Posted on 09/21/2015 7:19:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You are a bit too far off in left field for me. Have a good day.
Yes. Reason is dead, even among conservatives.
As a side note (and with the risk of tread hijacking)... this is also the basis for the Spanish Inquisition about which Catholics take so much heat. Spain had been retaken from the Moors (muslims) and reestablished its Catholic monarchy. Because the muslims were playing the same game as above, it took the inquisition to root them out.
Out of curiosity, what document specifically mentions Jesus?
The US Constitution.
The US Constitution.
Not my copy. You sure you have an accurate reproduction?
If yours doesn't reference Jesus at the end, then yours is the defective one. Here, i'll show you the exact quote.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
You might also be interested in looking at Article I. Section 7, where it says:
" If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
If it had been intended to comprehend Muslims, it would have excepted Fridays, and if it had been intended to comprehend Jews it would have excepted Saturdays.
It exempts Sundays, and so therefore is a tacit acknowledgment that the President is intended to be a Christian.
Interesting.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
That's it? Don't you think if the framers wanted to explicitly and undeniably refer to Jesus they would have done so rather than only refer to the "Lord" in the equivalent of a date stamp and only once?
And you're also the same person saying the plain wording of the Religious Test Clause in Article VI is unclear?
If your theory were correct, he wouldn't be mentioned at all. Now you are trying to spin the fact that you were wrong about Jesus being mentioned in the US Constitution as a trivial issue.
No, it demonstrates that people's modern understanding of that time period is simply incorrect. Christianity was a far greater influence on the nation at that time, and the assumption was that it would always be so.
For people that believe in Divine guidance, this is a very reasonable position to have.
And you're also the same person saying the plain wording of the Religious Test Clause in Article VI is unclear?
It is unclear to the extent that it was meant to apply to Muslims or some other religion. The default assumption was that everyone who was going to hold office, was going to be some denomination of Christian.
From my perspective, claiming that this allows Muslims or other religions should require a burden of proof. The clause might have been intended to mean this, but given the context of that time period, this seems unlikely to me.
I find it highly doubtful that all the very religious state legislatures that ratified the constitution would have read that passage as applying to Muslims. I am fairly convinced that they read it as precluding doctrinaire disputes within differing denominations of Christianity.
In other words, their understanding of it was very different from that of modern times.
If maintaining that mention of "the Lord" in the equivalent of a date stamp = a specific mention of Jesus makes you feel better, so be it. Honestly, I have bigger fish to fry.
It has nothing to do with making me "feel better", it has to do with pushing back against wrong understandings of US History. Too much stuff gets repeated that is not true.
You want to pass this off as a "date stamp" without addressing the degree to which Christianity suffused the entire culture, and thereby creating such a Christian based "date stamp."
Why do we have such a date stamp? Because everything was axiomatically presumed to focus on Christianity as the center of the culture.
I’m dense. You’ll have to be more explicit if you want me to understand what you are saying.
In the context of 1787, the word "religion" meant "denomination", not "religion" in the manner in which we regard it now.
_____________________
I’m dense. You’ll have to be more explicit if you want me to understand what you are saying.
Meaning Yes I agree, also used to acknowledge much wisdom.
Well thanks. I wasn't sure because I am a big "House MD" fan, and House had a tendency to be extremely sarcastic. Him nodding his head did not necessarily mean he agreed with you. Sometimes it meant that he thought you were an idiot. :)
True enough but he does look wise in that bobblehead sort of way.
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.