Religions > Atheism > More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Gastrich" |
| Date: |
20 Mar 2005 01:43:27 PM |
| Object: |
More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
If http://michaelnewdow.com wasn't enough proof, there is more that the
foundation of America and the U.S. Constitution even (yes, the document that
atheists claim is "godless") was influenced by the Bible.
Article 3, Section 3, paragraph 1 reads:
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No
Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Citation: http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
For Christians, this passage looks very familiar. Deuteronomy 17:6 reads,
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy
of death5 be put to death;93 [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not
be put to death.93
We also see our 3 branches of government FIRST in the scriptures. Isaiah
33:2 reads, "For the LORD [is] our judge,6 the LORD [is] our lawgiver,26 the
LORD [is] our king; he will save55 us.
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 90,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140 . AIM: MrJasonGastrich . YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
20 Mar 2005 06:23:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:30:46 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> thought hard and said:
LP,
Got anything original?
Look who is talking.
JG
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
21 Mar 2005 04:28:23 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:30:46 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Got anything original?
What about you, 'doctor' Gastrich? Have you got anything original?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
21 Mar 2005 03:35:03 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:30:46 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
LP,
Got anything original?
JG
Since these previously written articles quite effectively annihilate
your ludicrous conjecture, leaving you unable to respond, why would I
need to add anything?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Holloway" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
20 Mar 2005 05:28:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:30:46 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
LP,
Got anything original?
At least he's got something at all.
Dave
--
From the warped mind of Dave Holloway, a.a.#1184
Quotemeister Emeritus
Director, EAC Mars Division
Atheological Thinking: http://myweb.cableone.net/silentdave
The TGE Project: http://myweb.cableone.net/silentdave/tge.htm
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."
--Chapman Cohen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
21 Mar 2005 06:54:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:30:46 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
LP,
Got anything original?
Heard the good news?
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
20 Mar 2005 06:23:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:43:27 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> thought hard and said:
If http://michaelnewdow.com wasn't enough proof, there is more that the
foundation of America and the U.S. Constitution even (yes, the document that
atheists claim is "godless") was influenced by the Bible.
Article 3, Section 3, paragraph 1 reads:
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No
Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Citation: http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
For Christians, this passage looks very familiar. Deuteronomy 17:6 reads,
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy
of death5 be put to death;93 [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not
be put to death.93
We also see our 3 branches of government FIRST in the scriptures. Isaiah
33:2 reads, "For the LORD [is] our judge,6 the LORD [is] our lawgiver,26 the
LORD [is] our king; he will save55 us.
So a passage in the Constitution that has a vague (a very vague)
resemblance to Deuteronomy 17:6 is certain, undeniable proof that the
United States is a Christian nation?
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
21 Mar 2005 04:52:17 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:23:07 -0600, Daniel Kolle
<Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote:
We also see our 3 branches of government FIRST in the scriptures. Isaiah
33:2 reads, "For the LORD [is] our judge,6 the LORD [is] our lawgiver,26 the
LORD [is] our king; he will save55 us.
So a passage in the Constitution that has a vague (a very vague)
resemblance to Deuteronomy 17:6 is certain, undeniable proof that the
United States is a Christian nation?
Of course. By now you should know that _ANYTHING_ goes for our
'doctor'...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
21 Mar 2005 05:55:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:52:17 +0700, Jos Flachs
<"wcruise"@ksc15.th.com> thought hard and said:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:23:07 -0600, Daniel Kolle
<Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote:
We also see our 3 branches of government FIRST in the scriptures. Isaiah
33:2 reads, "For the LORD [is] our judge,6 the LORD [is] our lawgiver,26 the
LORD [is] our king; he will save55 us.
So a passage in the Constitution that has a vague (a very vague)
resemblance to Deuteronomy 17:6 is certain, undeniable proof that the
United States is a Christian nation?
Of course. By now you should know that _ANYTHING_ goes for our
'doctor'...
He knows better, of course.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
21 Mar 2005 11:22:26 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Kolle" <Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qnnu31935p5hfqj2akik1h7timifsivs2i@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:52:17 +0700, Jos Flachs
<"wcruise"@ksc15.th.com> thought hard and said:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:23:07 -0600, Daniel Kolle
<Daniel.Kolle@gmail.com> wrote:
We also see our 3 branches of government FIRST in the scriptures.
