Is Declaration of Independence unconstitutional?

[c_geek]

Wasn't this country founded on god? This is a piece of history, how can you ban this from schools? Why can't athiests tolerate christianity, but they can tolerate religions such as buddhism, judaism, and Islam? These are some questions that liberals have to consider before making their crazy, irashional decisionsabout what is or isn't unconstitutional.

1.) This country was founded on freedom. Not God.

2.) I tolerate Christianity just fine. I tolerate any other religion just fine. I believe in free speech for everyone. I am an atheist. I think your statement was a little too general.

3.) I believe in evolution because it is our best educated guess. Religion is just a myth and was created to answer questions that we did not know the answers to in previous centuries. That goes for all religions and not just the Jeudo-Christian religions.

4.) Yes, relgion is history, therefore we should teach it in history class and not science class.

 

[shuamort]

Alright ,this thread has gone on long enough without having the real facts cited about this whole thing. Please read:

FOX peddles false report that California school "banned Declaration of Independence because it mentions God"
Over the last two weeks, FOX News Channel has repeatedly -- and falsely -- reported that an elementary school in Cupertino, California, banned the Declaration of Independence because it mentioned God.

Between November 24 and December 7, the Cupertino case has been falsely reported on seven occasions on FOX News primetime programs, numerous times during FOX News daytime programming, as well as on FOX Broadcasting Network's FOX News Sunday. Hannity & Colmes planned a December 8 live broadcast from Cupertino; a promo for that show asserted that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence had been "banned" by a California school that is "erasing God." The November 29 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country falsely reported the story; CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNBC have not covered the story.

In fact, Stevens Creek Elementary School in Cupertino did not ban the Declaration of Independence. As the Cupertino Union School District stated in a November 30 news release, the Declaration is featured in the school's textbooks and is displayed in some school buildings. A December 8 editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle noted, "The Declaration of Independence is not banned from Stevens Creek Elementary School, or any classroom in Cupertino. Copies of the Declaration -- including the passages about the inalienable rights of all men 'endowed by their Creator' and the founders' 'reliance on the protection of divine providence' -- hang in classrooms. It appears in textbooks distributed throughout the district."

Even the lawsuit, which was brought forth on behalf of teacher Stephen Williams by the right-wing Alliance Defense Fund challenging the school's decision to prohibit the handouts, acknowledged that the school has not imposed an outright prohibition on the mention of God or the discussion of religious beliefs in the classroom. The lawsuit recognized that "other teachers are permitted to show films and distribute handouts containing references to God," and that Williams had been permitted to teach "lessons on the origins of religious holidays" during that school year and had provided handouts relating to religion in the past "without any problems." Despite that acknowledgement, an Alliance Defense Fund press release about the lawsuit was headlined "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom."

The notion that the school banned that document originated in an erroneous November 24 Reuters article headlined "Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif. School." But the school prohibited only supplemental handouts distributed by Williams to his students that selectively chose excerpts from the Declaration of Independence making reference to God -- along with other handouts that appeared to proselytize Christianity. A December 8 article in the San Francisco Chronicle noted that parents had complained to the school about Williams, stating that his teaching "crossed the line into evangelizing." In response, Stevens Creek Principal Patricia Vidmar began reviewing Wiiliams's lesson plans and supplemental handouts in advance.

The excerpts of the Declaration of Independence that Williams used as a supplemental handout (Exhibit C in the lawsuit ) all made reference to God. Among the other supplemental handouts, all of which related to the importance of Christian faith in U.S. history, was a proclamation by President George Bush for the National Day of Prayer (Exhibit A), coupled with a description of the event copied from the National Day of Prayer website: "The National Day of Prayer has great significance for us as a nation. It enables us to recall the way in which our founding fathers sought the wisdom of God when faced with critical decisions." Another handout entitled "What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible" (Exhibit E) quoted only former American presidents' praise for the Bible, except for a final quote attributed to Jesus Christ. Williams also passed out several excerpts from the diary of former President John Adams (Exhibit H), one entry of which states: "The Christian religion is above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity."

 

[Stinger]

If you remove religion of spirituality from your life, you have no basis to obey any certain moral code.

