So Much For Deists

Junto Society ^ | 12/21/2002 | Col. Robert Pappas

[stoney]

So Much For Deists

Col. Robert Pappas 12/21/2002

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the term "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional has prompted heated debate. Much of that debate has centered on whether or not the Founding Fathers were Christian; whether they were influenced by their faith as they forged the Constitution; and, whether or not they sought to exclude religion from the national political landscape.

First, the Founders were overwhelmingly Christian and their intent is well and clearly stated in the plain language of the Constitution, the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Detractors who oppose freedom of religious expression in the public arena are conveniently blind to the last part of the statement, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Constitution does not state where or when a person may or may not exercise ones religious faith, since to specify either would be in direct conflict with the "free exercise thereof."

Detractors argue that the Founding Fathers were opposed to Christianity and religion in general, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Their favorite assertion is that the Founders were deist: "members of a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality

[stoney]

.

[Texas Eagle]

Well, seeing as how each of those judges took an oath that ended with the phrase, "so help me God", I guess they are violating the Constitution by serving on the bench. They should resign.

[stoney]

Good point.

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) 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(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the deists...

[Kerberos]

"Well, seeing as how each of those judges took an oath that ended with the phrase, "so help me God", I guess they are violating the Constitution "

But then again if they hadn't of said the phrase, "so help me God", they probably would be out of a job. Perhaps they felt they had no choice.

[Texas Eagle]

But then again if they hadn't of said the phrase, "so help me God", they probably would be out of a job. Perhaps they felt they had no choice.

They knew when they were nominated that they would have to recite the oath. They were under no obligation to accept the nomination.

[Kerberos]

"They were under no obligation to accept the nomination. "

I suppose that would be true if you don't consider being gainfully employed, supporting yourself, and\or your family an obligation.

[Texas Eagle]

I suppose that would be true if you don't consider being gainfully employed, supporting yourself, and\or your family an obligation.

Obviously you don't nominate someone standing in line at the unemployment office for a seat on a judicial bench.

[Darksheare]

No, they were not under any obligation. And they all had previous gainful employment. Probably they allshould have stayed there.

[Kerberos]

"Obviously you don't nominate someone standing in line at the unemployment office for a seat on a judicial bench."

Obviously.

[Mr. Mulliner]

An article worth reading.

Madison, Denominations and the First Amendment

[Physicist]

What the devil--pardon the expression--does this have to do with Deism? No Deist would object to the phrase "under God".

[Kerberos]

"No, they were not under any obligation. And they all had previous gainful employment. Probably they allshould have stayed there. "

So your position would be that if they wanted to advance their careers by going to work for the government, they need to be a member of the Christian faithful. Otherwise, they should have just stayed put.

[Darksheare]

Must you be that dense?

[VOA]

bump

[Straight Vermonter]

Its always interesting to ask people to find the phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution.

[f.Christian]

ask owk...

deist is a code word for antichrist---hAtheism...jihad!

Matter of fact religous liberty no longer existed when the liberal taliban took over the country!

[VOA]

Well, seeing as how each of those judges took an oath that ended with the phrase, "so help me God",

I don't know if it's true...
but I do remember hearing that George Washington added that phrase at the end of
his swearing-in in an impromptu fashion...
and each following President has followed suit.

Kinda' funny that today's legal beagles think that a Mason sounded like some
sort of Christian Fundamentalist Extremist Nutcase Eric-Rudolph sound-alike.

[Kerberos]

"Must you be that dense?"

Maybe I am, please explain.

[Darksheare]

If you don't believe in it, why say it?
And if they are so interested in destroying this country and it's freedoms, then why bother to take an oath that has no meaning for them?
If your word means nothing, then how can you be trusted?
Is that too hard for you, or must I dumb it down enough for a Lib to understand?
You really hate our freedoms, don't you?
It's Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. Look it up.
And one's word is supposed to mean something. Right?