Isaiah
33:2 reads, "For the LORD [is] our judge,6 the LORD [is] our
lawgiver,26 the
LORD [is] our king; he will save55 us.
So a passage in the Constitution that has a vague (a very vague)
resemblance to Deuteronomy 17:6 is certain, undeniable proof that the
United States is a Christian nation?
Of course. By now you should know that _ANYTHING_ goes for our
'doctor'...
He knows better, of course.
I wonder. His behavior is kind of delusional.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr
Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
20 Mar 2005 04:15:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:43:27 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
If http://michaelnewdow.com wasn't enough proof, there is more that the
foundation of America and the U.S. Constitution even (yes, the document that
atheists claim is "godless") was influenced by the Bible.
Article 3, Section 3, paragraph 1 reads:
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No
Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Citation: http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
For Christians, this passage looks very familiar. Deuteronomy 17:6 reads,
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy
of death5 be put to death;93 [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not
be put to death.93
We also see our 3 branches of government FIRST in the scriptures. Isaiah
33:2 reads, "For the LORD [is] our judge,6 the LORD [is] our lawgiver,26 the
LORD [is] our king; he will save55 us.
Biblical principles?
Would that include the following Biblical principles?
From:
http://www.2think.org/10commandments.shtml
Now that our elected officials have concluded that crime, violence,
and immorality can be reduced by posting replicas of the Ten
Commandments in schools and on public buildings, it’s only logical
that the next step - incorporating them into our civil laws, and
enforcing them properly - would have a much greater impact. We have to
presume, based on the fervor expressed, this is precisely what they
intend to do.
Let’s take a look at the "Ten" (Exod.20:1-17) and see how this might
be accomplished.
We can also consult the Bible to determine what punishments would be
warranted for violations. After all, who better than God Himself to
guide us in these matters?
#1. - "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me".
Since this specifically refers to Yahweh, the Hebrew deity, we’ll need
to do a little tinkering with the First Amendment to enforce this,
like getting rid of that entire "freedom of religion" concept.
Punishment for offenders? We can ascertain what God would want in
Deut.13:6-10 and 17:2-6. Punishment would have to be death.
#2. - "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness
of any thing that is in heaven..., in earth..., or in water: Thou
shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy
God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"
This one’s a little more complicated. It appears that all art,
sculpture, even photography may have to cease. A lot of details to be
worked out here. I’m not even sure if replicas of the Commandments
would be legal. Might have to use audio. As for the latter part -
punish the children up to the forth generation - records will need to
be kept. (This principle worked quite well in the Middle Ages and
during the Inquisitions, whereby suspected "heretics" were tried and
convicted long after their death, enabling the Church/government to
seize land and property from their descendants.)
#3. - "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;"
A council - something like a modern "ecclesiastic tribunal"- could be
established to determine what actions would be deemed blasphemous
under this law. Fraudulent faith healing, political religious
pandering, and all the self-serving repetitive "Thank the Lord"
blather going on in sports these days could be precisely the type of
things God had in mind. Any perceived blasphemy or cursing the name of
the Lord would be punished by death. See Lev.24:13-16.
#4. - "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. ..in it thou shalt
not do any work,"
Self explanatory. Do not mow your lawn, mend the fence, vacuum the
house, or do the dishes on the Sabbath. We will need to clarify which
day it actually is. The Bible says it’s Saturday,
but oddly enough Christians observe Sunday. We could utilize the
"Ecclesiastic Tribunal" to settle this issue before we begin
enforcement. Violations - death. See Exod.31:14-15.
#5. - "Honour thy father and thy mother;"
Clear enough. Punishment for violations - death. See Deut.21:18-21
#6. - "Thou shalt not kill."
This appears to be pretty straightforward, but if we look at the
context in which this command was issued, we may want to clarify it
somewhat before we write the statute. While under this law Moses,
Joshua and the rest of the "chosen" killed millions of men, women,
children and infants - nearly everyone they came in contact with
(Num.31:7-18; Deut.2:34, 3:3-6, 20:13-17; Josh.6:21, 8:25-26,
10:28-41, 11:8-22; 1 Sam.15:3-8). So we must assume that a civil
statute might more accurately read - "Thou shalt not kill, unless
directed to by a religious leader who has spoken with God." The
penalty for killing (except in the name of God) is, well...death.
