"However, it is unrelated to the US Constitution, as the Declaration was written in 1776 to establish legal separation from Great Britain and is not a foundation of our laws. Additionally, the Constitution, on which all federal laws are based, makes no mention or implication of religion as the justification or foundation of our civil rights."
The Declaration of Independence was a document of justification. True, it was directed towards the king of England and true is was a document justifying the independence of the thirteen colonies. However, when that document states, "We hold these truths to be self evident", this is a proclamation of the foundational truths to which the founding fathers held; the basis of everything they did, the foundation that they held to be unquestionable is here listed.
The law does not justify itself, it is merely a list of dos and don'ts. However, the law does need to be justified. The law does not mention religion as its justification as the law doesn't mention anything as its justification. That is why, in order to figure out what said justification was, we must turn to other sources, which is what I'm doing. So, I'll ask again, what is your evidence that supports your view as to the foundational justification for the Constitution; particularly, of course, the rights protected by the Constitution. You say that it was entirely logical--completely separate from belief of morality or religious ideals. What is your evidence for this claim?
"or the Constitution to provide a legal stance on abortion, it must be specifically mentioned. Constitutional analysis only applies to issues addressed in the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court had to use constitutional analysis on flag burning to determine whether or not it was protected as a form of speech. They concluded that it ultimately was, because flag burning is a way to express disagreement and no manner of speech can be prohibited according to the First Amendment."
And where exactly is "flag burning" in the Constitution?
It's not in there. The reason that the Constitution was applicable to the subject of flag burning was because someone took a logical approach to make that connection between flag burning and freedom of speech. All that I am doing is making a connection between the killing of a fetus and the law protecting the rights of a "person" found in the 5th amendment.
"As previously mentioned, your understanding relies on hearsay rather than the actual comprehension of the laws themselves. Grasping the mindset of the founding fathers is crucial, particularly regarding their views on the Constitution."
As I previously mentioned, the law does not justify itself. You may study the law all you want, but in order to understand its justification or understand the principles behind it, you must look to outside the written law.
" Contrary to your assertion that the founding fathers' religious views influenced the Constitution, the First Amendment actually separates religion from the state. for example, providing a religious justification for any state action would violate this amendment, thereby disproving your claim."
Once again, it separates CHURCH and state. The first amendment has nothing to do with the justification or principle behind the law, only the law itself. It states that a law cannot be made "respecting an establishment of religion (a church or some would say an official, forceful establishing of national religion)", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This law clearly has nothing to do with the justification behind the law. As I already stated, religion (or its views) was not specifically stated in the law, but that does not mean that it wasn't the justification for it.
So no, when you read the first amendment, it is clear that it is not violated by religion being the foundation for the law.
"That is not how the law works. If we acknowledge that the Constitution does not provide an answer to a legal question, then it means the issue is left to the states as dictated by the 10th Amendment."
Just because a particular issue is not clearly stated in the Constitution does not mean that the Constitution does not apply to that issue. My point is that the Constitution DOES provide a legal answer, it just isn't specifically stated. This is called Constitution analysis, interpretation, and application. This is the process that our Chief Justices must use all of the time in order to judge particular issues, especially those, like abortion, which do not clearly appear in the Constitution. No law can clearly and specifically apply to every case or issue that can arise which is why it is important to have Justices who are well versed in not only the law, but also the interpretation thereof.
"No, it does not destroy the purpose of representation. The founding fathers set aside their religious beliefs when making decisions, as they sought to establish a democracy rather than a theocracy. Representation is based on votes and elections, not religious worldviews."
And what serves the basis for what one votes for? If congressmen completely det aside their worldview, it would destroy representation because people who hold certain worldviews will not be represented. After all, what is the point of representation if all of the congressmen are coming from exactly the same perspective.
"As mentioned earlier, it is essential to study the law more thoroughly, as your current understanding is inaccurate. Concentrate on the legal provisions rather than quotes from famous individuals."
Once again, this is not so much a question of law, but rather the interpretation and application of the law. The proper method of interpretation has been a debate in America for many years.
" Yes, the separation of church and state is indeed a distinction between religion and state. The Constitution makes no reference to any religion or God and explicitly states that Congress cannot create laws respecting the establishment of religion."
