See this week's ACLU Blogburst here.
Did you know that the Constitution makes an explicit reference to Jesus Christ as Lord?
From the Signature section:
Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.
It's common knowledge that the "AD" dating system is a reference to the life of Christ. That's why some scholars are trying to change "AD" to "ACE" (after common era) to not offend Muslims and the like. More importantly, it is calling it the year of "our Lord", "our" being the collective pronoun which implies that it is the Lord for all the signers.
It is important to not be unwelcoming to those of other faiths or no faith, but that does not translate into the need to mute all Christian beliefs in the public square or to require that all public officials be atheist (or non-Christian). Our founding was ripe with religious references, and more important, the source of our rights which makes the US distinct is based on religion.
Other nations give rights to its citizens out of its largesse. It can give rights and take rights away at will because they are rights the state can bestow. Not so in the United States. God has granted man certain inalienable rights that the government has no business taking in the first place. The United States can't take away the free speech of a person because it has no legal or moral power to do so. It doesn't grant free speech. We already have it. It simply does not get in the way. The acceptance of a higher power than the state is the cornerstone of the entire doctrine of rights in the United States, take it away and there is nothing stopping the government from repealing or amending, say, the First Amendment. The United States can't give away a right to an education or a right to health care because rights aren't for the government to give.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - alethinos59
O Bombastic! I had such hopes for you after last week's posting... Now you toss this out..
I would recommend you do some more UNBIASED research... What you are referring to was NOT an advocacy OF Jesus Christ. Virtually ALL LEGAL and FORMAL documents of that time - and indeed of times not too distant past - into the middle of the last century, OFTEN had that reference...
A good many of the FOUNDING FATHERS were NOT Christian in ways that a lot of the Christian Right WISHED they were. Indeed a portion of them were Deists of a sort... Others did attend church nominally...
But these SAME men, who made SURE that the Federal Government would NOT, and I quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,".
And you see THIS is why those who do NOT hold with Right Wing Christians, including many MANY of us who FIRMLY believe in God and Jesus Christ OPPOSE your efforts.
Your ignorance is so deep, so prevasive... Your prejudices so grevious... Your hatred of all those who are not in STRICT agreement with you... It is terrifying. It smacks of Nazi Germany...
You, nor any that think LIKE you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to tell ANYONE ELSE how to think or ACT. And GOD BLESS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION which PROTECTS us from the likes of you...
Alethinos...
PS And in keeping with the ancient Greek term I use, you are the antithesis of another term... PHRONESIS...
2 - The Fifth Dentist
This article has a few logical deficiencies.
1) "[There is no] need to mute all Christian beliefs in the public square or to require that all public officials be atheist (or non-Christian)."
First of all, this is called setting up a straw man. Is anyone calling for such a requirement? Secondly, the only reason the government couldn't do either of these things is because of the protection of the First Amendment.
2) "The acceptance of a higher power than the state is the cornerstone of the entire doctrine of rights in the United States, take it away and there is nothing stopping the government from repealing or amending, say, the First Amendment."
I'm sorry to disillusion you, but the Constitution can be amended. In fact, the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) was added by the amendment process. These rights can be taken away by repealing the amendement. It actually happened once. The 19th amendment (probibition) was repealed. If everyone agreed, the First Amendment could similarly be repealed.
3) "The United States can't take away the free speech of a person because it has no legal or moral power to do so. It doesn't grant free speech. We already have it."
Without the protection of the First Amendment, it would.
4) "The United States can't give away a right to an education or a right to health care because rights aren't for the government to give."
I don't even know what the fuck this means. The constitution can be amended to create these rights. Are you saying it can't?
3 - Liberal
And the Constitution also explicitly references indentured servitude and the idea that people may not be free.
Isn't it good that we live in a more enlightened time?
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
4 - alethinos59
Bombastic's lack of education is sad... What is even worse is that in so many ways he represents a LOT of folks one finds in both Red and Blue States...
But then the demagogues that one finds throughout the media and at the pulpit NEED people like Bombastic. They are the carriers of the virulent "meme" that these same demagogues spew forth...