Lev.24:17
#7. - "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
It’s important to understand exactly what God is referring to here.
According to Mark 10:11-12, Jesus clearly states that anyone who
divorces and remarries, or marries a divorced person "committeth
adultery". The penalty for this crime in Lev.20:10-12 is death. Now I
know this appears harsh, and will obviously impact millions of
marriages and families, but what choice have we? We can’t just
arbitrarily ignore such explicit biblical teachings. Some may try to
cite John 8:3-11 as a loophole, but remember - Jesus is God, and God,
by definition, can do whatever He wants. Doesn’t mean we can. We
better just do what He says, not as He does.
#8. - "Thou shalt not steal."
Here’s one for the liberals. According to Exod.22:4 restitution double
the value of the theft is all that’s required. No imprisonment,
banishment, or stoning. At least we’ll be able to free up a lot of
jail space for those awaiting sentencing for other violations.
#9. - "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
Simply put - no lying or engaging in deception. Interestingly enough,
I can find no clear punishment for lying or bearing false witness in
the Bible. In fact, a whole bunch of it goes on in there by some of
the leading characters. Maybe that’s why so much of it is going on
among today’s leading characters. Pat Robertson immediately comes to
mind.
#10. - "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, ...wife,
....manservant, ...maidservant, ...ox, ...*****, ...nor anything that is
thy neighbours."
Again, the "Ecclesiastic Tribunal" could determine which thoughts or
actions would be declared covetous under this law. Certainly all
advertising trying to entice one to buy something or be like someone
else will need to be banned. Improved lie detector technology would be
extremely valuable. The Bible’s a little ambiguous about the
punishment for covetousness, although in Josh.7:21-25, Achan - along
with his sons, daughters, oxen, asses, sheep, and tent - were stoned
and burned because he had "coveted" a garment, some gold and silver,
and hid them. Also Mk.7:22 lists covetousness with adultery, murder,
and blasphemy, so we should be able to come up with some appropriate
punishment that would be in line here biblically.
In summary - once we get the Ten Commandment replicas (or audio
version) posted throughout the land, integrate them into our civil
laws, and establish the corresponding penalties for violations, we
should finally be able to get what’s left of this country back on a
strong biblical footing with objective moral values!
Of course, there will no doubt be a lot of whining from the
soft-on-crime, anything-goes liberals complaining about the severity
of the penalties, or that Jesus overrode all these old laws. To them I
say - just read what He said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the
law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For
verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven." Mt.5:17-19
From:
http://www.2think.org/10commandments.shtml
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
20 Mar 2005 04:17:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:43:27 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
If http://michaelnewdow.com wasn't enough proof, there is more that the
foundation of America and the U.S. Constitution even (yes, the document that
atheists claim is "godless") was influenced by the Bible.
Article 3, Section 3, paragraph 1 reads:
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No
Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Citation: http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
For Christians, this passage looks very familiar. Deuteronomy 17:6 reads,
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy
of death5 be put to death;93 [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not
be put to death.93
We also see our 3 branches of government FIRST in the scriptures. Isaiah
33:2 reads, "For the LORD [is] our judge,6 the LORD [is] our lawgiver,26 the
LORD [is] our king; he will save55 us.
Ten Commandments: Basis for American Law?
From Austin Cline,
Comparing American Law with the Ten Commandments
One of the arguments most frequently offered for the creation of Ten
Commandments plaques, monuments, or displays on government property is
that they are the foundation of American (or Western) law. Having the
Ten Commandments displayed is thus supposed to be a way of
acknowledging the roots of our laws and our government. But is this
really valid?
It is difficult to make any sort of case for the idea that the Ten
Commandments, taken as a whole, really constitute the basis for
American law. It’s obvious that some of the Commandments forbid
actions that are also forbidden in American law, but then again the
same parallels can be found in laws throughout the world. Are the Ten
Commandments the basis for Chinese law, merely because murder and
theft are forbidden in China?