Yes, it does not explicitly state anything about any religion or God because that would be an overlapping of the institution of government over the institution of church; for the law itself to contain religion would not constitute religious freedom, but that does not mean that religion was not the fundamental basis for the law. The law does not have to contain religion in order to not have been established through a religious perspective. This perspective is clearly seen in the Declaration of Independence which outlines that the Founding Father believed that the rights clearly instituted in the Constitution are unalienable to every person and given by a creator.
"What can be used in making decisions besides fundamental beliefs in morality and ethics? Logic and education are essential factors. The founding fathers did not base laws solely on their moral beliefs, and the law does not need to be moral to be effective"
Logic is merely deduction, and I most certainly hope that it was used regardless of whether the approach was from a moral or historical perspective. As for education, the education of the Forefathers was clearly religious. The reason it is called a worldview is because it is a way of viewing the world. When someone truly holds the perspective of religion, it shapes their view of all aspects of their worldview, from history and biology to politics and ethics.
I'm not saying that their decisions were "solely" on their moral beliefs, but it is illogical to think that they would completely throw their moral views "out the window" when drafting the law. Look to history; read the do-good letters, the federalist papers, the speeches made by the governing leaders at the time. History clearly shows that, though the Founding Fathers successfully kept specific religion out of the Constitution, fundamental religious views were a large part of the reasoning behind the Constitution.
Lastly, what is your evidence that the Founding Fathers set aside their moral beliefs when writing the law? My quotes are a small look into the reality of the Founding Fathers worldview. Read their letters and their speeches; this worldview becomes clear. Some of these quotes even outline the Founding Fathers themselves stating that religion and civil matters are inseparable; that is more than hearsay, it is historical evidence to everything that I've said. So, what evidence do you have to support your claim?
". Arguing that the separation of church and state is essential, but then claiming that state and religious worldviews are impossible to separate, is not only false but also contradictory.""
No, it is not. Church is the institution of religion, state, as used in this phrase, is the institution of the government. It is vital to keep these two institutions separate. History provides many examples of when the institution of government took control of the institution of church or when the institution of church took control of the institution of government. There is a clear difference between the church controlling congress and an elected congressman making decisions based on his worldview of right and wrong.
To show my point:
"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can exist apart from religious principle."
George Washington
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
John Adams
First, thank you for your input; I would like to comment on several of your points for the purpose of justifying my position.
" Although quotes from Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and Benjamin Franklin demonstrate that the founding fathers were religious, they did not use the Bible when drafting laws. The First Amendment establishes a separation of church and state. Therefore, the reasoning behind the drafting of America's laws by the founding fathers is not based on God or the Bible as the Con claims."
Separation of church and state is not the separation of religion and state. Church is merely the institution of religion, not the belief itself. The idea that the nation's leaders must put aside their religion, which is essentially their entire worldview or the basis thereof, in making decisions completely destroys the whole purpose of representation. After all, what can they use in making decisions other than their fundamental beliefs in morality and ethics? Must we say that the Founding Fathers did not write laws based on their beliefs of morality? Can the law even begin to be considered moral if it was at not least rooted in a moral code? While the separation of church and state is vital, the separation of religion/worldview and state is simply impossible.
" they have not provided any legislation stating that unborn children possess these rights."
There is no such legislation which is the whole reason why the law must be interpreted at in this manner. We must decide whether the fetus's life is protected by the rights in the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not specifically state the answer, then we must look to the principles of the Constitution; to do that, we must understand the principles of its authors.
"Yes, you are right. The type of evidence I speak of, in terms of revelation given by God's Holy Spirit, is only sufficient to convince a single person at a time, but if valid, may be sought after by anyone willing to search for it in honesty."
Thank you for your answers! If this is the case, then I actually agree with you and therefore would not have accepted anyways.
I'm thinking about accepting the challenge, but I first wanted to clarify some details.
" the Holy Spirit of God can provide this corroborated evidence sufficient to make a valid claim of truth."
When you said this, what is the nature of the evidence to which you are referring?
Also, are you saying that this evidence, when presented to others, is sufficient to make a valid claim of truth to them, or are you saying that this evidence is only sufficient to convince a single person, namely the person that the Holy Spirit presents the evidence to, of the truth of a claim? For example, Paul was convinced and His life was altered when God spoke to Him and made him blind in the desert. However, this evidence that Paul experienced could not then be used to make a valid claim of truth to others.
That's okay, perfectly understandable.
