Posted on 09/14/2005 11:02:25 AM PDT by nov7freedomday
The point is valid that it is just a formal way of reciting a date. The fact that they might not have done it on every document does not invalidate this point.
The Quakers actually did take offense to pagan naming of the months and days of the week and adopted a numerical system. The fact that the founders did not do this shows that they didn't think that cultural naming of dates had any implied meaning.
FYI - The Declaration, Bill of Rights and every other Amendment are all dated, but none in the same fashion as the Constitution, invoking the 'Year of our Lord'.
This point actually works against you. If the founders really wanted to make religious references, why did they restrict it to only one document?
The founders wrote the constitution and had every chance to include overt religious references if they had that intention. Why would they try to sneak it in through the back door when they were the ones creating the thing?
I don't think you are correct - I've read that most of their money comes from legal fees generated from lawsuits against taxpayer funded entities. The legal fees come directly from taxpayers. However, when they lose a lawsuit, they are not required to pay legal fees.
And THAT is precisely where your problem lies; California is FAR from a losing battle. conservatives have been making, and continue to make, headway in turning this state around. Our greatest obstacles are: the left, the mushy middle (which includes the State Republican Party apparatus), and pessimist conservatives.
My work schedule prevents me listening to Limbaugh regularly, and I'm not one of his many idolators, but I did catch, and wholeheartedly agree with, an awesome monologue of his talking about the left being primarily fear-driven and pessimistic versus conservatives being primarily hope-driven and optimistic. Essentially, if you think you're a conservative, but you're so cynical as to have fallen into pessimism, you have become more a part of the problem than you are a part of the solution. Fix your mental state, and the outlook for your State of residence will be less gloomy. If we could just get pessimistic, self-described Conservatives in California thinking in more hopeful terms, that would go a great way toward cranking up the voting horsepower of the conservative base here.
The mushy middle presents a different challenge. You have people who are divided in their mentality on fiscal vs. social issues and, because of this double-mindedness, they have difficulty with commitment to solid conservative candidates. That's why we ended up with Ahnold instead of McClintock as Governor: the body of voters that pulled the lever for a Republican candidate are decidedly divided on several key social issues that impinge upon morality and ethics. The only reason some of these people didn't vote for Bustamante is because fiscal restraint matters to them. Take that away, and they're just another moderate Democrat voting bloc, but we're not writing them off because we're optimistic that these moral relativists can be shown that the same conservative ideals they laud for fiscal management are applicable, reasonable AND, in fact, desirable in social arenas, as well for a multiplicity of reasons, not the least of which are their long-range fiscal impacts.
In making that argument to them, we also impact the left, itself, because the left espouses counterpoints on social policy that strike a harmonious chord with social moderates in the mushy middle. Some on the left have hardened themselves against all reason and will not be swayed, but we remain optimistic that many are open to reasonable arguments, will engage legitimate debate and can be swayed by a logical sequence of demonstrable, factual information. These are not the screaming-on-the-street-corner liberal flag-tramplers, these are the quiet democrats that find themselves wondering what has happened to their party? Our strategy to win these people is as old as the art of argument: it's people meeting face-to-face and discussing the issues point-by-point, in a knowledgeable, wise and diplomatic fashion; practicing the art of winsome persuasion; presenting Truth without guile and backing it up with demonstrable, factual evidence.
That's how conservatives will eventually turn California around: by at all times happily, optimistically, appealing to people with the plain-sense, factual, honest-to-God Truth. A pessimistic attitude is anathema to that goal and needs to be ditched at the earliest possible opportunity.
Jeff,
Religious references were NOT restricted to just one document. They're imbedded within the Declaration of Independence, the US Code, various treaties, etc. Then there are the worship traditions of the government as well.
If stating 'the year of our Lord' is merely a formal dating mechanism, with no Judeo-Christian connotation, surely the non-Christian nations of the time used the same mechanism, right?
Didn't think so.
The names of the months and days, on the other hand, are common to nations not viewed as Christian.
As for the intent of the Founders, don't forget what the Constitution was. It provided the guidelines for how men would govern themselves. As the DoI points out, it is a given that this level of government is below the governance of God, and it is merely the purpose of the government to protect the rights granted by God.
In short, there's no need for God to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Thank you very much, I too am a Rush listener and I do agree that CA conservatives are making headway and I hope and pray that they do someday.
I take umbrage with your statements about Washington being vague in his beliefs, and Madison being a firm believer in separation.Welcome to the minefield. >:)
Madison's views regarding separation were made clear in Memorial and Remonstrance and Detached Memoranda.
Washington was more vague. He attended church with his wife, but never took communion. The minister later stated he believed Washington was really a Deist. His religious references could have been made by a Deist.
I was told in another forum that Washington praised Thomas Paine's Age Of Reason, a blistering indictment of organized religion. But I have yet to see evidence of that.
-Eric
And I can trash Indiana tooAll I need to know about Indiana I learned trying to buy beer on a Sunday. :o
-Eric
:)
The phrase most certainly has Christian origins, but spelling out the english translation of Anno Domini was just a common way of writing out a date in a formal manner in Western European culture.
That doesn't mean that every formal document had to contain these words. For example, the formal documents often refer to Rhode Island as it's formal name "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" but many other formal documents don't.
Respectfully, your points are very much a reach and although well thought out and written out would still be seen as a reach by any non-biased reasonable person. It harms conservatives in general to push such theories as it makes us all look like crackpots.
Too many people have heard "In the year of our Lord" used in flowery formal procedings to ever make the reach that it was anything more than a manner of speaking.
It's not any different that how people who say "God bless you" after a person sneezes just say it reflexively. Other phrases such as "heaven only knows", "your guardian angel must be looking out for you", and "go to hell" are uttered by people reflexively.