Perhaps the problems with this claim will become more clear if we take
the Commandments individually and ask where in American law they are
expressed. We’ll use a pseudo-Protestant version of the Commandments
which is similar to the most popular listings found in public
displays.
One possible interpretation of the claim that the Ten Commandments are
the basis for American law is that "the law," as an abstract notion,
has its origins outside of humanity. Laws are ultimately based upon
commands stemming from God and are binding upon all people — including
kings, aristocrats, and other "higher" members of society.
Of course, it is obvious that this is a theological proposition. There
is nothing the least bit secular about this and the government has no
authority to endorse such a view. It is even arguably a sectarian
theological proposition because it singles out the Ten Commandments
for special treatment as coming from "outside humanity," a position
which traditional Jews would not accept because they regard the entire
Torah has having divine origins. If this is what people mean when they
say that the Ten Commandments are the basis for American law, then
it's an invalid reason for posting the commandments on government
property.
Another way of interpreting this position is to see the Ten
Commandments as a "moral" basis for the general legal order of the
West. In this interpretation the Ten Commandments are treated as moral
principles dictated by God and serving as the ethical foundation for
all laws, even if they can't be traced directly back to any specific
commandment. Thus, while most individual laws in America don't derive
directly from the Ten Commandments, "the law" as a whole does and this
deserves recognition.
This, too, is a theological proposition which the American government
has no authority endorsing or supporting. It may be true or it may
not, but it's not a subject on which the government can take sides. If
this is what people man when they say that the Ten Commandments are
the basis for American law, then posting them on government property
is still invalid. The only way to argue that "they are the basis for
American law" is a reason for posting the Ten Commandments on
government property is if there is a non-religious connection between
the two — preferably a legal connection. Thus, we need to look at
whether any commandments are reflected in American law today.
1. Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Beside Me: There definitely aren’t
any laws that forbid the worship of all but one god, much less the
specific god of the ancient Hebrews. In fact, American law in general
is silent on the existence of gods. Christians have inserted
references to their God in various places, for example the Pledge of
Allegiance and the National Motto, but for the most part the law
doesn’t insist that any gods exist - and who would want that to
change?
2. Thou Shalt Not Worship Any Graven Images: This Commandment has the
same basic legal problems as the first. There is nothing in American
law that even hints at the idea that there is something wrong with
worshipping “graven images.” If such a law existed it would infringe
upon the religious liberties of those whose religions include “graven
images” — which, according to some, would include Catholics and many
other Christian denominations.
3. Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of the Lord Thy God in Vain: As with
the first two Commandments, this is a purely religious requirement
that is not expressed in American law anymore. There was a time when
blasphemy was punished. If it were still possible to prosecute people
for blasphemy (a common, but not necessarily accurate, interpretation
of this Commandment), it would be an infringement on religious
liberty.
4. Remember the Sabbath Day to Rest and Keep it Holy: There was a time
in America when the laws mandated that shops close on the Christian
sabbath and people attend church. The latter provisions fell away
first and, over time, the former began to disappear as well. Today it
is difficult to find laws that enforce any sort of “sabbath rest” and
none that enforce keeping a sabbath “holy.” The reasons are obvious:
this is a religious matter which the government has no authority over.
5. Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother: This is a Commandment that is a
good idea in principle, but to which many good exceptions can be found
and which is completely impractical as a law. Not only are there no
laws specifically designed to require this, it would be difficult to
find any laws that express it as a principle even some remote sense.
A person who curses, ignores, or says bad things about their parents
breaks no laws.
6. Thou Shalt Not Murder: Finally, a Commandment that forbids
something that is also forbidden in American law — and we only had to
go through half of the Commandments to get to this point!
Unfortunately for Ten Commandments advocates, this is also something
forbidden in every known culture on the planet. Are all of these laws
based upon the Sixth Commandment?
7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery: Once upon a time, adultery was
illegal and could be punished by the state. Today that is no longer
the case. The absence of laws prohibiting adultery prevents anyone
from arguing that current American law is in any way based upon the
Seventh Commandment. Unlike other such Commandments, though, it would
be possible to change the laws to reflect this one. The question to
supporters of the Ten Commandments, then, is this: do they openly
advocate the criminalization of adultery and, if not, how does that
square with their insistence that the Ten Commandments be endorsed,
promoted, and displayed by the state?