Alethinos
5 - billy
that is absurd, thats part of one of the opening clauses, it forms no part of the laws in the document. it is without effect. they could have said the moon was made of cheese, it isnt part of the law,
besides it doesnt say "God".
6 - Lee Richards
John:
Like the fly said as he walked across the mirror, "That's one way of looking at it."
If you would like to know what the Framers really thought about freedom of religion and the separation of church and state-no matter what their personal beliefs-read some Thomas Jefferson. And the best place to start is the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which was an influential forerunner of the first amendment.
Carpe Diem!
7 - gonzo marx
correct billy, we all know the "Lord" referenced there is lord JuJu, may his tusks glow in the Light of Reason, the Elephant god...
silly of Sloop John B to think otherwise
Excelsior!
8 - alethinos59
Gonzo... Virtually ALL legal and official documents of that time used that phrase - it was a given. What is pathetic, 229 years later is for narrow-minded bigots of Bombastic's stripe to clutch at things like this in order to assert that the Founding Fathers SOMEHOW, secretly DID want to set up a Theocracy of some sort...
Hmmm... I wonder what demonination of the dozens that existed then and the THOUSANDS that exist now they would have preferred?
Of course, Americans being so civilized none of this would have led to religious wars as it did throughout Europe and England...
What a punch of putz' you are!
9 - Shark
This is the funniest post on BC in ages.
Seriously, Bambi, I didn't think you had a sense of humor, but this brilliant bit of satire is a riot.
Thanks for the laughs, Bambineck!
10 - gonzo marx
alethinos....
allow me to elucidate, my silly little comment was meant to be sarcasm...i guess it wasn't well put...and not sarcasm towards billy either, but towards Bambenek, since the word "Lord" is not give reference...i am quite aware of the traditional aspect of utilizing Roman calendar nomenclature
hope that helps
Excelsior!
11 - Shark
Does this happen to anyone else?
Every time I start to read one of Bambineck's "essays", my eyes scroll across the sentences, I see each individual word, but by about the second or third sentence, my internal voice perceives them as "'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe. All mimsy were the borogoves..." etc. etc.
And so help me gawd, I can't actually read Bambi's words anymore.
This ever happen to anybody else?
Signed,
Curious & Curiouser
12 - Nancy
The facts are that even as we sit here blogging, congress, the USSC, & this administration are busy eroding or completely negating our "guaranteed" rights via the Patriot Act, special acts of "emergency", rulings like that of the New London, CT. land grab, etc. Think you have freedom of speech? Think again. Try saying something inflammatory or threatening about BushBoy in public. Y'don't even have to do that: FBI dossiers on anyone who even disagrees with Smirk are extensive, and this administration is notorious, infamous even, not only for secrecy but for retaliation - all in violation of civil liberties and various rights & laws on open government and non-retaliatory policies. Think you have a right to your hard-earned house? Well, we all know that if McDonald's or Walmart wants your house now, all they have to do is pay off their buddies at town hall & voila! Out you go - and to add insult to injury, you'll have to pay rent to those trying to steal your property while you fight to keep what's yours. Think you have a right to privacy? Har har har. Boy, are you living in a drug-induced haze: for-profit corporations gather every jot of your most private & personal information hourly, and then sell it to the highest bidder without your knowledge or consent - and congress does NOTHING about it, even tho millions of persons have had their information violated or stolen in the past few years, because they've been bought & paid for by these same money-grubbing data collecting corporate thieves. No one argues that in these times dangerous people don't require more stringent handling; if it were just the government keeping tabs on would-be terrorists, that would be fine & dandy; but far too much of this is being done by private, for-profit businesses, who have no business intruding into any such things - such as, for example, the data company that's busy loading high school, jr. high, and even grade-school kids' information into databanks for the military to use in future recruiting efforts, data which includes their SSNs, birth dates, etc. ... and there is no restriction by either the military or the civil government on what this corporation is allowed to do with this data once they have it. They want to sell it to Frederick's of Hollywood? Fine. As far as the US government & congress are concerned, the corporation has their blessings.
