Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are we supposed to gather the meaning of the other words of the Constitution from the Treaty of Tripoli? If so, why?
I think you missed the point. The actual words of the Tripoli preamble stand as they were written. At the same time, those words did not get put there by mistake in 1798. They were chosen over other alternatives that existed at the time. What was purposely NOT said is therefore also important in determining the extent to which the Treaty text either supports or does not support general assertions as to the origins of the Constitution and therefore the republic...
I think you missed the point. The actual words of the Tripoli preamble stand as they were written. At the same time, those words did not get put there by mistake in 1798. They were chosen over other alternatives that existed at the time. What was purposely NOT said is therefore also important in determining the extent to which the Treaty text either supports or does not support general assertions as to the origins of the Constitution and therefore the republic...
My point is that the Constitution is to be interpreted according to objective principles. Namely, the "rules of construction." The origins of Constitution are irrelevant, except perhaps in the event that the five rules of construction fail to provide the meaning of words in the instrument.
If you want to construe the Constitution according the rules of historical analysis, your first task is to lay down some objective rules. For example, what rule of historical analysis says that a Treaty ratified by Congress in 1798 says more about the meaning of the words in the Constitution than a Congressional resolution in 1789 requesting the Chief Executive to assume advisory authority over religion?
Omigod, he must be gay! Send him to Iran to be tortured, beaten, and given the death penalty... XD I'm just kidding, Fishmonger's a good person in my book.
As for Florida Southerner person..... wow. I'm speechless. And it's because I'm laughing.
To really think that anybody who doesn't believe in religion is immoral - is immoral in itself. Your post is the real reason why religion has no impact on anything but to create more anger and frustration towards people who take religion in stride.
I'm sorry, I don't have to worry about upsetting a concept I don't believe in - just to be a moral individual. Instead of having to apologize to an entity that may or may not exist - I have to answer to myself.
I love people like Florida Southerner. Some people use drugs as a crutch to get them through the day. Some people use cigarettes, some alcohol - all as a crutch. And some people, like Florida Southerner use god as a crutch to get them through the day. That's my opinion on the super-religion nutjobs.
In the end, many laws are based off of morals originally found in religion - but we're past that now.
Okay, where did law originate and why? There is absolutely no conclusive evidence or otherwise that can state that some time in our past, man reached a point where he realized and said, "EUREKA! WE NEED LAW!" Every single solitary civilization we can reach back and study or even get a glimpse of was already a fully functioning civilization complete with laws! There's no evidence civilization and law evolved over time from mud huts and simplistic, rudimentary rules! Of course, atheistic or agnostic nutjobs and humanistic hooligans cannot look at these facts, so they hemhaw around and invent such atrocious belief systems as the steady-state development theory or the uniformitarianistic philosophy--both totally false and easily proven so.
One last point. i never said the non-religious are all immoral! Good morals stem from religion-mainly Christianity all the way back to Adam and Eve (another point to wide and deep to cover at this juncture). Humans are basically evil. it's easier for people to take the easy or more sinful way out. Anybody who believes people are basically good by nature are gravely mistaken and are themselves diluted by false senses of human grandeur and common sense. Religion has affected us all and the positive morality that exists, even among the atheists, agnostics, non-religious, and skeptics, is due to religion either directly or indirectly.
You know. All this debate back and forth is ridiculous to a degree. People have become so dumbed down and so weak they can't even stand on firm grounded foundations of absolute right and wrong anymore. Everybody seems to call everything into question. People think one person's morality should not be another's. Or that one's right may not be another's and vice versa. They think God and Christianity have no place in government! Well then if that's the case, why even have laws?
If law is nothing but mere mortal inventions of petty mankind then who's to say who's law is to be followed? Just because the law says it's wrong to steal, does it really make it wrong? Just because the law says it's wrong to polygamize, does it make it so? Just because the law says it's wrong for an adult (over 18) to have sex with a minor (under 18) does that make it so? Who defines adult vs. minor anyways? And is this definition absolute or mere opinion? Just because the law says it's wrong to murder, does it really make it so? If laws are just man's opinions and nothing more and are solely based on the mind of man, then which men are we to obey? Those in charge? What if they lose power and a whole different breed of men become leaders and laws get turned upside down? If laws are the sole invention of mankind and did not come from an absolute, all powerful Creator who is in charge of us all like it or not, then the laws are nothing but paper and opinions! If any of you out there can tell me and give me proof that murder is wrong apart from God and without divine interjection, then please do so! Give me one shread of evidence that there are certain things that are definitely wrong beyond mere opinion whether public, majority, minority, or individual opinion!
My point is that the Constitution is to be interpreted according to objective principles. Namely, the "rules of construction."
