Bible vs. Constitution

[Yusuf Evans]

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

It wouldn't bother me. I know the Constitution is not strictly based on the Bible, nor is the majority of it from the Bible. Are there biblical inspirations there? Yes. I know that there are various sources that helped influence the Founding Fathers decision in what to write when penning the Constitution. I respect that, for the Constitution is a great document. Unfortunately, we have lost our sense of reasoning and allowed the Constitution to be interpreted instead of followed.

 

[nvxplorer]

Unfortunately, we have lost our sense of reasoning and allowed the Constitution to be interpreted instead of followed.

Any document is subject to interpretation. The Constitution is not legislation; it is a framework.
Furthermore, there are over two centuries of case law that must be considered.

 

[CaligulaNero]

"Are there biblical inspirations there? Yes"

Where? Here's a link to the constituion:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

It reads like a driver's manual. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the document speaks for itself, and it has no relationship at all with the bible in any way. Cat in the Hat has as much in common with the constitution.

 

[LaLaRu]

Unfortunately, we have lost our sense of reasoning and allowed the Constitution to be interpreted instead of followed.

See, here's the problem. Here's part of the text detailing what Congress can do.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So . . . what does this mean? Carte blanche authority for Congress to do anything it wants? Only laws that are absolutely positively the-country-will-collapse-into-chaos-if-this-is-not-passed laws? Something in between? It doesn't say, and therefore needs to be interpreted.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

"Are there biblical inspirations there? Yes"

Where? Here's a link to the constituion:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

It reads like a driver's manual. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the document speaks for itself, and it has no relationship at all with the bible in any way. Cat in the Hat has as much in common with the constitution.

Does Christianity really bother you that much?

 

[Law of Loud]

Does Christianity really bother you that much?

Indeed. The Beatitudes are sickening. Everytime I think about them, I want to vomit. Stupid "slave morality" of Jesus.

[/sarcasm]

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Indeed. The Beatitudes are sickening. Everytime I think about them, I want to vomit. Stupid "slave morality" of Jesus.

[/sarcasm]

I know, the whole "Love your neighbor and enemy" issue is so bronze age and archaic. It obviously has no right to be inspiration to our Founding Fathers.

 

[Alarum]

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land. (Verse 4)
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)

Yeah, I mean valuing morality above material wealth, valuing humility above pride, valuing true grief over appearances, what else are they guilty of?

Oh yeah, justice, mercy, purity, and maintaining your ideals in the face of persecution.

And the New Agers think that they've discovered something no one else has...

 

[FSTDT]

Back on topic:

Given that I'm not a Christian, I would be extremely offended if anyone suggested that I should be compelled to follow the rules of a religion that I don't belong to, so definitely the Constitution is more important. A persons religious beliefs are intensely personal, and the government should have no business concerning itself with what religion its citizens do or not believe.

 

[Voegelin]

The real constitution isn't what most mean by the "constitution" anyways. The genuine constitution is twofold: it is the structure and powers of the Federal government and the unwritten tradition, mores and common law of which the Bill of Rights is but a shadow.

The first part was transformed into something alien and repressive in the 1930s by judges appointed by FDR. The second part was handed over to lawyers when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Instead of rights being held to be inalienable in the hearts and minds of the citizens, they became continguent upon legal sophistry and, often, money. For a while that was tolerable. Tradition is inertia. But gradually that inertia weakens. Until today we see decisions such as Kelo in which hundreds of years of tradition, a right Englishman and Americans assumed would never be taken away, tossed on the trash heap of history with one ruling by 5 judges.

 

[Doctrine1st]

The real constitution isn't what most mean by the "constitution" anyways. The genuine constitution is twofold: it is the structure and powers of the Federal government and the unwritten tradition, mores and common law of which the Bill of Rights is but a shadow.

Ah ha, so those aren't activist judges afterall.

They are just using "the unwritten tradition, mores and common law of which the Bill of Rights is but a shadow" to make their decisions.

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[CaligulaNero]

"Does Christianity really bother you that much?"

