First off, if you do not beleive the following.... 1. That the Constitution is the controlling rule of law applying to Federal gov't and where allowed by the BofR to state and local gov'ts, and 2. That the Constitution is NOT a living breathing document, that it has a concrete, definitive meaning that we must seek out, then don't even bother replying to this post. [}:D] OK, now that we've weeded out the wackoes.... ...more questions. 1. Do you beleive that there is A "god" (which one is unimportant) 2. Do you beleive that THAT "god" was active in helping the Founding Fathers craft an amazingly resilient document, perhaps the GREATEST human document of all time (i.e. the Constitution)? and lastly.... 3. Do you belive the Constitution indicates a Scriptural influence, or that the Bible was utilized by the Founding Fathers to help craft the Constitution???

With you on that one. Yup. Guess I pass muster so far. My jury is still out on that one. No. I believe that the founding father knew what they were doing, and were exceptional visionaries in creating a set of wonderful guidelines for the establishment of a government of a new country. Scriptural influence and utilized by the founding fathers? Probably so. But not strictly. the_reject

Absoulutly yes to all three questions above. #3 is historical fact, and #2 was believed by many of the founders at the time.......

1) Yes 2) Creator 3) When the mood strikes them While in no way do I consider myself a constitutional scholar, I make no bones about my various positions from my readings. There is a repeated reference to "Creator". I believe they use Creator in lieu of God for a specific purpose. [b]That said PLEASE note the following. The First ammendment is constantly regarded as "Freedom of Religion", I disagree with that interpertation. It is a Freedom from governmental establishment of a religion, IE: The Church of England. One must understand the condition of religion in England at that time to give a little background to the Founders position of same.[/b] Signed, 3/5ths of a person according to Article I Section 3, US Constitution. (Later repealed by the 14th ammendment, 1868 almost almost 100 years later, less than 100 years before my birth) Edited to comply with liberty86 demand for highlight!

1. YES 2. YES 3. YES Shok

The above should be in all capitol letters...

I don't know if there is any sort of god. No. Perhaps. Some of them probably were influenced by the Bible. Some were not. I think the Constitution is a mixture of the best insights into humanity that religion has to offer along with the rational, reasoning critical thinking of the late 18th Century.

The "Rational, reasoning critical thinking" of the late 18th century is what produced the French revolution, not the American revolution....

So our patriots, revolutionaries, and founding fathers were barbaric morons? the_reject

1. Yes. His name is Bill. 2. No. He was on vacation in Bermuda. 3. Yes. The parts that suited their purposes.

No, the French were/are.....

I believe in God. I do not believe that God guided or inspired the founders to develop the government they created and write the Constitution they wrote. One of the precepts of the Christian faith is that God created mankind and gifted it with free will. We are free to choose our own course, to obey or rebel as we see fit. God granted us the wisdom and soul necessary to glimpse His designs and some glimmer of His nature and thus have some understanding of His desires for us and love of us. He also gave us teachers and prophets who's vision was especially clear. He gave us Christ who showed us a clear, if difficult Way. But never, at any of those times and through any of those persons did God dominate our free will or choose for us. We retained our free will to follow or diverge from God's will. How arrogant to believe that God picked out Colonial America especially to create a utopian government by divine will or mandate. And how theologically short sighted. No, what we got was a group of people with the moral, ethical and philosophical chops to craft a government based on sound principles both of faith and government. There is AMPLE historical evidence that does, in fact, demonstrate that Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Mason, etc. were guided by European thought. This period in France was probably the last time in history that France could actually lay claim to some real exceptional political thinking, but as always they lacked the wherewithal to put it into effective action and lost all to despots with imperial notions. The American Republic was founded on prnciples of government developed in Europe and evolved to suit the particular needs and character of America where vast open spaces and available resources, plus the distance from Europe to here, created a need for and a value in self-reliance and self-determination. Those characteristics above all else, is what defined the early American character. The remoteness of the colonies from Europe forced the colonials to take care of themselves and enabled even poor people to own land and be their own masters. Inevitably it became intolerable for these people who learned to do for themselves, to be politically dominated by a distant, uninterested government. As far as the development of the Constitution, it was often a contentious process. While there was general agreement on principles, the details were often contentious. Hardly the characteristics of a divinely inspired document. I also doubt that a divinely inspired document pertaining to a government founded in liberty would tolerate legalized slavery. Now if you asked if the founders found inspiration and guidance for their work in their faith in a Creator, I would say yes, absolutely. But, God did not actively Inspire them or Guide them. He allowed them to choose their own course after giving them the tools they needed to make good choices.

