Exactly. And it is only unbelieving people like Prager, who simply want empty ceremonial conformity, who would even consider making the bible the sole book on which a person gives their oath.
(The issue has been brought up in this thread before this on occasion, although it is probably easy to miss in a thread that is so long that says so little of substance.)
Miller, sorry for the delay. I was busy and then I couldn’t find this thread. I gather some of them disappeared for a time.
You claimed that the separation was due to religious disagreement. It was not. I have no idea why you even brought that up. They felt abused by the King. They felt that the rights they were entitled to were not the type of things that they should hope to receive by the grace of the crown. Rather, that they were bestowed in man by god. After he continued his abuse, they invoked their inalienable rights and told him to fuck off. They listed the very reasons for the break. I get the feeling we are not understanding each other on this point.
Are you not aware that many people think that the phrase should be taken more literally? That the thing prohibited is the official establishment of a national religion?That the intent was to prevent the government from encroaching into an area that the states viewed as their own business? And that this is why they were fine with the bibles, and mentions of god and invocations to a supreme being in official government settings. And why they thought a National Day of Thanksgiving was a good idea?
Please note that they saw no conflict with the portions I made bold and the portion I underlined. Also note that the date is after the final draft of The Constitution was sent to Congress.
That was an addendum to point #2, not point #2 itself. The point of #2 was the establishmnet clause itself, which contrasts with #1, framing the contradiction. Tell me, Miller, do you not find it odd that they allowed such a date. I mean, if there was this very deliberate decision to make the Constitution 100% secular, that’s kind of a blaring error, don’t you think? It would have been so easy to not include the date in that manner. And as I painstakingly pointed out in another thread, there was no debate at the conventions as to whether or not religion should be excluded. If it were a conscious decision, don’t you think someone would have objected. A lot of the attendees were mighty religious. I maintain that they looked to the Constitution to be a purely practical document, a set of laws. I think this is supported by the extremely direct tone of the preamble.
Well, I think most people believe they could have been more explicit. I mean constitutional scholars debate what they intended to this day.
Correct. The Constitution is the law. Period. But the those laws are based on interpretations of the text. And in attempting to glean what the founders intended, it makes sense to look at other documents and writings, does it not?
By advocate I mean “Yes, we thinks it’s fine that someone serve as Peresident of the U.S. even if they disagree with the principles that the nation was founded upon.” Not the “laws” mind you, but the more fundamental principles. That they would have agreed with: “Though we just fought a brutal war (50,000 casualties) against the most powerful army in the world, we think it fine that a person who disagrees about the rights that we have, that they are inalienable, and from where they flow, is indeed fit to serve as President of this new nation.”
I’s say they would not have been okay with those sentiments.
I answered this above. The way you state things here I am in agreement with: “Congress can make no law respectiung the establishment of religion.” But if they fall shy of that, and do not attempt to make any law is that alright? That is the question, not whether they can make a law.
The divorce analogy says “Honey, I’m not digging you anymore. I’m splitting.” That leaves open the possibility that the next relationship will be similar *in kind *. Whereas if someone is not digging their wife anymore because they don’t dig women in general, that negates the possibility of the same kind of relationship (with a woman). I realize now that the gay analogy has unintended baggage. Bu the point is that the first example alows for the same kind of relationship, just the players changing. The second one requires that the players change with an additional restriction: that it not be a woman. Is that clearer?
Well, if the British won the war the whole thing is rather moot. And they could have come back at a later date and forced them to submit, but then the D of I gets burned in the town square. The last possibilty would be that they voluntarily revert back to British rule. If that were done either the D of I would have to be thrown out or the King would have had to deviate from the offenses and usurpations that sparked the D of I in the first place.
I think the first point you cite has to do with Prager’s argument that the bible could be used in a swearing in ceremony as an acknowledgment to our shared history. If s that is the reason for its presence, then it need not be a statement concerning the religious belief of the one doing the swearing.
The second one would allow the use of the Koran or another momnotheistic religious book UNLESS it could be shown that the teachings in the book were in direct conflict with either the laws of the nation or the philosophical underpinnings that our founding rests upon. I see no inconsistency. I’d be happy to explain any other positions that you feel are contradictory.
Please remember, I’m not necessarily advocating ALL the positions I’ve put forth or defended. I do think they deserve a fair airing and am surprised (even though I shouldn’t be) that some posters are so quick to pooh-pooh any discussion in this arena that doesn’t fit in with their world view.
Because it is our heritage. And it is part of our heritage that brought out the best in us. I think that sharing that common heritage is good for a culture. I think that it behooves us to make sure that current and future generations are reminded of what the founders did and why. It’s really a huge step in history. And it is our history.
Why do you consider Judeo-Christian monotheism to be a more important part of our legislative heritage than, say, the Graeco-Roman legal codes that formed the basis of our legal system? (And which were, by the way, formed in polytheistic societies?)
