Again, and again, and again, you mean like THE BIBLE? The Bible espouses things directly counter to the laws of the United States of America. Nothing about the United States of America is dependent on anyone at all being remotely Christian.
How, precisely, is the Bible critical to the founding of the country?
And, as a side question, which version of the Bible? Do you believe that Catholics should swear on the Protestant Bible, or the other way around? Not to mention Greek Orthodox,Coptic, Russian Orthodox, etc.
Sorry, but Judeo Christians principles are what western philosophy and society is based upon. I’ll redirect you to the overall content of the post and, specifically, the word “informally”.If you want to argue this point open another thread, as it will turn into a major hijack.
Jesus Fucking Christ, are you dense?
The people who swear an oath of office using a Bible aren’t swearing TO the Bible, they aren’t swearing to follow the fucking Bible. They are swearing BY the Bible to uphold the Constitution. And this oath is entirely voluntary.
No person is asked to swear any kind of religious oath of office, such a requirement is anathema to any right-thinking patriotic American. They must swear or affirm to uphold the CONSTITUTION. And any Bibles, Korans, Sutras, Rosaries, Pentacles, Plush Cthulhu Dolls, or other such superstitious nonsense they clutch in their little hands are meaningless as far as their oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution AND AMERICAN CUSTOM require NOTHING of the sort. You aren’t required to swear by the Constitution, to hold office you simple have to swear to uphold the Constitution or simply state that you WILL uphold the Constitution. As far as officeholding goes, they are exactly equivalent.
So, it is entirely irrelevant what Ellison holds or does not hold in his hand when he states that he will uphold the Constitution, and any extra things he adds to his statement such as “So help me God!” or “Allahu Akbar!” or “Heil Hitler!” are absolutely and completely irrelevant to his oath of office. They might influence his constituents to vote for or against him in the next election…voters can vote for or against a candidate for any reason they choose. But the Constitution absolutely forbids us to dictate what, if anything, a candidate holds in his paws when he takes the oath of office.
It just so happens that a lot of people in this country are Christians, and if Christian voters refuse to vote for someone who isn’t a Christian there’s not much we can do about it. And when Christian officeholders choose to clutch a Bible and add “So Help Me God” to their oath of office, that’s fine with me. And if voters want to vote against anyone who doesn’t clutch a Bible, the voters’ decision is unreviewable.
If you want to live in a country with a State Religion, head on over to Europe, they’ve still got a few over there. This imagined requirement to swear an oath by a particular religious book is a blatant and obvious violation of the core values of America.
Just point to the part in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that is based on the Bible.
Next, you’re going to claim Jesus invented democracy.
No one claimed that the founders tried to mirror the bible, only that Judeo-Christian beliefs had great influence. Unless your of the opinion that a nation could be 90+% (?) Christian and that this common belief would have—could have—been ignored, it seems plain that the religious philosophy that the vast majority of them lived with every day is, de facto, a major influence on the society they crafted.
:rolleyes:
The Greeks and Romans will be interested to hear that.
A great start, and then your post went only uphill from this. I can only hope magellan01 allows something of it to sink in.
Can you point to it? Anything? Show me something recognizably Christian in the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights.
But it’s not really a debate in and of itself. The founding principles of American society were Lockean and Hobbesian principles of personal autonomy and societal responsibility. A society based on Biblical priniciples would have, for example, a state religion. England had one at the time, and the FF specifically, explicitly, and intentionally left it out of American governance. They went further, in fact, and made explicit in the bill of rights that government and religion are SEPARATE.
Again, as far as American political philosophy is concerned, this is not correct. Locke posited a social contract based on Hobbes’ theory of natural rights. Hobbes’ natural rights came from God (“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that we are endowed by our Creater with certain inalienable rights . . . .”) but there is nothing inherently Judeo-Christian about it. The “social contract based on natural rights” philosophy is both (a) the founding principle of American governance and (b) very clearly not Bible-based. Anyone arguing that it is – I’m lookin’ at you, Mr. Prager – doesn’t know much about either American history or Western political philosophy.