Yep. Yep. Yep. God, by definition, exists whether we believe it or not. Yep. All wisdom comes from God. The Constitution contains many biblical truths and assumes that the people it is governing are a God-fearing people. The wisdom contained in the Bible is reflected in the text of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

Yes to all three.

No the Constitution is not a living, breathing document, and yes it has difinitive meaning...however, the Constitution also contains a legal process for changing The Constitution to meet the evolving needs of the society. The Second Amendment itself is part of that process. The Bill of Rights was the first change to the Constitution. Frankly, if at some point in the near or distant future, the majority of Americans choose to amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment, that would be entirely Constitutional, so long as the process was thoughtfully and meticulously followed. I personally think that such action would be a horrendous mistake, but cannot deny the legality of it if it were to occur. However, I do not believe the Constitution should be altered lightly or on the whim of fashion. Nor do I believe that the intentions and rationale of the founders should be ignored or even devalued when considering issues of law and Constitutionality because the Founders understood, far better than we do today, what it is like not to be free and they crafted the government we have to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual over the powers and duties of the State.

You're wrong, of course, and as usual. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were both very much devotees of the rational, reasoning critical thinking of the late 18th Century.

Thanks. I didn't really feel like looking up references to argue that point with him, so I went for the "loaded question/sarcastic remark" tactic. You see how well THAT worked... the_reject

The Christian faith did indeed influence the constitution in general terms--for example, the belief in the equality of man, and the concept of faith and government being distinguishable. (Render unto Cesear and all that.) The main founders were often Deists, people who thought God made the world then stepped out for a beer, taking no active role in human affairs after that. Jefferson fit into this mold. Madison was religious as a youth but after college fell increasingly away from it, and could probably be said to fall into the same camp. Adams was cranky and wrote a few near-blashphemous things in private correspondence. The constitution was created at a near-perfect time and in a near-perfect place. The founders were heavily steeped in English common law, but were also radical Whigs (in terms of English politics) and had a good amount of French philosophe influence. When the French had their revolution a few years later they went radically off the rails and disaster resulted. Without the conservative influence of English common law they had far more ambitious aims, and thought they could remake man by changing his environment. Human nature proved less malleable than they thought.

Again, it wasn't a matter of one particular philosophy that made the constitution a success. It was a synthesis of several strains. In fact, the dynamic involved was what made it work. To wildly simplify: consider Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton. They represent more or less the range of opinion, from "left" to "right". Jefferson was a fine propagandist, but also heavily French influenced. America was fantastically lucky that he was out of the country when the constitution was written, because he would have tried to insert a number of hare-brained schemes, such as his idea that constitions and contracts had to be completely re-written every 25 years. But we might not have gotten to the constitional convention if he hadn't been around in the years prior to that, writting some stirring things in the Declaration of Independence. Madison was less flashy than Jefferson but a far more canny student of human nature and government. He's the guy you'd want actually writing the constitution, which is pretty much what happened. He created a remarkable synthesis of 18th century rationalism, English common law and constitutionalism, and some new ideas such as Federalism or divided sovereignty and the expanded interests described in Federalist #10. Hamilton was in contrast a rather narrow technocrat, and something of a closet Monarchist. You wouldn't want him writing any constituions, but his skill as a technocrat was undeniable. The dynamic tension between these three, rather than the "victory" of any one of their philosophies, was what made the constitution a success.

I believe if you look at the Constitution as it was meant, not as we perceive it today, then you will realize it was a great piece for the time, but archaic for today. None of our founding fathers believed "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL", the believed all WHITE men were created equal. None of our founding fathers thought anything of women's rights either. I think the Constitution has been revised about as many times as it can, it is a dated document from an archaic time in human history and we need something new and current. As for the questions: 1. No, I do not believe there is a god. 2,3. Yes, I believe their religious beliefs influenced the document.

Like what?? The Communist Manifesto, perhaps???? Das Capital??? The Ten measures of Marxism??? [}:D] What out there is better than CONTUS????

