The word "all" is your friend - the word "basic" is my friend.


Current media discussions about constitutional application to political topics of the day aren’t likely to give anyone a definition of basic principles of the constitution. When these discussions arise in the popular press it is almost always because of a conflict between two (often well funded) political special interests. Even in strictly educational discussions, or non-funded, ‘fun’ ones such as this, it can easily turn into a founding-father-quote-mining contest, often using out of context quotes, or treaties or court decisions completely unrelated to the original constitutional principles. A common one of those would be “separation of church and state”, an 1802 metaphor from an informal letter that was resurrected from the dustbin of history and inserted into a court decision 145 years later. Another one would be the Treaty of Tripoli, which states that the U.S. was “in no sense” founded on the Christian religion. It is almost always out of context, because its purpose wasn’t to summarize the US constitution, it was to appease a Muslim nation, for trade purposes. When its phrase “in NO sense” is laid beside the actual Constitutional words “except Sundays”, an acknowledgement of the fourth Christian Commandment, it is obviously 100% false. The fact that more truthful means weren’t used to convince another nation that the US had no religious restrictions that would prevent secular trade is disturbing, but such is politics I suppose. It’s definitely not the last time something similar has been done by the federal government.

The best way to get a 30 minute (or a few hours) crash course on basic constitutional principles, would be to get completely away from todays popular press - political discussions involving a multi trillion dollar government and all its associated special interests, and carefully read every word of the Constitution itself, and the actual history that goes with it. Joseph Story, a Supreme Court Justice from the early 1800’s, was appointed by President James Madison.

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/jos..._and_state.htm


Sections 985 thru 991 give his concise yet detailed interpretations about the relation of religion and government, as he interpreted the Constitution that was largely written by the president who appointed him. I won’t c/p it all, but here are a few notable statements from it;


And

Is “an attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference” your position in this debate? Has it been the position of Americans United for Separation of Church and State since they organized in 1947?


The above Joseph Story commentaries are from the early part of the 19th century - 1833. Advancing 59 years to the later part of the 19th century, we find the Supreme court decision in Holy Trinity Church vs. U.S.,which is partly summarized as follows;

http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinityOp1-2.htm

Is it your position that 20th and 21st century America knows more about constitutional principles than did 19th century America?



I basically agree, but with your vague words like “significant”, and “reasonably” I’m sure we’re not going to completely agree on it. It will be up to the reader to decide.


Those three things, and others are found in the preamble of the Constitution, with “blessings of liberty” synonymous with “rights of individuals. The preamble reads like this;



These are all Christian in nature because perfect unions, justice, domestic tranquility, defense, general welfare, and blessings of liberty are all topics of the Bible, and thought of by Christ as good things. If the preamble read like….. the Humanist Manefesto for example, with its put-downs and mistrust of religion, then they would not be Christian principles.

The preamble contains aims, or goals, all Christian in nature, and separation of powers / checks and balances are a means (also Christian in nature) of carrying them out.

Concerning “general welfare”, examples are in Article one, section eight of the Constitution. Congressional power to regulate commerce, coin money, post roads, raise and support armies, etc. These are not basic principles, they are minor details.

Having children is a natural instinct. There are many natural things that animals do, or that humans do that are instinctive, or immediately self gratifying. Things that are taught in the Bible, that benefit another, or ones self, and aren’t immediately gratifying can qualify as Christian principles. Many are claimed to not be Christian principles because they are claimed to be the result of natural logic and reason, and that can be a source of controversy. Atheism can claim any Christian principle it wants as its own deduction of logic and reason, and how acceptable it is has to be discussed on an individual basis. It’s clear to me that more Christian principles are claimed to be secular logic and reason in this day and age, than they were at the time of the founding of the US. A secular public may today claim that much of the successful principle in the US founding was logical in a secular way, because we have historical evidence that it worked very well, but the secular public at the time of the founding may not have considered it logical then, because they had no experience with it. As I worded it in my first post; “[the US constitution] was “an original conception, a new idea for government without precedent on the face of the earth.”


