The U.S. Constitution

[Cam42]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:39 AM'] Funny you mention Jefferson , who was a deist and certainly did not believe in the bible. As far as America being founded as a christian nation, you need only look to the Treaty of Tripoli ,authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.



[/quote]
You said prove it.....I gave you a direct quote from one of the most influential founders.....

I proved it....I wasn't out for anything more.....

There ya go.

[quote]Here is an example of a quote from James Madison which shows conclusively that the USA is a Christian country: “To preserve the Republic, it is in the hands of the people. We have staked the entire future of the American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”[/quote]

Writer of the Constitution.....notice the quoter is neither Jefferson nor Adams. It is not Barlow either....

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 04:41 PM']Not offended at all. My statement denotes that this nation was not founded as a christian nation and is factually supported by a national document, endorsed by a president. While you speculate that the document was created out of blackmail and should be discarded. Which is an opinion, but not a fact.[/quote]
The open question is, "What does the term 'Christian Nation' imply?" I think that there are multiple answers to this question.

Given the facts that I list below, I think that the only reasonable way to answer whether the USA is a Christian nation, is to answer:
1) In the sense of being founded upon Christian beliefs: yes.
2) In the sense of being a country with an established national church: no.

[b]Treaty of Tripoli[/b]

The mention of Christianity has no reason to be in the treaty, except for the fact that the United States saw that these Muslim pirates were looting ships and enslaving European Christians.

The United States government had it's hands tied behind its back. It knew that they could not defend their merchant ships against this Muslim maritime power, and that no European nation was defending the US ships. They were trying to erase any idea from these pirates that the US should be identified with the European Christian powers. If you'd like to offer another reason that Christianity is mentioned in this short-lived treaty, please feel free.

In my opinion, the authors of this treaty could have denied a strict definition (e.g. Christian Nation=a nation with an established national church). In fact, the statement in the treaty, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" is demonstrably false, as will be seen below.

If a "Christian Nation" is understood to be one that is guided by Christian principles (e.g. moral teachings), then the term can certainly be applied to the United States. A litany of Founding Fathers share my opinion that the United States was founded upon Christian (or at least Judeo-Christian principles). I'd be happy to provide some quotes. I would also cite the fact that the authors (~97% Christian) of the Constitution (as a whole) prayed to God for guidance in their efforts during the Constitutional Convention in Philidelphia.

I'll end with a quote from George Washington's Inaugural Address (1789):
[quote]Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.[/quote]
And the first president promised to be the first man to preserve and defend the Constitution took his oath of office with his right hand on a Christian Bible! LOL

[KizlarAgha]

Nice points Mateo.

[Semalsia]

You are getting it backwards. The goverment does not have a right to make distinctions between men and women. Gender can not determine what you have the right to do. The limitation of marriage to "between a man and a woman" is arbitrary. Seriously: what is this fundamental difference between the genders? Aren't they basically the same? Both are human. Therefore marriage must be between human, between people. Gender has nothing to do with it.

If it does, then that would be the same as stating that a certain group of people have a specific role to play in the society. And only that role is acceptable of them to do. That is oppression.

[quote name='Socrates']The idea that all "consenting adults" have a right to sex, is not in the original constitution, and did not even exist in America until the late 20th century.[/quote]

So do you want the pre- 20th century America back? You know, the good old days when there was slavery, killing of the natives and oppression of women.

It would be foolish to keep the laws of the past, if they are found to be obsolete or harmful.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:21 PM']You are getting it backwards. The goverment does not have a right to make distinctions between men and women. Gender can not determine what you have the right to do. The limitation of marriage to "between a man and a woman" is arbitrary. Seriously: what is this fundamental difference between the genders? Aren't they basically the same? Both are human. Therefore marriage must be between human, between people. Gender has nothing to do with it.[/quote]
Let's say that we ignore the assuption that marriage is between a man and a woman.

At this point, a Pandora's Box opens up. I am quite certain that there is no real way to put up resistance, even if the general public is opposed. So let's open it up.