Many items with an orgin religious in nature eventually morphed into the mainstream. The names of the months and the days are an example of this.
Again, Anno Domini (In the year of our Lord) is a denotation of a dating system.
Madison's views on the extent of separation are made clear by the legislation he introduced in Virginia titled "Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers", which established fines for anyone working on the Sabbath, or having their servants work on the Sabbath.
Hard to argue he viewed separation at a state level when he authors such legislation.
Washington's beliefs are obvious in his own actions, such as swearing his oath of office on Scripture, reading in part: "If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. 2 All these blessings will come upon you and accompany you if you obey the LORD your God."
He did not profess any particular denomination of Christianity and allowed the forces in his command their pick of chaplains, but it was GW who established the practice of chaplains.
And in speaking to the troops, he stated the following: "The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country." That was right after he read them the Declaration of Independence.
Later, at Valley Forge, he addressed his troops with: "While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian."
And in speaking with the Deleware Indian Nation he said: "You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ."
I could go on, but the point is obvious. While there is plenty of room for discussion about Washington's particular denomination, and his view of certain doctrines and traditions, he made it clear to all that he was a Christian. His comments about Christianity are far from vague.
Jeff,
As I said, if it's usage doesn't carry any specific religious connotation, other non-Christian countries that have the same year would at least on occassion use that naming convention.
Your position that it carried no religious meaning only bears merit if it is taken out of the context of the times, beliefs of the writers, and the other documents written around that period.
The idea that 'in the year of our Lord' is merely reflexive just doesn't work. It's a rare usage, even at the time as other formal documents bear out. Even now, when someone says 'in the year of our Lord' I'm willing to bet that the author is a Christian.
Have you seen many Islamic, Hindu or Buddhists documents dated in such a manner?
Of course not.
Have you seen many Islamic, Hindu or Buddhists say "God bless you" after a person sneezes? Of course not. By your logic, these must mean that whoever says "God bless you" after a sneeze is conveying some sort of religious message.
Take this exchange between a father and his son...
Son: "Daddy, why does this document I'm studying at school say "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations"? Isn't it just Rhode Island?
Father: "Good question Billy. "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" is the official name of the state and is used in formal situations.
Son: "But daddy, how can that be right? This other document just says "Rhode Island" and leaves off the "Providence Plantations" part.
Father: "The official name is often used in formal matters but not always."
Son: "Oh I see...sometimes adults use flowery language in formal documents and sometimes they don't."
Father: "That's right Billy. It's just like how some dates have "A.D." written alongside to be more precise and flowery. We adults often think that flowery language makes things sound more official.
Jeff,
Why don't you see non-Christians use 'in the year of our Lord'?
To compare that to the sneeze response is, frankly, laughable. One occurs daily in life, but even as a Christian, I don't recall the last time I wrote 'in the year of our Lord.'
I do know that if I am to write it, it will be with reason.
And, as I said, your position only makes sense if taken completely out of context. In light of the writings of our other Founders, who spoke of religion VERY frequently, and the way they expressed other dates in other documents, the only possible conclusion is that it has religious meaning.
If our Founders were intent on keeping God out of the Constitution, why use such unnecessary wording? Why not mark the date as they did in the DoI?
It's too bad so many FReepers don't understand the unity we need in this country, but anyway, I enjoyed your profile page:
It's not any different that how people who say "God bless you" after a person sneezes just say it reflexively. Other phrases such as "heaven only knows", "your guardian angel must be looking out for you", and "go to hell" are uttered by people reflexively.Not to mention a certain highly zottable expression initialed "FY". >:)
-Eric
Have you seen many Islamic, Hindu or Buddhists documents dated in such a manner?If you look at the major Indian newspapers, you will see them using the year "2005".
-Eric
Eric,
That's exactly the point. 2005 is the way a non-Christian nation will note the year in a government documents.
You'll not see 'in the year of our Lord' anywhere but a nation that is predominantly Christian.
You'll not even likely to hear a non-Christian American ever use that phrase.
But why do they use the year 2005 and not something else? (Some nations do use something else) Before the push to replace BC and AD, many non-Christian nations still used the Gregorian calender which most certainly used a religious event as a point of reference.
"July 4, 1776", "AD July 4, 1776" and "July 4, In the year of our Lord 1776" are all equivalent. The latter two are more precise than the first and the 3rd one is more flowery. They are all the same. You'll not even likely to hear a non-Christian American ever use that phrase.
Again you'll also not likely hear "God bless you" from a non-christian american either. That doesn't make it an religious endorsement.
You may not have ever seen "In the year of our lord" written out but I have plenty of times. Watch any movie that takes place in the prior to the 19th century and you'll hear the phrase all the time. Do you think that the script writers only exposure to the phrase was from reading the constitution?
People reflexively say many things that are part of the lexicon of the times even in rare situations. For example, find a person at random and tell them to address a formal letter. Many will reflexively start out with "To whom it may concern". It's a rare event, but many people will still act reflexively.
Jeff,
Non-Christian nations use 2005 for the same reason the U.S. uses pagan names for months/days. It's a common way of relating that carries no religious meaning.
No one is claiming an endorsement of a particular religious, it is merely a religious comment/notation that signifies the author is a religious entity.
Like I said, keep it in the context of 'endowed by our creator', 'so help me God', 'In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity --(guess which US treaty that on is in)', and it's consistent with the religious beliefs of the Founders.
Yep. The pledge is full of neener-neener wordings designed to poke a stick in somebody's eye (e.g. "indivisible" was intended as a screw-you to southerners for whom the war was a living memory), and could use some streamlining.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.