By Constitution, USA is a country of Christianity!

[crebigsol]

Dude, give it up. Your argument is insane. You have no case. You don't get to have what you want. Deal with it. It's my government too, and you don't get to make it a Christian one.

What you claim may be partly true, unfortunately to America. The part may be true is: “You don't get to have what you want. Deal with it. It's my government too,” the rest of your claim is only crying with anger without any intelligence input.

I am not going to “get to make it (the government) a Christian one”, I only want the American government getting back its sense of defending what the Constitution pledges to defend.

As much as you can see “It's my government too,” there are many followers of Christianity see the same way. Hope that they are still keeping reasonable population in the nation and then tell you “You don't get to have what you want”

If time has been too late even beyond our awareness, dude, I think I must submit to some socialist gangster someday and share a socialist country with you.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Even if this argument were true. Given that the first amendment means that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That the federal government were an establishment in religious roots is toothless and meaningless because congress could not act on it anyway.

So, who cares?

 

[crebigsol]

I don't see "Christ" anywhere in the Articles of Confederation either.

Will you interpret the word “religion” found in The Articles of Confederation as Islam, Buddhism, Guru, Confucian, Hinduism…? Do you fantasize that, with a dead serious political document, some Christians just vow to defend the religion of Islam so that the religion they have chosen to follow to be overpowered?

 

[spud_meister]

With open words, The American Constitution so obliges this country:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. (Article VI)

On the land called America, what bigger debt and engagement can anyone find to have been contracted and entered obliging this nation than what is stressed in the following?

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

This sacred contract term of debt and engagement can be exactly found in Article III, The Articles of Confederation.

Given that all signers of the Articles of Confederation are followers of Christianity, and given that all signers of the American Constitution are followers of Christianity, logic must allow the word religion found in the above quotation to mean nothing else but only the teaching of Christianity. Besides logic, indeed, religion, namely Christianity, is hereby indisputably listed as the number one account prior to anything else for all these Christian signers to enter a firm league, namely a firm government, to defend.

As quoted, with the bold expression on the unaltered inheritance of a sacred debt and engagement, the American Constitution must permanently oblige every citizen receiving her protection with the recognition of the supreme dominance of the Christian teaching in this nation, regardless of this citizen’s background, natural, ethnical, or cultural. Excuse can be given to no one who fails in such recognition. Any idea in contrast to this obligation, or action releasing anyone from this obligation, must be found unacceptable by the Constitution.

So if a state is attacked because it allows Muslims to reside there, the other states are under no obligation to come to its defence?

 

[crebigsol]

Even if this argument were true. Given that the first amendment means that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That the federal government were an establishment in religious roots is toothless and meaningless because congress could not act on it anyway.

Oh, yeah, they can if people can straight out whether the Constitution has violated the First Amendment or the First Amendment has violated the Constitution, and whether the Constitution should supersede the First Amendment or the First Amendment should supersede the Constitution. American people have allowed the existence of the misinterpretation of the leading-subordinating relationship between the Constitution and the amendments for too long.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, yeah, they can if people can straight out whether the Constitution has violated the First Amendment or the First Amendment has violated the Constitution, and whether the Constitution should supersede the First Amendment or the First Amendment should supersede the Constitution. American people have allowed the existence of the misinterpretation of the leading-subordinating relationship between the Constitution and the amendments for too long.

Any amendment is superior to previous writing, so the first trumps what came before it and is trumped by what came after it, because any amendment is the constitution.

If not, then alcohol would somehow be both legal and illegal at the same time.

 

[samsmart]

Will you interpret the word “religion” found in The Articles of Confederation as Islam, Buddhism, Guru, Confucian, Hinduism…?

Yes.

123456

 

[samsmart]

Oh, yeah, they can if people can straight out whether the Constitution has violated the First Amendment or the First Amendment has violated the Constitution, and whether the Constitution should supersede the First Amendment or the First Amendment should supersede the Constitution. American people have allowed the existence of the misinterpretation of the leading-subordinating relationship between the Constitution and the amendments for too long.

Amendments are a part of the Constitution.

 

[crebigsol]

So if a state is attacked because it allows Muslims to reside there, the other states are under no obligation to come to its defence?

You have not said where the attacking force is assumed from. In nowadays world affairs, there are so overwhelming incidents showing Islamic attack, but not Christian attack.

 

[samsmart]

You have not said where the attacking force is assumed from. In nowadays world affairs, there are so overwhelming incidents showing Islamic attack, but not Christian attack.

You mean like when GWB called for a crusade in the Middle East?

Or the Hutaree militia in Michigan who were planning to commit violence against law enforcement?

