"Under God..."

[logic]

What do you think???

[Piper Plexed]

Yes Enigma I stand corrected, , please forgive me, though a simple reminder that I must have been a bit confused with our Declaration of Independence would have sufficed Piper say DUUH and laughs at herself. Please note my name the Plexed variation is in actuality a personal acknowledgement of my own state of mind at times and I have grown to accept and enjoy all aspect of my personal reality. So now that (with the help of you folks) we have identified the document that I was referring to LOL I wonder why it is not considered as relevant to the intentions of the founding fathers and their vision for our nation. Should it be dismissed that readily or shouldn’t it have bearing on how we perceive ourselves?

[ENIGMA]

Yes Enigma I stand corrected, , please forgive me, though a simple reminder that I must have been a bit confused with our Declaration of Independence would have sufficed Piper say DUUH and laughs at herself. Please note my name the Plexed variation is in actuality a personal acknowledgement of my own state of mind at times and I have grown to accept and enjoy all aspect of my personal reality. So now that (with the help of you folks) we have identified the document that I was referring to LOL I wonder why it is not considered as relevant to the intentions of the founding fathers and their vision for our nation. Should it be dismissed that readily or shouldn’t it have bearing on how we perceive ourselves?

Sorry for the wait, been busy with college....

Honestly, I don't think that the vision of the founding fathers is as important as it's cracked up to be, considering that America was massively different (A nice little backward country with an agriculturally based economy and no national navy until we were tired of raids from the Barbary Pirates, and which only consisted of a total of 6 ships) and various stances held by the founding fathers were hypocritical (As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men" *COUGH*... "SLAVE!! GET ME SOME WATER OR SOMETHING! MY THROAT IS A BIT PARCHED!"... "Now where was I?".... etc.).

That being said, if one were to make the argument that the founding fathers should have some weight, it would seem prudent to distinguish between what they believed personally and what they wished that the nation reflect.

Considering that the Declaration of Independence was written when there was no nation to build but rather a bunch of colonies to liberate, it would seem that the Constitution would be a better document to use for a basis of discussion of what the founding fathers wished the country to reflect. For instance:

"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."

Which indicates that religious belief should not be used as a litmus test for office, and by implication that religious belief should not be used as a test for good government.

[otseng]

"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."

Which indicates that religious belief should not be used as a litmus test for office, and by implication that religious belief should not be used as a test for good government.

What is meant by "religious test" is not that candidates should adhere to any religious or non-religious belief, but that no test should be administered to adhere to any Christian denomination.

The State Constitutions give a little more illumination on this matter. It was actually a requirement in some States to be a Christian in order to serve in the legislature. But what was not required was to be of a particular denomination.

[Piper Plexed]

Sorry for the wait, been busy with college....

Honestly, I don't think that the vision of the founding fathers is as important as it's cracked up to be, considering that America was massively different (A nice little backward country with an agriculturally based economy and no national navy until we were tired of raids from the Barbary Pirates, and which only consisted of a total of 6 ships) and various stances held by the founding fathers were hypocritical (As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men" *COUGH*... "SLAVE!! GET ME SOME WATER OR SOMETHING! MY THROAT IS A BIT PARCHED!"... "Now where was I?".... etc.).

That being said, if one were to make the argument that the founding fathers should have some weight, it would seem prudent to distinguish between what they believed personally and what they wished that the nation reflect.

Considering that the Declaration of Independence was written when there was no nation to build but rather a bunch of colonies to liberate, it would seem that the Constitution would be a better document to use for a basis of discussion of what the founding fathers wished the country to reflect. For instance:

"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."

Which indicates that religious belief should not be used as a litmus test for office, and by implication that religious belief should not be used as a test for good government.

Declaration of independence Drafted 1776 Constitution was drafted in 1787 is it your position that there was such a radical change in point of view of the founding fathers that men, being born with the inalienable God given right to Liberty, was no longer considered intrinsic to the well being of a healthy democracy. I tend not to think so as my own studies of the history of the French Huguenots has lead me to believe that the founding fathers understood all to well the need for a civilized society to grant freedom of religious expression to all equally with liberty of choice. What I do know is this right to liberty was God Given in their view (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence) as well as God and faith were at the core of these concepts. The way I see it is was the intention of the founding fathers not to allow government the ability to run an interception between man and God as well as to not allow government to hijack one particular mode of faith as a venue for religious social and political oppression. To me the absence of "God" in our constitution does not negate the importance of "Gods" influence on our system of government if anything it only reinforces the intention of our founding fathers belief that the laws must never be faith based. Since the Pledge of Allegiance (like the Declaration of Independence) is not a Law nor the basis for our laws, but an expression of National Identity, I fail to see why "God" should not be Mentioned?

As for the hypocrisy of our founding fathers one could also look at is as quite enlightened that the the concepts that they endorsed were in actuality greater than the men that they were. That fact that they were far from perfect men, does not cause me to value freedom and liberty less, I treasure it all the more as it is those very ideals that eventually lead to right the wrongs of slavery suffrage etc.. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions and this will not be the first time that that an inalienable right has lead to the conclusion that the very grantor of that inalienable God given right of liberty has caused one to deduce that it is out dated, though I find it sorta ironic.

[ENIGMA]

"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."

Which indicates that religious belief should not be used as a litmus test for office, and by implication that religious belief should not be used as a test for good government.