And at that time, we were discussing interpretation of the Treaty of Tripoli, not of the Constitution. Under the rules of construction and canons of statutory intepretation, there is no apparent way to construe the phrase As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion... in any other way than in the sense that the words themselves plainly convey. It cannot be taken to be the case that what the authors of the Treaty meant to say was Even though the Government of the United States of America is, in fact, founded on the Christian religion..., as the choice of those words was available to the authors but was rejected by them in favor of the text preceding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashTheCash
The origins of Constitution are irrelevant, except perhaps in the event that the five rules of construction fail to provide the meaning of words in the instrument.
Or in the case where the origins of the Constitution are in fact the thing under debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashTheCash
If you want to construe the Constitution according the rules of historical analysis, your first task is to lay down some objective rules. For example, what rule of historical analysis says that a Treaty ratified by Congress in 1798 says more about the meaning of the words in the Constitution than a Congressional resolution in 1789 requesting the Chief Executive to assume advisory authority over religion?
We have no choice but to conduct historical analysis, this owing to the intervening of history. There is no cause for review in the case of unambiguity, but words are ambiguous things, and one of the sources of such ambiguity is the passage of time. The practice of historical analyis is thus not a separate one, but one implicitly called for under the sets of objective rules that you have cited.
There is meanwhile no need to temper the plain language of the Treaty of Tripoli in light of other acts. And vice versa. In the case suggested, the Joint Resolution of 1789 may well have been couched in terms prefered by the Federalists who wrote it, but theirs was not a view of the religion clauses that persisted beyond the fleeting days of the early electoral majority. The Jeffersonian/Republican view of no cognizance quickly supplanted the Federalist view and, allowing for the odd moment or two of war-time paranoia, it has served us since.
Okay, where did law originate and why? There is absolutely no conclusive evidence or otherwise that can state that some time in our past, man reached a point where he realized and said, "EUREKA! WE NEED LAW!"
This is hardly the only process by which law can have originated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida southerner 3
Every single solitary civilization we can reach back and study or even get a glimpse of was already a fully functioning civilization complete with laws!
This is begging the question by restricting inquiry to times documented by preserved written histories. Why would it be illogical to presume that the technology necessary to create preservable written histories would have arisen rather subsequent to the origins of the development of law? If the presumption is logical, then your standards rule out all hypotheses, including your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida southerner 3
Good morals stem from religion-mainly Christianity all the way back to Adam and Eve...
Either that or all morals actually stem from the only source available to us...human experience. And religions have then simply borrowed from secular society those morals that they thought they could sell back to society at a profit...that profit being necessary to support a clergy-class of leisure, one exempt from the toils and drudgery of the common man in his ordinary, everyday life. Religion, in this light, is a luxury good...
Anyway, another thread shows how vastly differently Christianity is interpreted by different churches. Same Jesus, Same Bible, different teachings. Some of the Evangelical ones concentrate on anti-gay, pro-war, anti-illegal, anti-abortion, build personal wealth. And call this following Jesus. Other churches are anti-war, sympathize with illegals, focused on following a life of humility and helping the poor, and call this following Jesus. So people can pick their potion. Or pick Allah, Buddha, or none of the above. Doesn't mean a particular flavor should be allowed to dominate in governance. That is exactly what everyone likes to criticize about the Muslim countries whose governments are heavily influenced by Islam.
Anyway, another thread shows how vastly differently Christianity is interpreted by different churches. Same Jesus, Same Bible, different teachings. Some of the Evangelical ones concentrate on anti-gay, pro-war, anti-illegal, anti-abortion, build personal wealth. And call this following Jesus. Other churches are anti-war, sympathize with illegals, focused on following a life of humility and helping the poor, and call this following Jesus. So people can pick their potion. Or pick Allah, Buddha, or none of the above. Doesn't mean a particular flavor should be allowed to dominate in governance. That is exactly what everyone likes to criticize about the Muslim countries whose governments are heavily influenced by Islam.
"Dominate in governance" is an imprecise description of....well, of anything. Unless it can be defined and demonstrated in some way other than "people talking about Christianity makes me uncomfortable", it would seem to be a reference to one's personal feelings, and no more.
"Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion" would seem to be the point at issue here. I see no evidence of Congress' having done so, either in the context of this thread, or in any other recent context.
If laws are the sole invention of mankind and did not come from an absolute, all powerful Creator who is in charge of us all like it or not, then the laws are nothing but paper and opinions!
What of it? Is it only the perception of some supernatural Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval upon law that keeps you from a life of wanton rape and murder?
At that, the absolute, all-powerful deity of no religion can also be the source of morality. An absolute, all-powerful deity would have it within his reach to command that, in our spare time, we should burn little children with cigarettes. If one would do so on such an account, I would suggest a moral deficiency. In either the case that one would not do so, or the case that one would claim that the deity could not issue such a command, I would suggest a concession that the deity is in fact subject to an entirely external code of moral conduct, and that in such subservience, the deity is not in fact all-powerful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Let us have...Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.”