So if some super intelligent alien race landed here tomorrow and said "Here we have figured it all out, the universe and all that, and have traveled everywhere and can tell you factually there are no supernatural beings and the universe was not created by a god, we are just who we all are"

You would then feel free to murder people and go into peoples homes and rob them and rape and beat people? You would feel no moral obligation within yourself to behave civilly and respectfully to your fellow human beings?

We have the first amendment so that the government can't say "everyone has to be catholic," or Jewish or atheist or whatever.

What it said was that government will not mix the power of government with the faith of religious belief, that government will not pass laws which respect religion or faith.

They never said that we shouldn't believe in a creator; they merely stated that the government should not have a national religion.

Not "a" religion, just religion. Read the amendment again. And a "creator" is not necessarily a god nor did it say the "creator of the world" it said each and everyones own creator whatever that is to each and everyo
ne of us individually.
For me it is those who came before me.

 

[Fantasea]

So if some super intelligent alien race landed here tomorrow and said "Here we have figured it all out, the universe and all that, and have traveled everywhere and can tell you factually there are no supernatural beings and the universe was not created by a god, we are just who we all are"

You would then feel free to murder people and go into peoples homes and rob them and rape and beat people? You would feel no moral obligation within yourself to behave civilly and respectfully to your fellow human beings?


What it said was that government will not mix the power of government with the faith of religious belief, that government will not pass laws which respect religion or faith.



Not "a" religion, just religion. Read the amendment again. And a "creator" is not necessarily a god nor did it say the "creator of the world" it said each and everyones own creator whatever that is to each and everyo
ne of us individually.
For me it is those who came before me.

The founding fathers, being familiar with a national religion, The Church of England, did not want a national religion here. The words they used are, "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion."

Can someone cite a law that congress has made that establishes religion?

 

[Stinger]

The founding fathers, being familiar with a national religion, The Church of England, did not want a national religion here.

And being familar with the results of mixing the power of government with the power of faith, not just the Church of England and it's control of religion in England. They were very familar with the Renisance Popes and the Catholic Church's influence in political matters and the repression that it brought. They did not want the relious bodies controlling the political bodies nor having direct influence in either direction.

The words they used are, "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion."

Yes, not "a" religion, not a "national" religion, religion et al. Faith and religion should be left alone by government and vice versa.

Being a conservative I have never understood why religious conservatives would ever desire allowing some government influence on thier religion or the mixing of the two. It's really a very liberal concept.

 

[Montalban]

So France has now failed to survive, Wow! Anybody tell the French?

Without wishing to support the assertion that France has 'failed', any cursory look at this history since the monarchy will show several totally different attempts at government.

Republic (with various forms of dictaroship; such as during the Reign of Terror)
Napoleon (as 1st Consul, then as Emperor)
Restored monarchy (with a liberal monarchy moving to more absolute monarchy, then a switch of ruling houses in an attempt to revitalise liberal monnarchy)
Another republic
Another Empire (under Napoleon III)
Yet another republic
and so on. But the country has continued on.

However it is because of this adherence to secularist principles that they recently banned the wearing of religous gear in state-sponsored schools.

 

[Montalban]

how can the declaration of independance be unconstitutional on any level when it was writen before the f*cking constitution. also where in the constitution does it say that there is a separation of church and state? it says that the government can not endorse a single religion but christianity is not a single relighion but a number of religions that all belive in jesus. in my oppinion if it is unconstitutional to teach the declaration of independance that it should also be unconstitutional for the schools in the southwest to teach all of the history involving the spanish conquests in the southwest because of the cathloc missions.

It was unconstitutional (in terms of Britain's constitution) :mrgreen:

There was no 'right' to ceceed from Britian by force. You won by force of arms; with the help of the then big powers; France, Spain and Holland.

The same right to ceceed was one that the southern states thought they could operate under. So in effect the Founding Fathers thought that they had a 'right' to leave Britian, but the next gen of Americans didn't think that the same principle should apply to those (southerners) who tried to do the same. Is this hypocricy?

Also, while I'm ranting... why is it that Benedict Arnold is seen as a traitor, but Robert E Lee isn't? Lee did far more damage against the US and he had at one stage been a commissioned officer in the US Army, sworn to uphold the USA. :spin:

 

[anomaly]

It was unconstitutional (in terms of Britain's constitution) :mrgreen:

There was no 'right' to ceceed from Britian by force. You won by force of arms; with the help of the then big powers; France, Spain and Holland.

