The Oklahoma Supreme Court rules against 10 Commndment monument

[seer]

Incorrect!

"The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

No Tass, we are speaking of the intent of the Founders, not what liberal courts later invented. The Founders themselves did in fact support the Christian religion both on the federal and state level (see post #163).

[robrecht]

For clarification from the other thread:

That is not the strict definition of Deism. Deism specifically rejects Miracles and Revelation from God, and believes morals, ethics and Laws have rational human sources of inspiration. They believe in God as the Creator of our physical existence, therefore is the source of our very nature that makes us human. You cannot completely reject God's involvement in human affairs.

There, of course is a range of beliefs of Deists, and it not usually in specific categories with Priestley at the extreme materialist belief close to atheism, but it remains that if one believes in Deism, one believes in a Monist God.

How close do you think Priestley's 'extreme materialist belief' was to atheism?

[Tassman]

No Tass, we are speaking of the intent of the Founders, not what liberal courts later invented. The Founders themselves did in fact support the Christian religion both on the federal and state level (see post #163).

For every FF quote you dredge up that seemingly supports your view of the USA being founded as a Christian nation there are equally many that appear to say the opposite. The fact is that there is no mention in the Constitution to God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity…that document does not state or imply that the USA is a Christian nation.

In fact the official government position says the opposite, namely that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," as stated in the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. Ratified unanimously by the senate and signed by founding father and President John Adams in 1797.

This has been reinforced by The SCOTUS rulings whereby equal protection for all citizens has been determined to be at the very heart of the US legal system. Hence personal religious beliefs must give way to individual constitutional rights in all instances, as has been demonstrated many times including re homosexual marriage.

[seer]

For every FF quote you dredge up that seemingly supports your view of the USA being founded as a Christian nation there are equally many that appear to say the opposite. The fact is that there is no mention in the Constitution to God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity…that document does not state or imply that the USA is a Christian nation.

In fact the official government position says the opposite, namely that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," as stated in the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. Ratified unanimously by the senate and signed by founding father and President John Adams in 1797.

This has been reinforced by The SCOTUS rulings whereby equal protection for all citizens has been determined to be at the very heart of the US legal system. Hence personal religious beliefs must give way to individual constitutional rights in all instances, as has been demonstrated many times including re homosexual marriage.

Nonsense Tass, we are speaking about the Ten Commandments here - and I more than amply proved that the Founders would have had no problem with them on public property, that they did in fact support the Christian religion both on the federal and state level.

[Mountain Man]

You wrote that the intent was to prevent slave owners from a disproportionate amount of political power. Preventing a slave owner from having a disproportionate amount of power would necessitate that slave owners' political power did not exceed their own number. Allowing slaves to be counted as even fractional persons necessarily allowed slave owners disproportionate political power.

The compromise was so that slave owning districts did have as large of a disproportionate influence in the federal government than those groups wanted. Hence, a compromise. Not sure why a compromise that gave 'em over half of they wanted when the just representation was them getting nothing can be considered "shrewd."

Um, yeah, that's essentially what I said. At this point, I think you're arguing just to argue and not because there's a legitimate disagreement here.

I can picture you typing with gritted teeth while saying, "MUST. ARGUE. WITH. CONSERVATIVE. EVEN. THOUGH. I. AGREE. WITH. HIM!"

[shunyadragon]

How close do you think Priestley's 'extreme materialist belief' was to atheism?

