Baldimo, the freedoms offered "as part of the American way of life" had nothing to do with Judeo/Christian philosophy.
The constitutional guarantees in America were part of a natural evolution which began with the Magna Carta in 1215 when King John of England guaranteed certain liberties to the free men of his kingdom. In 1628 the English Parliament drew up a Petition of Right restating the "rights and liberties of the subjects" and the rights were further extended in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. John Locke's writings on the nature of government in the late 1600s further expanded the idea of the rights of freeborn men. Finally, the Enlightenment, a philosphical movement in 18th century Europe, put forth the notion that reason, and not religious inspiration, should guide human affairs. Enlightenment writers, who strongly influenced the Founding Fathers, offered political analysis of the conditions most favorable for liberty, and Rousseau, in particular, argued that all government rested on a social contract (rather than on the Bible) and that "the people" determined everything. Rousseau insisted on complete equality between men.
The combined influences of English parlimentary law and the Enlightenment found expression in the new country of America precisely because it was founded on a complete break with monarchy. That allowed a break with religious tradition and the subsequent expansion of notions of liberty and rights.
The Founding Fathers were not operating in a vacuum. They were very much influenced by the philosophical principles of the Enlightenment regarding liberty, and by the evolving notions of rights which came from English law. They were not using Judeo/Christian beliefs as their frame of reference in forming a new government.
It is very significant that no reference to God appears in the U.S. Constitution. This was not an oversight. It reflected a definite orientation toward the nature of government as a secular entity.
America was not founded on Judeo/Christian philosophical principals, or founded to reflect Christian values, and there is no evidence to support the idea that that was the case.
I find conventions, such the motto on money, far less convincing than the magnificant document which is the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution, the foundation of our laws, makes no references to God. And that was by the specific design of our Founding Fathers.
It is rather interesting that we decry the religiously based laws and governments of the Moslem world, and see these as affronts to a notion of true democracy, yet so many vehement American Christians want symbols of their beliefs promoted and supported by the decidedly secular government which was our Founding Fathers vision. It is unfortunate that these zealous individuals do not understand that it was the secularization of government which allowed the goals of individual liberty and rights to be realized.
While the COnstitution is the law of the land, it was the Declaration of Independence that set our nation free and created our nation. It is in this document that God is mentioned.
The US was founded on the belief of freedoms. Religious freedom was one of the major tenets that the founders really wanted to impress upon the future of the country. Far too many escaped to the US to escape religious persecution to have their new country become a replica of what they left.
Now, with that being said, the majority, if not all of the major players in the US revolution had christian upbringings and were taught christian beliefs and morals, etc. To say that this background has nothing to do with the origination of the US would be foolhardy at best. To ignore ones upbringing and core beliefs when creating new laws and a new country would be impossible.
Ok, then, that was all over the place, but I am tired. Translate that the best you can.
Baldimo, The Declaration Of Independence makes very brief and passing reference to a "Creator" and to "Nature's god". But, more importantly, the term Creator was used to underscore the notion of inherent rights--rights which an individual has by virtue of simply existing--and this line of thought comes directly from the writings of Enlightenment philosophers, and not from the Bible. The Declaration neither set our country free, nor did it create our country. We had to fight a long bloody revolution to accomplish the first goal, and hold a sometimes very contentious Constitutional Convention to accomplish the second goal. Furthermore, the Declaration Of Independence was a declaration of war. It was not, and is not, the primary governing document of the United States.
McGentrix, while I am sure that the core personal beliefs, about religion as well as other matters, influenced the thinking of our Founding Fathers, there is nothing to suggest you can find evidence of their religious beliefs in the U.S. Constitution.
They didn't suddenly create the Constitution out of thin air. These men were well schooled in English law and they were also well aware of the philosophical debates in the Europe of their time regarding issues such as religion vs science, the role and function of government, individual liberty, and the rights to which free men are entitled. It was this philosophical and legal background, and not their personal religious beliefs, which they drew upon to draft the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were truly enlightened men, in a way that went far beyond any sort of religious illumination. And the Constitution they created was a purposefully secular document.
I think there is considerable confusion being expressed regarding what a culture's values are, as represented by the majority of people in their personal lives, and what a nation's governing values are, as represented in a Constitution which determines the laws of that land. Some people here seem to be talking about the former and not the latter. It is best not to confuse the two.
As a nation, unified by a government, we are bound by a Constitution, and not by any prevailing religious beliefs. That was true immediately after the American Revolution, and it is just as true now. Religious freedom, and freedom from religion, found an equal home in America.
Our principles, as a nation, come from the Constitution, and from nowhere else. Those principles are secular in nature. On all other matters and personal values we might, and do, differ, but it is those secular values which bind us together as a country.
