Bible vs. Constitution

[LaLaRu]

This is intended for Christians living in the US, though other people can substitute their religious text/governing document. In determining one's participation in the political process, which is more important in determining one's principles. Should one go by one's religious beliefs first and attempt to circumvent or change the governing policies set in place, or should one make the laws of the land as paramount and put aside one's religious beliefs for it?

Personally, I belive that weakening the protections in the Constitution will backfire once the party doing the weakening is no longer in charge. It's like the Republicans pushing for the Line Item Veto. They wanted it for Regan, but Clinton was the one that actually got it.

 

[applepowerpc]

If I had to choose between the U.S. or God, my loyalty lies with God.

Don't be misled, though: the Neocon administration we have now is twisting both the Constitution AND the Bible.

 

[Voegelin]

Personally, I belive that weakening the protections in the Constitution will backfire once the party doing the weakening is no longer in charge.

Huh? Judges have weakend the constitution and those justices usually remain on the bench until they are too sick to work or they die.. The courts have usurped power from the other two branches. They have ruled the establishment clause means the opposite of what it does, that free speech does not apply to political speech (but does apply to virtual child pornography), they have created illusionary "rights" which are restrictions and obligations forced on others, against all principles of American law courts have imposed taxes, courts have invented doctrines such as the "Lemon Test" and pushed "due process" beyond anything intended when the 14th amendment was passed, they claim the constitution has hidden "penumbras and emanations" citizens cannot see but they can. And now, more and more they are looking to foreign law in making their decisions. Ginsberg and Breyer, flat out say that is just and proper. Those who claim the constitution is a "living document" as many liberals do, do not simply weaken the constitution, they say it means whatever that want it to mean. The constitution is not a set of principles to "progressives", it is not a contract upon which citizens can rely but it is an infinitately malleble document subject to whatever is the passing political fancy of the day.

So the answer to your question is no. Even atheists cannot rely on the constitution. Why? Because currently it has no meaning but what 9 unelected judges say it means. A few years ago capital punishment imposed on those under 18 was constitutional. Today, thanks to some judges looking to "evolving standards of decency" and foreign law, it is not. One cannot uphold a document, one cannot look to a document for guidence when it changes every few years. Be like signing a contract to buy a house and suddenly discovering the lender decided to charge 15%, not 7%, and has extended payments out to 50 years instead of 30.

 

[JustJack!]

I, a non-Christian, put the Constitution before the Bible.

Unfortunately, these days no one adheres to the Constitution. Not the federal govenment, not the republicans or democrats, nor the judges, and the states are too weakened to do anything but screw up things on a local level.

We all have idiots and the insane governing us, and no one cares because American Idol's on tonight.

 

[LaLaRu]

Huh? Judges have weakend the constitution and those justices usually remain on the bench until they are too sick to work or they die.. The courts have usurped power from the other two branches. They have ruled the establishment clause means the opposite of what it does, that free speech does not apply to political speech (but does apply to virtual child pornography), they have created illusionary "rights" which are restrictions and obligations forced on others, against all principles of American law courts have imposed taxes, courts have invented doctrines such as the "Lemon Test" and pushed "due process" beyond anything intended when the 14th amendment was passed, they claim the constitution has hidden "penumbras and emanations" citizens cannot see but they can. And now, more and more they are looking to foreign law in making their decisions. Ginsberg and Breyer, flat out say that is just and proper. Those who claim the constitution is a "living document" as many liberals do, do not simply weaken the constitution, they say it means whatever that want it to mean. The constitution is not a set of principles to "progressives", it is not a contract upon which citizens can rely but it is an infinitately malleble document subject to whatever is the passing political fancy of the day.

So the answer to your question is no. Even atheists cannot rely on the constitution. Why? Because currently it has no meaning but what 9 unelected judges say it means. A few years ago capital punishment imposed on those under 18 was constitutional. Today, thanks to some judges looking to "evolving standards of decency" and foreign law, it is not. One cannot uphold a document, one cannot look to a document for guidence when it changes every few years. Be like signing a contract to buy a house and suddenly discovering the lender decided to charge 15%, not 7%, and has extended payments out to 50 years instead of 30.

Let me guess, you're one of those "Activist Judges" people, right?

Well, here's a theoretical question for you. Let's say that Congress passes a law (not a Constitutional Amendment) that states Zoroastrianism to be the official religion of America. This is clearly unconstitutional and under the current system the Supreme Court would rule so. If you take away their power to rule laws unconstitutional, then what recourse is there?

 

[Law of Loud]

In my personal life, indeed my faith is profoundly more important to me than the Constitution is. In government, naturally the Constitution is more important than my faith, considering it is the ruling principle by which government works. Naturally though, the Constitution was designed to be amended, and considering it is an imperfect and frail document - we should do so if that is necessary.

The Founding Fathers were imperfect, and the document they wrote is a good foundation for a government. Not a perfect one.

I will never support legislation that is blatantly contrary to my faith. Does that mean that I will work to ban abortion or gay marriage? No, because bans don't work. However, I will do what is in my power to lessen the number of abortions by supporting policies that will negate the need for them.

 

[ChrisHallquist]

The Constitution says we have freedom of religion.

The Bible says blasphemers should be killed.

Which do you really want to live under?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

For my principles, I rely on the Bible more than I do on the Constitution. Allot of what is in the Constitution is partly from the Bible(I'm not saying it's a strictly Christian founded document either).

As for the freedoms we have, the Constitution should be in place, not judges or the federal government determining that. The Founding Fathers were wise enough to create and allow it to be built upon, but in recent history we have started to erode and interpret the Constitution any way we want.