Or the sex abuse done by Catholic priests and hidden by the Vatican?

 

[spud_meister]

You have not said where the attacking force is assumed from. In nowadays world affairs, there are so overwhelming incidents showing Islamic attack, but not Christian attack.

That's not relevant. I gave you a reason for the attack. But to simplify it for you, does that specific Article apply if a state is attacked for the purpose of persecuting non-Christians?

 

[crebigsol]

Any amendment is superior to previous writing, so the first trumps what came before it and is trumped by what came after it, because any amendment is the constitution.
If not, then alcohol would somehow be both legal and illegal at the same time.

No, not necessary, unless it is vested with specific power to remove a power from the preceding document, otherwise it can only add something to it, but the added thing and the existing thing may not see each other fit. That is why Amendment XVIII needs precise words from Amendment XXI to have it repealed.
If the First Amendment must be superior to the original body of the Constitution and have good faith to its own "respecting no religion", someone should have the words “Our Lord” removed from the original body of Constitution. There are many other religious expressions in the original Constitution. If someone violates the First Amendment and he needs to be punished today, will somebody punish the original body of the Constitution or even exhume the Founding Fathers for their wrong doing?
If, because of Amendment X, the Constitution can preserve to the States the power that is not specifically prohibited by it, why can’t the Constitution preserve to itself the power that is not specifically removed by any authoritative source, but such source must first get the approval of the Constitution?

 

[crebigsol]

Amendments are a part of the Constitution.

Literally, you are right. But just for the sake of convenience, I'll call the original body of Constitution as the Constitution, and the Amendments as Amendments. Otherwise, some typing would become very clumpsy in addition to my poor English.

 

[crebigsol]

You mean like when GWB called for a crusade in the Middle East?

Or the Hutaree militia in Michigan who were planning to commit violence against law enforcement?

Or the sex abuse done by Catholic priests and hidden by the Vatican?

As much as you can list wrong doing from one religion, anyone can do the same thing for the other religions. We are not going to compete on this. We are not pursuing perfect person, we are pursuing good faith of the law. If anyone behaves with diviation from the law, punish him according to the law. As much as you pursue your Constitutional right, I do the same thing, except that your pursuing is away from what the constitution can give to you, but I demand that the Constitution should be faithfully followed in order to give credit to the pursuit you conceive Constitutional.

 

[crebigsol]

That's not relevant. I gave you a reason for the attack. But to simplify it for you, does that specific Article apply if a state is attacked for the purpose of persecuting non-Christians?

You did not give me a reason, you just give me an assmption that I cannot see how it would be real in today's political trend. If you can see it coming real, say so. Your question "does that specific Article apply if a state is attacked for the purpose of persecuting non-Christians" stays very unclear to me. Besides, what is your definition of persecution? To me, expelling the teaching of Christianity from the public school system is an out of scale of persecution aginast the Christians.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Religions =/= Christianity.

Christianity is just one type of religion. . . and not all of our founding fathers WERE Christians.

blahblahblah . . . it's been discussed endlessly.

 

[spud_meister]

You did not give me a reason, you just give me an assmption that I cannot see how it would be real in today's political trend. If you can see it coming real, say so. Your question "does that specific Article apply if a state is attacked for the purpose of persecuting non-Christians" stays very unclear to me. Besides, what is your definition of persecution? To me, expelling the teaching of Christianity from the public school system is an out of scale of persecution aginast the Christians.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

Do states have an obligation, under Article 3, to other states if another state is attacked for reasons of a non-Christian religion?

 

[crebigsol]

You're being deliberately obtuse. Do states have an obligation, under Article 3, to other states if another state is attacked for reasons of a non-Christian religion?

I am obtuse, but not deliberately; I hope I can be smart enough to be “deliberately”. However, I do see you formulating the question in a way I can comprehend better.
If one of the states of the league is attacked, and if the force offered to is “on account of religion, sovereignty , trade, or any other pretense whatever”, as seen as courses commonly accepted by the document, yes, the obligation is there. However, the condition is that the state receiving assistance is not to violate the common course. If one of the states, as a scenario, declares to be an Islamic country, such state already launches an attack on the league, very similar to the South declaring separation before the Civil War. Not only the other state will not assist it, indeed, they should track down the leader launching such attack and punish him with crime of betraying.

 

[crebigsol]

Religions =/= Christianity.
Christianity is just one type of religion. . . and not all of our founding fathers WERE Christians.
blahblahblah . . . it's been discussed endlessly.