You’re taking examples of the earliest Biblical history and applying them to 18th century Christianity. It was roughly 1000 years from King David’s time to Christ’s time. The 18th century Christian religion of Calvinism shows that Christianity did in fact promote a representative form of government.

Also;
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397351b419af.htm

I only copy/pasted two highlights, the whole link explains it completely.

Of all the founders, James Madison was called the father of the Constitution, undoubtedly the most influential writer of the the document. Before entering public life as a Virginia state delegate in 1776, he attended The College of New Jersey (later to become Princeton university), whose founders and faculty members were all deeply commited Christians. His main Princeton mentor was John Witherspoon, who was a Presbyterian minister as well as the president of the university, and would later sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The personal closeness of Witherspoon and Madison is beyond serious dispute.


http://www.thelockeinstitute.org/jou..._v2_n1_p4.html

As above, I only copy/pasted the more relevant part of the link - the entire link page is a worthwhile read.

Importance of conscience, strict personal morality, understanding of human dignity, these are basic Christian principles that are outlined in the goals of the preamble of the constitution.


This was covered in the above link about Calvinism, perfectly compatible with the founders obvious disinterest in attempting to play God, replace God, or compete with God. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is Gods. What God allows and what he approves of are two entirely different things. The world would be nothing like it is without free will, and Christianity believes God has a plan for it, that fits with a free will of man. That's not a denominational claim, that's a general Christian claim.

I believe I met all your challanges to me, though your post seemed to be a somewhat confusing blend of responding to me and appealing to judging. If I didn't sort them out to suit you, you can let me know. I'm not interested in direct appealing to judges at this early stage of the debate.


The Henry quote is in dispute. Certain political interests wish it to be fake, probably not so much for what it says, but to discredit those who claim it to be true. There is a real possibility that it was only known by word-of-mouth, and when enough witnesses die, some very real things are not possible to prove. It’s not important to me however, since as I said, I don’t endorse it. I don’t claim alliance in any way with some Christian organizations who attempt to re-write US history to try to offset atheist organization attempts to re-write it in opposing ways.



I wish that were true, if it was I believe most all of the Deist label that’s increasingly applied to the founders could be put to rest once and for all. But at least one serious historian (David Holmes) makes a profound distinction between Christian Deists and non-Christian Deists. In this brief summary of a Holmes book, I think it’s clear that he tries to make an honest attempt to study and project American history in a neutral way.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/3857639.html



I disagree. If we’re examining the principles that a written document contains, the beliefs, upbringings, and activities of it’s writers are of utmost importance. As we constantly see from the disputes over the first and second amendments alone, even the simplest wording doesn’t always produce consensus. Some people don’t believe the second amendment allows the general population to possess guns, and some people find the word “separation” in the first amendment.

My methods are more roundabout than emotional glances at things like the Treaty of Tripoli, I’ll admit. When taking into consideration James Madison’s education at Princeton at an important developmental stage of his life, we find his intent for the constitution in some of the Federalist papers makes perfect sense. In number 55, he states that “there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust” – in number 51 he recommends a governmental structure designed to “pit ambition against ambition”, in 37 he worries that the “infirmities and depravities of the human character” make it extremely difficult for even well meaning citizens to tame “mutual jealousies”, or reconcile “discordant opinions”, and in 10 he warns that “enlightened statesmen” dedicated to “the public good and private rights” will be rare because “self love” even among the wisest and most well intentioned souls can trump “opinions” and “passions” and because the human tendency to “vex and oppress each other” is “sown in the nature of man”.

These principles in NO WAY conform to any non-Christian government, past or present.

When re-writers of history desperately try to convert Madison into a Deist with their quote mining, he is in almost every case taking exception to a certain religious leader, or denomination, not the Christian religion in general.

For a government to be principled in Christianity, is "a point wholly distinct" (Joseph Storys phrase) from a specific establishment of Christianity. This was so understood in the 19th century that it seldom made it to court cases. Today, it is so ignored and forgotten that it seldom makes it to court cases. Is this forgetfulness ignorance, or is it dishonesty?

__________________
Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?