Modern atheism actually evolved from 17th and 18th century Deism, and the Age of Enlightenment when the rational rejection of Traditional Theism began to be in vogue among the educated upper and middle class, and intellectual philosophers of Europe and America. The dominant view maintained a belief in a Deist God, and rejected Miracles and Revelation of Traditional Theisms; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

The atheist view evolved from the logic that 'If there is not a Theist God that reveals and is 'directly and personally involved with humanity,' why bother with any distant 'watch maker' God. Priestly was moving toward this distinct 'Materialist' view. In personal correspondence Thomas Jefferson apparently endorsed this 'Materialist' view. Priestley maintained that this strict 'Materialist' could be reconciled with a completely uninvolved 'Deist God,' and rejected any form of dualism.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley#Materialist_philosopher

Priestley strongly suggested that there is no mind-body duality, and put forth a materialist philosophy in these works; that is, one founded on the principle that everything in the universe is made of matter that we can perceive. He also contended that discussing the soul is impossible because it is made of a divine substance, and humanity cannot perceive the divine. Despite his separation of the divine from the mortal, this position shocked and angered many of his readers, who believed that such a duality was necessary for the soul to exist.

Responding to Baron d'Holbach's Système de la Nature (1770) and David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) as well as the works of the French philosophers, Priestley maintained that materialism and determinism could be reconciled with a belief in God. He criticised those whose faith was shaped by books and fashion, drawing an analogy between the scepticism of educated men and the credulity of the masses.

Maintaining that humans had no free will, Priestley argued that what he called "philosophical necessity" (akin to absolute determinism) is consonant with Christianity, a position based on his understanding of the natural world. Like the rest of nature, man's mind is subject to the laws of causation, Priestley contended, but because a benevolent God created these laws, the world and the people in it will eventually be perfected. Evil is therefore only an imperfect understanding of the world.

© Copyright Original Source

This rejection of Priestley's extreme materialist view was particularly true of Benjamin Franklin who in correspondence rejected Priestley's extreme view of 'Materialism,' and maintained a more compatible Deism view with Traditional Theism, but nonetheless rejecting Traditional Theism and still endorsed the existence of the soul. American Deism was distancing itself from the European Intellectual Deism of the 18th and 19th century.



I do rely more of the 'frank and open' private correspondence of the Founding Fathers to understand their true beliefs, which they often urged these views to be private and confidential, because in the public venue they faced two overwhelming difficult problems: (1) A Traditional Christian world hostile to Deism, and accusations that they were truly atheists, which would be political and personal suicide in the American religious and political environment. Prophetically the fears of Traditional Theists were somewhat well found since modern atheism evolved from 18th century Deism. (2) They were also pragmatists realizing that in a predominately Traditional Christian world they would have to endorse and propose a new government that is acceptable to Traditional Christians who dominated their world, but at the same time promote a separation of religion and state, and a more universal foundation of morals, ethics, and American Law as illustrated of the Supreme Court façade.

After the 18th and 19th centuries Classical Deism faded in the contradictions of Reconciling the belief in God with no apparent Miracles and Divine interaction in the modern world as in the claims and witness in ancient scripture. Deism never did catch on with the masses, because the intellectual foundation for these beliefs were foreign to the average American raised in Traditional Theism. Therefore, the dominant intellectual philosophical view of rejecting Traditional Theism became atheism, and to a certain extent strong agnosticism. Deism has made somewhat of a return, but it remains a problem of justifying a God so distant and uninvolved that God did little more than Create and wind up our physical existence and let it go.

[shunyadragon]

Modern atheism actually evolved from 17th and 18th century Deism, and the Age of Enlightenment when the rational rejection of Traditional Theism began to be in vogue among the educated upper and middle class, and intellectual philosophers of Europe and America. The dominant view maintained a belief in a Deist God, and rejected Miracles and Revelation of Traditional Theisms; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

The atheist view evolved from the logic that 'If there is not a Theist God that reveals and is 'directly and personally involved with humanity,' why bother with any distant 'watch maker' God. Priestly was moving toward this distinct 'Materialist' view. In personal correspondence Thomas Jefferson apparently endorsed this 'Materialist' view. Priestley maintained that this strict 'Materialist' could be reconciled with a completely uninvolved 'Deist God,' and rejected any form of dualism.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley#Materialist_philosopher

Priestley strongly suggested that there is no mind-body duality, and put forth a materialist philosophy in these works; that is, one founded on the principle that everything in the universe is made of matter that we can perceive. He also contended that discussing the soul is impossible because it is made of a divine substance, and humanity cannot perceive the divine. Despite his separation of the divine from the mortal, this position shocked and angered many of his readers, who believed that such a duality was necessary for the soul to exist.

