[$tinkle]

no, i'm not going to lift pages from silver's most sacred text, but i was reading over at EU observer, and was wondering what a godless constitution would look like.

would it change with the political landscape?
is this EU proposition the "awakening" of "religion being the single most significant root cause of strife"?
would this constitution resemble the hammurabi code?
would it be little more than a legal document, like a contract between parties?
would/could this not elevate man to god-like stature?
would there be provisions for religious expression/observation?
would this be the pinnacle of post-modernism?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

no, i'm not going to lift pages from silver's most sacred text, but i was reading over at EU observer, and was wondering what a godless constitution would look like.

would it change with the political landscape?
is this EU proposition the "awakening" of "religion being the single most significant root cause of strife"?
would this constitution resemble the hammurabi code?
would it be little more than a legal document, like a contract between parties?
would/could this not elevate man to god-like stature?
would there be provisions for religious expression/observation?
would this be the pinnacle of post-modernism?

Um, actually it would look like the US Constitution.

 

[ohio]

 

[skatetokil]

the framers were religiously secular.

 

[Changleen]

Interesting.

(I wish $tinkle would use capitals.)

 

[kidwoo]

I think it would bring all the boys to the yard, cus their life

would be better than ours

damn right.......it's better than ours

They could teach us, but they'd have to charge

 

[$tinkle]

Um, actually it would look like the US Constitution.

to the letter, yes, the word "god" does not appear. i'm talking about making pains to avoid any incidental/accidental/indirect references to an allmighty or creator.

re-engage.

 

[$tinkle]

the framers were religiously secular.

so is god

 

[$tinkle]

Interesting.

(I wish $tinkle would use capitals.)

i wish you would read e.e. cummings

 

[Old Man G Funk]

to the letter, yes, the word "god" does not appear. i'm talking about making pains to avoid any incidental/accidental/indirect references to an allmighty or creator.

re-engage.

There is one accidental/indirect reference to a god in the Constitution in the date. That's it. Just one. What's your point? The US Constitition is god free, just like I said. The framers even wrote in sections, like Section VI, Paragraph 2 (I think that's the right one) to specify that no religious test shall ever be required. They added the First Amendment to make certain that religion and government would be separate. So, no need to re-engage. It's all right there.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

i wish you would read e.e. cummings

The Balloonman?

I'm actually not a fan of e.e. cummings. He might have been somewhat original, but that doesn't always equate with good.

 

[$tinkle]

There is one accidental/indirect reference to a god in the Constitution in the date. That's it. Just one. What's your point? The US Constitition is god free, just like I said. The framers even wrote in sections, like Section VI, Paragraph 2 (I think that's the right one) to specify that no religious test shall ever be required. They added the First Amendment to make certain that religion and government would be separate. So, no need to re-engage. It's all right there.

the first sentence: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (emph mine).

"Blessings and Liberty" are given proper noun status, which recall isn't as common as in german. "blessings" are received. but from whom? from the Mayflower? from man's hard work? also note "supreme Court" occurs a few times, with "supreme" never capitalized, yet other adjectives are when describing aspects of the gov't.

(article I, section 7) when passing laws, sundays are ruled not to be considered in the 10 day period the president enjoys for consideration of a bill. why is this? if it's to accommodate a cultural norm, this means the religiously observant culture has influenced the constitution, ja?

(article I, section 8) a writ of habeas corpus is noted to be a "privilege", but from where it's enumerated is not known, yet throughout the constitution powers, authority, roles, responsibilities, & rules are laid out as being transcended from the document.

point is, you would be hard-pressed to make a strong case the constitution is void of being religiously influenced.

e.e. cummings was my attempt to be cool back in the day; it was good to have a "favorite poet" when feigning worldliness to a hopeful female prospect. ask me how often that worked. i blame it on him.

 

[ohio]

I can't believe there's not a single comment on my kitty in a washing machine. That's some funny ****.

 

[kidwoo]

I can't believe there's not a single comment on my kitty in a washing machine. That's some funny ****.

Can't watch it at work son.

Wait till I get home and get a few beers in me to liberate my commentary genius.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I can't believe there's not a single comment on my kitty in a washing machine. That's some funny ****.

That's awesome......

"Cat's love this thing...." riiiight.

 

[Changleen]

i wish you would read e.e. cummings

You think some idiot American poet is cool because he never learned proper grammar?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

You think some idiot American poet is cool because he never learned proper grammar?

It was merely his shortsighted choice of partial enlightment to try and get laid...

e.e. cummings was my attempt to be cool back in the day; it was good to have a "favorite poet" when feigning worldliness to a hopeful female prospect. ask me how often that worked. i blame it on him.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

the first sentence: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (emph mine).

