Quote:
Originally Posted by electrolyte
I lead with this for my third post for two reasons: First, it would have been addressed in my previous post had I been able to access the material. Second, it is indicative of a disturbing pattern in marc's designation of what is "Christian." marc wants to pick and choose which things he’ll call Christian or not based not on the Bible but on his subjective interpretation of good or bad. But, as I've pointed out, this leads to such paradoxes as Christian non-Christians and Buddhist Jews. The resolution refers to principles "Christian in nature," not principles "adopted by some 'Christians' at some point in history." The fact that Christianity as a whole has been wishy-washy with some of its proposals has made it necessary to designate a meaningful, objective interpretation of the resolution, which are my four criteria that have been accepted by marc. Each has to do with the Bible, not some denominational idea that is practiced despite that idea's absence from the Bible. As marc himself objected to clarifying the resolution such that we would avoid denominational views, he should be held to this standard; a formal debate should not include willful, repeated violations of the terms agreed upon by the parties involved.
|
This goes back to my earlier reference to the way Jefferson edited his Bible to suit his beliefs. In the case of some founders, and in the case of what I’ve been saying, it isn’t wishy washy at all. Those few (very few) founders who were skeptical of certian aspects of Christianity including the divinity and resurrection of Jesus, the rituals of Holy Communion etc. had no issue with most all of the behavior aspects of Christianity, which involve how humans treat each other (love thy neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, all men are created equal, etc) Virtue and ethics. These things are seldom disputed among denominations, weren’t disputed by the founders, and were (are) often disputed by other belief systems, be they other religions foreign to those who populated the US at the time of the revolution, or humanism / atheism.
Quote:
|
marc has conveniently failed to make the distinction that the group of people who signed the DoI was not the same group that wrote the Constitution.
|
There’s actually not much of a distinction – the two documents are closely related. Several men signed both; James Wilson, Roger Sherman, George Read, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Benjamin Franklin. In 20th and 21st century education, Franklin seems to be the only real recognizable name, even though Wilson and Sherman were much more prominent founders, as I’ll go into more detail below. (Wilson, Sherman, Morris, and Clymer were all Christians)
Quote:
|
marc is more than welcome to make the case that later Amendments shouldn't be considered, but the fact remains that the Constitution says that Amendments are a part of the Constitution. Additionally, if marc wants to try to causally tie the Constitution to the DoI, he may do so, but he's still stuck with the original wording of the Constitution, plus at least the first ten amendments. So far, marc has failed to present a convincing argument for the position that all basic principles therein are Christian in nature.
|
Article VII of the Constitution FIRMLY ties the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution.
Quote:
|
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.
|
9-17-1787 –
twelve years after 7-4-1776, the date of the signing of the Declaration. 7-4-1776 is the date referred to throughout history, on all important documents, as the beginning of current US government. 7/4 is a national holiday, 9/17 is not. Since 1947, secularists like yourself have been trying to UNTIE the Declaration from the Constitution.
Quote:
The National Lawyers Association takes the position that there is a legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution based, in part, on the following:
A.Our Founding Fathers intended for the Declaration to be the
foundation for the Government that was being established.
B.The language in the Declaration of Independence itself makes it
clear that it is to be a vital and necessary part of the government.
C.The language in the Constitution acknowledges its legal
connection or relationship with the Declaration.
D.The Declaration has been referenced by various federal courts in hundreds
of decisions including several decisions by the United States Supreme Court.
E. Legislation by Congress admitting states into the union acknowledges
and confirms that the principles set forth in the Declaration constitute
the foundation of the government of America.
The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in the Declaration.
|
nla link
The Constitution neither abolished nor replaced what the Declaration had established, it only provided more specific details of how the US Government would operate under the principles set fourth in the Declaration. They both have basic principles and they both have minor details.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by electrolyte
Story is entitled to his opinion, but your reason for presenting Story as an authority was his relationship to Madison, an actual authority. I posted what Madison himself had to say; why have you ignored the actual authority, marc?
|
Because of this statement in my second post;
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
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.
|
My reason for presenting Story was because his comments were IN context – a Supreme court justice, close to the generation that wrote and ratified the Constitution, giving an interpretation of the constitution. In your quote mine, Madison was addressing the republican form of government only. Madison also said this;
Quote:
|
"A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest while we are building ideal monuments of Renown and Bliss here we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven."
|
Madison
The problem with quote mining contests is that they can take up a lot of space, and seldom be convincing for either side, because of so many variables. You force me into it however, so it’s something that must be done in this debate. Most people with your position of “they didn’t believe in the Christian God” confine their quoting only to Jefferson, Madison, and Adams, and forget other founders like;
Quote:
Samuel Adams;
The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty...The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.”