I do: for one thing, this condition would rule out the Bible itself as a suitable book for this purpose, because it contains some teachings that directly conflict with what you call “the philosophical underpinnings that our founding rests upon”. (For example, in its endorsement of monarchy, which the Founders explicitly rejected.)
Dayumn.
This thread is still in existence? Is Prager even still trying to polish this turd?
Just . . . dayumn.
And, has already been pointed out, the Qur’an is no more in conflict with the DoI or Constitution than is the Bible, so there is no reason to insist on the use of only the Bible for ceremonial purposes. And, since the clause of the First Amendment that keeps getting ignored is “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, it seems that any attempt to restrict the use of any text which provides meaning to the free exercise by a believer should be permitted, not scorned by unbelieving adherents of hollow ceremony such as Prager.
Well, that would rule out the Bible (one commandment is in direct conflict with the philosophical underpinning of religious liberty; another is in direct conflict with the philosophical underpinning of acquisitive capitalism).
With the qualifier “legislative” in there, I’d be more apt to agree with you. And would be probably add the Magna Carta. But that raises the question of to what degree do those codes, particualry Justinian’s I would say, comport with The Constitution. But the most important point would be that the founders were well aware of those codices, yet they chose the bible.
The fact that those societies were polythestic (= pantheistic?) is noteworthy. They, of course, were well aware of that fact, yet were alomost exclusively monotheists. Even when crafting a more philosophical text, the D of I, they stated their more Deist (also monotheistic) beliefs.
Again, they were well aware of the degree to which the bible did not comport with the Constitution. Yet, they chose to use the bible. They obvioulsy felt that even with those areas that they felt compelled or obliged to ignore, that the bible was of great value to them. It was a part of the culture. So much so they that chose to swear on it.
There are two different questions intertwined in the thread at this point. One is what the founders intended. The other is to what degree, if any, we should feel bound by that intent. They are separate arguments. I’ve been trying to focus more on what they intended. After we establish that we can tackle the other issue.
But it didn’t rule it out. The were aware of The Constitution. The were aware of the Bible and where they were in agreement and where they weren’t. Yet, they chose to use the bible in ceremonies. This is not a hypothetical. Wrong or right, sensible or not, it is fact.
Just as you see that as starting a tradition of using the Bible, I see that as starting a tradition of using a text by which one considers onself bound.
ISTM that they chose to swear a religious oath on it because it was a part of their religion, not because it was “a part of the culture”.
But they deliberately forbade making any such religious oath mandatory, and forbade prescribing any religious symbol or other religious condition that officeholders would have to conform to. Again, it seems to me that you’re still dancing around in circles trying to make out that the founders secretly thought all American officeholders ought to make the same public religious observances that they themselves chose to make, when in fact they specifically stated exactly the contrary.
Nobody can disprove your mystic claims to know what the Founding Fathers really wanted. Maybe they secretly felt that all American officeholders should be redheaded Freemasons of Scottish descent. Since they didn’t say so, we’ll never know for sure.
By the way, since you acknowledge that the founders “were well aware of the degree to which the bible did not comport with the Constitution”, do you now retract your earlier statement that you “see no inconsistency” in excluding a monotheistic scripture as a swearing-in text if “it could be shown that the teachings in the book were in direct conflict with either the laws of the nation or the philosophical underpinnings that our founding rests upon”?
As you now evidently concede that the Bible itself does have teachings “in direct conflict” with those laws and “underpinnings”, your position that acceptable swearing-in texts should be subject to that exclusionary condition is in fact inconsistent. If your proposed condition were rigorously applied, neither the Bible nor any other monotheistic scripture that I know of would pass the test. And yet you want the Bible to be permitted—nay, almost mandated, certainly regarded as the automatic default choice—as a swearing-in text.
Yet, they didn’t all choose to use the Bible. At least one of them opted not to. Thus your facts aren’t really facts. You should support Prager with that approach. Oh, wait.
Yes. And as stated earlier, this makes more sense to me. It doesn’t mean that the other point of view is without merit. In fact, I find it quite interesting, as it would avoid us being concerned about the degree to which a book representing someoneone’s personal beliefs may or may not comport with the moral underpinnings of the country’s founding.
AFAICT, you and Prager are the only ones around here bothering to be concerned about that in the first place. Most of us are perfectly content to rely on the Constitution and the law as guardians of our national “moral underpinnings” (which sounds like flannel longjohns) when it comes to electoral office.
If an office-holder is a law-abiding person whose personal beliefs, as explicitly witnessed by his/her statements and actions, are consistent with Constitutional principles, that’s all we ask. We don’t feel required, or entitled, to poke around in his/her preferred holy book(s) to see if they pass our tests of cultural conformity or “comportment”.
That would assume that the founders themselves acted pefectly in concordance with their founding of the country by selecting those books. It is possible they knew that their book did not fully line up with the stated goals in the Constitution; that while they in the abstract believed that the Bible and the Constitution did not agree on several issues, they themselves were strong enough believers that they could not place the Con. higher than the Bible emotionally.