That's nice. Guess you don't like this whole inalienable rights/limited government thing huh? You are mistaken. They went as far and were as radical as the people of the day could accept. The Constitution would not have had the popular support (ergo success) that it had if it was all inclusive. I could go digging around for the cites, but I'm too laxy to do that and I think people are better served with a bitchslap and a command to seek knowledge instead of regurgitating public school dogmatized crapola. How do you know what they thought? Can you read the minds of men who died 200 years ago? Me thinks that they didn't mention women one way or the other because yet again, they didn't want to be too radical for the ordinary folk to support them. You are obviously not a Constitutionalist. I'm sure that a sniveling idiot with a limited lack of historical knowledge would vote that the Communist Manifesto and Marx's human rights would be the way to go. Good for you. Do you fein superiority over people who do because you are so trendily "enlightened?" Which is probably why morality, self-discipline, and personal resposibility were such huge parts of the document. Of course, these ideas are dated and archaic. We need to follow the immoral path of the secular humanists who believe that any filthy disgusting act (like homosexuality and chiild molestation) that a modicum of people enjoy is a right. We need the secular humanists to dictate to us what are rights are. We need to redefine human rights to include freedom from responsibility and self-inflicted pain. We need to do as the "enlightened" Europeans and tell those who are useless and lazy that they can enjoy their lives as they have a right to be a drain on those who must work to support them. Right? Right?...................

go redmanfms!!!!! I chalk posts like that up to regurgitation of what severly left of center profs at most major universities have fed their students, and posters who regurgitate it to be recent college graduates. A few years in the "real world" will hopefully straighten our interloper out. [:D]

Garandman, redmanfms, I fully expected my post to be flamed. I expected it because, you are still living in a world were men are superior to women, and races should be separated. You I'm sure are the King of your castle, where your wife and kids do EXACTLY what you say or they GET WHAT THEY DESERVE. You blame everyone but you for your problems, the government, the democrats, your wife, etc. You are a God Fearin' good old boy, that attends church every Sunday, and happily tithes your money to a cult, because if you don't, your god may not let you in heaven. I am very happy for you, I hear ignorance is bliss.

Hey now, I'm [b]still in[/b] college. Not all of us college-type people are weak-minded fools who believe whatever is vomitted out by professors. Of course, I'm a little different. I didn't go for a government grant because I didn't like the restrictions and the idea of being beholden to the state, and I didn't go for a scholarship because I didn't want to be constantly sweating my grades and having the admin. holding my future over my head. I worked my ass off for 2 years in high school and my first year of college to save enough money to go to school (along with spending money of course). Exposure to the real world is not necessarily a corrective experience. A good friend of mine is a lip-stick lesbian who has worked and lived on her own since she was 17, yet she is still an uber-leftist; she has moderated after I made her look like an ass (politely of course) in a number of debates. Being made to think about your beliefs by somebody who has enough knowledge to challenge what "makes sense" is the only thing that will correct dipshitedness.

Good. You are making ASSumptions. You know not HOW I live, so don't make presumptions about it. Actually, if you go back and read my posts I am very pro-woman. Don't be so quick to make an ass of yourself. Have I blamed anybody for anything jackass? I blame nobody for my problems. If you read my post you would realize that I'm for personal responsibility and only blame myself for any kind of pain I might inflict on myself. Actually, I rarely attend church, am far from a "good ole boy," don't give any money to anybody, and believe that actions through life are the determining factor of my success or lack of success in the hereafter. You certainly would know.

I find it hard to come up with words to describe these brilliant thoughts [rolleyes]. Please enlighten us further [:K]. Isn't there some anti-Ashcroft protest you should be attending?

I think the constitution was inspired by ... ODIN! [img]http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~elu/image/odin.gif[/img]

Originally posted by redmanfms:

What's anti-woman about this?

Do a search on "sandwich" and see my post where I said I beleived women to be "the pinnacle of God's creation." Absolutely. Motocross races should separate the two stroke and four stroke classes. Yes she does - the love, respect, honor and dignity God's word commands I give her. Actually, I blame [b]you personally[/b] for all my problems. [}:D] Actually, my "cult" teaches that my entrance into Heaven has NOTHING to do with what I do - its ALL the grace of God performed on my behalf that determines my entrance to heaven. My obedience to God is therfore NOT out of fear, but out of love and thankfulness. Maybe so, but no one doubts that arrogance is annoying, and you are proof. [}:D]

schv - You STILL haven't answered my question- [b]"What's out there that is better than CONTUS?"[/b] I want your SPECIFIC answer, as it will tell us MUCH about you." If you have no specific answer, it'll tell us that yer little better than the Democrats who have LOTS to say to tear down and destroy, but little to say to build up and improve.

