Essay talk:God and the U.S. Constitution

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is this Dead?[edit]

I was surprised to notice that this had not been commented on, I was just reading it and realized how much potential this Essay has. Are you still working on it? i would love to debate this topic further as i have an agreement with what your Essay is about. I thought it would also be important that while the Founding Fathers were christian, they were also Masons (that being obvious) and that the government established in the US Constitution follows a more Masonic system of Logic over Religion (Secular) government. The very claim that the constitution abides by any form Of christian belief is because the Ten Commandments themselves are based off of very simple, logical forms of Social Standards (IE: No Killing, Stealing, Lying) which the constitution does protect, but does not inherently mean that the Constitution also adheres to the Ten Commandments, this is following a formula of Coincidence, that A = B and B = C, so A must = C, but this isn't true at all.

Also, while being Poorly Worded, the First Amendment that protects Freedom of Speech also states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"[1] that very clearly states, that No Establishment of a Religion, nor Prohibition of a free exercise of Religion is allowed. This means that you cannot -by law- make any laws that invoke the Establishment of a National Religion (which would then mean, that our Constitution follow it's religious Doctrine) nor prohibit the right to freely Exercise your religion (IE: Saying you can -Never- pray in school.) this solidifies any argument, in my opinion, that our country is bound by any form of Christian, polytheistic, or monotheistic religion or its doctrine is completely and utterly incorrect, as well as the passage of such laws to be unconstitutional.

you are right, throughout US history an attempt has been made to address this, as a large majority of Americans are Christian, and have been for some time. I feel strongly that (even as a christian myself) we must carry the Tenants of Civil Liberty and Rights over those of our beliefs, whether we agree to them or not, it is the sanctity of Freedom of Equality and Equal Rights that are prevailed by our constitution, and is not subject to judgmental ideology, the simple fact that Laws are meant to obtain Order, not Morality.

I know these are two obvious statements regarding Church and the US constitution, but i feel that without them, this Essay is lacking two key fundamental reasons for the separation of Church and State.HKJGN (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this appears dead. The guy who wrote it hasn't edited in a while. Looks like unfinished business. FrankThePseudoscientist (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 ❝ ...nor prohibit the right to freely Exercise your religion (IE: Saying you can -Never- pray in school.) ❞  Actually, when you enter a public school, you forfeit a large amount of your "rights." For example, your freedom of speech (can't wear obscene clothing, or shout racial slurs at a fellow student) and the right to bear arms are harshly restricted. As such, there are many cases where the Court has interpreted the free exercise clause very broadly, and when there's a compelling state interest to restrict "rights" - like to protect the safety of its citizens - the government can, in fact, say things like "no prayer in [public] school." Blue (is useful) 20:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the determination between 'school organized' prayer and simply 'prayer' is a subject of opinion, if you personally pray at your Desk, they're not going to revoke your right to believe, if you set up a group within the school like a 'Prayer Group', these are fine to, my point to stress 'never' was that you can still obviously pray, but the school can't set up a prayer before class,nor can it restrict you to simply pray, that's still falling under constitution guidelines. The right to bear arms doesn't state that you can take them into a government building (and you shouldn't be able to) simply that you can own them. and freedom of speech is important when exercising right to your opinion, but not the right to wear sweatpants that say 'Slut' on the back of them, Vulgarity is Vulgarity and it's not just a religious thing, Civilized people shouldn't speak like that, even if it's free for you to do so.HKJGN (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, if this is dead, is it ok if i continue it? I feel like I've got a lot to say about this.HKJGN (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the original author hasn't edited for 18 months so I should imanij it'll be ok, Prolly best to copy it all to a new essay page though, leaving the original untouched? 14:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

I will, I just wanted to be sure it was ok, i didn't want to step on his Essay without reason and without seeing if the original writer would take offense, His ideas are stated in the Essay, I just feel the same way and would like to add some information. (Not like any Fundie would get to read it..)HKJGN (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

To make this clear. You should not edit this essay. Essays belong to the original author whether apparently "unfinished" or not. What you may do is copy it across to a new or similar title and link back a credit to the original author either in the first line of your new essay or at the top of the talk page. You may then edit this new essay - your essay - to your heart's content. Have fun. ;-)--BobSpring is sprung! 15:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. [1] Cornell University