The Oklahoma Supreme Court rules against 10 Commndment monument

[Sam]

They may have been hypocritical, but to deny the Declaration as the founding document is just silly. Men often hold principles that they don't live up to - I'm sure that truth even applies to you.

If they directly contradicted this held principle in not only their particular actions but their actions when creating the law of the nation, that's fatal to your argument.

No, again, though the claim in the DoI is not necessarily Christian (though there is a connection through Blackstone's writing), my point is that the Christian religion had a powerful and integral role in the founding of this nation - from the Pilgrims onward. And deserves a historical place and recognition - even on state property.

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

The constitutional question is closed and doesn't interest me.

[seer]

If they directly contradicted this held principle in not only their particular actions but their actions when creating the law of the nation, that's fatal to your argument.

What? That makes no sense. That because some the founders could be hypocritical the Declaration did not say what it said?

The constitutional question is closed and doesn't interest me.

Actually, no it isn't. Yes leftist judges have bastardized the Constitution, but there is always hope for more sanity on the Bench.

[Sam]

What? That makes no sense. That because some the founders could be hypocritical the Declaration did not say what it said?

If the statement "the nation was founded upon principle X" is at odds with the actual law that served to found the nation, then the statement is vacuous, having held no causal power. You're focused on a rhetorical, rather than causal point.

[seer]

If the statement "the nation was founded upon principle X" is at odds with the actual law that served to found the nation, then the statement is vacuous, having held no causal power. You're focused on a rhetorical, rather than causal point.

Sam, there were many founders who were against slavery, so it wasn't so straight forward. But that does not change the founding religious principle. Are there principles that you hold Sam that you haven't lived up to? Does that change the principle or make it less worthy?

[Sam]

Sam, there were many founders who were against slavery, so it wasn't so straight forward. But that does not change the founding religious principle. Are there principles that you hold Sam that you haven't lived up to? Does that change the principle or make it less worthy?

Not "some". The majority. The majority either believed in the rightness of slavery or believed that the principle of equality was worth sacrificing to those who believed in the rightness of slavery to found the nation. Either way, you can't say with a straight face that the principle of equality was causal for the founding. It was idealistic rhetoric, which is fine but is not justification for enshrining religious monuments on government property.

I understand that trying to explain this over and over for the hagiography-prone is an exercise in futility.

[seer]

Not "some". The majority. The majority either believed in the rightness of slavery or believed that the principle of equality was worth sacrificing to those who believed in the rightness of slavery to found the nation. Either way, you can't say with a straight face that the principle of equality was causal for the founding. It was idealistic rhetoric, which is fine but is not justification for enshrining religious monuments on government property.

Sam are you just dense? My argument was not only based on the DoI but also on the historic, integral and unique part the Christian faith played in our founding. And I never made the case that equality was causal, only that equality was based on religious ideals - yes it is a work in progress but those ideas have been realized more and more over time and created the greatest country on earth. And if you have a better grounding for rights than God, please inform us all. Also, why do you hate this country so much? Is that a mandatory requirement for card carrying leftists today?

[Sam]

Also, why do you hate this country so much? Is that a mandatory requirement for card carrying leftists today?

seer, you first have to display a consistent and rational thought process for your claims of something being dense or nonsense to have any weight. Additionally, you have to display a consistent and rational thought process before your assessments of character or motivation elicit more than a sigh or a laugh.

[Tassman]

Sam are you just dense? My argument was not only based on the DoI but also on the historic, integral and unique part the Christian faith played in our founding. And I never made the case that equality was causal, only that equality was based on religious ideals - yes it is a work in progress but those ideas have been realized more and more over time and created the greatest country on earth.

not based upon Christian ideals. All declined just as the USA is declining.

And if you have a better grounding for rights than God, please inform us all. Also, why do you hate this country so much? Is that a mandatory requirement for card carrying leftists today?