I'm impressed, you didn't let my TROLLING piss you off!!! BRAVO. Ok, I'll answer you question. NOTHING AVAILABLE CURRENTLY IS BETTER THAN THE CONTUS. However, I would like to see a new document created that would withstand another 200 years or more. The current document is too vague. Hence our current state of affairs. We need a document that is set in stone on certain points, such as the 2nd Amendment. A document that gives the power back to Congress instead of the Federal Reserve System. A document that does not refer to Man, but instead refers to HUMANKIND. A document that does not refer to ANY religion or GOD, other than the freedoms to practice said religion. I would like to see a document that was unamendable on certain points.(Your basic freedoms) I don't claim to have all of the answers. I do know however, that our current Constitution is not adequate for the future.

That's my question. It's "anti-lesbian" if anything. That doesn't make it anti-woman. Lip-stick lesbian is a term I use to describe homosexual women who appear to "experiment" with their sexuality simply because that is the popular thing to do now. She readily admits that until she was 22 (she is 23 now) she was/is attracted to men, dated, and had sexual relationships with men, that is "experimentation" clear cut. Furthermore, there is zero biological evidence that indicating homosexuality is anything other than a chosen behavior. I don't really care if people want to do it, but do not wish for this behavior to become a protected freedom simply because a very small minority aren't successful in relationships with the opposite sex. Hmmmm..... You edited my post to suit you purposes, error through omission. I happen to think that homosexuality and child molestation is immoral, or antiethical for you secular humanists out there. If you actually knew what you are talking about you would know that humanists think that morality (read: personal responsibility and social mores) is the great evil and that behavior exhibited by a sizeable enough minority [b]is[/b] acceptable behavior. I highly recommend that you educate yourself before trying to have a debate with me. I didn't come to my beliefs through institutionalized reflex training (unlike you); I came to them after extensive study and challenging what the mainstream "wisdom" was/is. I think that you'll find I don't agree with garandman on almost any subject, that I have posted positively in the favor of female soldiers. Do some research before you make such an ass out of yourself by mischaracterizing people you don't know.

Now that you have admitted to being a (forbidden by COC) troll, your issues can be addressed. Thats a great utopian dream. Create your own country and get at it. I feel the document was written by men who were much brighter than you or I, and they were [b]VERY CAREFULL[/b] in their wording so as to be clear. To fully understand their writings, one must be aware of the period and its presures, and also appreciate the fact they did write a document that was written for posteriety as well. As for the Second, it clearly speaks for itself. [b][red]"The People"[/red][/b]are the same People whether its the First, Second or Fourth Ammendment. Any other deductions are merely an attempted distraction from the truth. For an English Teachers breakdown of same [url=http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/unabridged.2nd.html]READ THIS[/url] All powers are clearly spelled out in the COTUS Let me guess, you would do the NIV Bible... Ok, stand corrected, no Bible at all perhaps. You see, there is one thing you have clearly overlooked. America was [b]founded[/b] as a Christian nation. Just as Ethiopia is the worlds oldest Christian nation, and Saudia Arabia is a Muslim nation, we ARE a Christian nation. Perhaps you can create a gender neutral pagan nation of your own. More English lessons needed??? Actually, IMHO you have NONE of the answers. The same is said of the Bible...Enjoy your afterlife komrade...

1. Not any more. 2. No, since IMHO he/she/it doesn't exist, although belief that such a figure exists guided many of their decisions. 3. Yes.

1. I am beginning to strongly believe that there is a supreme being and he must have it in for me. There is no other explanation as to why all of the bad shit that keeps happening to me. 2. I believe that the Founders understanding of human nature (power corrupts, etc.) played a very big role. 3. Possibly but IIRC several of the Founders were agnostics.

I've forgotten what the question was, but I figure this is my only chance to post a reply before that Moderator/Nazi "raf" locks this thread too. [:P]