 

[woman.at.the.well]

"The Bible (or the religious doctrine I follow)"

and agree with most of what KalEl76 said . . .

For my principles, I rely on the Bible more than I do on the Constitution. Allot of what is in the Constitution is partly from the Bible(I'm not saying it's a strictly Christian founded document either).

As for the freedoms we have, the Constitution should be in place, not judges or the federal government determining that. The Founding Fathers were wise enough to create and allow it to be built upon, but in recent history we have started to erode and interpret the Constitution any way we want.

however I DO feel like our (the U.S.) founding fathers DID intend for biblical precepts to be in our constitution although would contest that and that's ok. That's one great thing about this country is that we CAN have differing opinions and it's ok!

I also agree with the last statement as well. Interpretation of the Constitution seems to be taking a turn I'm not so sure is good.

 

[CaligulaNero]

"Allot of what is in the Constitution is partly from the Bible"

Really? What?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

"Allot of what is in the Constitution is partly from the Bible"

Really? What?

Here we go, another apologetics debate over something so miniscule. BTW, you forgot to include the rest of my statement, when I said that the Constitution isn't entirely based on the Bible, only a portion of it. Well, guess that one slipped your mind.

Just in case you want to rattle cages with your mundane pickiness, here's where the Bible is plugged into the Constitution: the fact that all men are created equal. We all should have the same freedoms; we all must submit to the governing powers. Just because explicit Bible verses are not in there, does not mean that Biblcal inspiration is absent.

 

[CaligulaNero]

"here's where the Bible is plugged into the Constitution: the fact that all men are created equal."

Funny. I don't remember that in the constiution. Me thinks you are thinking of the DOI. The constitution said blacks were 3/5 of white men.

"We all should have the same freedoms; we all must submit to the governing powers."

We all must submit to the governing powers? Yeah, that was exactly what the framers have in mind.

"Just because explicit Bible verses are not in there, does not mean that Biblcal inspiration is absent."

Maybe they got that 3/5 thing from the bible, but I don't see much else. It's actually a very mechanical document describing how our government will operate. You made the claim, support it.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

In my life the Bible is more important but you really can' compair my religious text with a document to govern the people.

 

[momalle1]

The bible if it came down to it, HOWEVER, there is no reason both can't coexist, plus, the constitution is what allows me to follow the bible.

 

[JustJack!]

we all must submit to the governing powers.

Only is that power is derived from the governed. God isn't a democracy.

Just because explicit Bible verses are not in there, does not mean that Biblcal inspiration is absent.

I'll agree that certain principles and ideals that are present in the Constitution flow with some Biblical principles. But our Constitutional also allows for freedoms that are sins, which jives with the whole 'free will' thing, but is certainly out of step with OT law.

So yes, the Bible played a part is our Constitution's creation. How could it not, the Bible influenced everything in that time. But our Founders were smart men who knew all too well the pitfalls of theocracy. Thus, a secular government.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

For my personal life, of course it is the Bible. But in the law making process, the constitution dictates what may or may not be done by the government. I also do no wish to use my religious values to make public policy. Why? Because I don't want others using THEIR religious values to make public policy that affects me. Some people's religious values are downright scary to me. And even among Christians of the same denominations, the beliefs and values can vary WILDLY. In a way, I am following the bible. I'm treating others as I wish to be treated.

 

[LaLaRu]

I believe there are many parts of the Bible that are similar to the Constitution. For example:

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Preamble: "We the People of the United States . . . "

As you can see, the similarities are endless. However, it is not the similarities that cause conflicts, but the differences. While many parts are similar, there are many sections that are NOT similar, and those are the parts that are really at the heart of this issue. For example:

Exodus 22:20: "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

Amendment 1 "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.

Clearly, the two are incompatible and only the repealing or editing of the First Amendment can solve that.

So, in a fight between Exodus 22:20 and Amendment 1, which one has got to go?

 

[Doctrine1st]

The definition of stupid is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.

The constitution has nothing to do with the Bible, and there were religious reasons why most of our followers who were Christian, left England with the Geneva Bible in hand rather than the KJV. When they created the constitution they specifically left God, Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible out, and even the DoI is very passive about the mentions of God. I just don't get the idea of people in regards to what documents should rule the land, they opt for the very situation that caused the forefathers of this country to get the heck out of Dodge.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I believe there are many parts of the Bible that are similar to the Constitution. For example:

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Preamble: "We the People of the United States . . . "

As you can see, the similarities are endless. However, it is not the similarities that cause conflicts, but the differences. While many parts are similar, there are many sections that are NOT similar, and those are the parts that are really at the heart of this issue. For example:

Exodus 22:20: "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

Amendment 1 "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.

Clearly, the two are incompatible and only the repealing or editing of the First Amendment can solve that.

So, in a fight between Exodus 22:20 and Amendment 1, which one has got to go?

Forgive me for being such a stupid, bungling, good for nothing Christian that does not deserve to be in the same forum as intellectuals such as yourself

 

[Lignoba]

For my principles, I rely on the Bible more than I do on the Constitution. Allot of what is in the Constitution is partly from the Bible(I'm not saying it's a strictly Christian founded document either).

As for the freedoms we have, the Constitution should be in place, not judges or the federal government determining that. The Founding Fathers were wise enough to create and allow it to be built upon, but in recent history we have started to erode and interpret the Constitution any way we want.

What if I told you that the constitution has a lot of masonic influences in it?