1) If the sex (i.e. male/female) of the those who enter a marriage is arbitrary, then the number is certainly arbitrary. Can three people enter into a "marriage" under Equal Protection? Can 100 people enter into a marriage? Sure they can. Why? Because "two" is a religious restriction.

2) If the sex is arbitrary, what is to stop marriage within a family? Could a brother marry his sister (hello Jerry Springer)? Could a son marry his father? The laws against incest are little more than plagiarisms from [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/leviticus/leviticus18.htm#v6"]Leviticus (link)[/url]. That's in the same chapter as the religious prohibition of homosexuality!

Some people think that the three-headed children argument (i.e. birth defects) could be used against incestuous marriage. I don't think such a tactic would hold up against the re-engineered Equal Protection clause.

3) If sex is arbitrary, why can't I marry my computer? Heck, I'm already committed to her. She's got one sweet cathode ray tube! And I'm sure I could find a way to derive a tax benefit from it.

That's just a few examples for consideration of the problem of the "Living Constitution" theory.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:14 PM'] Let's say that we ignore the assuption that marriage is between a man and a woman.

At this point, a Pandora's Box opens up. I am quite certain that there is no real way to put up resistance, even if the general public is opposed. So let's open it up.

1) If the sex (i.e. male/female) of the those who enter a marriage is arbitrary, then the number is certainly arbitrary. Can three people enter into a "marriage" under Equal Protection? Can 100 people enter into a marriage? Sure they can. Why? Because "two" is a religious restriction.

2) If the sex is arbitrary, what is to stop marriage within a family? Could a brother marry his sister (hello Jerry Springer)? Could a son marry his father? The laws against incest are little more than plagiarisms from [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/leviticus/leviticus18.htm#v6"]Leviticus (link)[/url]. That's in the same chapter as the religious prohibition of homosexuality!

Some people think that the three-headed children argument (i.e. birth defects) could be used against incestuous marriage. I don't think such a tactic would hold up against the re-engineered Equal Protection clause.

3) If sex is arbitrary, why can't I marry my computer? Heck, I'm already committed to her. She's got one sweet cathode ray tube! And I'm sure I could find a way to derive a tax benefit from it.

That's just a few examples for consideration of the problem of the "Living Constitution" theory. [/quote]
Thank you for not using beastiality and pedophilia.

:wub:

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 3 2005, 04:19 PM'] Well it's a stronger argument in that the founders of the constitution believed in the philosophy that men have the right to life liberty and property. [/quote]
"Liberty" in no way necessitates that homosexual "unions" be given the same legal status and recognition as marriage. The founding fathers certainly did not see it that way! Again, using this logic, "liberty" could be used to say that the states have no right to make laws about anything!

In reality, the fourteenth ammendment was simply stating that the states could not kill, imprison, or comfiscate the property of citizens without the due process of law.

Again, the 10th Ammendment - laws concerning sex and marriage, and other details not dealt with in the Constitution were left to the be decided by the individual states or the people. The federal government has no right to overturn such laws. This is federal tyranny. If the people of the state of South Dakota (or any other state) decide against "gay marriage," the federal government has no right to force them to accept this!
A major reason for having the Constitution was to set limits on the power of central government.

And the right to property is in no way an issue here.

If your against "gay marriage," why do you insist that the Constitution be "interpreted" to demand "gay marriage" (against the intent of the framers)?

I'm not trying to be insulting here - I'm genuinely puzzled. You seem to claim to want laws that reflect Christian morality, yet constitently argue for a "postmodernist secularist" interpretation of the Constitution.

Edited June 4, 2005 by Socrates

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 3 2005, 11:03 PM'] "Liberty" in no way necessitates that homosexual "unions" be given the same legal status and recognition as marriage. The founding fathers certainly did not see it that way! Again, using this logic, "liberty" could be used to say that the states have no right to make laws about anything!

Again, the 10th Ammendment - laws concerning sex and marriage, and other details not dealt with in the Constitution were left to the be decided by the individual states or the people. The federal government has no right to overturn such laws. This is federal tyranny. If the people of the state of South Dakota (or any other state) decide against "gay marriage," the federal government has no right to force them to accept this!
A major reason for having the Constitution was to set limits on the power of central government.

