| from: | |||
| to: | |||
| date: | Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:18 AM | ||
| subject: | FWD: Apologetics Press - Christianity is in the Constitution |
FWD: Apologetics Press - Christianity is in the Constitution
1/27/2015 03:30:00 AM
|
Key Words:
CHRISTIANS,
CONSTITUTION,
Founding Fathers
|
This entry was posted on 1/27/2015 03:30:00 AM
and is filed under
CHRISTIANS
,
CONSTITUTION
,
Founding Fathers
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through
the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response,
or trackback from your own site.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Short version: "Christianity isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but really, it's there. You just can't see it."
Oh my where to start.
First, quote Mason who attempted in his wording to state explicitly Christian sects but then what does the actual wording of the Constitution say? Might it be that the end wording was meant to avoid just what Mason was proposing? RW'ers love to criticize people for "interpreting" the Constitution except when it fits their narrative. I call bullshit.
Second, The Sunday's excepted. Better evidence and logic suggests this was specified not for the reasons suggested but more likely to provide for adequate time for Executive veto. When the laws were written, several states had "do not travel on Sundays" laws (THERE'S the Christian influence). So therefore if Congress attempted to submit a bill to the POTUS while he was traveling (remember they didn't have texting, fax, email, or other means of instant communication) the Sundays excepted clause gave the Pres time to return to exercise veto power if warranted - up to a 12 days depending on what day the bill was submitted.
Then there's the "year of our Lord" reference. The forefathers were all European and the calendar (Gregorian) in use was dates from a reference point - based on birth of Christ. The use here is more likely an unambiguous frame of reference and easily understood to all. More ritualistic based on heritage rather than religious.
Just offering counter arguments with just as much merit as this obviously biased interpretation. It's called critical thinking. Some folks would do well to use it rather than getting spoon-fed shit from Fox News, Limbaugh, Levin or even CNN or MSNBC for that matter.
Follow up. Since the Mason reference is held up as proof in the forward, the ACTUAL wording by Mason is thus:
"That Religion or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society of Christians ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others."
1. He uses Creator, not God.
2. He says Exercise of Religion, not Exercise of Christianity
3. He says "no particular RELIGIOUS sect", NOT Christian sect.
This tripe doesn't seem to allow for Jews represented in the US either (notice that the link says nothing about Judaism, which also follows the Sabbath on Friday/Saturday and doesn't believe that 2015 is the year of "our lord").
Not to mention that if the US were founded on Christian principles, it must be those same Christian principles that destroyed native civilizations...
Whatever.
Post a Comment