We've got rights, but they're only on paper, in disappearing ink as far as the government is concerned, and subject to instant and constant abrogation at their whim - and no one not on The Hill has any input about it whatsoever.
13 - Dave Nalle
SOmetimes Bambi makes sense, then sometimes he makes crazy posts like this. Clear signs that religious belief is a form of mind warping insanity.
Dave
14 - alethinos59
Damn it Gonzo! Everyone on the board here KNOWS you don't unleash satire on Thursdays in September!
No wonder I couldn't see it... That and I was on only one cup of coffee at the time..
sorry
15 - Antfreeze
I had lunch yesterday with a friend and when I mentioned the recent govt. thinking about using nukes against terrorists, he said, "I wouldn't mind if they nuked the entire middle east. It's in the bible." Shark, I wish I had your problem. I read this idiots stuff and I just want to puke. Yesterday at lunch somewhere in the middle east, two people sat around saying, "I wouldn't mind if they nuked the whole USA. It's in the Qu'ran." Both these groups of lunchers feel equally righteous and are still equally full of shit. I plead for Juju to kick all your asses back into the real world. Not the world you wish you lived in, not the world of 200 or 2000 years ago.
16 - alethinos59
Actually Shark what happens to me, within the first two sentences is the following...
"m u s t... m o c k... t h i s... IDIOT!"
I don't know... We're all "ignorant" at some level, but when I see IGNORANCE hoisted up and proudly marched under I get VIOLENTLY ill...
Alethinos
17 - alethinos59
BOMBASTIC: "Alethinos, there is no call for this rudeness!"
ALETHINOS: "On the contrary Bombastic! You INVITE rudeness, it would be impolite not to accept it."
18 - ukexpat
This whole article is sarcastic, right? Tell me this wally doesn't really believe this...
19 - alethinos59
What? You mean Bombastic? If you are alluding to HIM, oh no... He is for real... More's the pity...
Alethinos
20 - Al Barger
John, I want to be supportive and all, but you're somewhere three steps past silly to be taking it as a "an explicit reference to Jesus Christ as Lord" that they stated the DATE in the Constitution.
We could go off into "natural rights" and "natural law" and so on, but I'll just say here that I wouldn't be real comfortable basing my rights as a citizen on your fictional Jesus character.
In short, you're essentially setting up a false dichotomy that we have to either accept Jesus or unlimited government. I reject both.
21 - Dave Nalle
Personally, I like the complete and utter irrelevancy of the paragraph of AD - what exactly does the choice of dating terminology have to do with the structure of government.
Having read this three times now, it seems more and more like some sort of crazy random word assemblage than an actual essay.
Dave
22 - Scott Butki
Dave, off-topic question: Why are there two Dave Nalle's listed here? Is one an evil twin?
On-topic, this is the first I've heard about anyone wnating to change AD at all so I'm skeptical about any claim following that one.
23 - Joey
If my theology indoctrination to Hebrew and early Christian scriptures serves.... the people of "The Way" aren't supposed to swear blood oaths, or oaths anyway... in other words it's against scriptural principle to "Pledge Allegiance" anyway.
In fact, demanding people to enact a Pledge to anything or anyone is against the Word of God.
Surprizing turn of events. Those desiring to erase the pledge out of public schools are actually doing stupid Christians a favor.
I wonder if those responsible for the act of brotherly protection even realize the implications of preventing their "brothers" from stumbling or striking "his" foot against a stone (causing one to sin).
24 - John Bambenek
1) Jesus is not fictional, historians have reference for his existence. Whether he was God or not, ok, you could debate that.
2) I didn't realize that the year of "our Lord" was a reference to Caesar. My bad.
3) To see more on how rights are derived, I suggest you read the Declaration of Indepedence.
25 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, off-topic question: Why are there two Dave Nalle's listed here? Is one an evil twin?<<
I post from two different computers with different IPs and it remembers them as separate people. A glitch in the BC security mechanisms.
DAve