Oops. That wasn't the preamble. That was the declaration. I feel
stupid.

Not to piss any one off but...

The consititution reads like a masonic cookbook.

Not saying that means its not christian.

I'm going to post the entire declaration. I'll highlight every religious
connotation.

You know, I changed my mind. WAAAY too big for this one. I'll just go
through the highlights.


the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle them

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our
intentions

with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,

There are many I guess, from a federal perspective, as to laws...the
basics, which were carried through from England, we are still a part of
the Commonwealth, with the Queen of England as our sovereign leader.

So tricky, and archaic laws that stumbled off the first fleet 230 odd
years ago still exist, and I suspect with King Edward, I think(?) having
been the 'boss' back then, and still having ties to the head of The
Church of England, our laws are tied closely to religion.

I will research them, and let you know...we have the basics, as set down
by the ten commandments, and then all the threads that get woven from
them, so will look into it..

AB, terrific point. Many of those, our forefathers, who created the
foundations of this country, were in fact Free Masons. It's interesting
today, that anyone seeking to be confirmed in the Catholic or Lutheran
faith and some others, must swear an oathe that they are not affiliated
with any lodge or cult, and specifically they mention the Free Masons
and the Moose lodges.

I always found that interesting, that our forefathers would not be
allowed to be confirmed into some Christian faiths, here, in the country
they founded. Guess that proves that religions here are free to
discriminate any way they see fit.

Discrimination is a talent of every creed, color, organization, and
whatever other distinction humans have. We, like all primates, don't
like things we percieve as "different" than us.

I would say that its pretty clear that the political minds of the time
thought/acted/assumed that any euro-westernized country was a
christian-protectorate. That is to say a country with judeo-christian
fundamentals to its legal system, without specifically recognizing a
religon for its civil systems.

John Jay wrote his thoughts and legal opinions around these points, and
his points are backed up by the usual-suspect "Founding Fathers".

I would say there is nothing wrong with a theologically based civil
govt. So long as its not IDEALOGICALLY based, which, a theology govt
usually becomes.

I think you give too much weight to the fact that the founding fathers
came from a religiouly oppressed society. They came here to escape that
oppression for they knew all to well what a government that forced it's
religious concepts on a nation was capable of doing.

You may be correct, however, when you say:

"I would say that its pretty clear that the political minds of the time
thought/acted/assumed that any euro-westernized country was a
christian-protectorate. That is to say a country with judeo-christian
fundamentals to its legal system, without specifically recognizing a
religon for its civil systems."

For at the time, the majority of people from euro-westernized countries
followed a judeo-christian set of laws. However, trade around the
world, was quite common and well known to people of any status or
wealth, with many of the founding fathers were. So they would have been
aware that there were many other religions, whose numbers where just as
large.

So with thier knowledgable background, it is quile likely that they
chose to lay out the laws of this country with what thay believed to be
good moral values, without specifically upholding or grounding those
codes in any one religoun.

That means that they never intended for the laws of this land to be,
assigned a Christian, jewish or any other religions meaning or to be
recognized as dominated or futher backed up by any religious conviction.

So if there is any who determine to read religion into our laws, they
would be wrong.

You know, I hate it when sec/prog liberals try to rewrite history to
deny christianity's influence on America's origins. Nothing to do with
christianity, just a general distaste for people who like to do that
sorta thing.


We're built off christian values. Not just the basic "10 commandments"
old testament stuff (which is a good thing.... Jesus' teaching of
tolerance and human forgiveness and dignity really soften that old
school annihilation of civilizations stuff).

Poet said:

"You know, I hate it when sec/prog liberals try to rewrite history to
deny christianity's influence on America's origins. Nothing to do with
christianity, just a general distaste for people who like to do that
sorta thing.


We're built off christian values. Not just the basic "10 commandments"
old testament stuff (which is a good thing.... Jesus' teaching of
tolerance and human forgiveness and dignity really soften that old
school annihilation of civilizations stuff)."


I'll bet you'll positively hate this guy, then:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan
of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by
inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the
plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion
was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to
comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the
Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every
denomination."


"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and
doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such
tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other
books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to
entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New
Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded
from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of
very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick
out diamonds from dunghills."


"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of
Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we
have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

Who said these things?

Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers.

-Kerry O.

Heh. Jefferson was a vain, conniving, power-hungry *politician* (I put
as much contempt into that word as possible). He used and then ignored
religion in whatever fassion seemed to best play for the public. He was
also quite fond of breaking treaties for the purpose of land-grabbing.
Although he was certainly brilliant, and great with words. Then again,
same could be said of Hitler and Stalin.


The founding fathers were good at fighting amongst themselves.
Washington was about the only one they all got along with to any degree.
So don't think "majority" meant much amongst them.


And don't forget how many founding fathers we had. They certainly
restrained their christian provoclivities in the creation of the
constitution and its laws. Mostly to make clear we wouldn't be
controlled, as england often was, by outside religious politics.


But we can't deny the christian heritage. Much as I, as my lovely
Goddess worshipping self, might like to.

Poet wrote:

"Heh. Jefferson was a vain, conniving, power-hungry *politician* (I put
as much contempt into that word as possible). He used and then ignored
religion in whatever fassion seemed to best play for the public. He was
also quite fond of breaking treaties for the purpose of land-grabbing.
Although he was certainly brilliant, and great with words. Then again,
same could be said of Hitler and Stalin."


Sheesh! Comparing Thomas Jefferson to Hitler? Time to invoke Godwin's
Law and get out of Dodge.

-Kerry O.

I wasn't comparing Jefferson to Hitler. I was making the point that
brilliance doesn't always mean a good thing.

KerryO - I applaud your ingenuity as having thought to look for and find
such wonderful quotes. It reminded me of many others, I've heard over
the years, I need to look them up. thanks