"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|The Constitution doesn't mention God. However, since it is perfectly
:|acceptable to use Jefferson's "wall of separation" to paraphrase the
:|Court's unconstitutional interpretation of the establishment clause
:|then surely Jefferson's DOI can be used to justify the idea that, for
:|all practical purposes, God is referenced by the Constitution.
Apr 26 2004, 11:38 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.education, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism,
alt.religion.christianity
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:38:23 -0400
Local: Mon, Apr 26 2004 11:38 am
Subject: Re: Don't de-Word the Pledge
"Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
:|< > wrote in message
:|news:l9ao80h2ko0koa1a2ng557055gjgb9egdp@4ax.com...
:|> "Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|"Gray Shockley" <gray-...@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
:|> >:|news:qMqdndDZLsrnlhHdRVn-sA@giganews.com...
:|> >:|> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:05:55 -0500, Martin McPhillips wrote
:|> >:|> (in article <7BPic.64275$WA4.33...@twister.nyc.rr.com>):
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> > Recognizing God in the Pledge does not establish
:|> >:|> > a religion or religion in general. It does refer, in
:|> >:|> > general, to the God referenced as God, Creator,
:|> >:|> > Supreme Judge of the World, and Divine Providence in
:|> >:|> > the Declaration of Independence, the founding document
:|> >:|> > of the United States.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> And the "founding document", the Declaration of Independence
:|was
:|> >:|written in
:|> >:|> 1776; the Consitution for and of the United States of America's
:|> >:|First
:|> >:|> Amendment - which, unlike the Declaration of Independence is
:|law not
:|> >:|an
:|> >:|> historical document, was ratified in late 1791.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|So what? The Declaration of Independence established
:|> >:|the sovereignty of the United States as a political union
:|> >:|for which the Constitution aimed to "form a more perfect
:|> >:|union." The Declaration created the political society for
:|> >:|which the Constitution was written.
:|>
:|> Nope
:|>
:|> You can't get anymore religious right than these folks and they
:|disagree
:|> with you:
:|
:|Being or "get[ting] anymore religious" anything doesn't have
:|anything to do with the historical fact that the Declaration
:|of Independence created the political society for which
:|the Constitution was written.
Actually it didn't as you have been shown over and over by both primary
source and secondary source information by a number of sources and
presented to you by a number of posters.
However, like most trolls you keep running your broken record.
For me, your entertainment value lasts a couple days, but sometimes such as
this time it gives me the opportunity to present some new information or
old information in new ways or both
Now, back to that which discredited your original comment that I replied
to:
You had failed to address any of this. In case you just snipped it without
reading it, it disagreed with you with reasons given.
One of the items is over 100 years old.
:|So what? The Declaration of Independence established
:|the sovereignty of the United States as a political union
:|for which the Constitution aimed to "form a more perfect
:|union." The Declaration created the political society for
:|which the Constitution was written.
Nope
You can't get anymore religious right than these folks and they disagree
with you:
**************************************************
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/natrnew.html
The Christian Statesman POBox 8741-WP Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15221
Declaration of Independence and National Renewal by William
Einwechter
**************************************************
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/decaslaw.html
The Christian Statesman
POBox 8741-WP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15221
Declaration of Independence as Moral and
Constitutional Law: Whatever Happened
to the Bible?
**************************************************
OBJECTIONS ADMITTING THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED,
BUT URGED AGAINST THE EXPEDIENCY OF
THE MOVEMENT.
Objection 1. The Constitution already acknowledges God.
The objector says, substantially: "The proposed amendment is
just and proper, but it is unnecessary. God and Christianity are now
acknowledged in the fundamental law of the nation." And what is the proof
of such acknowledgment? The word oath, a passing reference to the Christian
Sabbath in the clause, "Sundays excepted," making th'~ Sabbath a dies non
in the reckoning of days during which the Resident may retain a bill for
approval, the mention of the common law, and the formula of date. These are
all. They hardly require notice. It may be said in brief, however, that the
mention of the Sabbath is simply an incidental allusion, an evidence,
indeed, that there was a Sabbath known; but it is no acknowledgment of the
obligation of the Sabbath. The dating again is no part of the instrument.