Responding to Baron d'Holbach's Système de la Nature (1770) and David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) as well as the works of the French philosophers, Priestley maintained that materialism and determinism could be reconciled with a belief in God. He criticised those whose faith was shaped by books and fashion, drawing an analogy between the scepticism of educated men and the credulity of the masses.

Maintaining that humans had no free will, Priestley argued that what he called "philosophical necessity" (akin to absolute determinism) is consonant with Christianity, a position based on his understanding of the natural world. Like the rest of nature, man's mind is subject to the laws of causation, Priestley contended, but because a benevolent God created these laws, the world and the people in it will eventually be perfected. Evil is therefore only an imperfect understanding of the world.

© Copyright Original Source

This rejection of Priestley's extreme materialist view was particularly true of Benjamin Franklin who in correspondence rejected Priestley's extreme view of 'Materialism,' and maintained a more compatible Deism view with Traditional Theism, but nonetheless rejecting Traditional Theism and still endorsed the existence of the soul. American Deism was distancing itself from the European Intellectual Deism of the 18th and 19th century.



I do rely more of the 'frank and open' private correspondence of the Founding Fathers to understand their true beliefs, which they often urged these views to be private and confidential, because in the public venue they faced two overwhelming difficult problems: (1) A Traditional Christian world hostile to Deism, and accusations that they were truly atheists, which would be political and personal suicide in the American religious and political environment. Prophetically the fears of Traditional Theists were somewhat well found since modern atheism evolved from 18th century Deism. (2) They were also pragmatists realizing that in a predominately Traditional Christian world they would have to endorse and propose a new government that is acceptable to Traditional Christians who dominated their world, but at the same time promote a separation of religion and state, and a more universal foundation of morals, ethics, and American Law as illustrated of the Supreme Court façade.

After the 18th and 19th centuries Classical Deism faded in the contradictions of Reconciling the belief in God with no apparent Miracles and Divine interaction in the modern world as in the claims and witness in ancient scripture. Deism never did catch on with the masses, because the intellectual foundation for these beliefs were foreign to the average American raised in Traditional Theism. Therefore, the dominant intellectual philosophical view of rejecting Traditional Theism became atheism, and to a certain extent strong agnosticism. Deism has made somewhat of a return, but it remains a problem of justifying a God so distant and uninvolved that God did little more than Create and wind up our physical existence and let it go.

Please respond to this in Was Thomas Jefferson a Deist?

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, we are speaking about the Ten Commandments here - and I more than amply proved that the Founders would have had no problem with them on public property, that they did in fact support the Christian religion both on the federal and state level.

Nonsense!

I have "more than amply proved" that equal protection and rights for all citizens has been determined to be at the very heart of the US legal system. Hence personal religious beliefs must give way to individual constitutional rights in all instances, as has been demonstrated by the courts many times.

This is the position of the Constitution and is the justification for the state high court's ruling that the monument must be taken down. According to the court, the Ten Commandments is “obviously” a religious document, and the state constitution prohibits any public property from being used to support a specific religion. If this ruling was appealed to the SCOTUS there's little doubt that it would arrive at the same conclusion and for the same reason.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/a...me-court-says/

[seer]

Nonsense!

I have "more than amply proved" that equal protection and rights for all citizens has been determined to be at the very heart of the US legal system. Hence personal religious beliefs must give way to individual constitutional rights in all instances, as has been demonstrated by the courts many times.

