Is the Declaration of Independence Unconstitutional?

[XZeroII]

Basically, the people who wrote it decided that it was God who endowed us with these basic principles (life, liberty and persuit of happiness), so that is why God is mentioned. If you don't believe in God, then you are not entitled to these principles

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: Ramsnake
Now repeat after me


Declaration of Independence is a Historical Document whereas Pledge Of Alleg. is an Oath Doesnt Matter if the DOI had god in it or not

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a legally-binding oath.

Then what's the purpose of saying it?

It's a symbol of your oath to your country (idiot)

 

[Ramsnake]

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a legally-binding oath.

it isnt , but then we are talking abt cases where young impressionable minds can be conditioned to believe that there is god. some people can reverse the process if they feel otherwise when then become adults , some people cannot and will be confused for life.

 

[BreakApart]

The first and last sentences of the Declaration of Independence mention God.

Have you read the Constitution?
Where does it say you can't mention God? Please show me that part....

What it DOES say is: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Mentioning God is CLEARLY the free exercise of religion. We all have that right, regardless how others feel about it.

What the Constitution clearly says is: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion"

This means they may NOT mandate a state sponsored religion through law. Which has NEVER happened in the U.S. or I'd be standing next to Red Dawn denoucing such a clear violation of the Constitution.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: Ramsnake

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a legally-binding oath.

it isnt , but then we are talking abt cases where young impressionable minds can be conditioned to believe that there is god. some people can reverse the process if they feel otherwise when then become adults , some people cannot and will be confused for life.

So should it just not be recited in elementary schools?

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: BreakApart

The first and last sentences of the Declaration of Independence mention God.

Have you read the Constitution?
Where does it say you can't mention God? Please show me that part....

What it DOES say is: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Mentioning God is CLEARLY the free exercise of religion. We all have that right, regardless how others feel about it.

What the Constitution clearly says is: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion"

This means they may NOT mandate a state sponsored religion through law. Which has NEVER happened in the U.S. or I'd be standing next to Red Dawn denoucing such a clear violation of the Constitution.

Chill out, man. I'm on your side.

 

[Ramsnake]

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: Ramsnake

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a legally-binding oath.

it isnt , but then we are talking abt cases where young impressionable minds can be conditioned to believe that there is god. some people can reverse the process if they feel otherwise when then become adults , some people cannot and will be confused for life.

So should it just not be recited in elementary schools?

nope it should not be recited anywhere, why the double standards.... surely there will be adults who dont wanna pledge their allegiance to god. do u need to believe in god to pledge your allegiance to the us?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
the US Constitution has this phrase near the end

by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

so who is this "Lord" that is mentioned? is this the same "God" that must be excluded from the Pledge? or somebody else?

We've been through all these arguments in the original thread.

"Year of our Lord" was a way to say AD in those days. It's meaningless other than tradition, and has no bearing on the contents of the Constitution.

 

[vash]

If we were all so strong on the seperation of Church and state, we'd have numerous laws thrown out for many reasons. I say, for the Declaration, we make it the pre-1954 version where it doesn't mention "under God". That'll solve one aspect of the division between church and state.

How about other aspects of the laws in the US? Marriage, is recognized by both religion and by the state, but on the state side, why not prenuptuals as a mandatory thing? Why not? Marriage somewhat crosses the lines of "state" and "religion" recognized, so why not protect the people from the "state" portion.

Also, abortion. Why isn't abortion legal in all fifty states? A handful of the states that have it outlawed are the "bible" belt states that condone killing of any human being. In the other states where it is legal, it is legal because its the woman's choice to carry the fetus to the full term.

I'm sure there are plenty of other situations where our laws certainly draw from religious backgrounds and religious majorities in states/cities, so if we really wanted the seperation between church and state, we should look into some specific laws and throw them out because they really are too biased towards religon. I'm not saying all laws that conflict should be thrown out, but I'm willing bet dollars to donuts we could throw out many, many laws in this reguards.

vash

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: klee58
Hmm perhaps our year dating system is unconstitutional since all our dates are based on the historic birth of Christ.

there you go , all calendar's are unconstitutional and discriminatory

i'll sue to get all the calendar's removed from all public places, all government buildings

 

[Random Variable]

"Year of our Lord" was a way to say AD in those days. It's meaningless other than tradition, and has no bearing on the contents of the Constitution.

That's circuitous reasoning because "anno domini" literally means "in the year of our lord."

