Huckabee interview on Glenn Beck

There was once another centuries old tradition that was chipped away at.

Remember slavery?
You're comparing slavery to Christianity? :bowrofl:

That's probably the most ignorant thing I've ever seen on this forum. You literally undercut your own complaint that the family unit has been deteriorating. You do this by implying that Christianity is a tradition that should go the way of slavery. Of course, you have no knowledge of the FACT that the Bible states that God FOUNDED marriage. Marriage is rooted in Christianity and you cannot get around that. You can deny it all you want, but the fact remains.
 
I was comparing nothing to Christianity - you brought that up. I wasnt referring to it in the slightest.

Your confusing the religon and the legal side of things. Athesits can get married and it has all the same power, responsibility and implications of a 'christian' marriage. So stop twisting my words and bringing up christianity. That has little to do with the marriage issues I am discussing. Nor should religon be the basis or argument for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
 
I was comparing nothing to Christianity - you brought that up. I wasnt referring to it in the slightest.

Your confusing the religon and the legal side of things. Athesits can get married and it has all the same power, responsibility and implications of a 'christian' marriage. So stop twisting my words and bringing up christianity. That has little to do with the marriage issues I am discussing. Nor should religon be the basis or argument for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Excuse me, you are correct. You were comparing marriage to slavery, equally absurd. Especially when earlier in this thread you complain about the loss of marriage as an institution. Why would you make reference to slavery as a tradition and equate it with marriage, especially since you have staked out the position that marriage should not go away?
 
Interestingly enough, related to another thread, slavery is justified in Islam, but it was abolished due to the work of the Christian abolitionists.
 
The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.


All of this I know. I have done lots of research on this issue, had to write a few term papers on it, one specifically from the legal point of few (constitutional law class). Jefferson's "wall of separation" in the context of the Danbury Baptist letter was a separation with the federal government on one side and state/local governments and the church on the other side. In his view, the federal government couldn't establish national church, or prohibit free exercise, but the states were free to do as they wished. Remember, the bill of rights was originally written as a series of restrictions only on the federal government. Many states at the time had state sponsored churches, which Jefferson supported and even helped fund at the state level. The Supreme court has on at least one occasion miquoted the wall of separation to mean what they want, and on most occasions misrepresented and distorted the term to mean what most understand it as today. The Court has made it applicable to the states through a questionable legal idea called incorporation, which takes restrictions on the federal government and expands them to a level not intended by the Framers. That fact of the matter is, like I said, the Wall of Separation has no constitutional basis, and only through activist judges distorting (or as they like to call it "inturpreting") the constitution to their own ends has it now been made aplicalble to the states. Thankfully, we have at least four justices on the Supreme court that see the wall of separation for what it is. I hope Bush gets another appointment.
 
The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

The principle of no government authority over religion preceded the First Amendment by at least two centuries, dude. Some would say it was ordained by Jesus Christ at least 1700 years before there was a First Amendment.

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The Constitution was ratified with the understanding that the federal government no authority whatsoever over religion.

The phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

That is true. It is also true that the Original Constitution excluded religion from the authority of the U. S. Government.
 
That is true. It is also true that the Original Constitution excluded religion from the authority of the U. S. Government.
You're referring to the language itself, not the intent.

WAS THE UNITED STATES FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, many authors have debated whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.

Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence…"

Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me.

Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.

The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.

Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.

This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation".

In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'

It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of Church and State", people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.

It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion.

When we read articles such as "What's God got to do with it?" (Primack, 5/4) and "The wall between state and church must not be breached" (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little even intelligent people understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history.
 
You're referring to the language itself, not the intent.

The intent of the lawmakers is to be ascertained from the language of the Constitution by signs most natural a probable.

WAS THE UNITED STATES FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, many authors have debated whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.

The United States Government was established by the adoption of the U. S. Constitution. Where did you get the absurd idea that the men who made it intended for us to gather the meaning of the document from a few historical quotes from our Founding Era?
 
Where did you get the absurd idea that the men who made it intended for us to gather the meaning of the document from a few historical quotes from our Founding Era?
This is not only a rhetorical question, but a circular sentence. However, I drew inferences from those IMPORTANT quotes, as they lend credibility to my premise. Your argument does nothing to detract from my premise, but is ad hominem and devoid of substance. Please feel free to post counter evidence or to show how my evidence is false. Barring that, I stand by my statement.
 
Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution.