It merely marks the time. And more than all else, the name of God was
excluded from the form of the President's oath, incorporated in the
Constitution. Can these features of the Constitution, with a mention of the
common law, be regarded as an adequate acknowledgment of the nation's
subjection to God and his government? It is now almost universally admitted
that they are not religious acknowledgments at all. So completely devoid is
our Constitution of any religious character that multitudes of both
infidels and Christians agree in stating that it is no more Christian than
Mohammedan. As Ex-President Woolsey declared in his paper read before the
Evangelical Alliance, it needs no change to adapt it to a Mohammedan
nation. Admiring, as we do, the many ex eN lencies of our Constitution, we
are constrained to admit this sad defect. If it is still claimed that an
acknowledgment of God and Chris-
3
tianity is in the Constitution, it must also be admitted that such an
acknowledgment, now dimly there at best, should be made so clear and
explicit that no room may be left for doubt. What is there rightfully ought
to be there indisputably.*
_______________________
* For another remark In this connectian, see last page
[the following is the last page referenced]
Since the foregoing pages were stereoyped the First Objection
has been brought to our notice in another form by an eminent citizen of New
England. He says "The Declaration of Independence is really the, full
Preamble of the Constitution. It sets forth sentiments and principles; the
Constitution follows it with rules and regulations. That document, at the
outset, declares it to be a self-evident truth that all men are created
equal and endouved by their Creator with all their rights; and closes with
an appeal 'to the Supreme Judge of the World.'"
We are fully sensible of the value of these expressions in the
Declaration. They prove that the nation then owned her allegiance to God.
They vindicate her right, now strenuously denied, to acknoxvledge God in
public documents. They show that what we propose is consistent with the
spirit and exantple of our fathers, in the noblest passages of our history.
But we must clearly distinguish betwcen these two documents. The
Declaration is not part of the written Constitution. Its value is
historical rather than legal. It is a deed of the nation which has passed
into history; the Constitution, as a law, is an ever-present act of the
nation's will.. The argument which is drawn from the silence of the
Constitution concerning God and Religiou against all Christian features of
our government as contrary to " our political covenant," nut covered by the
bond, cannot be adequately met by an appeal in the Declaration of 1776.
SOURCE: The Christian Statesman Tracts No. 6, ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS to the
RELIGIOUS AMENDMENT of the UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.BY THE REV. D. M'ALLISTER. (1874}
**************************************************
A Big Fuss Over Nothing
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bigfuss.htm
**************************************************
AND FOR GOOD MEASURE"
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The constitutional and legal status of the Declaration of Independence is
curiously ambiguous.
John Hancock (in his capacity as president of the Second Continental
Congress) and James Madison both considered it to be, in Madison's words,
"the fundamental Act of Union of these States."
Reflecting that view, Congress has placed it at the head of the United
States Code, under the caption, "The Organic Laws of the United States of
America."
The Supreme Court has INFREQUENTLY accorded it binding legal force, for
example, in resolving questions of alienage (Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's
Snug Harbour, 1830).
YET LAWYERS GENERALLY, AND THE SUPREME COURT IN PARTICULAR,
HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO TREAT THE DECLARATION AS PART OF AMERICAN
ORGANIC LAW, OR EVEN TO ACCORD IT THE RESTRICTED STATUS OF THE PREAMBLE TO
THE CONSTITUTION.
Conservatives like Daniel Webster denied that there is a constitutionally
recognized right of revolution, and those state supreme courts that have
addressed the issue in the twentieth century have adopted Webster's view.
Reformers, such as antebellum abolitionists, insisted that the Declaration
was part of the constitutional order, while their opponents, including John
C. Calhoun, denigrated its authority and validity.
The adoption of the 'Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments allayed the
urgency of that question by incorporating concepts of equality, freedom,
and citizenship into the operative constitutional text.
SOURCE: The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States,
Kermit Hall, editor (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 223,
**************************************************
Of course, he's right. There's no mention of God, the Creator, the
Almighty or any higher being that I can find in the Constitution.
And since he was so adamant on this point, to be fair to all who
choose to strike the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, I
mention the lack of its existence in the Constitution here.
Ah, excellent! Advanced reading skills.
However, sadly, JILL KAISER DION does not mention that the Pledge
of Allegiance to which s/he is referring has been through a
"revisionist" process itself and has been changed to a document -
said document formerly a "patriotic" pledge or oath to our country
- to an endorsement of a god being on top of the United States.
However, whether or not the U.S. Constitution evokes the name of a
higher being does not quiet the argument that declaring the phrase "under God"
unconstitutional might lead to the unraveling of our founding documents.
Now, before we go any further, let's examine "The Rule of the
Exploded Middle" (aka Shockley's 11th Rule). To wit:
If "A" equals "B";
And "D" equals "F";
Then "M" equals "X".
Let us start off with undisputed facts (if any thinks that one or
more is disputed, that can be done in another message).
"The Declaration of Independence": a "founding document" because
General Geo Washington was told by Chuck Cornwallis, "Me go home
now". If Geo Washington had sent a white handkerchief to Chuck,
more than likely the Declaration of Independence would have only
the status of a British document of a list of folks who were
executed for Treason to the Crown.