8. Thou Shalt Not Steal: Here we come across just the second of ten
Commandments that forbids something also forbidden in American law —
and, as with the Sixth, this is also something forbidden in all other
cultures as well, including those that predate the Ten Commandments.
Are all laws against theft based upon the Eighth Commandment?
9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness: Whether this Commandment has any
parallels in American laws depends upon how one interprets it. If this
is simply a prohibition against lying in general, then it is not
expressed in American law. If, however, this is a prohibition against
lying in the course of court testimony, then it is true that American
law also forbids this. Then again, so do other cultures.
10. Thou Shalt Not Covet Anything That is Thy Neighbor's: As with
honoring one’s parents, a command to refrain from coveting may be a
reasonable principle (depending upon how it is applied) but that
doesn’t mean that it is something that can or should be enforced by
the law. There is nothing in American law that even comes close to
forbidding coveting.
Conclusion: Of the ten Commandments, only three have any parallels in
American law, so if anyone wanted to argue that the Commandments are
somehow the “basis” for our laws, these are the only three they have
to work with. Unfortunately, similar parallels exist with every other
culture and it’s not reasonable to say that the Ten Commandments are
the basis for all laws. There is simply no reason to think that the
people crafting American or British law sat down and prohibited theft
or murder merely because the Ten Commandments already did so.
A couple of the Commandments forbid things which were at one point
forbidden in American law, but are not anymore. If the Commandments
were the basis for those laws, they aren’t the basis for current laws,
and this means that the rationale for displaying them is gone.
Finally, it must be kept in mind that constitutional protections of
religious liberty are written in a manner that are practically
designed to break several Commandments. Thus, far from reflecting the
Ten Commandments, it is arguable that the principles of American law
are set up to break several of them and ignore most of the rest.
The article above is from:
http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/americanlaw.htm
From Austin Cline
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
20 Mar 2005 04:10:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:43:27 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
If http://michaelnewdow.com wasn't enough proof, there is more that the
foundation of America and the U.S. Constitution even (yes, the document that
atheists claim is "godless") was influenced by the Bible.
Article 3, Section 3, paragraph 1 reads:
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No
Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Citation: http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
For Christians, this passage looks very familiar. Deuteronomy 17:6 reads,
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy
of death5 be put to death;93 [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not
be put to death.93
We also see our 3 branches of government FIRST in the scriptures. Isaiah
33:2 reads, "For the LORD [is] our judge,6 the LORD [is] our lawgiver,26 the
LORD [is] our king; he will save55 us.
This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen
Our Godless Constitution
by BROOKE ALLEN
[from the February 21, 2005 issue]
It is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of
George Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian
precepts. The lesson the President has learned best--and certainly the
one that has been the most useful to him--is the axiom that if you
repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his
Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having
been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on
Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the
picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously
absent.
Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was
too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of
Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According
to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of
"foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But
as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot
anything important.
In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is
mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as
Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the
Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to
"the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men
being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More
blatant official references to a deity date from long after the
founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until
the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of
Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton,
"The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004].
In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship
between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of
Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli.
Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded
on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity
against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the
said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering
and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for
ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that
although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by
the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's
history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the
treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New
York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect
today.
The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to
erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between
church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained
by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would
"whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had
afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to
which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious
presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as
well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and
uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others,
setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true
and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath
established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of
the world and through all time."
If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of
Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding
Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas
Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists--that is, they believed in one
Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural
elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they
believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams was a professed
liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondence seems
more deist than Christian.
George Washington and James Madison also leaned toward deism,
although neither took much interest in religious matters. Madison
believed that "religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and
unfits it for every noble enterprize." He spoke of the "almost fifteen
centuries" during which Christianity had been on trial: "What have
been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in
the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both,
superstition, bigotry, and persecution." If Washington mentioned the
Almighty in a public address, as he occasionally did, he was careful
to refer to Him not as "God" but with some nondenominational moniker
like "Great Author" or "Almighty Being." It is interesting to note
that the Father of our Country spoke no words of a religious nature on
his deathbed, although fully aware that he was dying, and did not ask
for a man of God to be present; his last act was to take his own
pulse, the consummate gesture of a creature of the age of scientific
rationalism.