Darwin is unkillable because he is already dead. Also, technically speaking, everyone is a mutant; so, yes, Darwin is an unkillable mutant.
"However, it is unrelated to the US Constitution, as the Declaration was written in 1776 to establish legal separation from Great Britain and is not a foundation of our laws. Additionally, the Constitution, on which all federal laws are based, makes no mention or implication of religion as the justification or foundation of our civil rights."
The Declaration of Independence was a document of justification. True, it was directed towards the king of England and true is was a document justifying the independence of the thirteen colonies. However, when that document states, "We hold these truths to be self evident", this is a proclamation of the foundational truths to which the founding fathers held; the basis of everything they did, the foundation that they held to be unquestionable is here listed.
The law does not justify itself, it is merely a list of dos and don'ts. However, the law does need to be justified. The law does not mention religion as its justification as the law doesn't mention anything as its justification. That is why, in order to figure out what said justification was, we must turn to other sources, which is what I'm doing. So, I'll ask again, what is your evidence that supports your view as to the foundational justification for the Constitution; particularly, of course, the rights protected by the Constitution. You say that it was entirely logical--completely separate from belief of morality or religious ideals. What is your evidence for this claim?
"or the Constitution to provide a legal stance on abortion, it must be specifically mentioned. Constitutional analysis only applies to issues addressed in the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court had to use constitutional analysis on flag burning to determine whether or not it was protected as a form of speech. They concluded that it ultimately was, because flag burning is a way to express disagreement and no manner of speech can be prohibited according to the First Amendment."
And where exactly is "flag burning" in the Constitution?
It's not in there. The reason that the Constitution was applicable to the subject of flag burning was because someone took a logical approach to make that connection between flag burning and freedom of speech. All that I am doing is making a connection between the killing of a fetus and the law protecting the rights of a "person" found in the 5th amendment.
"As previously mentioned, your understanding relies on hearsay rather than the actual comprehension of the laws themselves. Grasping the mindset of the founding fathers is crucial, particularly regarding their views on the Constitution."
As I previously mentioned, the law does not justify itself. You may study the law all you want, but in order to understand its justification or understand the principles behind it, you must look to outside the written law.
" Contrary to your assertion that the founding fathers' religious views influenced the Constitution, the First Amendment actually separates religion from the state. for example, providing a religious justification for any state action would violate this amendment, thereby disproving your claim."
Once again, it separates CHURCH and state. The first amendment has nothing to do with the justification or principle behind the law, only the law itself. It states that a law cannot be made "respecting an establishment of religion (a church or some would say an official, forceful establishing of national religion)", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This law clearly has nothing to do with the justification behind the law. As I already stated, religion (or its views) was not specifically stated in the law, but that does not mean that it wasn't the justification for it.
So no, when you read the first amendment, it is clear that it is not violated by religion being the foundation for the law.
"That is not how the law works. If we acknowledge that the Constitution does not provide an answer to a legal question, then it means the issue is left to the states as dictated by the 10th Amendment."
Just because a particular issue is not clearly stated in the Constitution does not mean that the Constitution does not apply to that issue. My point is that the Constitution DOES provide a legal answer, it just isn't specifically stated. This is called Constitution analysis, interpretation, and application. This is the process that our Chief Justices must use all of the time in order to judge particular issues, especially those, like abortion, which do not clearly appear in the Constitution. No law can clearly and specifically apply to every case or issue that can arise which is why it is important to have Justices who are well versed in not only the law, but also the interpretation thereof.
"No, it does not destroy the purpose of representation. The founding fathers set aside their religious beliefs when making decisions, as they sought to establish a democracy rather than a theocracy. Representation is based on votes and elections, not religious worldviews."
And what serves the basis for what one votes for? If congressmen completely det aside their worldview, it would destroy representation because people who hold certain worldviews will not be represented. After all, what is the point of representation if all of the congressmen are coming from exactly the same perspective.
"As mentioned earlier, it is essential to study the law more thoroughly, as your current understanding is inaccurate. Concentrate on the legal provisions rather than quotes from famous individuals."
Once again, this is not so much a question of law, but rather the interpretation and application of the law. The proper method of interpretation has been a debate in America for many years.
" Yes, the separation of church and state is indeed a distinction between religion and state. The Constitution makes no reference to any religion or God and explicitly states that Congress cannot create laws respecting the establishment of religion."
