You can't understand the Constitution without God

You cannot understand much about politics or history in the eighteenth century without understanding God. Society in the American colonies was Judeo-Christian by nature. Indeed you cannot understand atheism without understanding God. God has been at the heart of our cultural and philosophical discourse for millennia. Even Karl Marx, the ultimate anti-religious philosopher, sought to understand God:

In your OP you say "absent a dispensation from God". Of course we are left guessing as to what form such a dispensation would take. In theology "dispensation" means an ordained system. Here "a system of revealed commands and promises regulating human affairs " (Mirriam Webster). In this case, according to you, it is dispensed by God. How?

Let's make one obvious but not necessarily exclusive assumption: perhaps the Bible ordains such a system. And what did the American Revolutionaries, who fought the divine right of kings (another "dispensation from God" which sought Biblical authority) think of the Bible:

Of course this is polemic and to this extent you are right: there was scarcely a thinker in the 1770s who did not consider themselves some sort of believer in God. Hobbes and Locke, the Enlightenment philosophers were believers and Lockean concepts of "natural rights" were underpinned by the concept of a God ("endowed by their Creator of certain unalienable rights" according to Lincoln). Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were believers. Thomas Paine himself believed in a Creator. It is indeed very difficult to discuss anything back then (or even now might I argue) without the influence of God somewhere along the line.

But this was not necessarily a Christian God. Firstly the number of Deists in the Founding Fathers (Franklin and Jefferson for example) was significant. And they believed strongly that the world should be governed by reason and not by faith or any revealed dispensation from God - no revealed system of commands and promises except those determined by the people.

And then there is that part of the story which American conservatives struggle with - the history bit. The American Revolution was founded in religious movements this is true - from the Levellers and the Diggers in England for example and believers like Freeborne John Lilburne whose Agreement of the People written in England in 1647 was a pre-cursor of the US Constitution. These movements were radical challenges to the divinely ordained dispensation of monarchies and as such were characterised by aspirations for liberty and freedom. In 1770's America the call for the freedom of religion and religious tolerance was powerful from the progressives who saw religious institutions as forms of political oppression. America was not free of such religious bigotry and oppression: Mary Dyer hanged in 1660 for being a Quaker in Boston is a notable example. The spirit of the 1770's was one where science would triumph over such superstitious evil and the secular would therefore triumph over the religious institution. All the Founding Fathers were supporters of reason against faith. The use of the Bible as a dispensation was therefore an anathema to them. And the only "revealed dispensation" that is worth speaking about for Christians is the Bible.

So in the end: of course God is involved in the US Constitution. That is a truth that is self evident. So what? What exactly is your point?

You may be derisive if you wish but derision is best placed for those who think you can discuss American or any other country's politics in the eighteenth century without discussing which particular and very different interpretation of God's revelations was valid. The real question, and the whole point of any discussion in the eighteenth century on this matter is: whose God? Paine's? Washington's? King George's? That of Madison and Jefferson who saw religious liberty and the very absence of a dispensation from God as the essence of the US Constitution? Or that of Patrick Henry who would impose religious tithes on the former subjects of the British Crown? Your intolerance of that very question and unwillingness to discuss it without a promise of being "derisive" elucidates nothing but hostility to the fundamental and central principles of the American Revolution and the US Constitution: religious liberty, the absence of religious orthodoxy or any established religion and diversity and curiosity in religious interpretation.

 

it's like in the old Sun God days saying you can't have day without the Sun God

 

Well think of it another way: you couldn't have Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins without God. God has defined them.

 

But this can't be true. Are there not commandments that demand one beleive in a god, that you can't worship idols, say you have to keep a weekly holyday, that you must respect your parents, and you can't have desires for another man's wife or belongings? What laws are there, exactly, where these commandments are embedded?

Seems like the only commandments that coincide with our laws are the ones concerning murder and stealing. Both of which are necessary to limit if one desires a functioning orderly society and are not necessarily a function of religious thought.

 

sure you can, there are plenty of God myths out there, still no real Gods

.

 

"You can't understand the Constitution without God" is a bit of a stretch I would think . Sort of like saying you can't understand god without the constitution.......

 

Everything I've seen indicates just the opposite.

Of course it does, to those who imagine any religious test codified into law could be a reliable indicator of the prospective officer's connection to God.

You speak more truly than you know.