Alexander Hamilton;
"I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.
“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”
John Hancock
"RESOLVED, That it be, and hereby is recommended to the good People of this Colony of all Denominations, that THURSDAY the Eleventh Day of May next be set apart as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer...to confess the sins...to implore the Forgiveness of all our Transgression...and a blessing on the Husbandry, Manufactures, and other lawful Employments of this People; and especially that the union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights (for hitherto we desire to thank Almighty GOD) may be preserved and confirmed....And that AMERICA may soon behold a gracious Interposition of Heaven."By Order of the [Massachusetts] Provincial Congress, John Hancock, President.”
John Jay “I do not recollect to have had more than two conversations with atheists about their tenents. The first was this: I was at a large party, of which were several of that description. They spoke freely and contemptuously of religion. I took no part in the conversation. In the course of it, one of them asked me if I believed in Christ? I answered that I did, and that I thanked God that I did."
|
http://www.faithofourfathers.net/index.html
You’ve provided no indication whatsoever that anyone who “spoke freely and contemptuously of religion” had anything to do with the Constitution of the US.
Quote:
John Marshall "The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it."
George Mason
"My soul I resign into the hands of my Almighty Creator, whose tender mercies are all over His works, who hateth nothing that He hath made, and to the justice and wisdom of whose dispensations I willingly and cheerfully submit, humbly hoping from His unbounded mercy and benevolence, through the merits of my blessed Savior, a remission of my sins".
Benjaman Rush
"Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools."
Patrick Henry;
“Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of the number; and indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long, and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast.”
|
It’s interesting that you have (two or more times) called Patrick Henry a (non founder) This
link (a separation of church and state site) put together a pretty detailed criteria (see the chart) for indicating who the most prominent founders were. Nothing like this can be perfect, as they acknowledge, but it does give some interesting results. James Madison is at the top as expected, but every secularists favorite, Thomas Jefferson isn't second or third, he's....19th!! Notice your “non founder” Patrick Henry is only two places below Jefferson. But who was second, third, fourth, behind only Madison?
Quote:
Second, Roger Sherman “I believe that there is one only living and tru God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him.”
Third, James Wilson "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."
Fourth, Rufus King "The law established by the Creator, which has existed from the beginning, extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. This is the law of God by which He makes His way known to man and is paramount to all human control."
|
And the last one on the list;
Quote:
|
Noah Webster The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles. . . . This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.
|
Other notables about this list of prominence;
John Adams was even lower than Jefferson, 23rd.
Joseph Story, who you implied to not be an actual authority, was 28th.
Thomas Paine, another favorite of todays secularists, didn’t make the list.
Quote:
|
And I didn't have to. [respond to the Holy Trinity v US court case] It is hilarious that you have been railing against "fraudulent" court findings and bitching about ones that even you say are irrelevant to the Constitution due to their dates, while I have forwarded not one and you're whining that I haven't addressed one of yours.
|
I believe you had to. Repeating again the summary of that case;
Quote:
|
If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.
|
This was written about 100 years after the establishment of the US Constitution. This is simply the way it was in 19th century America. 20th, and now 21st century America has largely forgotten it, but that doesn’t mean it never existed. There are simple, historical reasons that it has been forgotten. The starter was Darwinism, gaining more and more enthusiastic support as the years went by through the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Though it happened in England, the Piltdown man hoax (a half man, half ape skull) lasted from 1912 to 1953, and its implications spread throughout America for those 41 years, until it was exposed as a complete fraud. Over five hundred historical dissertations were written concerning this skull during that time. This hoax was alive and well during the administration of FDR during the great depression, and FDR’s court packing bill, referenced in my last post that you didn’t address, was the result of Supreme court justices in the 30’s properly interpreting the Constitution to block much of the socialism that he wanted to put forward. It was his court appointees that gave us the main turning point in forgetting our actual history, and that was the “Separation of Church and State”. There were practically no references to this “separation” idiom before 1947, and after 1947 it happens hundreds of times each year, in the Supreme court and lower courts all across the country.