Tom Paine, a polemicist rather than a politician, could afford to be
perfectly honest about his religious beliefs, which were baldly deist
in the tradition of Voltaire: "I believe in one God, and no more; and
I hope for happiness beyond this life.... I do not believe in the
creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the
Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by
any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." This is how
he opened The Age of Reason, his virulent attack on Christianity. In
it he railed against the "obscene stories, the voluptuous
debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting
vindictiveness" of the Old Testament, "a history of wickedness, that
has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." The New Testament is
less brutalizing but more absurd, the story of Christ's divine genesis
a "fable, which for absurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by any
thing that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients." He held
the idea of the Resurrection in especial ridicule: Indeed, "the
wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told, exceeds
every thing that went before it." Paine was careful to contrast the
tortuous twists of theology with the pure clarity of deism. "The true
deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists in contemplating
the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in
endeavoring to imitate him in every thing moral, scientifical, and
mechanical."
Paine's rhetoric was so fervent that he was inevitably branded an
atheist. Men like Franklin, Adams and Jefferson could not risk being
tarred with that brush, and in fact Jefferson got into a good deal of
trouble for continuing his friendship with Paine and entertaining him
at Monticello. These statesmen had to be far more circumspect than the
turbulent Paine, yet if we examine their beliefs it is all but
impossible to see just how theirs differed from his.
Franklin was the oldest of the Founding Fathers. He was also the most
worldly and sophisticated, and was well aware of the Machiavellian
principle that if one aspires to influence the masses, one must at
least profess religious sentiments. By his own definition he was a
deist, although one French acquaintance claimed that "our
free-thinkers have adroitly sounded him on his religion, and they
maintain that they have discovered he is one of their own, that is
that he has none at all." If he did have a religion, it was strictly
utilitarian: As his biographer Gordon Wood has said, "He praised
religion for whatever moral effects it had, but for little else."
Divine revelation, Franklin freely admitted, had "no weight with me,"
and the covenant of grace seemed "unintelligible" and "not
beneficial." As for the pious hypocrites who have ever controlled
nations, "A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole
country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law"--a
comment we should carefully consider at this turning point in the
history of our Republic.
Here is Franklin's considered summary of his own beliefs, in response
to a query by Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale. He wrote it just six
weeks before his death at the age of 84.
"Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the universe.
That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.
That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his
other children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated
with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I
take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard
them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As for Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire,
I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us,
the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it
has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the
present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though
it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and
think it needless to busy myself with now, when I expect soon an
opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm,
however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good
consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines more
respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that
the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his
government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure."
Jefferson thoroughly agreed with Franklin on the corruptions the
teachings of Jesus had undergone. "The metaphysical abstractions of
Athanasius, and the maniacal ravings of Calvin, tinctured plentifully
with the foggy dreams of Plato, have so loaded [Christianity] with
absurdities and incomprehensibilities" that it was almost impossible
to recapture "its native simplicity and purity." Like Paine, Jefferson
felt that the miracles claimed by the New Testament put an intolerable
strain on credulity. "The day will come," he predicted (wrongly, so
far), "when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as
his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of
the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." The Revelation of
St. John he dismissed as "the ravings of a maniac."
Jefferson edited his own version of the New Testament, "The Life and
Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," in which he carefully deleted all the
miraculous passages from the works of the Evangelists. He intended it,
he said, as "a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is
to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." This was clearly a
defense against his many enemies, who hoped to blacken his reputation
by comparing him with the vile atheist Paine. His biographer Joseph
Ellis is undoubtedly correct, though, in seeing disingenuousness here:
"If [Jefferson] had been completely scrupulous, he would have
described himself as a deist who admired the ethical teachings of
Jesus as a man rather than as the son of God. (In modern-day parlance,
he was a secular humanist.)" In short, not a Christian at all.
The three accomplishments Jefferson was proudest of--those that he
requested be put on his tombstone--were the founding of the University
of Virginia and the authorship of the Declaration of Independence and
the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The latter was a truly
radical document that would eventually influence the separation of
church and state in the US Constitution; when it was passed by the
Virginia legislature in 1786, Jefferson rejoiced that there was
finally "freedom for the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the
Mohammeden, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination"--note his
respect, still unusual today, for the sensibilities of the "infidel."