The Constitution for and of The United States of America. A
historical document legalized by time and actions as the purpose of
the meeting was to update The Articles of Confederation rather than
to write a constitution.
The Bill of Rights: The early amendments to the Constitution. [Ten
out of twelve ain't bad.] Close enough to "founding documents" to
be considered one.
Status: Declaratiion of Independence: historical
Status: Articles of Confederation: historical
Status: Constitution without Amendments: historical
Status: Constitution: legal and binding with all active amendments
as part of The Constitution.
But
Alas but would the ability to read contain within it the ability to
think clearly and rationally.
Is the "Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag" a founding document? (No)
Did the Pledge of Allegiance - historically contain any references
to The Big Guy® contain any references to - as JILL KAISER DION
stated -
Even if it, once, had been, its wording has been changed, and it is
no longer "historical" to any great extent because revisionists
have changed it.
Now this JILL KAISER DION person/thingie is using the revisionist
Pledge to suggest that actual historic documents could be changed (
theme music from "The Twilight Zone" slowly getting louder) because
It was modified by the federal government to change its original
form.
Certainly, it is nowhere one of the "founding documents" - but is a
"pledge", an "oath" which is repeated daily by many people.
From: Gray Shockley <grayshockley
****************************************************************************
"The second of these reasons is, 'the sinful character of our
nation'. Notwithstanding the prevalence of Religion, which I have
described, the irreligion, and the wickedness, of our land are such, as to
furnish a most painful and melancholy prospect to a serious mind. We formed
our Constitution without any acknowledgement of GOD; without any
recognition of his mercies to us, as a people, of his government, or even
of his existence. The Convention, by which it was formed, never asked, even
once, his direction, or his blessing upon their labours. Thus we commenced
our national existence under the present system, without GOD. I wish I
could say, that a disposition to render him the reverence, 'due to his'
great 'Name', and the gratitude, demanded by his innumerable mercies,
had been more public, visible, uniform, and fervent."
"At the same time I have no hesitation to say, that 'the eagerness, with
which public offices are hunted for', and the sacrifices of principle and
conscience, which, as we have but too much reason to believe, are made, in
order to acquire them, constitute a great and dreadful sin; and are a deep
brand upon the moral character
of our country...."
The quote is from "A discourse in two parts : delivered July 23, 1812, on
the public fast, in the chapel of Yale College / by Timothy Dwight..." ( I
also note that he is Timothy Dwight, D.D.L.L.D., President of that
Seminary; Published at the request of the students, and others; New Haven
Published by Howe and Deforest; Sold also by A.T. Goodrich and Co. No,
124, Broadway, New-York; Printed by J.Seymour, 49, John-street, New-York)
**************************************************
The Declaration of Independence didn't especially have any
great importance in its own time
How the word [about the DOI ] went out is one story; what
became of the Declaration afterward is another, more complex and of
continuing significance. The Declaration was at first forgotten almost
entirely, then recalled and celebrated by Jeffersonian Republicans, and
later elevated into something akin to holy writ, which made it a prize
worth capturing on behalf of one cause after another. The politics that
attended its creation never entirely left its side, such that the
Declaration of Independence, which became a powerful statement of national
identity, has also been at the center of some of the most intense conflicts
in American history, including that over slavery which threatened the
nation itself. In the course of those controversies, the document assumed a
function altogether different from that of 1776: it became not a
justification of revolution, but a moral standard by which the day-today
policies and practices of the nation could be judged.
The Declaration of Independence was in some ways the most
unlikely of all documents to play such a role, one whose work was
essentially done once it had successfully announced and justified
Congress's decision to break with Britain and begin a new nation. Moreover,
its assertion that "all men are created equal," which became a prominent
part of the document's moral message, had originally referred to men in a
state of nature, that is, before government existed. . .
SOURCE: American Scripture, Making the Declaration of Independence, July 4,
1776. Pauline Mailer Vintage books, (July 1998) pp. 154-55) [Emphasis
added]
*****************************************************************************
* Declaration of Independence: Its Purpose
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doipurp.htm
* Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
"Creator"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
* Lincoln's reinventing of the Declaration of Independence
* The United States Supreme Court and the Declaration of Independence
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doisussc.htm
* An analysis of the Declaration of Independence
o Declaration of Independence: Preamble
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doi-pream.htm
o Declaration of Independence is not law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doinotlaw.htm
o The Declaration of Independence Didn't Create Independence,
Didn't "Found" Anything, Didn't Separate Anything: It Was an Explanation
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doiexplain.htm
.
|