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vespasian

"Year of our Lord" was a way to say AD in those days. It's meaningless other than tradition, and has no bearing on the contents of the Constitution.

That's circuitous reasoning because "anno domini" literally means "in the year of our lord."

Yes, it does. And it's tradition more than anything else. No one would consider a document to be religious in nature today if AD is used. So why assume the Constitution is simply because they fell back on tradition when dating it?

 

[xospec1alk]

To me, it has nothing to do with it not including other religions, it has to do with including religion at all. My pledge to this country should have nothing to do with my religion.

i agree

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Vespasian

"Year of our Lord" was a way to say AD in those days. It's meaningless other than tradition, and has no bearing on the contents of the Constitution.

That's circuitous reasoning because "anno domini" literally means "in the year of our lord."

Yes, it does. And it's tradition more than anything else. No one would consider a document to be religious in nature today if AD is used. So why assume the Constitution is simply because they fell back on tradition when dating it?

Are you telling me that the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional, but the phrase "anno domini," which makes a direct reference to Jesus, is constitutional?

 

[IJump]

Just a note:

The words "under God" were not in the original pledge

History of the Pledge

"In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer."

Think that is just one site, Yahoo Search......

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Vespasian

"Year of our Lord" was a way to say AD in those days. It's meaningless other than tradition, and has no bearing on the contents of the Constitution.

That's circuitous reasoning because "anno domini" literally means "in the year of our lord."

Yes, it does. And it's tradition more than anything else. No one would consider a document to be religious in nature today if AD is used. So why assume the Constitution is simply because they fell back on tradition when dating it?

Are you telling me that the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional, but the phrase "anno domini," which makes a direct reference to Jesus, is constitutional?

Hey now, one thing at a time. Our entire dating system is a sticky business because the whole scheme is based on Christianity.

 

[Ramsnake]

Amusedone : noticed ur signature...are u a hardcore subscriber of the ayn rand philosophy....or the just the parts that appeal to you

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ramsnake
Amusedone : noticed ur signature...are u a hardcore subscriber of the ayn rand philosophy....or the just the parts that appeal to you

I agree with much of her philosophy. Why?

 

[JoeBaD]

Here we go again.

The same separation Bullshait.

Don't you tire or have anything else to do.

It must both you something terrible.

Pity you.

(JoeBaD wipes away another tear)

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JoeBaD
Here we go again.

The same separation Bullshait.

Don't you tire or have anything else to do.

It must both you something terrible.

Pity you.

(JoeBaD wipes away another tear)

So you're claiming Madison and Jefferson were full of sh!t when using the term "separation of church and state" to describe the First Amendment? Wow.

 

[Ramsnake]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Ramsnake
Amusedone : noticed ur signature...are u a hardcore subscriber of the ayn rand philosophy....or the just the parts that appeal to you

I agree with much of her philosophy. Why?

nothing really...ive read a lot of your posts on this topic and mostly i seem to be in total agreement with your views and then i see this little quote of ayn rand in ur signature...was just tryin to see a link between the ayn rand philosophy and your reasoning cos im not a very big fan of her philosophy, but then there are a lot of good things in her philosophy too, atlas shrugged was a decent book whereas in the other Howard Roark is a moron and a jerk. i bet you u would have read Nietzsche.

 

[JoeBaD]

Ah, you said it yourself: separation of CHURCH and State.

Not separation of Faith and Government.

They strongly believed in the gov't not establishing an official religion not that gov't should be faithless.

It has only been though the succession of misguided court decisions that that intent has been corrupted.

 

[Ramsnake]

Ah, you said it yourself: separation of CHURCH and State.

Not separation of Faith and Government.

They strongly believed in the gov't not establishing an official religion not that gov't should be faithless.

i dont see the difference?

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: JoeBaD
Ah, you said it yourself: separation of CHURCH and State.

Not separation of Faith and Government.

They strongly believed in the gov't not establishing an official religion not that gov't should be faithless.

It has only been though the succession of misguided court decisions that that intent has been corrupted.

I totally agree with you. There is a difference between faith/spirituality and organized religion.

 

[IJump]

Originally posted by: Ramsnake

Ah, you said it yourself: separation of CHURCH and State.

Not separation of Faith and Government.

They strongly believed in the gov't not establishing an official religion not that gov't should be faithless.

i dont see the difference?

Seperation of Church and state is not the total abscence of all religious ideas or references in government. It is that the government can not dictate to the population what to believe or what religion to practice.