Quote:
|
marc is once again trying to assert that the only "basic principles" are those found in the Preamble.
|
I don’t know where you get the word “only” – I have been putting forward basic principles throughout the debate. I’ll summarize it all at the end of this post.
Quote:
|
marc keeps pounding away at a strawman. There is no reason to believe that all ideas must originate from some religion.
|
I never said they did, I said religion
or upbringing. Humanism/atheism. When I brought them up earlier, you called them strawmen as well. Basic principles had to come from the Christian religion, another religion, or some form of humanism/atheism. You don’t claim any of the three?
You take no interest whatsoever in where they DID come from, you’re just PASSIONATE about where they DID NOT come from? That simply does not make sense.
Quote:
|
The representative government of the Iroquois had some influence on the founders, independent of religion. Ideas of justice and defense did not originate with the Bible or with Christianity, and for marc to imply otherwise is outrageous. Nobody is foolish enough to positively claim that laws against stealing did not exist before the book of Genesis. The code of Hammurabi predates Jesus by nearly 1800 years; one could certainly argue that even this rough form of law was an attempt to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility. Buddhism and Confucianism arose centuries before Jesus, yet they teach ethics, civility, and peace. Whether the Founding Fathers got their ideas from these philosophies is moot;
|
No it’s not moot, and it’s very important if you can’t show any historical ties to your above philosophies to the founders backgrounds and upbringing. I can and have shown Christian ties to the founders backgrounds. I’ve shown quotes from prominent founders that specifically refer to Christianity. Can you show quotes from them where they referred to Buddhism, or Confucianism?
Quote:
|
marc is in no position to demand that we believe that these brilliant men were incapable of thinking for themselves or having ideas not based on existing philosophies.
|
Thinking for ones self and having ideas not based on existing philosophies has happened often in the case of new inventions, technological breakthroughs, etc. Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Eli Whitney, Henry Ford, could be examples. The difference between them and the founders is that they had to carry their ideas forward alone until they were proven – ideas not based on existing philosophies don’t get widespread support from others until they are proven. The idea of liberty, limited government and separation of powers wouldn’t have gotten such widespread support from so many people, without a unifying philosophy, that of Christianity.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by electrolyte
(John Adams)The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an æra in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.¹
--John Adams
|
And here’s more from Adams;
On April 18, 1775, a British soldier ordered him, John Hancock, and others to “disperse in the name of George the Sovereign King of England. Adams responded to him;
“We recognize no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus!”
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated June 28, 1813, he said;
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity"
As I said above, quote mining can take up a lot of space, largely because Christianity has lots more quotes to choose from. The reason is simple, the recorded quotes of the founders were positive towards Christianity a lot more than they were negative to it. Unfortunately, a lot of the non-Christian quotes come from when the founders were retired and getting on in years, and getting a little cranky and crotchety in their old age. Their accomplishments weren’t an overnight success, it’s safe to say that none of them lived to see how well it all actually worked.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by electrolyte
If marc wants this to be true, then I'll have to argue that Calvinism was a terrible, heathen denomination of Christianity, because these things have nothing to do with the Bible. I have provided examples of the Christian God's endorsement of monarchies. marc has not denied that these exist. I have mentioned where the Bible encourages involuntary slavery, which is an absurd contradiction to the idea that all men are created equal (which is not a part of the Constitution). In the Bible verse before the one that allows a master to beat his slave without penalty should the slave suffer for a day or two, the Bible says that the master pay only a fine for beating the slave to death, despite the fact that the law of the land was an eye for an eye, a life for a life. The Bible makes no designation of "all men are created equal," so even if it were true that Calvinism promoted this, it is not "Christian in nature" as agreed upon by marc.
|
The Calvinists of the day knew far more about the Bible than you do, so that may very well make it Christian in nature. As I noted in my last post, the Bible refers to free will 16 times.