I personally would not like to see our Constitution altered to include any statements referring to marriage, or to a definition of marriage. The state should recognize marriage only as a civil contract between two partners. To go beyond that, even to define marriage as a union only between a man and a woman, puts the state in the position of defining a civil contract in terms of religious principles and religious teachings. And I firmly believe that was precisely what are Founding Fathers were trying to avoid when they drafted the Constitution.
Religious groups can continue to recognize, or not recognize, any "marriages" which they see fit. The state should only recognize "contracts" between consenting adults, including contracts which bind domestic partners and domestic unions. The federal government should not define these unions and contracts in religious terms, nor should it use a religious frame of reference to define a marriage contract. Religion is not the business of the federal government of the United States. We are a multi-cultural, multi-religious nation, and no specific religious views should influence or dominant our laws.
We are not a "Christian nation", we are a nation that happens to include Christian citizens. That was true when the country was founded, it is still true now.
Well first of all not all conservatives are religious. As most of you have noticed i am a fervant atheist and still manage to be conservative.
I will add this: the US was NOT founded on christianity but WAS founded with "christian" morals in mind. Certain aspects contain a very religious flavor to them, which in many cases is perfectly fine (i.e. 10 commandments at courthouse). Also certain aspects are purposely very separate from christianity ala homosexuality.
El-Diablo said:
"the US was NOT founded on christianity but WAS founded with "christian" morals in mind"
Which specifically "Christian morals" are you referring to?
And where in the Constitution can evidence of such morals be found?
Religious freedom was a very important concept in the founding of this country, but the notion of religious freedom has nothing to do with Christianity, or with Christian morals. Christians have been the chief persecutors of other religious groups as well as fellow Christians. Religious freedom is definitely not tied to Christianity.
Morality did exist even prior to Christianity. Christians have hardly cornered the market on morality.
The Ten Commandments were, in fact, given to Moses--not exactly a person you would call Christian.
YEs but christians follow him too.
I am not following your point, El-Diablo.
It seems to me that all of the major world religions subscribe to very similar notions of basic morality. They all frown on murder, stealing, etc. And they all refer to some higher being. So, what is uniquely Christian about morality, and how is that reflected in the Constitution?
Idk it's late. I tend to make less sense when its late. Forgive any confusion.
To return to the topic of homosexuality, which appears to have gotten submerged in this discussion...
We have to remember that it is only during the last forty years or so that homosexuality has gained some degree of social acceptance/tolerance. Prior to that time, sodomy laws did allow for the arrest of homosexuals, and, in some places, those laws have been very slow to change. In addition, homosexuality had been classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association until about thirty years ago.
So there were institutional biases against homosexuality which continued to shape and contribute to negative attitudes toward homosexuals until relatively recently. Social attitudes change very slowly, and while there has been far greater acceptance of homosexuals, this acceptance is far from complete.
The issue of gay marriage has resurrected some of this homophobia, but it also incites even more fervent resistance because it challenges both the traditional social and traditional religious definitions of "marriage". Even those people who fully accept homosexuality, and who champion civil rights for homosexuals, often draw the line at acceptance of gay "marriages". Some will tolerate legalizing civil "domestic partner" unions, others are against legalization of any same sex union, regardless of whether or not it is called a "marriage".
Changing social concepts of what is considered a "marriage", by expanding it to include same sex unions, does fly in the face of many peoples' religious beliefs, and it has resulted in denunciation of gay marriage from many pulpits. Religions do have a right to define "marriage" since it is essentially a religious institution.
The state can legalize "domestic partner" contracts, and, as long as these are not called "marriages", many people find this acceptable. But this acceptance/nonacceptance is being done on a state by state basis by letting voters decide the issue at the ballot box. The call to amend the Constitution reflects panic, on the part of some, that homosexual unions will find acceptance anywhere. The issue, I think, really belongs to the states rather than to the federal government.
Because some people feel that the very institution of marriage is threatened by the prospect of wide-spread same sex unions, religious views have figured heavily in the debate. However, the issue is not something that has anything, at all, to do with the religious orientation of our Founding Fathers, or to whether or not America was founded on "Christian principles".
It has much more to do with whether present day Christian citizens see legalized gay marriage as an attack on their own religious beliefs. To the extent that people want to see their own religious beliefs upheld in the major social institutions, such as marriage, they will likely continue to oppose gay marriage, just as they oppose polygamy.
The issue of homosexuality, and the legality of same sex marriages, was very likely something that never entered the minds of our Founding Fathers. It is foolhardy for any present day citizen to speak for our Founding Fathers, or to invoke their religious beliefs, in an attempt to attack homosexuals or the notion of gay marriage.
This is very much a present day controversy, and it should be viewed in the context of changing social attitudes toward homosexuality over the past forty years. These attitudes will likely continue to change and evolve--possibility even on the part of major religious groups.
This is really a social and religious issue which is currently being used as a political football.