And the right to property is in no way an issue here.

If your against "gay marriage," why do you insist that the COnstitution be "interpreted" to demand "gay marriage" (against the intent of the framers)?

I'm not trying to be insulting here - I'm genuinely puzzled. You seem to claim to want laws that reflect Christian morality, yet constitently argue for a "postmodernist secularist" interpretation of the Constitution. [/quote]
I could've sworn I said I was done arguing in this thread...go bug Semalsia and stuff. I have more important things to do with my time.

[geetarplayer]

I know where the Bible stands on this. However, I don't even touch this debate in a political sense, because I don't know where I stand politically. I know where I am spiritually, but not politically or constitutionally.

-Mark

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='geetarplayer' date='Jun 3 2005, 11:08 PM'] I know where the Bible stands on this. However, I don't even touch this debate in a political sense, because I don't know where I stand politically. I know where I am spiritually, but not politically or constitutionally.

-Mark [/quote]
Thank you. I feel much the same way. You rock...probably literally...cuz of the whole guitar thing...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jun 3 2005, 09:21 PM'] You are getting it backwards. The goverment does not have a right to make distinctions between men and women. Gender can not determine what you have the right to do. The limitation of marriage to "between a man and a woman" is arbitrary. Seriously: what is this fundamental difference between the genders? Aren't they basically the same? Both are human. Therefore marriage must be between human, between people. Gender has nothing to do with it.

If it does, then that would be the same as stating that a certain group of people have a specific role to play in the society. And only that role is acceptable of them to do. That is oppression.

[/quote]
It is obvious to anybodywith common sense that there is a difference between the genders. To put it at its most basic level, a man and a woman can procreate children. Two men or two women cannot. The procreation and raising of children is the natural purpose of marriage.

The different genders have different roles in nature.

[quote][quote name='Socrates']The idea that all "consenting adults" have a right to sex, is not in the original constitution, and did not even exist in America until the late 20th century.[/quote]

So do you want the pre- 20th century America back? You know, the good old days when there was slavery, killing of the natives and oppression of women.

It would be foolish to keep the laws of the past, if they are found to be obsolete or harmful.[/quote]

This is unrelated to the issue of the constitutionality of the federal government enforcing "gay marriage." Keep to the subject.

[Good Friday]

Does this even matter? In the final analysis, a civil law which violates the natural law is an unjust law that no human being is bound to respect or obey. Even if our Constitution does, in some way, lend support to gay marriage, civil unions, or other so-called "gay rights" -- the Constitution is itself subject to the natural law. That's why, for instance, even if the Constitution did guarantee a so-called "privacy right to abortion," no human being is bound to respect or obey that. Because it contradicts a higher law, the law written on human nature itself, the natural law. The same is true of gay marriage and such.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jun 4 2005, 12:46 AM'] Does this even matter? In the final analysis, a civil law which violates the natural law is an unjust law that no human being is bound to respect or obey. Even if our Constitution does, in some way, lend support to gay marriage, civil unions, or other so-called "gay rights" -- the Constitution is itself subject to the natural law. That's why, for instance, even if the Constitution did guarantee a so-called "privacy right to abortion," no human being is bound to respect or obey that. Because it contradicts a higher law, the law written on human nature itself, the natural law. The same is true of gay marriage and such. [/quote]
You're a genius and I love you. That's exactly right. Can I have a hug? Do you want a hug?

[Good Friday]

[quote name='KizlarAgha']You're a genius and I love you. That's exactly right. Can I have a hug? Do you want a hug?[/quote]

Sure.

[Matty_boy]

The Constitution says that the Federal Government cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sex. By "sex" they mean male or female. Those are the only two sexes. Gay marriage and Gay rights are not provided or protected by the Constitution. That is why there has been talk to amend the Constitution outlawing gay rights. Many states have taken it upon themselves to outlaw it through a simple vote of the people or through the legislature, like Texas.