With the reason you put up, are you going to say that the Founding Fathers tried to draw a common document according to which they can create an uncompromised reason to fight against each other based on each of their own belief? Or to draw a document according to which they will work hard for the welfare of non-Christian religion but exactly not their own?
It is absolutely true, though, Religions =/= Christianity. However, evolution is a religion through and through, why is it placed in our school to dominate over the teaching of Christianity? Socialism is a religion, why is it allowed to set sail in our political system with escalating magnitude? While all these accessing the dominance, Christianity is exactly the religion facing all kind of pressure, even persecution, why?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

With the reason you put up, are you going to say that the Founding Fathers tried to draw a common document according to which they can create an uncompromised reason to fight against each other based on each of their own belief? Or to draw a document according to which they will work hard for the welfare of non-Christian religion but exactly not their own?

Rights clash - do they not?
It happens all the time - it's unavoidable.

They weren't sutpid - they knew it would happen and thus gave us several ways of resolving our differences while attempting to preserve our freedoms and rights. It's all about balance - the real fight is the maintanence of that balance so everyone's happy (which is an illusion)

It is absolutely true, though, Religions =/= Christianity. However, evolution is a religion through and through, why is it placed in our school to dominate over the teaching of Christianity?

You're taking 'religion' as a 'religious belief' and blending it with the other uses of the term 'religion' and are trying to call it the same thing. It's not - it is just multiple meanings and applications of the same term 'religion' . . . you must recognize one as a theological base and the other as a lifestyle base or just a firm value or political or even economic ideology in life (etc).

Evolution is science and can coincide with many different religious beliefs. . . and there's no reason to actually teach religious beliefs of any measure IN science class at all - can we not just separate the two accordingly?

Theology has theology class.
Science has science class.
History has history class.

Sometimes they cross over - not all the time . . . We discuss a lot of religion in History class - no one fusses about that at all. Do we have to make a fuss about any of it? Can we not separate them without everyone going into rage-mode?

You don't see me pushing for the teaching of evolution in Sunday School :shrug:

Socialism is a religion, why is it allowed to set sail in our political system with escalating magnitude? While all these accessing the dominance, Christianity is exactly the religion facing all kind of pressure, even persecution, why?

Since the majority of people in the US claim adherance to one of the Abrahamic faiths I believe you're looking at small references to those who are opposed to religion and are rude about it - and then presuming that it's a dominating activity that we all thrive on or something.

It's not - most people are actually religious in this nation so, truly, what are you worried about? Do the actions of the few non-religious really have that strong of a hold over everyone?

And why is that, do you think?

 

[spud_meister]

I am obtuse, but not deliberately; I hope I can be smart enough to be “deliberately”. However, I do see you formulating the question in a way I can comprehend better.
If one of the states of the league is attacked, and if the force offered to is “on account of religion, sovereignty , trade, or any other pretense whatever”, as seen as courses commonly accepted by the document, yes, the obligation is there

Surely though, if religion solely denotes Christianity, then there is no obligation, as non-Christian religions are specifically and deliberately excluded, according to you.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'm not following why you are debating the Articles of the Confederation regarding this - it was a flawed and inadequate attempt to form a nation which was tested often and quickly found to be inadequate or did you miss that part in History Class?

We no longer follow it - for a reason - it sucked.

Article III especially sucked and overall - no one could do it when they needed to.

 

[spud_meister]

I'm not following why you are debating the Articles of the Confederation regarding this - it was a flawed and inadequate attempt to form a nation which was tested often and quickly found to be inadequate or did you miss that part in History Class?

We no longer follow it - for a reason - it sucked.

His faulty reason, apparently being obliged to defend the other states under the Articles is to be construed as a debt as mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

His faulty reason, apparently being obliged to defend the other states under the Articles is to be construed as a debt as mentioned in the Constitution.

Yeah - faulty reasoning indeed.

 

[rocket88]

So, unless you find that the First Amendment has been vested with the power of rewriting the entire Constitution, it only stays at the level of adding something conceived to be better. See how Amendment XVIII comes and goes? Whatever the part in the Constitution that is not touched by an amendment must stay intact. Otherwise, your wild “definition” conception can make America equally acceptable to have three presidents or none at all only because of the existence of the First Amendment. The First Amendment has no power to relinquish any debt or engagement the Constitution pledges. Don’t take the Constitution as a manuscript. Get over it

So your interpretation is that Christianity was tacitly the state religion, which was not changed by the 1st Amendment. According to this interpretation, slavery is still legal, since the 13th Amendment didn't actually change the fact that slavery was tacitly condoned in the original Constitution.

As far as the 18th goes, it was repealed by the the 21st. In fact, if you read the 21st, that's all it really says.