The same right to ceceed was one that the southern states thought they could operate under. So in effect the Founding Fathers thought that they had a 'right' to leave Britian, but the next gen of Americans didn't think that the same principle should apply to those (southerners) who tried to do the same. Is this hypocricy?

Also, while I'm ranting... why is it that Benedict Arnold is seen as a traitor, but Robert E Lee isn't? Lee did far more damage against the US and he had at one stage been a commissioned officer in the US Army, sworn to uphold the USA. :spin:

The circumstances of the civil war were quite different than those of the revoltuion. Were the southern states mere colonies in a system so unjust as that of mercantilism? No. The southern states were members of the union, not mere colonies, yet they felt they could just get out of the union, without so much as a vote in the legislature. So no, it is not hypocrisy.

 

[ShamMol]

The circumstances of the civil war were quite different than those of the revoltuion. Were the southern states mere colonies in a system so unjust as that of mercantilism? No. The southern states were members of the union, not mere colonies, yet they felt they could just get out of the union, without so much as a vote in the legislature. So no, it is not hypocrisy.

There is also the fact that in both instances, those who win write the history and thus are right to the future generations.

 

[Montalban]

The circumstances of the civil war were quite different than those of the revoltuion. Were the southern states mere colonies in a system so unjust as that of mercantilism? No. The southern states were members of the union, not mere colonies, yet they felt they could just get out of the union, without so much as a vote in the legislature. So no, it is not hypocrisy.

Just to concentrate on an individual example...
Robert E Lee was a defender of the United States in war (Mexico) and revolution (John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry). He had sworn to uphold the United States (I would imagine that there was some kind of oath to becoming an officer). Then he joined an armed rebellion against his nation, in an effort to undermine that nation and create a new state; the CSA.

This seems to me to be the act of a traitor. It thus seems to be trecherous to me regardless of the status of Virginina as a state as opposed to a colony; because parts of the USA which had 'rebels' were also not states, but territories. Texas had only recently joined the USA from being an independent nation itself. And it furnished traitors against the USA

 

[Montalban]

There is also the fact that in both instances, those who win write the history and thus are right to the future generations.

His argument also seems to be that the colonies, being less representative in terms of the over-all Brit. Empire had more of a grudge and therefore their rebellion was somehow less 'trecherous' than those who had enjoyed the franchise and benefits of the United States in the years 1776-1861. This seems to me a rather odd argument to make....that...

Someone who can vote is not a traitor when he rebels against his nation, but someone who is taxed without representation is not a traitor.

To a degree I agree with you. Had Britain won, then the rebels would probably not have called 'patriots'. Conversely, had the CSA won the right to have become a separate nation-state, then Robert E Lee would be seen as a great patriot for that cause.

I think he and all the other CSA fighters were traitors to their nation.

 

[Stinger]

Just to concentrate on an individual example...
Robert E Lee was a defender of the United States in war (Mexico) and revolution (John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry). He had sworn to uphold the United States (I would imagine that there was some kind of oath to becoming an officer). Then he joined an armed rebellion against his nation, in an effort to undermine that nation and create a new state; the CSA.

This seems to me to be the act of a traitor. It thus seems to be trecherous to me regardless of the status of Virginina as a state as opposed to a colony; because parts of the USA which had 'rebels' were also not states, but territories. Texas had only recently joined the USA from being an independent nation itself. And it furnished traitors against the USA

I think you have to bear in mind that back then your allegiance was to your state first and then the federal government. The states were the more powerful force not the federal government. And back then the states still consider themselves "members" of a union and the whole premise of the Southern secession was that a state had the right to chose to leave the union if it so desired, it was constitutional to do so. Now there is no point in trying to argue whether they were correct or not, it was what they held to be the case. So it can be correctly said that had Lee NOT joined in with the Confederacy to which his state had joined he would have been a traitor to Virginia. And that since Virginia believed in constitutional to leave the union he was in fact upholding the constitution. And he only swore to uphold it as long as he was an officer in the Union Army.

