If in "God we Trust should" come off, then should we rewrite the Declaration of Independence as well, because it states: ‘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’?
Originally posted by freightdog37 If in "God we Trust should" come off, then should we rewrite the Declaration of Independence as well, because it states: ‘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’?
So your Declaration of Independence essentially violates the constitution? Interesting.
Even worse, it tells an outright lie. It is not 'self evident' at all.
All countries have some oddities in their laws/ /constitution etc. My country, Zambia, put a law in its constitution that the president must be born of parents born in Zambia. A whole court case ensued during which it was realized that since Zambia did not exist prior to 1964 and since a significant proportion of the population did not have proof of their parentage and often did not have a legal father and often their legal father was not their biological father and since every president since independence to date violated the rule they decided to scrap it.
Originally posted by freightdog37 If in "God we Trust should" come off, then should we rewrite the Declaration of Independence as well, because it states: ‘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’?
No. We should not rewrite history. That's different than mass-printing a religious slogan on money in the present.
The founding fathers were not perfect. They were sometimes guilty of not following their own virtuous words. They did not grant said unalienable Rights to their slaves. Perhaps they also did not, or would not have, granted religious freedom to people of non-monotheistic religions.
Originally posted by SwissGambit No. We should not rewrite history. That's different than mass-printing a religious slogan on money in the present.
The founding fathers were not perfect. They were sometimes guilty of not following their own virtuous words. They did not grant said unalienable Rights to their slaves. Perhaps they also did not, or would not have, granted religious freedom to people of non-monotheistic religions.
I don't know much about it, but is the Declaration of Independence a historical document that essentially declared the US as a country or is it something that has continuing legal meaning? What I am really asking is can it be changed? Can any laws / legal arguments etc be based on anything in its contents?
Originally posted by twhitehead I don't know much about it, but is the Declaration of Independence a historical document that essentially declared the US as a country or is it something that has continuing legal meaning? What I am really asking is can it be changed? Can any laws / legal arguments etc be based on anything in its contents?
The D of I was an act of the Second Continental Congress. Its main purpose was indeed to declare the US as its own country, and cut all ties with Great Britain.
I'm no legal expert, but it is my view that the Bill of Rights [the first ten amendments to the US Constitution] are the continual law, not the Declaration itself. Even though some of the founding fathers believed in a God, and some of the ideas in the Declaration are echoed in the Bill of Rights, the first amendment is clear. Congress is not permitted to make laws respecting an establishment of religion.
Originally posted by freightdog37 If in "God we Trust should" come off, then should we rewrite the Declaration of Independence as well, because it states: ‘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’?
The original rough draft of the document as penned by Thomas Jefferson is below:
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness
You will note the absence of a "creator." Corrections were suggested by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams which resulted in the final version we have today. Franklin also lobbied to have the "creator" explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but he was unsuccessful.
But all that aside, there is a grave problems with your approach. The Declaration of Independence predates the Constitution. America was operating under the Articles of Confederation at the time. As such, the Declaration of Independence falls outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
Originally posted by twhitehead So your Declaration of Independence essentially violates the constitution? Interesting.
Even worse, it tells an outright lie. It is not 'self evident' at all.
All countries have some oddities in their laws/ /constitution etc. My country, Zambia, put a law in its constitution that the president must be born of parents born in Zambia. A whole court case e ...[text shortened]... d since every president since independence to date violated the rule they decided to scrap it.
The D of I has no legal significance at this time.
It certainly doesn't "tell an outright lie".
"We hold these truths to be self-evident ..........." was obviously a true statement of the Framer's beliefs.
BTW, Rwingo, the Articles of Confederation were AFTER the D of I.
Originally posted by freightdog37 If in "God we Trust should" come off, then should we rewrite the Declaration of Independence as well, because it states: ‘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’?
The Creator is not named. It doesn't have to be the Judeo-Christian God according to the Declaration. The religious secret society stuff on our money is different.
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …’ i.e. it’s a directive on Congress to keep them from interfering, not a directive against churches. Many of the pilgrim fathers who founded the colonies in America were fleeing state church persecution or discrimination (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican). They aimed to have a country where everyone could worship without such duress. The First Amendment reflects that ideal — it was never intended to make the US an atheistic state
Originally posted by freightdog37 ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …’ i.e. it’s a directive on Congress to keep them from interfering, not a directive against churches. Many of the pilgrim fathers who founded the colonies in America were fleeing state church persecution or discrimination (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican). They aimed to have a country wher ...[text shortened]... he First Amendment reflects that ideal — it was never intended to make the US an atheistic state
Remaining neutral on the question of God and religion does not make the US an atheist state. It just makes it neutral, which is not even close to the same thing.
The problem is that if churches influence US law so that it reflects their religious beliefs, then that infringes on MY freedom of religion, since I then have to live by those laws. For example, gay marriage might go against your faith, but I as a free citizen should not have to live by the laws that are based on your faith. And so on.
Originally posted by darthmix [b]Remaining neutral on the question of God and religion does not make the US an atheist state. It just makes it neutral, which is not even close to the same thing.[b]
13 Dec '07 07:061 edit
Separation of Church and State
Back to Top