Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
"- § 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States."
This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own.
Outstanding ... and I’m so impressed with it, I’m lifting it to use when a question of ‘what is evolution’ comes up!
I’ll take flattery whenever it happens. But it won’t spare you my wroth, when indicated.
:)
I suggest checking the spelling first.
Evolution happens, says this devout Catholic.
The survival of our Republic, my dear friend, will depend on people recognizing that our very Constitution is ordered on a particular view of man, and hence the resulting political order must support this view -- which is thoroughgoingly classical and Judeo-Christian at its root.
The intent of the Framers cannot be understood without recognizing that their intellectual and spiritual roots were in Athen, Jerusalem, and Rome. FWIW.
If we value our Constitution for the wisdom of its Framers, then we need to honor the very sources that they relied on. Once we start spitting at that, the ignominious end of the American polity is already in view.... FWIW
I'm hunkering down right now, because I know how much you love to disagree with me! But the fact is: It's lovely to see you again, tpaine!
The framers never considered that the Supremes would/could generate a climate where whatever THEY said was law.. Currently whatever 5 of the Supremes say is law, is the law.. A Coup D'ambulance chaser.. or Coup D'Shyster...
The survival of our Republic, my dear friend, will depend on people recognizing that our very Constitution is ordered on a particular view of man,
Indeed it is. And our specific individual views - on who created what, are not [or should not be] the issue.
and hence the resulting political order must support this view -- which is thoroughgoingly classical and Judeo-Christian at its root.
You are simply ignoring the fact that much of the 'classical' foundations of our Constitution are based on pagan [greek/roman/nordic] common/natural law.
The intent of the Framers cannot be understood without recognizing that their intellectual and spiritual roots were in Athen, Jerusalem, and Rome. FWIW.
And in Danelaw; - hell, - even Iroquois Federation law was cited by some of the Framers .
If we value our Constitution for the wisdom of its Framers, then we need to honor the very sources that they relied on.
Do you doubt that any here do not?
Once we start spitting at that,
Who here is spitting?
the ignominious end of the American polity is already in view.... FWIW
I'm hunkering down right now, because I know how much you love to disagree with me! But the fact is: It's lovely to see you again, tpaine!
Indeed, I love to turn the issue back to constitutional basics, a subject many here have problems facing, because our constitution is a very sectarian document.
Please, - read the Story quote I just posted, - I'd appreciate your comments on that.
metmom, you say it better than I did (at #151 below).
Perhaps Stultis does not see the distinction being raised....
A trivial fallacy (not even a modal fallacy) of formal logic (I guess this would be a form of converting or reversing conditionals) that most college students learn in their freshman year is some great, subtle "distinction"? Puh-leeeeze.
I think my previous response on this to metmom...
Well, DUH!
...stands.
I must differ with your conclusion here, dear tpaine. The Constitution is not "a sectarian document," nor it is an explicitly "religious document" -- in any sectarian sense. But it is clearly informed by the wisdom of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. That is to say, it is informed by the moral law of Judeo-Christianity; the rationality of Greek philosophy; and Roman concepts of political order.
If your link was to Joseph Story, I'm glad to give it a look. I've encountered him before. I consider him a very sound souce for the understanding of the American rule of law from the jurisprudential point of view.
But that will have to wait 'til tomorrow, for I'm pooped, and it's time for sleep....
But will be speaking with you again soon, dear tpaine!
The framers never considered that the Supremes would/could generate a climate where whatever THEY said was law..
Most rational people realize that USSC decisions are NOT the law. - Congress, States, and ultimately the people decide what the law is, [ as per the 18th Amendment] not the Court.
Our authors premise is flawed. Our Repubilc is not in danger from "Evolutionary Humanism", imho. I see the bigger danger much as Arthur Koestler:
"- The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.
The historical record confronts us with the paradox that the tragedy of man originates not in an excess of individual self-assertiveness," - but in a malfunction of the affiliative, group tendencies of our species; - "an excess capacity for fanatical devotion. --"
Currently whatever 5 of the Supremes say is law, is the law.. A Coup D'ambulance chaser.. or Coup D'Shyster...
The real shysters, in my view, are those among us who insist that majority opinion rules, that it [or Courts] can trump the Constitution.
Well that sheds a lot of light. Thanks so much. It's so nice to know that you regard our contributions to the matters under debate as founded on only "trivial," and not "modal" fallacies.