Yes, it does not explicitly state anything about any religion or God because that would be an overlapping of the institution of government over the institution of church; for the law itself to contain religion would not constitute religious freedom, but that does not mean that religion was not the fundamental basis for the law. The law does not have to contain religion in order to not have been established through a religious perspective. This perspective is clearly seen in the Declaration of Independence which outlines that the Founding Father believed that the rights clearly instituted in the Constitution are unalienable to every person and given by a creator.
"What can be used in making decisions besides fundamental beliefs in morality and ethics? Logic and education are essential factors. The founding fathers did not base laws solely on their moral beliefs, and the law does not need to be moral to be effective"
Logic is merely deduction, and I most certainly hope that it was used regardless of whether the approach was from a moral or historical perspective. As for education, the education of the Forefathers was clearly religious. The reason it is called a worldview is because it is a way of viewing the world. When someone truly holds the perspective of religion, it shapes their view of all aspects of their worldview, from history and biology to politics and ethics.
I'm not saying that their decisions were "solely" on their moral beliefs, but it is illogical to think that they would completely throw their moral views "out the window" when drafting the law. Look to history; read the do-good letters, the federalist papers, the speeches made by the governing leaders at the time. History clearly shows that, though the Founding Fathers successfully kept specific religion out of the Constitution, fundamental religious views were a large part of the reasoning behind the Constitution.
Lastly, what is your evidence that the Founding Fathers set aside their moral beliefs when writing the law? My quotes are a small look into the reality of the Founding Fathers worldview. Read their letters and their speeches; this worldview becomes clear. Some of these quotes even outline the Founding Fathers themselves stating that religion and civil matters are inseparable; that is more than hearsay, it is historical evidence to everything that I've said. So, what evidence do you have to support your claim?
". Arguing that the separation of church and state is essential, but then claiming that state and religious worldviews are impossible to separate, is not only false but also contradictory.""
No, it is not. Church is the institution of religion, state, as used in this phrase, is the institution of the government. It is vital to keep these two institutions separate. History provides many examples of when the institution of government took control of the institution of church or when the institution of church took control of the institution of government. There is a clear difference between the church controlling congress and an elected congressman making decisions based on his worldview of right and wrong.
To show my point:
"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can exist apart from religious principle."
George Washington
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
John Adams
First, thank you for your input; I would like to comment on several of your points for the purpose of justifying my position.
" Although quotes from Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and Benjamin Franklin demonstrate that the founding fathers were religious, they did not use the Bible when drafting laws. The First Amendment establishes a separation of church and state. Therefore, the reasoning behind the drafting of America's laws by the founding fathers is not based on God or the Bible as the Con claims."
Separation of church and state is not the separation of religion and state. Church is merely the institution of religion, not the belief itself. The idea that the nation's leaders must put aside their religion, which is essentially their entire worldview or the basis thereof, in making decisions completely destroys the whole purpose of representation. After all, what can they use in making decisions other than their fundamental beliefs in morality and ethics? Must we say that the Founding Fathers did not write laws based on their beliefs of morality? Can the law even begin to be considered moral if it was at not least rooted in a moral code? While the separation of church and state is vital, the separation of religion/worldview and state is simply impossible.
" they have not provided any legislation stating that unborn children possess these rights."
There is no such legislation which is the whole reason why the law must be interpreted at in this manner. We must decide whether the fetus's life is protected by the rights in the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not specifically state the answer, then we must look to the principles of the Constitution; to do that, we must understand the principles of its authors.
"Yes, you are right. The type of evidence I speak of, in terms of revelation given by God's Holy Spirit, is only sufficient to convince a single person at a time, but if valid, may be sought after by anyone willing to search for it in honesty."
Thank you for your answers! If this is the case, then I actually agree with you and therefore would not have accepted anyways.
I'm thinking about accepting the challenge, but I first wanted to clarify some details.
" the Holy Spirit of God can provide this corroborated evidence sufficient to make a valid claim of truth."
When you said this, what is the nature of the evidence to which you are referring?
Also, are you saying that this evidence, when presented to others, is sufficient to make a valid claim of truth to them, or are you saying that this evidence is only sufficient to convince a single person, namely the person that the Holy Spirit presents the evidence to, of the truth of a claim? For example, Paul was convinced and His life was altered when God spoke to Him and made him blind in the desert. However, this evidence that Paul experienced could not then be used to make a valid claim of truth to others.
What do you mean by equality?