"Blessings and Liberty" are given proper noun status, which recall isn't as common as in german. "blessings" are received. but from whom? from the Mayflower? from man's hard work? also note "supreme Court" occurs a few times, with "supreme" never capitalized, yet other adjectives are when describing aspects of the gov't.

(article I, section 7) when passing laws, sundays are ruled not to be considered in the 10 day period the president enjoys for consideration of a bill. why is this? if it's to accommodate a cultural norm, this means the religiously observant culture has influenced the constitution, ja?

(article I, section 8) a writ of habeas corpus is noted to be a "privilege", but from where it's enumerated is not known, yet throughout the constitution powers, authority, roles, responsibilities, & rules are laid out as being transcended from the document.

point is, you would be hard-pressed to make a strong case the constitution is void of being religiously influenced.

e.e. cummings was my attempt to be cool back in the day; it was good to have a "favorite poet" when feigning worldliness to a hopeful female prospect. ask me how often that worked. i blame it on him.

Anyone would be hard pressed that anything is void of being influenced by anything else in the culture of a people. Again, what's your point? Nowhere in the Constitution do they state that the rights, etc. noted therein come from any supreme being. That was revolutionary stuff back then, and quite separate from god for the time. It's pretty clear that they wanted separation of church and state to occur. So, what are you driving at?

 

[binary visions]

I can't believe there's not a single comment on my kitty in a washing machine. That's some funny ****.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA..

I didn't click it when I first scrolled past, figuring it was some political thing and I've had a few beers, so I wasn't in the mood

Hi-freakin'-larious.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

the first sentence: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (emph mine).

"Blessings and Liberty" are given proper noun status, which recall isn't as common as in german. "blessings" are received. but from whom? from the Mayflower? from man's hard work? also note "supreme Court" occurs a few times, with "supreme" never capitalized, yet other adjectives are when describing aspects of the gov't.

It's pedantic parsing time (sorry, couldn't resist.)

Blessings of Liberty...The "Blessings" come from "Liberty." It's as simple as that.

(article I, section 7) when passing laws, sundays are ruled not to be considered in the 10 day period the president enjoys for consideration of a bill. why is this? if it's to accommodate a cultural norm, this means the religiously observant culture has influenced the constitution, ja?

Could be, ja. It could be part of the culture leaning on the practices of the government though.

(article I, section 8) a writ of habeas corpus is noted to be a "privilege", but from where it's enumerated is not known, yet throughout the constitution powers, authority, roles, responsibilities, & rules are laid out as being transcended from the document.

I'm not finding anything about Habeas Corpus in that section. Either way, where does the "privilege" come from? From living in this land of freedom. Why do we have to assume that this is some codeword to god? Especially since at that time in history they didn't have to speak in codewords.

point is, you would be hard-pressed to make a strong case the constitution is void of being religiously influenced.

I don't think I ever stated that. If that's what you meant by the first post, I wouldn't be so literal. OTOH, for the time it was written, it was revolutionary, the intent is pretty clear that this country's government is separate from religion. Hence, our Constitution is really meant to be god free.

e.e. cummings was my attempt to be cool back in the day; it was good to have a "favorite poet" when feigning worldliness to a hopeful female prospect. ask me how often that worked. i blame it on him.

You could have at least chosen someone good. Geez.

 

[fluff]

Perfection, of a kind, was what he was after,
And the poetry he invented was easy to understand;
He knew human folly like the back of his hand,
And was greatly interested in armies and fleets;
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried the little children died in the streets.

 

[$tinkle]

...the intent is pretty clear that this country's government is separate from religion. Hence, our Constitution is really meant to be god free.

i agree with the spirit of what you're eSaying, but 2 non-trivial points need to be in order: our gov't is separate from A religion, & there are people on the gov't payroll whose expressed jobs are spiritual.

case in point: i attended a small wedding in the lower chamber of the Capitol in the summer of '90 for a friend who worked for sen bob kerrey (neb.); it was performed by the congressional chaplain & it was clearly a religious ceremony.

so, i agree with your conclusion "our Constitution is really meant to be god free", but not the premise upon which you buttress it.

this thread has pretty much wandered about, so i'm no longer sure what i was driving at. i know what you're thinking: "shocka!!" you can pick your jaw up off the floor now.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

i agree with the spirit of what you're eSaying, but 2 non-trivial points need to be in order: our gov't is separate from A religion, & there are people on the gov't payroll whose expressed jobs are spiritual.

case in point: i attended a small wedding in the lower chamber of the Capitol in the summer of '90 for a friend who worked for sen bob kerrey (neb.); it was performed by the congressional chaplain & it was clearly a religious ceremony.

so, i agree with your conclusion "our Constitution is really meant to be god free", but not the premise upon which you buttress it.

this thread has pretty much wandered about, so i'm no longer sure what i was driving at. i know what you're thinking: "shocka!!" you can pick your jaw up off the floor now.