That statement is probably false, considering its source. However, if it is true, it constitutes overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers wished to depart from the practice of mentioning God.
 
I drew inferences from those IMPORTANT quotes, as they lend credibility to my premise.

Your premise is false. The U. S. was not founded by a few historical quotes from our Founding Era. It was founded in the name of the people by the Constitution they ordained and established. There is nothing in that document to support your claim.
 
That statement is probably false, considering its source.

Ad Hominem reasoning...

However, if it is true, it constitutes overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers wished to depart from the practice of mentioning God.

That is a huge stretch. There is no evidence to suggest that is why they didn't mention God specifically in the Consitution; that is simply spin on your part. For all we know, they might not have mentioned God because the felt that was already covered in other documents, so it was redundant and already assumed. It also might not have been neccessary considering the context, in their opinion.

Besides, many of the concepts inacted in the constitution come from ideas that inherently subscribe to a God.
 
Your premise is false. The U. S. was not founded by a few historical quotes from our Founding Era.

no one ever said it was. You are mischaracterizing there; setting up a trojan horse argument.
 
The intent of the lawmakers is to be ascertained from the language of the Constitution by signs most natural a probable.


There is more to it then that, especially considering the historical gap, and the way the language has changed somewhat from what it was then.

The language can be vauge in the constitution alone, so it needs to be placed in its historical context, which you seem to want to ignore.
 
Please feel free to post counter evidence or to show how my evidence is false.

Good luck with that. I spend close to a week askin for that, and (with a few exceptions) got a series of questions that mostly served to confuse the issue.
 
Mick
However, if it is true, it constitutes overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers wished to depart from the practice of mentioning God.

Shag
That is a huge stretch.

If mentioning God indicates the intent to unite church and state. The non mention of God must indicate the opposite, dude.
 
no one ever said it was. You are mischaracterizing there; setting up a trojan horse argument.

It was implied in the following statement:

I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.
 
There is more to it than that...

Not unless the most natural and probable signs fail to ascertain the will of the lawmakers.

The language can be vauge in the constitution

That's why the common law rules of construction were established.

...it needs to be placed in its historical context, which you seem to want to ignore.

First, there is no evidence whatsoever that the lawmakers meant for the historical context of the Constitution to serve as a guide to its construction.

Second, the "historical context" includes powerful evidence that the lawmakers intended for the common law rules of construction to be applied to the U. S. Constitution.
 
Your argument does nothing to detract from my premise

Your premise is false. The United States Government wasn't founded by the quotations you presented. It was founded by the adoption of the Constitution.

Please feel free to post counter evidence or to show how my evidence is false.

The quotations you presented are irrelevant, dude, unless they are admissible under the common law rules of construction.

Barring that, I stand by my statement.

Its a free country.
 
It was implied in the following statement:

I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.

No. It. Wasn't.

That statement doesn't imply the claim that this nation was founded on a series of historical quotes. If anything, it implies that those quotes suggest what the framers thinking was when they created the constitution. There is a big difference there.
 
First, there is no evidence whatsoever that the lawmakers meant for the historical context of the Constitution to serve as a guide to its construction.

Second, the "historical context" includes powerful evidence that the lawmakers intended for the common law rules of construction to be applied to the U. S. Constitution.

First, you wanna disregard historical context
Second, you wanna cite it

You can't have it both ways

The only way you can make your claim about the "rules of construction" is by looking at the historical context. You don't get to throw out the historical context at that point.

When interpreting any historical document, you must put it in historical context, or it is meaningless. Talk to a history professor.
 
You say that like its [ad hominem] a bad thing.
It is faulty logic. That may not be bad to you, but it's ineffective as critical reasoning.

If mentioning God indicates the intent to unite church and state. The non mention of God must indicate the opposite, dude.
Non sequitur. More faulty reasoning. That does not follow, especially since the first sentence you spoke is a false straw man argument.


First, you wanna disregard historical context
Second, you wanna cite it


You can't have it both ways

The only way you can make your claim about the "rules of construction" is by looking at the historical context. You don't get to throw out the historical context at that point.

When interpreting any historical document, you must put it in historical context, or it is meaningless. Talk to a history professor.
*owned*
 
Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence…"

The authority of the U. S. Government is derived from the U. S. Constitution. It is not derived from the Charter for the Colony Connecticut. The U. S. Constitution says nothing about pleasing almighty God or divine providence.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top