Quote:
|
marc is still appealing to ignorance. Would I be incapable of recognizing that man is imperfect if I didn't read a passage in the Bible implying such? No. This is ridiculous. Did Buddhism and Confucianism fail to recognize failures of men hundreds of years before Jesus? No. Did Hammurabi's code exist in spite of Hammurabi's belief that men are always entirely blameless? No. All marc has done is shown a widespread understanding espoused by Madison, slapped a couple of Bible verses alongside it, and declared Madison's viewpoint to be shaped by the Bible. As I have shown above, this is woefully insufficient.
|
Not when it’s combined with Madisons education and background, and the Christian views of other prominent founders. Not when you can’t show ANY of the founders backgrounds to have any ties with Buddhism, Confucianism, or Taoism. Not when Federalist #2 shows that the founders and general population come from “the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
Quote:
|
If marc feels that he can defend the assertion that the parts of the Preamble are Christian in nature by making a case for the Christian nature of the “details,” then the opposite should be equally as good an indicator: It is unreasonable to ignore instances where the “details” are clearly non-Christian (or even anti-Christian) in nature.
|
What details in the Constitution are anti-Christian in nature?
Quote:
|
For example, in argument that "defense" is a Christian principle, marc cites Luke 11:21, which mentions arms, armor and safety, but the chapter also says that he who isn't with Jesus won't fare so well. In fact, Luke 6 tells us to turn the other cheek in invitation of another strike and to let a person take even more than that for which he came. Matthew 5:39 says not to resist an "evil" person at all! The only "defense" being advocated here is spiritual belief, which is certainly not the kind of defense the Framers meant.
|
As I pointed out in the previous post, from 1 Corinthians 10; “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us…"
Israel’s history serves as a historical application for Christianity. Israel had to defend itself, as described in the books of Joshua and 2 Kings. When combined with a verse like Luke 11:21;
“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."
It’s a case where a Christian teaching, combined with Old Testament history, leads to a conclusion about defense. There is no indication that there was a huge debate over the constitutional requirements to “raise and support armies”, and “provide and maintain a navy” like there would be in a secular founding. That is obvious in the heavily secular opposition to the US military that we see in the news today. There is no basis for strong defense in secularism.
Quote:
I’ve used several examples from the Bible because it is the only objective representation of Christianity that is available. You want “Christian principle” to have “nothing to do with” the Old Testament, which makes no sense. Is it the word of the Christian God or not? Either it is and is valid, or it isn’t and we have no reason to believe anything from the Bible. Picking and choosing is denominational, which you said you wanted to avoid.
But, just for kicks, I have referred to the New Testament (Gospels and 1 Corinthians(!)); you responded to it by citing the Old Testament (commandments). For you to now claim that the Old Testament is peripheral to Christian principle simply makes it easier for me to expose the fact that you are picking and choosing -- but worse, your picking and choosing changes with time depending on your needs.
|
Christianity is about New Testament teachings. They can harmonize, or they can conflict with,
human events in Old Testament history. In each case, the Old Testament is valuable, either as an example how to behave, or how not to behave. As above, the defense issue would be an example of how TO behave. Your many examples of Old Testament “atrocious cruelty” conflict with Christian teachings concerning behavior for the present and future. Without that PAST atrocious cruelty, Christian teachings wouldn’t have the historical lessons and references that they have.
You can call Christian decisions to apply, or avoid Old Testament activity “picking and choosing” if you want, but it’s actually my (and the founders) ability to distinguish between lessons of history, and recommendations for behavior.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by electrolyte
Calvinism was an explicitly religious doctrine. It cannot promote freedom of religion. “[T]he fundamental principle of Calvinism ... lies in a profound apprehension of God in his majesty, with the inevitably accompanying poignant realization of the exact nature of the relation sustained to him by the creature as such, and particularly by the sinful creature.” (link) Wikipedia lists the five points of Calvinism. Freedom of speech is not one of them. More importantly, though, freedom of speech is not encouraged in the Bible, no matter how much smokescreen and equivocation marc provides. Instead, as previously explained, the Bible sets punishments for certain spoken words, and the only unforgivable act according to the Bible is an utterace that is protected by the First Amendment's freedom of speech. marc hasn't a leg to stand on: Freedom of speech is a basic Constitutional principle that has no basis in the Bible or Christian nature and is in fact contradicted instead. |
From your link;
Quote:
|
The [five] points therefore function as a summary of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism but not as a complete summation of Calvin's writings or of the theology of the Reformed churches in general.
