Marc9000 vs. Electrolyte-- Christian Nation

[electrolyte]

Part I: Rebuttal

Originally Posted by marc9000

Article VII of the Constitution FIRMLY ties the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution.

Merely by mentioning when the Declaration was signed? This is ludicrous, but if marc wants to add all of the principles in the Declaration to his list of principles that he has to prove to be Christian, that's only more work for him.

Originally Posted by marc9000

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.

I fail to see why someone who wasn't involved in the writing of the Constitution gets to be a reliable source because he was a SCOTUS Justice of the era, but a President who was extremely involved can't be used as a source because he was involved!

Originally Posted by marc9000

In your quote mine, Madison was addressing the republican form of government only.

marc calls my citation a quote mine, but it's a quote discussing the right to religious freedom from a document entitled The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. How this can possibly be seen as taken out of context is astonishing.

Originally Posted by marc9000

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.

That's not my responsibility in this debate, but I'll do so below. The burden is yours, and it is is to show that the basic principles in the Constitution are Christian. My opposition to murder happens to coincide with what you claim is a Christian principle, but that doesn't make me Christian.

Originally Posted by marc9000

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.

It defines "founders" extremely loosely for the purposes of this debate. A person could have had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution and have met nobody who did and still end up on the list. But the real irony is this statement:

Originally Posted by marc9000

Thomas Paine, another favorite of todays secularists, didn’t make the list.

Yet Paine's Common Sense was instrumental in both convincing colonists that a change was necessary and... proposing a framework for a Constitution! And Paine was very outspoken against religion; he rejected Christianity in virtually every aspect, yet he came up with major parts of how the Constitution is set up, especially representation (that aforementioned topic that is discussed nowhere in the Bible).

Originally Posted by marc9000

I believe you had to [address the Holy Trinity decision.

You acknowledge that this is from 100 years after the Constitution and want me to address it, but you won't address the civil rights amendments because they're from too many years after the establishment of the Constitution: less than 90 years. This is special pleading.

Originally Posted by marc9000

I never said they did, I said religion or upbringing. Humanism/atheism... Basic principles had to come from the Christian religion, another religion, or some form of humanism/atheism.

marc has still provided no reason to believe that all ideas must originate from some religion or upbringing. My previous argument still holds.

Originally Posted by marc9000

... it’s very important if you can’t show any historical ties to your above philosophies to the founders backgrounds and upbringing.

I've shown using historical sources that your insinuations are indefensible: these "Christian" principles preexisted Christianity, therefore the principles did not originate from Christianity.

Originally Posted by marc9000

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.

Even if marc's reasoning were true, it is more logical to consider that "unifying philosophy" to be the desire for freedom. These people didn't spontaneously attain their religious beliefs, regardless of what they were, in the middle 1770s. On the other hand, real progress started being made after Paine's Common Sense was published...

Originally Posted by marc9000

And here’s more from Adams; [snip]

Unlike marc's, my quotation is actually addressing the subject of the debate, namely the the principles of the government. marc has completely failed to respond to the fact that Adams -- despite the fact that he was a Christian, according to marc -- stated in no unclear terms that religion did not play a part in the formation of the government. This is particularly damning to marc's argument because -- if Adams really injected Christian religion into the Constitution because he thought that was the right thing to do -- why would he lie about it?.

Originally Posted by marc9000

The Calvinists of the day knew far more about the Bible than you do, so that may very well make it Christian in nature.

marc just insists that Calvinists were great representatives of Christianity. Let's look at Calvinism:

Most savagely of all were punished any offenders whose behaviour challenged Calvin's political and spiritual infallibility. A man who publicly protested against the reformer's doctrine of predestination was mercilessly flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled. A bookprinter who, in his cups, had railed at Calvin was sentenced to have his tongue perforated with a red-hot iron before being expelled from the city. Jacques Gruet was racked and then executed merely for having called Calvin a hypocrite. Each offence, even the most paltry, was carefully entered in the records of the Consistory so that the private life of every citizen could unfailingly be held up against him in evidence.¹

So Calvin tortured and killed people for speaking out against him and for questioning his religious doctrine. marc's preferred representatives of true Christianity support my point.

Originally Posted by marc9000

Not when you can’t show ANY of the founders backgrounds to have any ties with Buddhism, Confucianism, or Taoism.

marc completely avoids my point. Noticing that humans aren't perfect isn't dependent upon any religion. Slapping a Bible verse alongside common knowledge doesn't make that knowledge "Christian" or dependent upon Christianity.

Originally Posted by marc9000

It’s a case where a Christian teaching, combined with Old Testament history, leads to a conclusion about defense.