That could very well be. Or it could have been both, which I think most likely.
Yes. They key word being “religious”. The bible is both a religious and a philosophical text. A statement I’d wager both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would agree with. Jefferson went as far as turning it into one without any divinity.
I’m not sure to what you are referring. I think it has to do with Prager’s argument: that the bible can be viewed as being a historical document that is part of the foundation of the country. IF one buys that argument, then swearing to it would not be indicitive of the swearer’s religious beliefs, only that he acknowledges that the bible played an important role in the founding.
And if all the officeholders of the day matched your discription you’d have an argument for that point of view. But my whole point is that we do not know what they really wanted. Therefore, an exploration into that seems worthwhile.
As stated earlier, the founders were aware of the bible and the document they created. I think it logical to conclude that they were then aware of the degree to which the two differed. YET, they chose to view the bible as foundational. In other words, in spite of the degree to which it differs, they embraced it. This actually happened. Past tense. Because of this we needn’t scrutinize the bible as we would a text that they were silent on.
So, whether the founders would view the bible as appropriate or worthy is a moot question. They actually did. As to other texts, that is an exercise for us. I would say that that any book whose text fundamentally disagrees with The Constitution and the principles the country was founded upon should be excluded. Now IF the Koran or ar some other book reaches that threshold I do not know. I am not familiar enough with the text. My point all along has been premised upon “IF a book contradicts…” I also do not know enough about the Muslim faith to understand the degree to which Sharia law is part of The Koran. If the answer is not at all, I think the Koran would probably be okay (barring other sections thet would be in conflict). If it is an an inextricable part, it should not be allowed. I’ll just add that from the little knowledge I do have that last possibility seems to NOT be the case.
I would be in your camp here IF we didn’t know that the founders, aware no doubt of the degree to which the two texts disagreed, still found it useful to include the bible in ceremonies. Not to mention, other oral and written pronouncements they made. The bible, as it was in fact embraced by them gets a pass. There is no point in our wondering if they would exclude it when they did not exclude it.
I gather that you are aware of one exception. If that is so, “they” would still be correct, would it not? And those facts would still be facts, wolud they not? I must say that if this is the best you can do, I’m quite encouraged as to the points I’ve been making. I look forward to you researching and finding that there are two exceptions.
Utter nonsense. Prager has provided no evidence for his claim that the Bible played any part in the founding of this country. It is simply a smokescreen he has invented to promote his xenophobia. The Constitution says only swear (indicating that one calls upon one’s god(s) to ensure one’s integrity) or affirm (indicating that one simply attests to one’s own integrity). The “swearing” part does not even specify a manner or a formula. The Bible was used by those Christians who felt that its use indicated that they were calling upon the God of their personal belief (not some fuzzy ceremonial fellowship) to witness their actions. To come back more than 200 years later and, after the fact, claim that everyone who swears should use the book of one particular religion is nothing more than an effort to divide the country by stigmatizing those who do not embrace that particular book. Prager’s appeal to “commonality” or whatever is a blatant lie.
If the Founders really wanted that sort of artificial “oneness” then they would have established a national religion so that there would not be any question. For that matter, even if they wanted to let multiple Christian religions run rampant while excluding other beliefs, they could have easily added an instruction to swear “on the bible,” yet they did not. Even the “So help me God” phrase was only slid into various oaths much later, with the claim that the president did it (beginning with Washington) apparently one of the many pious frauds passed around about Washington years after his death. (Citation)
Well said.
This latest from you is yet more example of your completely irrational and dishonest approach to the issue. You’re flailing and flailing badly. Many other posters in this thread have attempted to educate you. The reason that they appear to have failed is because you evidently already know the facts of the matter; you’re just dismissing them.
No, there is no evidence that they “viewed the Bible as foundational”. As tomndebb noted, the fact that they (or most of them) chose to use it for their own personal swearing-in ceremonies says nothing more than that they viewed the Bible as important to their own personal religious beliefs involved in swearing a religious oath.
Then you admit that your position is inconsistent. You aver that “any book whose text fundamentally disagrees with The Constitution and the principles the country was founded upon should be excluded”. And it has been pointed out to you that the Bible does contain such fundamental disagreements (e.g., on religious liberty and monarchy). Therefore, by your own standards, the Bible should be disallowed as a swearing-in text.
Yet you say that the Bible “gets a pass” merely because the founders used it. Even though the founders, as far as we know, were not concerned at all with applying your arbitrary made-up condition; rather, as far as we know, they simply regarded swearing-in texts as individually-preferred sacred symbols supporting individual religious oaths.
In other words, you are willing to overlook your own specified condition in the case of the Bible, and you justify that by appealing to a circumstance that is irrelevant to the condition you specified. That’s inconsistent.