God is Not in the Constitution (Barf)

The Village Voice ^ | 06/28/02 | Nat Hentoff

[rwfromkansas]

In the Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress, the Kentucky Resolution includes this little interesting portion:

"3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution,that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press": thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violates either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion,are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force."

Letter to Samuel Miller:

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the States."

Letter to Elbridge Gerry:

"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."

The Works of Thomas Jefferson---Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush:

"The successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment OF A PARTICULAR FORM OF CHRISTIANITY THRO' THE U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form is the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe that any portion of power confided in me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly."

(notice that this one indicates a view of the Establishment clause that is of a modern conservative, that it strictly refers to a legal establishment of a faith).

[dheretic]

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values GROWTH!

Read the 2nd treatise on civil government. It is the Classical Liberal equivalent of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. The opening section totally rejects traditional christian views of government and the document as a whole states in a nutshell that the only legitimate functions of the government are to protect life, liberty and property; the government has no legitimate authority to regulate public morality beyond the point of forbidding public nudity and things like child molestation. Oh liberalism, like classic Greco-Roman culture taught learning natural science as a virtue something Christianity does not. Natural science is a form of arrogance according to Christian teachings. The West was for a time period a Christian region of the world. That was during the time in which virtually no artistic or scientific advancements were made. Once we started returning to the culture of the pre-Christian West that changed.

[rwfromkansas]

I think you would be interested in a book called "Discipling the Nations," by Dennis Woods.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

God is Not in the Constitution

No, but if you hold it up to the light just right, Mary is!

[rwfromkansas]

Hentoff sometimes is a good guy. But I have to say, on the church/state issue, I don't know whether to cry or gag at his utter stupidity.

[Tennessee_Bob]

No, but if you hold it up to the light just right, Mary is!

Depends on whether or not you have the copy with the tea stain on it or not.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Good point!!

[rwfromkansas]

According to Witherspoon, a Calvinist and only signeer of the Declaration of Independence, we were within our rights.

[rwfromkansas]

only clergyman signer I mean.

[rwfromkansas]

I understand your point. It is important for nations to covenant together in the sight of God. However, just mentioning God wouldn't save the country.

[f.Christian]

Read the 2nd treatise on civil government. It is the Classical Liberal equivalent of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. The opening section totally rejects traditional christian views of government and the document as a whole states in a nutshell that the only legitimate functions of the government are to protect life, liberty and property; the government has no legitimate authority to regulate public morality beyond the point of forbidding public nudity and things like child molestation. Oh liberalism, like classic Greco-Roman culture taught learning natural science as a virtue something Christianity does not. Natural science is a form of arrogance according to Christian teachings. The West was for a time period a Christian region of the world. That was during the time in which virtually no artistic or scientific advancements were made. Once we started returning to the culture of the pre-Christian West that changed.

82 posted on 6/30/02 3:36 PM Pacific by dheretic

This is snail---slug history...grasshopper too!

You're nuts!

[Kevin Curry]

For the sake of argument let's accept your contention that the 2d treatise is based on a total rejection and hatred of religion, that it is a celebration of godlessness and material self-indulgence; that it captures the worldview of atheists who pride themselves on bowing to no authority but their own greedy selves. Perhaps you are wrong in your contention and it really speaks more to your own craven materialism than it does to religion. But for the sake of argument let's grant you your queer and twisted contention.

How odd that it is the religious believers in your god-hating governmental scheme who are the guarantors of your indulgence and freedom under it. The lesson history teaches about atheist societies is that they mare mass-murdering meat grinders and soffocating nanny states unparalleled in their horror by any other governments that have ever existed. Two-hundred million were beaten, shot, starved, gassed, hanged, eviscerated, and burned in the 20th Century alone in the name of atheism.

Hiss and spit all you want. But "rational" athiests walk a knife edge and are constantly at risk of toppling over into mindless anomie, cannibalism, and wholesale genocide.

You couldn't govern an ant farm with your philosophy, let alone thrive in a society made up only of sneering atheists such as yourself. In a society filled with such serpents you would be eating each other tail first as rapidly as you could gobble down the scales.

But only after you had murdered all the religious believers.

You freeload on our benevolence.

[rwfromkansas]

I would argue the way education is run today, we are essentially establishing secularism and thus, public education should be ruled unconstitutional altogether.

[JMJ333]

My issue is sovereignty--specifically. And a question as to why the constitutional system eroded so quickly. Mentioning God is obviously not enough--but it certainly would have helped stating a specific belief of a supreme being in the constitution, so that the games these hypersensitive bitter atheists play would be a mute point. And natural law is important also--clear cut and defined--would have knee-capped the bozos who are out to destroy us.

Feel free to outline why you think the constitutional system was eroded so quickly if you don't believe it is a sovereignty issue! =)

[steve-b]

This idea stems from 18th century liberalism [specifically from the French revolution]

And how can anyone deny God when right here we have the miracle of effect preceding cause by several years?

[Kevin Curry]

There is a urine stain on the wall in a restroom at Three River's Stadium that bears an uncanny resemblance to Harry Browne. Just thought you and and the sneer patrol would like to know in case you wish to kiss the floor in front of it.

[steve-b]

just that it leaves God out of the equation, which then leaves questions of morality open for speculation

This assertion shows a stunning ignorance of history. People claiming to speak for God have asserted all sorts of mutually exclusive moral claims, up to and including absolute pacifism on the one hand and mass murder on the other. Thus, an invocation of God still leaves everything as up for grabs as ever.

[JMJ333]

I could trace it back farther to the 1500s, but liberalism wasn't fully developed nor widely accepted until the 18th century.

I didn't say that the founders based the constitution on the french revolution..but were familiar with French political philosophy and incorporated much of it into the american political system. You can sit their pontificating in your all-knowingness, but the facts will remain the same.

Up until the French revolution, God was the sovereign judge of religious truth and individual conscience. When the french intellectuals revolted they emphasized that political authority came from the people themselves--alone--as interpreted by the will of the majority. Sounds familiar.

The logical extreme was then carried out in the FR with mob rule, followed by a dictatorship of terror, all in the name of "the will of the people" and in opposition to God and of course the monarchy.

[JMJ333]

Your ad hominum is dull and unorigional. Ignorant? Pot meet kettle. You show a profound lack of knowledge in history. Try doing ten minutes of research before name calling. Oh wait...you have no real debate and have to resort to ridicule.

[JMJ333]

=)