|
So the five points of Calvinism are not intended as a complete summation – there is more to Calvinism, and there is more to Christianity. From my earlier link;
Quote:
|
Calvinism was revolutionary. It taught the natural equality of men, and its essential tendency was to destroy all distinctions of rank and all claims to superiority which rested upon wealth or vested privilege. The liberty-loving soul of the Calvinist has made him a crusader against those artificial distinctions which raise some men above others.
|
The only reason to suppress free speech would be if the suppressor(s) felt a superior rank or privilege to those whose speech he/they were suppressing.
1 Corinthians: 9 says much about being free.
Quote:
|
“Am I not free………For it is written in the law of Moses: Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? ……..though I am free and belong to no man…….
|
Free speech is obviously a Christian principle.
Quote:
In regards to freedom of religion, marc says,
"My argument is about earthly, US government, from the 18th century to today. I've said nothing about Gods [sic] penalties - they are completely irrelevant."
Here marc knows that he's in trouble and tries to sidestep the issue. The Constitution says that no penalties may be placed upon people due to their religious beliefs. The Bible contradicts this statute; it specifically describes penalties for holding a different religious view. Exodus 22 lays out laws and penalties for men on Earth, and verse 20 says that those who sacrifice to other gods should be destroyed.
marc's argument is that God can penalize. If God Himself will "bring evil" upon people (Jer 6), then unless God is being un-Christian, this penalty must be Christian. The Constitution forbids such penalty. The Constitution is forbidding a Christian principle, not enforcing one; it cannot be Christian in nature.
marc picked "rights of individuals" as one of his "basic principles" of the Constitution, even in his non-descript first post, but nowhere in the Bible do we find either of these two examples as we do in the Constitution. They're simply not there, and marc hasn't even tried to argue that they are.
|
AGAIN, the phrase "free will" is found in the Bible 16 times. You continue to make no effort to distinguish between human history and principle.
Quote:
|
What about the witnesses, marc? Does the ninth commandment guarantee the right of the accused to confront their accusers? Does it ensure a fair and speedy trial? Does it ensure the right to a lawyer? Where are these guarantees, marc?
|
They are very minor details.
Quote:
|
More rubbish. I have mentioned numerous basic principles of the Constitution that are not Biblical in nature. marc is the one trying to appeal to history (DoI and court cases).
|
Now you’re not even making the distinction between the history of the Constitution / Declaration, and the Biblical history thousands of years before Christ.
Quote:
|
It is quite interesting to note that the discussion leading up to this debate had marc forwarding the argument that the United States was set up with a secondary goal of promoting the Christian religion, yet -- when the bar is set much lower for the purposes of this debate -- the arguments marc is setting forth here are even more impotent and meaningless. We've seen backtracking on which principles are basic, we've seen acceptance of criteria for labeling as "Christian" and immediate disregard for and distancing from those criteria, we've seen appeals to topics purposely rejected in the debate setup, bogus quotes from non-Founders, nonsensical attributions of religious beliefs, repeated references to documents other than the Constitution, continued harping on court cases that have nothing to do with the resolution, and soapbox proclamations of unrelated persecution allegations and skewed history from someone who claimed to promote real history. The goal of discussing the nature of the principles of the Constitution has instead evolved mostly into arguing which principles are "basic" and what it means to be "Christian in nature," and this has happened because a straightforward, fair determination of these factors leads to a conclusion regarding the main goal that leaves little to doubt.
|
The basic Constitutional Christian principles that I’ve put forward in this debate can be categorized into four groups; What the Constitution
recognizes (imperfection of humans) what its
goals are (domestic tranquility, blessings of liberty, a more perfect union, general welfare) what it
establishes (justice, defense, unselfishness, exclusion of Sundays from some government business) and what it
does not establish (social engineering –stumbling blocks)
It’s not debatable that it contains those things. I’ve linked them all to Christianity, and you haven’t linked them to anything else.