This is the position of the Constitution and is the justification for the state high court's ruling that the monument must be taken down. According to the court, the Ten Commandments is “obviously” a religious document, and the state constitution prohibits any public property from being used to support a specific religion. If this ruling was appealed to the SCOTUS there's little doubt that it would arrive at the same conclusion and for the same reason.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/a...me-court-says/

I actually have no problem with a state constitution deciding this. But their court should reflect the will of the people - hopefully it does. My argument with you was about the intent of the Founders when it came to the establishment clause. Remember things like prayer (Christian prayer) in school or Sabbath laws lasted into the Sixties - these were never considered unconstitutional previously. And the Founders used tax monies to support the Christian religion. That was the history of our country from its founding onward.

[Tassman]

I actually have no problem with a state constitution deciding this. But their court should reflect the will of the people - hopefully it does.

Good of you!

But you're wrong. The court should enforce the provisions of the State Constitution, not endorse a popularity contest. And if appealed to the SCOTUS this should also (and frequently has done) enforce the supreme law of the land namely the United States Constitution.

My argument with you was about the intent of the Founders when it came to the establishment clause. Remember things like prayer (Christian prayer) in school or Sabbath laws lasted into the Sixties - these were never considered unconstitutional previously. And the Founders used tax monies to support the Christian religion. That was the history of our country from its founding onward.

Such activities would have been (and often have been) ruled unconstitutional if challenged and ruled upon by the US Supreme Court as history has shown…much to the chagrin of opportunistic Christians.

Regardless of what the states might have done in times past and whatever the personal beliefs of the founders the important thing was their intention when they drew up the Constitution. And the obvious fact is that if a Christian nation had been the intent of the founders, they would have put that in the Constitution.

But, on the contrary, the official government position was that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," as stated in the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. Ratified unanimously by the senate and signed by founding father and President John Adams in 1797.

[seer]

Such activities would have been (and often have been) ruled unconstitutional if challenged and ruled upon by the US Supreme Court as history has shown…much to the chagrin of opportunistic Christians.

Right, but not until the middle of the last century by radical liberal courts.

Regardless of what the states might have done in times past and whatever the personal beliefs of the founders the important thing was their intention when they drew up the Constitution. And the obvious fact is that if a Christian nation had been the intent of the founders, they would have put that in the Constitution.

Right, they did not want a National Church - Christian or otherwise. They never said that the Government could not prefer or even help a religion. And they did just that.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

That is history Tass...

[Tassman]

Right, but not until the middle of the last century by radical liberal courts.

Such activities would have remained in place until challenged and ruled upon by the SCOTUS. And in many instances they have been ruled to be unconstitutional. It's no good having a tantrum just because you don't like the rulings.

Right, they did not want a National Church - Christian or otherwise. They never said that the Government could not prefer or even help a religion. And they did just that.

All this is a mishmash of cherry-picked quotes from The Continental Congress. But this Congress pre-dates the Constitution. The Constitution itself makes no reference whatsoever to the USA being based upon Christianity. And you can’t argue that it’s implied in the Constitution because the official government position was that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," as stated in the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. Ratified unanimously by the senate and signed by founding father and President John Adams in 1797…i.e. a mere decade after the Constitution was ratified.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

That is history Tass...

No, what’s history is that the Constitution’s "First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

Hence the erection of a Judeo/Christian monument outside the Oklahoma capitol building is clearly favouring "one religion over another” and "preferring religion over non-religion". Thus the monument must be removed.

[seer]

No, what’s history is that the Constitution’s "First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

Hence the erection of a Judeo/Christian monument outside the Oklahoma capitol building is clearly favouring "one religion over another” and "preferring religion over non-religion". Thus the monument must be removed.

Where did the Founders, not much later radical liberal courts, say that?

[Jaecp]

When they gave the supreme court power to interpret, obviously, as the founders were not of one mind as you seem to be under the impression :/

[Tassman]

Where did the Founders, not much later radical liberal courts, say that?

When they gave the supreme court power to interpret, obviously, as the founders were not of one mind as you seem to be under the impression :/

^^^ What he said.^^^