 

[Montalban]

I think you have to bear in mind that back then your allegiance was to your state first and then the federal government. The states were the more powerful force not the federal government. And back then the states still consider themselves "members" of a union and the whole premise of the Southern secession was that a state had the right to chose to leave the union if it so desired, it was constitutional to do so. Now there is no point in trying to argue whether they were correct or not, it was what they held to be the case. So it can be correctly said that had Lee NOT joined in with the Confederacy to which his state had joined he would have been a traitor to Virginia. And that since Virginia believed in constitutional to leave the union he was in fact upholding the constitution. And he only swore to uphold it as long as he was an officer in the Union Army.

This is a fair enough point. Robert E Lee might have been a US soldier (in the Mexican War) to be part of a 'collective security' of states. To me though, the North seems to have fought on the idea that the United States was a soverign entity of its own accord, not just a representative (in treaties and so forth) of a bunch of states. It is to this fact that saw many people 'betray' their state and fight with the nation.

I saw the epic "Civil War" series, in which a southern historian claimed that the USA used to address matters as "The United States are...", and after the war stated "The United States is...". He said the war changed you from an 'are' to an 'is'.

I suppose the heart of this would be the various arguments over the rights of states to break-away. I am not aware of this being in the constitution, but I'm not an expert. Do you know of any right, implied or stated in law that would allow this?

It would be interesting to see the wording of the oath of allegience that Lee swore to.

 

[Fantasea]

It would be interesting to see the wording of the oath of allegience that Lee swore to.

This is oath taken by US Army officers today. I doubt that it differs materially from that which was sworn by officers prior to the Civil War.

I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

 

[Montalban]

This is oath taken by US Army officers today. I doubt that it differs materially from that which was sworn by officers prior to the Civil War.

I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

Thank you for that. It seems to suggest that enemies 'domestic' are equally dangerous. If Lee swore to uphold this in his oath to become a US officer, and he took part in an aggressive war against Mexico and the 'rebel' John Brown, one would think that turning against his nation was an act of trechery... assuming also that the Constitution has no clauses for a state to separate from the union of states. I will see if I can find a constitutional site and have a look at it.

 

[Stinger]

This is a fair enough point. Robert E Lee might have been a US soldier (in the Mexican War) to be part of a 'collective security' of states. To me though, the North seems to have fought on the idea that the United States was a soverign entity of its own accord, not just a representative (in treaties and so forth) of a bunch of states. It is to this fact that saw many people 'betray' their state and fight with the nation.

I saw the epic "Civil War" series, in which a southern historian claimed that the USA used to address matters as "The United States are...", and after the war stated "The United States is...". He said the war changed you from an 'are' to an 'is'.

Yes many things changed after the War of Northern Agression. :wink3:

I suppose the heart of this would be the various arguments over the rights of states to break-away. I am not aware of this being in the constitution, but I'm not an expert. Do you know of any right, implied or stated in law that would allow this

I think it was more a matter of the constitution not preventing it. And of course it was Mr. Lincoln's primary concern, holding the Union together not ending slavery.

It would be interesting to see the wording of the oath of allegience that Lee swore to.

Which one? You might do an internet search.

Regards from the Heart of Dixie!

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

The war between the North & South states was actually about states rights but not in the sense that they have the right to break away from the Union. More so about each state being afforded the opportunity to govern themselves on manners of which the US Constitution did not set laws for. EXAMPLES: slavery, abortion, gay marriage, education, etc. These are things that were supposed to be governed by state & local governments while national security & defense was to be the primary function of the federal government as well as law enforcement; primarily concerning our protected rights.

Now I know today our federal government has more issues to deal with like our Interstate Highway System, etc...BUT, even that has turned into a way to blackmail states into submission.

 

[Montalban]

The war between the North & South states was actually about states rights but not in the sense that they have the right to break away from the Union. More so about each state being afforded the opportunity to govern themselves on manners of which the US Constitution did not set laws for. EXAMPLES: slavery, abortion, gay marriage, education, etc. These are things that were supposed to be governed by state & local governments while national security & defense was to be the primary function of the federal government as well as law enforcement; primarily concerning our protected rights.

Did the states have a right to quit the USA? If they didn't, then any attempt to undermine the USA in such a manner as Lee et al did, would be an act of trechery.

 

[Montalban]

Regards from the Heart of Dixie!

Did the southern states lose the right to leave, or is there still a possibility that they might (or any other state?)