I posted a link to the Constitution and this is the response I get? No, Christianity doesn't bother me that much- lying and usupported claims bother me. If I said the Constitution was filled with references of Jelly beans and refused to provide any evidence of such a lie, wouldn't you be a bit frustrated?

 

[ballfan]

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.

The "principles" the founders of the country used relied heavily on Christainity. This seems to have been lost on many. The country was founded with the Declaration of Independence, a clearly Christian document when you consider the opening and both of the parties the DOC refers to. Christainity was definitely behind the first twenty years of the United States. Now before you fall out of your chair please realize the country existed 23 years before George Washington took office and that the Constitution was not our first governing document.

A study of our history quickly reveals the US was indeed founded as a Christian nation.

 

[CaligulaNero]

"the Declaration of Independence, a clearly Christian document"
Written by Thomas Jefferson who didn't believe Jesus was the son of God. No reference to Christ in it. In any event no one suggested the DOI didn't make a reference to a "creator", the statement was made that the constiituion was influenced/based on the bible, which is total nonsense.

 

[CaligulaNero]

Also to add, it seems to cheapen a religion to suggest its holy document was concerned with the mechanical workings of a government. Also that 3/5 clause is hardly something I'd want to associate with my religion.

 

[LaLaRu]

The real constitution isn't what most mean by the "constitution" anyways. The genuine constitution is twofold: it is the structure and powers of the Federal government and the unwritten tradition, mores and common law of which the Bill of Rights is but a shadow.

The first part was transformed into something alien and repressive in the 1930s by judges appointed by FDR. The second part was handed over to lawyers when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Instead of rights being held to be inalienable in the hearts and minds of the citizens, they became continguent upon legal sophistry and, often, money. For a while that was tolerable. Tradition is inertia. But gradually that inertia weakens. Until today we see decisions such as Kelo in which hundreds of years of tradition, a right Englishman and Americans assumed would never be taken away, tossed on the trash heap of history with one ruling by 5 judges.

That's kind of what happens to all laws though. Someone has a good idea, they put it into law, then the lawyers ruin everything. They make more laws to plug up the loopholes, which increases the complexity and creates more loopholes, until you get the US Legal System.

Second, what's so great about tradition? "It's Tradition" is not a legal, moral, or ethical argument.

Edit: Sorry, I was wrong. "Legal Precidence" is the idea of making your ruling now based on a previous ruling done some time in the past. This is actually important in the legal world and not overturned lightly.

 

[morningstar2651]

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.

I'd say that the law and religious doctrine should be seperate (aka seperation of church and state). Follow religious laws in addition to legislation, but don't expect the government to enforce religious laws. That's up to the religious organization.

 

[LibraryOwl]

The world will be so much better on the day when Democracy is no more and Christ Jesus is the King. America is a mere transitional government, that shall be swept away and made no more.

Blessed are we that the constitution makes us the masters of this world, for Satan reigns in the lands of the wicked. But cursed are we, that we are seperated from the Lord. I await the day when the Holy Spirit, who is the authour of the ideas outlined in that document we know as the bible, is known to all good men. Surely, the truth is more important that the truth seen by men.

 

[LaLaRu]

The "principles" the founders of the country used relied heavily on Christainity. This seems to have been lost on many. The country was founded with the Declaration of Independence, a clearly Christian document when you consider the opening and both of the parties the DOC refers to. Christainity was definitely behind the first twenty years of the United States. Now before you fall out of your chair please realize the country existed 23 years before George Washington took office and that the Constitution was not our first governing document.

A study of our history quickly reveals the US was indeed founded as a Christian nation.

First, how does "the founders used Christian principles" and "this is a Christian nation" relate? "Be Excellent to One Another" is hardly rocket science and is part of many moral and legal systems.

On the other hand if America was truly a Christian nation, then why isn't in the Constitution? The original version had no problems discriminating against race, sex, and wealth, but why did it specifically include provisions for religious protection?

 

[CaligulaNero]

"The world will be so much better on the day when Democracy is no more and Christ Jesus is the King. America is a mere transitional government, that shall be swept away and made no more."

So long as you wait until Christ actually "reappears" to implement this, I have no problem with you taking this position- now if you want to seek to have man impose this christian dictatorship I have a problem.