The University of Virginia was notable among early-American seats of
higher education in that it had no religious affiliation whatever.
Jefferson even banned the teaching of theology at the school.
If we were to speak of Jefferson in modern political categories, we
would have to admit that he was a pure libertarian, in religious as in
other matters. His real commitment (or lack thereof) to the teachings
of Jesus Christ is plain from a famous throwaway comment he made: "It
does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no
god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." This raised plenty
of hackles when it got about, and Jefferson had to go to some pains to
restore his reputation as a good Christian. But one can only conclude,
with Ellis, that he was no Christian at all.
John Adams, though no more religious than Jefferson, had inherited
the fatalistic mindset of the Puritan culture in which he had grown
up. He personally endorsed the Enlightenment commitment to Reason but
did not share Jefferson's optimism about its future, writing to him,
"I wish that Superstition in Religion exciting Superstition in
Polliticks...may never blow up all your benevolent and phylanthropic
Lucubrations," but that "the History of all Ages is against you." As
an old man he observed, "Twenty times in the course of my late reading
have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of
all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!'" Speaking ex
cathedra, as a relic of the founding generation, he expressed his
admiration for the Roman system whereby every man could worship whom,
what and how he pleased. When his young listeners objected that this
was paganism, Adams replied that it was indeed, and laughed.
In their fascinating and eloquent valetudinarian correspondence,
Adams and Jefferson had a great deal to say about religion. Pressed by
Jefferson to define his personal creed, Adams replied that it was
"contained in four short words, 'Be just and good.'" Jefferson
replied, "The result of our fifty or sixty years of religious reading,
in the four words, 'Be just and good,' is that in which all our
inquiries must end; as the riddles of all priesthoods end in four
more, 'ubi panis, ibi deus.' What all agree in, is probably right.
What no two agree in, most probably wrong."
This was a clear reference to Voltaire's Reflections on Religion. As
Voltaire put it:
There are no sects in geometry. One does not speak of a Euclidean, an
Archimedean. When the truth is evident, it is impossible for parties
and factions to arise.... Well, to what dogma do all minds agree? To
the worship of a God, and to honesty. All the philosophers of the
world who have had a religion have said in all ages: "There is a God,
and one must be just." There, then, is the universal religion
established in all ages and throughout mankind. The point in which
they all agree is therefore true, and the systems through which they
differ are therefore false.
Of course all these men knew, as all modern presidential candidates
know, that to admit to theological skepticism is political suicide.
During Jefferson's presidency a friend observed him on his way to
church, carrying a large prayer book. "You going to church, Mr. J,"
remarked the friend. "You do not believe a word in it." Jefferson
didn't exactly deny the charge. "Sir," he replied, "no nation has ever
yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The
Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and
I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction
of my example. Good morning Sir."
Like Jefferson, every recent President has understood the necessity
of at least paying lip service to the piety of most American voters.
All of our leaders, Democrat and Republican, have attended church, and
have made very sure they are seen to do so. But there is a difference
between offering this gesture of respect for majority beliefs and
manipulating and pandering to the bigotry, prejudice and millennial
fantasies of Christian extremists. Though for public consumption the
Founding Fathers identified themselves as Christians, they were, at
least by today's standards, remarkably honest about their misgivings
when it came to theological doctrine, and religion in general came
very low on the list of their concerns and priorities--always
excepting, that is, their determination to keep the new nation free
from bondage to its rule.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "David D. aa#2219 thanks to Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
20 Mar 2005 04:21:28 PM |
|
|
LP wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:43:27 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
If http://michaelnewdow.com wasn't enough proof, there is more
that the foundation of America and the U.S. Constitution even
(yes, the document that atheists claim is "godless") was influenced
by the Bible.
<Snip>
This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen
Our Godless Constitution
by BROOKE ALLEN
<Snip article>
Interesting, but this cannot be true. It seems to go against
everything that is written on Gods web... sorry, i mean,
Jason's web site. Why shouldn't we trust Jason's web site?
