's better known Federalist Papers.[18]"​

 

[FireDragon76]

During Franklin's day, many people advocated religion on moralistic grounds. They didn't have much, if any faith, but they believed it was necessary for the public good and ordering of society. And lacking much exposure to the wider world, they thought Christianity was probably the best way to do so. It was like a paler shadow of the moralistic emphasis expounded by some Puritans and Pietists, for instance, in William Law (who inspired John Wesley).

Ending the Constitution with A.D. is simply a social convention, in light of that reality. Jesus is a good moral teacher when he's teaching you to be obedient to your social betters and be a well-mannered Englishman, but when it comes to actually believing he's the Son of God, with all the potentially radical consequences that might entail, that is strictly optional.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

During Franklin's day, many people advocated religion on moralistic grounds. They didn't have much, if any faith, but they believed it was necessary for the public good and ordering of society. And lacking much exposure to the wider world, they thought Christianity was probably the best way to do so. It was like a paler shadow of the moralistic emphasis expounded by some Puritans and Pietists, for instance, in William Law (who inspired John Wesley).

Ending the Constitution with A.D. is simply a social convention, in light of that reality. Jesus is a good moral teacher when he's teaching you to be obedient to your social betters and be a well-mannered Englishman, but when it comes to actually believing he's the Son of God, with all the potentially radical consequences that might entail, that is strictly optional.

I disagree with the notion of "many" deists. One reason I disagree is because it would be a more prevalent view among some religious but sophisticated people. Save for historical writings and biographies, how would one come to a conclusion of "many"? The view of one historian will not get a pass, btw. Even historians can have axes to grind, obviously your response and mine represent two axes clashing.

 

[FireDragon76]

I disagree with the notion of "many" deists. One reason I disagree is because it would be a more prevalent view among some religious but sophisticated people. Save for historical writings and biographies, how would one come to a conclusion of "many"? The view of one historian will not get a pass, btw. Even historians can have axes to grind, obviously your response and mine represent two axes clashing.

I don't think there were clear boundary markers, as Franklin himself seems to suggest. Some were moderate deists and remained in churches (perhaps Washington, for instance, was of this persuasion), others were more radical.

It's a misunderstanding to see Deists as a complete separate religious creed, people that believe God was indifferent to the world or never answered prayers. Most were from a Calvinist background and that influenced their views of providence, meshing it with the newly discovered Newtonian laws of motion. But they also bought into the skepticism of Hume to a great degree and found basing their faith on stories of miracles, problematic. They preferred what they saw as the moral core of Christianity.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I don't think there were clear boundary markers, as Franklin himself seems to suggest. Some were moderate deists and remained in churches (perhaps Washington, for instance, was of this persuasion), others were more radical.

It's a misunderstanding to see Deists as a complete separate religious creed, people that believe God was indifferent to the world or never answered prayers. Most were from a Calvinist background and that influenced their views of providence, meshing it with the newly discovered Newtonian laws of motion. But they also bought into the skepticism of Hume to a great degree and found basing their faith on stories of miracles, problematic. They preferred what they saw as the moral core of Christianity.

It would seem we could all be agnostics for the historical record without clear boundary makers, after all, who does not have doubts right? Rubbish. If there were so many Deists it would be clear, and they sure would not enjoy going to Churches like Franklin supposedly claims (via second hand account). What kind of person believes God is indifferent to humans, does not even get involved in human affairs, does not answer prayers, and finds an ounce of satisfaction or joy from attending Church services were they think most members are delusional about, oh let's see, every supernatural act recorded in Scripture?!?

It's funny, how it's claimed these sophisticated men preferred the moral core of Christianity, but where is that to be found today among sophisticated men? Oh you must mean a few principals like the "golden rule" and such "choose your own adventure" religion, the Christ that in their view, just died and stayed that way.