Yeah right! The Constitution was inspired by God to protect Christians and therefore you can ignore whatever rulings of the Supreme Court you believe upset God. Gotcha!

[seer]

seer, you first have to display a consistent and rational thought process for your claims of something being dense or nonsense to have any weight. Additionally, you have to display a consistent and rational thought process before your assessments of character or motivation elicit more than a sigh or a laugh.

Have it your say Sam... BTW - are you still a Christian?

[shunyadragon]

The Treaty of Tripoli issued in 1797 makes it clear that the United States is in 'no way founded on the Christian Religion.'

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

The Treaty of Tripoli issued in 1797 makes it clear that the United States is in 'no way founded on the Christian Religion.'

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

© Copyright Original Source

Yet Adams also said this:

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen9 could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity,10 in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God: and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.

http://founders.archives.gov/documen.../03-06-02-0208

So according to Adams it was the Principles of Christianity that were key to Independence, and that these principles were eternal and immutable.

[Sam]

Have it your say Sam... BTW - are you still a Christian?

I love it. No better way to show how wrapped up Christian identity with nationalism is in your mind than to start questioning another's faith when he points out that lip service to a "religious ideal" at the start of the nation doesn't justify religious icons placed on public property.

[seer]

I love it. No better way to show how wrapped up Christian identity with nationalism is in your mind than to start questioning another's faith when he points out that lip service to a "religious ideal" at the start of the nation doesn't justify religious icons placed on public property.

No Sam, I proved my point, not only that the DoI grounds rights on God, even if the Founders were somewhat hypocritical, that is a fact. I also showed the strong Christian influence on English common law, and English Common laws' influence on laws in the early states. I also showed that most early states did in fact use biblical laws in their state law. Laws against working on the Sabbath, Blasphemy laws, laws against sexual practices deemed immoral in Scripture, etc... Never mind state supported churches, supported by tax dollars. Along with the early federal congresses using tax dollars to support the Christian religion. Again, the Christian religion has special, and unique role in the birth of this nation - that is a historical fact. And deserves that recognition, even on state property. Heck Sam, I'm old enough to remember when we opened the school day, in public school, with a prayer (after the pledge). This was a matter course.

And the reason I questioned your faith Sam is that I have never seen you defend the faith on these boards, as far as I can remember - can you link to threads where you have?

[Sam]

And the reason I questioned your faith Sam is that I have never seen you defend the faith on these boards, as far as I can remember - can you link to threads where you have?

Perhaps, seer, I don't view a defense of the faith as benefited from Internet apologetics, especially done poorly with clear flaws in reasoning. Most of the apologetic arguments I see these days, from theist or non-theist, strike me as counterproductive and fighting on the wrong hill.

As to your overarching point, the good Lord Himself could have gathered the Founding Fathers on the shores of the Potomac and handed them the Constitution fully-formed to sign. But if that document had a rule prohibiting graven images, it would still be unconstitutional to put a statue of Jesus in front of the Supreme Court. No amount of historical argument, justified or misleading, is going to change what the Constitution says about preferencing a given religion. Since you're clearly arguing that these displays ought to be allowed because of a specific religion's influence and not as part of a secular display, you're up a creek.

[seer]

Perhaps, seer, I don't view a defense of the faith as benefited from Internet apologetics, especially done poorly with clear flaws in reasoning. Most of the apologetic arguments I see these days, from theist or non-theist, strike me as counterproductive and fighting on the wrong hill.

So you don't defend the faith on line. You just attack Christians. And not just me.

No amount of historical argument, justified or misleading, is going to change what the Constitution says about preferencing a given religion. Since you're clearly arguing that these displays ought to be allowed because of a specific religion's influence and not as part of a secular display, you're up a creek.

But what you are saying is not historical. The Founders did not want a State Church (federal state church) but they certainly did give preference to the Christian religion. I mean we had Sabbath laws and school prayer until the early 1960s. Yes, leftist courts broke faith with with the Constitution and historical precedent. So what?