IMO, a lot of posters here like to downplay the extent to which religion pervaded 18th century American society and the extent to which the Founding Fathers (collectively or individually) had religion and/or followed A religion and/or practiced a religion. But an appropriate response to this isn’t to swing the pendulum back to the other extreme and claim America was founded on Biblical principles. It wasn’t.
That’s a good point, Jodi, but it’s also easy to overplay their beliefs. I’ve been know to say, in regard to wiping BBQ sauce off my cheeks, “Well, that’s why God made shirtsleeves.” Should, in 200 years, someone attempt to display that comment as prove of my belief in God as opposed to my belief in the wonderfulness of shirtsleeves, they’ll be wrong.
The Founding Fathers had no great confidence in the ability of the average ignorant unwashed American to make correct decisions regarding self-governance. They were largely wealthy, elitist, aristocratic intellectuals who trusted the common man about as far as they could throw him. That’s why only landowners could vote in most states (all states, originally?) and Senators were selected by state legislatures, not elected directly by the people, until the passage of the 17th Amendment in the early 20th century. It appears that the Founding Fathers did really and altruistically want what was best for the common American – as decided by them, not him.
I don’t know that this means they “ignored” the “common belief.” Certainly, nothing in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence was overtly anti--Christian and Christianity did, in fact, pervade daily life at all societal levels to a much larger extent than it does today. But that doesn’t change the fact that when the FF were cobbling together a new lasting society, they drew up a common social compact of – itself a novel idea – based on the rights of man in a state of nature. These theories trace back to Locke and Hobbes (among many others), not to St. Mark and St. Paul.
I don’t think I’m the one with the density issue. You seem to be the one who cannot understand the distinction Prager is making. I think my posts have shown that I comprehend both his position and the one opposed to it. The fact that I don’t simply adhere to your position is more of a problem for you than it is for me.
A person can swear an oath or affirm. We agree. The question arises when the book he is swearing “by” is in conflict with the Constitution.
Again, you miss the distinction.
It might surprise you to hear that not all people consider these things “superstitious nonsense”. In fact, for many people, the belief in their faith takes precedence over ANY other obligations.
Again, we agree: swear or affirm.
Entirely irrelevant? I think not. Can you not fathom that some people take their faith very, very seriously. Now you might view it all as “superstitious nonsense”, but many do not. There are people who hold their religious beliefs to be of paramount importance. You wanting and professing it to be otherwise does not make it so. After all, you are not God, are you?
I don’t think anyone has made an argument to the contrary.
I’m relieved you’re so open minded. So, if someone chose after he won the election to swear upon Mein Kampf, that should be allowed, right?
Again, you fail to see the distinction Prager is making.
Of course. That’s what Magellan has done. That was my point.
If Prager thinks people should be swearing to uphold the Constitution based on the philosophical founding documents of the county, he should be advocating for Locke’s Second Treatise on Government or Hobbes’ Leviathan.
Oh goodness, you’re trying to imply that I said that the bible was the only influence aren’t you? That’s cute as the dickens. Now, if oyu actually come up with something of value might I suggest that you use posts by Jodi as a model. Again, this only pertains to “something of value”, your usual snipes and incitements to pile on may continue in their usual vein.
The Bill of rights has ten amendments, the Bible has ten commandments. Coincidence??
Also, there’s the , uh, thing about the well-regulated militia. That’s from the Bible, right?
In what way do you conceive that this: “Sorry, but Judeo Christians principles are what western philosophy and society is based upon,” is not indicating that the Bible is the only influence? Where do Judeo-Christian principles come from, if not the Bible?
Posts by Jodi, are, of course, of an order of magnitude more literate and knowledgeable than mine. Nevertheless, I suggest that my snipes and incitements do add something of value, as they cause you to demonstrate to an even greater degree your ignorance, something which Jodi’s post do not cause, as you do not reply to her.
and didja notice that both the Constitution and Bible are written in Emglish???