What is meant by "religious test" is not that candidates should adhere to any religious or non-religious belief, but that no test should be administered to adhere to any Christian denomination.

The State Constitutions give a little more illumination on this matter. It was actually a requirement in some States to be a Christian in order to serve in the legislature. But what was not required was to be of a particular denomination.

Like I said about the hypocracy of the founding fathers....

Apparently some animals are more equal than others after all.....

[ENIGMA]

Declaration of independence Drafted 1776 Constitution was drafted in 1787 is it your position that there was such a radical change in point of view of the founding fathers that men, being born with the inalienable God given right to Liberty, was no longer considered intrinsic to the well being of a healthy democracy.

No, my point is a bit more subtle.

It is quite possible that the founding fathers believed that a deity (either the Deistic god or the Christian one, depending on which founding father you were to ask) granted inalienable rights, but didn't believe that such a belief was a necessary requirement for someone to be a part of a good government. An analogy would be someone who personally believes abortion is wrong, but doesn't believe it should be made illegal.

I tend not to think so as my own studies of the history of the French Huguenots has lead me to believe that the founding fathers understood all to well the need for a civilized society to grant freedom of religious expression to all equally with liberty of choice. What I do know is this right to liberty was God Given in their view (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence) as well as God and faith were at the core of these concepts.

Considering that for roughly the first millenium and a half of Christian hegemony, the two primary choices being offered were convert or burn, I doubt that the Christian God had much of anything to do with the right to liberty. The founding fathers thought that such a deity was responsible, but then again we have the advantage of a more complete information set and hindsight.

The way I see it is was the intention of the founding fathers not to allow government the ability to run an interception between man and God as well as to not allow government to hijack one particular mode of faith as a venue for religious social and political oppression.

As it should be...

Government shouldn't be in the business of building or tearing down churches, nor yielding government resources to promote or denigrate religion, I would agree.

The problem is that it seems to try stepping over this line far too often for comfort.

To me the absence of "God" in our constitution does not negate the importance of "Gods" influence on our system of government if anything it only reinforces the intention of our founding fathers belief that the laws must never be faith based.

Laws must never be faith based, I must agree with that point.

Since the Pledge of Allegiance (like the Declaration of Independence) is not a Law nor the basis for our laws, but an expression of National Identity, I fail to see why "God" should not be Mentioned?

Because it isn't a national identity.

....Not for all of us anyway.

Likewise I think it would be wrong to have the pledge mention ours as being a nation "for old rich white guys" or "under the hard sweat of our capitalist system" or even "In atheists we trust", since they do not reflect the ideals of a non-trivial portion of its people.

One of the few ideals that our founding fathers held which still rings true today is written on all of our money. No, not that one, the other one. E Pluribus Unum, From Many, One. The main strength of America lies in its ability to harness the experiences and abilities of all the different cultural backgrounds of its citizens.

I may be off, but ignoring the existance of a group that, while publically considered evil and sinful, somehow manages to have a proportionally low presence in our penal system and a proportionally high presence in our research labs helping to solve various problems and discover more about our universe, seems to be counterproductive to such an ideal.

As for the hypocrisy of our founding fathers one could also look at is as quite enlightened that the the concepts that they endorsed were in actuality greater than the men that they were.

One takes what one can get I suppose.

That fact that they were far from perfect men, does not cause me to value freedom and liberty less, I treasure it all the more as it is those very ideals that eventually lead to right the wrongs of slavery suffrage etc.. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions and this will not be the first time that that an inalienable right has lead to the conclusion that the very grantor of that inalienable God given right of liberty has caused one to deduce that it is out dated, though I find it sorta ironic.

I'm quite curious how a right can be both inalienable and God-given, since anything God-given can be God-retracted as well, can it not?

[otseng]

Like I said about the hypocracy of the founding fathers....

Apparently some animals are more equal than others after all.....

Hypocrisy? Animals more equal than others? Please clarify what you mean by these statements.

[ENIGMA]

Like I said about the hypocracy of the founding fathers....

Apparently some animals are more equal than others after all.....

Hypocrisy? Animals more equal than others? Please clarify what you mean by these statements.

Hypocrisy: It is hypocritical to declare that "all men are created equal" and then treat non-christians as second-class citizens.

Animals: I was making a reference to the book Animal Farm, in which the animals liberate themselves from the humans running the farm, setting up a commune which eventually degrades into a tyranny run by the pigs and enforced by the dogs, eventually leading to the group's constitution being altered to read "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". It was an allegory to the historical development of the Soviet Union, but I thought it was oddly well fitting here...

[perfessor]

Otseng wrote:

What is meant by "religious test" is not that candidates should adhere to any religious or non-religious belief, but that no test should be administered to adhere to any Christian denomination.

The State Constitutions give a little more illumination on this matter. It was actually a requirement in some States to be a Christian in order to serve in the legislature. But what was not required was to be of a particular denomination.

Otseng, I think you are giving the STATE constitutions too much weight. The ones you reference all predate the US constitution; and in any event, the clause in the US document clearly renders any state requirement null and void.

When the Constitution says "no religious test", it means just that: no religious test - period.

[perfessor]

To clarify my previous post: at the time the US Constitution was written, the state constitutions referenced by Otseng were already in effect. The US constitution, by the specific wording of the clause, had the effect of abolishing what was evidently a common practice in these states, namely a religious oath of office. Certainly the authors were aware of what they were doing, since it no doubt rocked a few boats.