The country and laws are god free, but why does that mean that the government can't provide services for those who work for the government. Proviso: those services should be open and available for all faiths. I don't think we meet that requirement of course, but that's not the fault of the intent of the Constitution. It is the fault of the people executing the Constitution. Simply because the people in charge violate the Constitution doesn't mean that the Constitution is something other than what it is. The main idea is that a government separate from religion allows the freedom of (or from) religion of all of its citizens.

 

[moff_quigley]

^^^ That. Right there. Might just have been one of the funniest things I have seen. Ever.

 

[$tinkle]

The country and laws are god free,

"blue laws"

but why does that mean that the government can't provide services for those who work for the government. Proviso: those services should be open and available for all faiths.

i often contemplate the counter-example of satanists...just sayin'

Simply because the people in charge violate the Constitution doesn't mean that the Constitution is something other than what it is.

but if the charge of supreme court jurists is to interpret the constitution, how is it this has "slipped by" for centuries?

The main idea is that a government separate from religion allows the freedom of (or from) religion of all of its citizens.

"(or from)" gives me pause. do we have freedom from the press? freedom from speech? point being, if i believe i have freedom from religion, is not this right being violated when the gov't collects money to pay a religious position? can i sue my local gov't for putting up houses of worship within my view? can i file a grievance w/ the FCC for approving religious broadcasts?

how do you define freedom from religion (vice "of")?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

"blue laws"

I meant federal laws. The Constitution of the US does not set state law.

Edit: I think state blue laws are certainly in violation of the Constitution though.

i often contemplate the counter-example of satanists...just sayin'

And, that is valid. I've thought of it myself. If the government decides to give services, then those services should cater to all, including Satanists.

but if the charge of supreme court jurists is to interpret the constitution, how is it this has "slipped by" for centuries?

For the same reason. Jurists are also human and do not always execute correctly.

"(or from)" gives me pause. do we have freedom from the press? freedom from speech? point being, if i believe i have freedom from religion, is not this right being violated when the gov't collects money to pay a religious position? can i sue my local gov't for putting up houses of worship within my view? can i file a grievance w/ the FCC for approving religious broadcasts?

how do you define freedom from religion (vice "of")?

Freedome "from" religion simply means that I can choose to be non-religious if I so choose. Freedom "of" religion really means that, but a lot of people don't correctly interpret the clause that is there. They think freedom "of" religion means you can choose to believe what you want, as long as you believe in some sort of religion.

We have freedom from the press and freedom from speech in much the same way. No one is forcing you to read this or that newspaper, or any newspaper at all. No one is forcing you to say this or that, or anything at all.

is not this right being violated when the gov't collects money to pay a religious position?

I'm not sure what you mean by "religious position" but probably, yes. I think Bush's faith-based initiatives policy is completely unconstitutional for instance.

can i file a grievance w/ the FCC for approving religious broadcasts?

That depends. If it's on a government sponsored channel, then yes, because it amounts to pushing religion on the people. The gov., however, licenses FCC wavelengths to different broadcasts and opens it up to everyone. I could, conceivably, get a license to broadcast and then hold atheist shows. Therefore, this is more a free speech issue than a free religion issue.

 

[Kihaji]

Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. That concept came from Jefferson and some letters he wrote.

What the Constitution states is the State shall not endorse one religion above others, nor have laws or requirements requiring a specific religion.

 

[Silver]

What the Constitution states is the State shall not endorse one religion above others, nor have laws or requirements requiring a specific religion.

How do you do that without keeping them separate?

Seriously, this needs to end. You have a bunch of deists (pre-Darwin...this was as close to being atheist as you could get) who wouldn't be recognized as Christian today making sure that God didn't get his grubby hands all over the Republic. Short of treating every religion totally equally (and this includes the recent crazy made up ones, not just the old crazy made up ones) there is no way to do it besides just leaving it out. Because you can't use quotas to determine who gets elected based on religious belief...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. That concept came from Jefferson and some letters he wrote.

And was a clarification of what was meant by the Constitution.

What the Constitution states is the State shall not endorse one religion above others, nor have laws or requirements requiring a specific religion.

And, as Silver said there is no way to do that without the government staying out of religion completely.

This is why I made that statement about freedom from religion. Because some people, as evidenced by Kihaji, don't get what freedome of religion means. There is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion as well.

 

[ohio]

What the Constitution states is the State shall not endorse one religion above others, nor have laws or requirements requiring a specific religion.

How is that NOT separation of church and state?

 

[$tinkle]

How is that NOT separation of church and state?

because...umm...it's different.

q.e.d.

 

[Silver]

How is that NOT separation of church and state?

Probably the same way Gonzales thinks that the constitution doesn't guarantee the right of habeous corpus, because it only says that you can't take it away