I've heard from his own mouth that he is a great scholar.
David D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
20 Mar 2005 05:30:53 PM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1111357288.452457.59030@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, David D. aa#2219
thanks to Gastrich pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare
proclaimed:
LP wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:43:27 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
If http://michaelnewdow.com wasn't enough proof, there is more that the
foundation of America and the U.S. Constitution even (yes, the document
that atheists claim is "godless") was influenced by the Bible.
<Snip>
This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen
Our Godless Constitution
by BROOKE ALLEN
<Snip article>
Interesting, but this cannot be true. It seems to go against everything
that is written on Gods web... sorry, i mean, Jason's web site. Why
shouldn't we trust Jason's web site? I've heard from his own mouth that he
is a great scholar.
Just a scholar? Didn't you know? He is The Way. If you affirm his website,
you shall be saved!
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
| User: "David D. aa#2219 thanks to Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
20 Mar 2005 11:25:18 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode
<1111357288.452457.59030@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, David D.
aa#2219
thanks to Gastrich pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare
proclaimed:
LP wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:43:27 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
If http://michaelnewdow.com wasn't enough proof, there is more
that the
foundation of America and the U.S. Constitution even (yes, the
document
that atheists claim is "godless") was influenced by the Bible.
<Snip>
This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen
Our Godless Constitution
by BROOKE ALLEN
<Snip article>
Interesting, but this cannot be true. It seems to go against
everything
that is written on Gods web... sorry, i mean, Jason's web site.
Why
shouldn't we trust Jason's web site? I've heard from his own mouth
that he
is a great scholar.
Just a scholar? Didn't you know? He is The Way. If you affirm his
website,
you shall be saved!
The Way to Lucifer? I swear if he came to tempt Christians it would be
in the form of someone like Gastrich.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
21 Mar 2005 04:28:21 AM |
|
|
On 20 Mar 2005 14:21:28 -0800, "David D. aa#2219 thanks to Gastrich"
<daycd@hotmail.com> wrote:
LP wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:43:27 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
If http://michaelnewdow.com wasn't enough proof, there is more
that the foundation of America and the U.S. Constitution even
(yes, the document that atheists claim is "godless") was influenced
by the Bible.
<Snip>
This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen
Our Godless Constitution
by BROOKE ALLEN
<Snip article>
Interesting, but this cannot be true. It seems to go against
everything that is written on Gods web... sorry, i mean,
Jason's web site. Why shouldn't we trust Jason's web site?
I've heard from his own mouth that he is a great scholar.
I couldn't agree more. A primary scholar, of course.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
20 Mar 2005 01:52:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:43:27 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jason, I somehow doubt this is really you.
If http://michaelnewdow.com wasn't enough proof, there is more that the
foundation of America and the U.S. Constitution even (yes, the document that
atheists claim is "godless") was influenced by the Bible.
Article 3, Section 3, paragraph 1 reads:
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No
Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Citation: http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
For Christians, this passage looks very familiar. Deuteronomy 17:6 reads,
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy
of death5 be put to death;93 [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not
be put to death.93
We also see our 3 branches of government FIRST in the scriptures. Isaiah
33:2 reads, "For the LORD [is] our judge,6 the LORD [is] our lawgiver,26 the
LORD [is] our king; he will save55 us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
20 Mar 2005 08:56:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:52:38 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
For Christians, this passage looks very familiar. Deuteronomy 17:6 reads,
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy
of death5 be put to death;93 [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not
be put to death.93
Muslim Shari'a law also requires two witnesses to convict a person of
a capital crime. Your point was?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
21 Mar 2005 04:52:39 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:56:11 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:52:38 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
For Christians, this passage looks very familiar. Deuteronomy 17:6 reads,
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy
of death5 be put to death;93 [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not
be put to death.93
Muslim Shari'a law also requires two witnesses to convict a person of
a capital crime. Your point was?
That the US constitution was based on the shari'a?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Undeniable Proof: The U.S. is Founded on Biblical Principles |
21 Mar 2005 05:09:27 AM |
|
|
Slavery? Check.
Oppresion of natives already in the land? Check.
Killing of people of different faiths? Check.
Yep, the settlement of North America was indeed founded on biblical
principles!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
