lpetrich

Which are both contrary to the theory that government has a divine origin -- the only theory of the origin of government in the Bible. Consider Romans 13:1 -- whose writer was a subject of a government whose official religion that writer considered pagan idolatry.

Also, as has been noted elsewhere, the Constitution's creators had been very familiar with such classical Greco-Roman political thinkers as Polybius. Those thinkers had tended to evaluate government by how well a government serves its citizens. They didn't say "Zeusdidit, and that's that."

Some of their views are distasteful by present-day standards, but in this, they were no worse than the Bible. Views like sexism and slavery, but one does have to give Aristotle credit for trying to defend slavery. He had claimed that some people are naturally fit to be masters and some people are naturally fit to be slaves, and that the winners of a war are naturally fit to be masters and the losers naturally fit to be slaves. Thus justifying the winners enslaving the losers.

4 Strings

Brahma is the creator, Vishnu is, more or less, the savior of the people, and Shiva is the destroyer.

d'naturalist

Thanks for the info. There's just too many super-critters in the world. It's hard to keep all their job-titles straight.

captainpabst

I have a problem with this assumption:

The Declaration of Independence, signed July 4, 1776 is not the same as the United States Constitution, adopted September 17, 1787, ratified June 21, 1788.

The Declaration was intended to sever British governing of the colonies. The Constitution was intended to be the founding law of the United States.

Only Six men who signed the Declaration also signed the drafted Constitution. The documents were given birth by different groups of people, nearly 12 years apart. Admittedly there were some common threads, J. Madison and B. Franklin among them.

Also, consider this passage from the Declaration:

Can one make the jump from "Nature's God" to the "Christian God" with any intellectual integrity? And, given that, can one make the jump from the vague term 'Creator' and the "Christian God" with any intellectual integrity?

In the next paragraph we have this statement, the one which Christians use to defend the idea that the country was founded on "Christian principles":

Given the previous mention of the "God of Nature", is it logical to construe mention of a "Creator" with the "Christian God?" In my opinion, the word Creator was used to reinforce the idea that as sure as humans have life, they have rights that must be integral to their existence (hence unalienable), at least in an enlightened society. One would hope, anyway.

And let's not ignore this line:

From the consent of the governed! Not deriving their just powers from any sort of God or Christian principles!

Just my $0.02.

Here is the <a href="http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html" target="_blank">Declaration</a>, and here is the <a href="http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html" target="_blank">Constitution</a>.

And yes, I do believe O'Reilly is full of it. His "interview" with Newdow on Fox's Pulse was a travesty. Fair and balanced my ass. Insulting for sure.

Cheers,
Captainpabst

Buffman

Captainpabst

Admittedly there were some common threads, J. Madison and B. Franklin among them.

James Madison? DoI? Hmmmmm?

There are 56 signers of the DoI.

There were 65 delegates appointed by their states to be representatives to the Federal Convention.

10 never attended.
16 attended but did not sign.
39 attended and signed.

The 6 who signed the DoI also signed the Constitution. (Roger Sherman, B. Franklin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, James Wilson and George Read.)

<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html" target="_blank">http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html</a>

Vol. III (Attendance)

captainpabst

oops. sorry buffman - mental lapse.

Buffman

Been there! Done that! Many times! Especially early in the morning just before I go to bed. Mind and two fingers no longer coordinated.

JohnR

Dosn't sound like Madison went along with the Congressional Chaplin vote at all. O'Reilly like others of his ilk plays loose with the facts.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: JohnR ]</p>