So show the freaking fallacy already, okay??? Then we can decide whether it's trivial or modal -- or nonexistent as the case may be. Do not forget: You are not the only judge here, let alone the final judge here. First, there are your debate partners, your "opponents"; and then there are the Lurkers. We basically trust to the good faith and rationality of both.
Let me wish you good night and pleasant dreams, Stultis. Hope to see you tomorrow, God willing.
What harping? All along -- until now anway, when you will finally get some more out of me -- I've only been responding, in ever growing amazement, to one very simple issue: The refusal or reluctance by some here to admit that, yes, Islamists are creationists.
This is VERY odd. You don't find evolutionists here denying that Francis Galton was a eugenicist, or that Ernt Haeckel was a racist, or that scientific racism (as well, btw, as political and religious racism) were rampant in the early decades of the 20th Century, or that Nazis sometimes appealed to evolution (as well as, btw, to religion and creation).
We admit the obvious, accept the facts, and confine our points to what conclusions are validly, or invalidly, drawn from them.
It was argued, in response to the article at the top of the thread, that it is NOT valid to conclude -- as the article effectively does -- that evolutionists in general are suspect, and that evolution in general is bad, because some evolutionists were bad people or held bad ideas.
THIS WAS THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE ISSUE OF ISLAMISTS BEING CREATIONISTS WAS RAISED. Noting the some creationists are Islamists was cited as a similarly INVALID basis for concluding that creationism was bad or creationists were bad.
GET IT. YET?
So what happens? Granted you didn't respond directly to the lead article. But betty boop did. Guess what? She praised the article in #70:
Great article, spirited irish! Thank you so much for posting it!
Irony of ironies. She thought this article of guilt by association, saddling "evolution," and by implication evolutionists generally, with the most spectacular villains and atrocities of the 20th Century, from Nazis to Communists, was just terrific.
But then somebody, -YYZ-, says (in effect), "Wait, this is just as wrong as it would be to claim creationism is bad because Islamists are creationists." And betty boop goes off the deep end twice. First she questions calling Islamists creationists; which, get real, they are. Then she ignores (or more probably is too myopic to notice) the fact that the negative inference regarding creationists was explicitly cited as INvalid; as an example of faulty reasoning.
Then she (and later hosepipe, and later you, and probably several others) get all bent out of shape about creationism (supposedly) being unfairly maligned STILL IGNORING THE MALIGNANT ARTICLE AT THE TOP OF THE THREAD THAT DOES EXACTLY THAT TO EVOLUTION.
I mean this is rich, really rich.
Concluding that all creationists are Islamists, from the premise that all Islamists are creationists?
I need to show you the fallacy in that?
Is this some kind of joke? (Seriously. I don't get what you're saying. I know you see the fallacy there. So what's the point?)
-- it is clearly informed by the wisdom of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. That is to say, it is informed by the moral law of Judeo-Christianity; the rationality of Greek philosophy; and Roman concepts of political order.
Are you just denying that pagan natural/common law was a big influence on the writing of our Constitution?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed, I love to turn the issue back to constitutional basics, a subject many here have problems facing, because our constitution is a very [non] sectarian document.
Please, - read the Story quote I just posted, - I'd appreciate your comments on that.
I must differ with your conclusion here, dear tpaine. The Constitution is not "a sectarian document," nor it is an explicitly "religious document" -- in any sectarian sense.
Sorry, I forgot the 'non'. I find it curious that you chose to make that an issue.
If your link was to Joseph Story, I'm glad to give it a look. I've encountered him before. I consider him a very sound souce for the understanding of the American rule of law from the jurisprudential point of view. But that will have to wait 'til tomorrow, for I'm pooped, and it's time for sleep....
But will be speaking with you again soon, dear tpaine!
Thanks Betty.
I don’t know why you’re pinging me. I have already made it clear that genuine Muslim’s are by definition creationists. And I have also made it clear that the creationist Muslim’s that I’m familiar with are totally opposed to terrorism, and instead blame the problem of terrorism squarely on Darwinist materialism:
http://www.harunyahya.com/terrorism7.php
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
Courtesy ping to csense.
>>Because Evolution purports to tell us the origins of life, <<
That would be a good point, but it doesn’t.
You’re talking about abiogenesis. Different subject altogether.
GOD CREATED EVOLUTION!
==GOD CREATED EVOLUTION!
God created non-random, directed mutation that—as both the Bible and the fossil record testifies—is confined to the biblical created kinds.
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.