Of course it does.

So what?

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

No it wasn't, but that's not precisely on topic.

Who said anything about that?

To be sure. What it is not is God-given insight, without which the Constitution cannot be understood.

Where do you get that idea?

not a transcendent principle which predated England by millennia at the very least.

Who said anything about that?

Again, it's not a concept, and predated the Enlightenment by millennia at the very least.

I've done nothing of the sort, obviously.

The probability of any reality that can support human life existing without God is exactly zero.

No doubt this is very rankling indeed to those who believe in any such entity, but its relevance to the OP is a complete mystery.

I care nothing for its utility as a theological term of art.

Same way any other God-given insight is dispensed to any individual: directly and wordlessly.

That has no bearing on the OP.

Certainly atheists tend to find that idea attractive, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the Founders were professing Christians.

You don't understand what that is. Moreover, the DoI makes it clear that the signers justified their rebellion by faith in God.

Your competence as a spokesperson for Christians is dubious to say the least.

If there was more than one God between them, obviously at least one of those "Gods" was an impostor.

The essence of the Constitution, insofar as it can be verbalized, is in the Preamble and the principles enunciated in the DoI, which clearly encompass more than religious liberty.

 

You think that materialism is emotionally satisfying? Didn't you say just the opposite a moment ago? Religion and belief are soothing concepts, not materialism. I have no incentive to be a materialist.

I was actually a Christian when I was younger. I was "saved" at a Billy Graham event and went to church as a kid and preteen. I held on as long as I could, and I did NOT want to let go. Only after the evidence became overwhelming did I succumb to materialist arguments.

I do not know where you get this special insight, but I tend to believe you are just deluding yourself, though I don't mean that disrespectfully.

 

Why don't I think we are born with a God-given conscience? Maybe from the lack of remorse in polygamists whose religion condones multiple marriage; or in cultures who kill their girl babies; or in the contrast between Muhammadans who treat little boys are fair game as compared to Catholics, who name that sin and punish it.

Our conscience can deceive, since we can be mistaken about what is required or forbidden. If we are born with a conscience, it is in the capacity for remorse. What triggers our feelings of remorse is learned from our parents, our church, our teachers, our culture, our laws, and our experience.

 

You have a fantastic and extremely rare grasp of what a conscience is and where it comes from. I have only encountered a few people in my lifetime who are conscious of their conscience. Almost everybody can "perceive" what a conscience is, but only a few can "conceive" what it is. Those who do not conceive the connection between God and the conscience will never conceive the connection between God and the constitution. They can look up and see the stars, but they can never look into the heavens.

 

TV Evangelists really irk me.

AA

 

As far as remorse environment and condition does have a great deal to do with it but much of it is genetic.

There are people who are Sociopaths who are born with absolutely no capacity for remorse.

AA

 

Me too, especially Joel Osteen.

[video=youtube;b9s9e9K_2xM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9s9e9K_2xM[/video]

 

LOL!!!

Good one!! LOL!!!

Even an ant is conscious.

And it is the size specific to the mass of an animals body...and humans are animals....along with neural density that determines the level of consciousness or sentience.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

If they were actually good Christian's they would use all that money in food kitchens and provide medical care rather than building their TV Empires.

AA

 

I had assumed you weren't just here to screw around and get cheap jokes in. Fair enough, enjoy your rodeo.

 

No, but it provides cover from ideas which are emotionally threatening to egotists.

No.

And if you don't use the "reply with quote" function in your response, the conversation ends here.

So just how else do you figure we perceive what God requires or forbids?

 

I'm fine with the conversation ending now. You generally have a highly hostile and rigid personality, so there isn't much point in arguing with you about anything that touches on religion.

 

An assumption which was obviously correct, though it is hardly surprising you now find it convenient to pretend otherwise.

 

And then we have the neo cortex....

 

the church and many religious leaders are very materialistic... why do you think they collect all that money....

 

In reality there really is not that much difference between humans and other animals.

Sure we have the big brains but Genetically....we have a whole lot in common with all life on Earth.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus need's a few bucks?

AA

 

I was referring to materialism in the philosophical sense.

 

Which other animals are equipped with a neo cortex like ours?

 

did you mean secularism?

 

No. Secularism has become too left-leaning and political for me to associate my philosophy with it. You could say I am a naturalist or a scientific materialist.