Replies

I can't imagine why intelligent people continue to foster this fallacy.

Because it's not a fallacy. The Framers -- all of them (including the deists, Franklin and Jefferson, notwithstanding their attraction to Enlightenment perspectives [Jefferson was in Paris at the time of the Philadelphia Convention, but had been able to correspond]) -- were firmly planted in the Judeo-Christian world view. You have only to listen to them speak, in their writings, to know that.

That is to say, they believed in God, the creator of the world and of man; that God "created all men equal," vesting in them reason and free will; and that God is the source of men's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property (or "happiness").

To doubt this is tantamount to saying Jefferson was a crafty, calculating liar when he penned the DoI, that this key document is a tissue of lies....

These insights motivated the Framers' desire to create a system of ordered liberty and equal justice under law; for nothing else would be appropriate to God-given human dignity.

Further, they clearly believed that the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Laws of the Christian dispensation were divinely communicated to man, and that they were, in fact, the moral law designed by God to serve mankind, according suitably to his divinely created nature. These ideas are implicit in the philosophy of the Constitution itself.

But if you want to engage in revisionist history, don't let me stop you. You wouldn't be the first, or the last.

The Framers -- all of them ... were firmly planted in the Judeo-Christian world view. You have only to listen to them speak, in their writings, to know that.

I don't deny that. But I certainly do deny that they put anything in the constitution... or in any laws then or now... having the slightest bit to do with Commandments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 10.

Furthermore, as I previously stated, murder and stealing are basic moral tenets that were laws in every society, before Jesus, after Jesus, nad in lands where they never heard of Jesus.

That is to say, they believed in God, the creator of the world and of man; that God "created all men equal," vesting in them reason and free will...

Um, you forgot that little qualifier about "man" meaning white, land owning male men. Then again, since the bible condones slavery all over the place, I guess maybe you are more correct than I'm giving you credit for.

Our constitutional contract is based on the world view of the Ten Commandments.
799 -BB-

At 763, you claimed we had no
"common, universal definition", and asked "on what can society's claim to justly restrain evil be based?"
-- Now you claim that the ten commandments are those base principles?
- Betty, -- really, you know better. Our constitution specifically rejects laws based on religious dogma.
818 -tpaine-

--- the Framers' desire to create a system of ordered liberty and equal justice under law;

Further, they clearly believed that the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Laws of the Christian dispensation were divinely communicated to man, and that they were, in fact, the moral law designed by God to serve mankind, according suitably to his divinely created nature.

These ideas are implicit in the philosophy of the Constitution itself.
But if you want to engage in revisionist history, don't let me stop you. You wouldn't be the first, or the last.
-BB-

You are denying our constitutional history Betty.

Indeed --- the Framers' desired to create a system of ordered liberty and equal justice under law, based on individual rights & non religious reasoning.
No laws were to be made that respected the dogmas of any specific religions. - No religious tests were to be made to assume governmental offices.
Men were to be free to worship, or not worship, as they pleased.

You are advocating a return to a type of government sponsored authoritarian theocracy in your attempt to make the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Laws of the Christian dispensation part of our constitutional contract, as you said at #799.