History in general leads to a more important conclusion about defense: it predates Christianity. Saying that the Founders thought defense important because it's passingly mentioned in the Bible is preposterous.

Originally Posted by marc9000

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.

This is more special pleading. According to marc, Christianity picks and chooses what parts of "God's word" from the Old Testament are good. Christianity asserts that there is but one God, and that the God of the Old Testament is the God of Christianity. For marc now to claim that the acts of God in the OT to be examples of "how not to behave" only proves my point about the wishy-washiness of marc's brand of Christianity.

Originally Posted by marc9000

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.

Regardless of "reason," Calvin muzzled, tortured, and executed people for their words and beliefs despite not being elected. That's four strikes against your favorite example of Christian principles: representative government, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and banning of cruel and unusual punishment.

Originally Posted by marc9000

The Calvinists of the day knew far more about the Bible than you do, so that may very well make it Christian in nature.

Originally Posted by marc9000

Free speech is obviously a Christian principle.

But the Calvinists, who "knew far more about the Bible," forbade freedom of speech. If it were obvious, then this wouldn't be true, and you'd have been able to present an even remotely compelling case.

Originally Posted by marc9000

AGAIN, the phrase "free will" is found in the Bible 16 times.

Phraseology is not the important thing in this debate, principle is. The Constitution forbids penalty for exercising some aspects of free will, but Christianity does no such thing, and neither did your pet Calvinism.

Originally Posted by marc9000

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)

Regarding "imperfection of humans," I have already argued that this is no more a Christian principle than anything else. I have argued that it is ridiculous to presume that a person cannot realize that mankind is imperfect if he or she did not read it in a religious book first; it can be gleaned merely from observing with no a priori knowledge of any philosophy. I have argued that this is clear based on simple history: laws addressing misbehavior of man predate the Bible and philosophies that encourage people to strive for bettering themselves predate the Bible.

Regarding "goals" of the Constitution, ideas such as "domestic tranquility" and "general welfare" are no more Christian than they are anything else. These are general ideas that existed in governments long before the Constitution and in history long before Christianity.

Again, with "establishments," marc simply provides a list of nonspecific ideas that are widespread and not original to Christianity. Hammurabi's Code was an attempt to establish both justice and domestic tranquility. Calling "defense" a Christian principle would require that the notion of defending oneself was unheard of 2000 years ago, but history again tells us that this is not the case. Indeed, I have shown that the Bible makes more effort insisting that one not resist aggression.

marc has continually been pushing the "Sundays excepted" clause of the Constitution. This is a single clause excepting Sunday only from being counted against the President's allotted time for vetoing a bill. This is the only mention. Had the Founders been promoting observation of the sabbath, they would have applied this to more than a single event which is better explained by something as simple as travel: if the President were away from the Capital and required several days' travel to return, yet was not able to secure transportation due to people who do observe the sabbath, that day would not be counted against the President. (Many states had laws prohibiting travel on Sundays.²)
Notice that this clause doesn't forbid the President from vetoing on a Sunday, so the Constitution is in no way promoting the observation of a sabbath day. If the President were an Orthodox Jew and refused to veto a bill on a Saturday, that Saturday would count as a day, but the following Sunday would not; for someone of any religion observing a sabbath day, this clause simply provides them a net day of sabbath credit.

Originally Posted by marc9000

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.

I'm not debating that the Constitution contains these things. marc may think that he's "linked them all to Christianity," but he has done so only in a way that allows each of them to be linked to countless other things that are certainly not Christianity, many of which are philosophically contrary to Christianity.

Part II: Summary
As this is my final post, I will summarize my position, the main points of the debate, and why the judges should be more compelled by my arguments.

A: Overview
It has been marc's task in this debate to show that "all basic principles in the U.S. Constitution are Christian in nature." The terms of the debate required that determining which principles are "basic" and that establishing the meaning of "Christian in nature" be internal subjects of the debate.

B: Internal Components
1. Basic Principles of the Constitution
a. Basic Principles
marc has failed to produce a coherent argument for establishing which principles of the Constitution should be considered "basic." His original argument was to look to the Federalist Papers. But marc didn't stop there; instead, he cherry-picked the "Sundays excepted" clause from the text of the Constitution to argue that basic principles supported observing the sabbath. He continued with freedom of religion and discussing separation of church and state, acknowledging that the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights should be considered basic principles (even though some of the Federalist Papers encouraged ratification without a Bill of Rights).
Only after my first response did marc change his tune: suddenly the only principles that qualify as "basic" are those general ones found in the Preamble. But this is contrary to marc's opening post, where he expounded upon ideas that had no link whatsoever to the ideas found in the Preamble. marc had no response to my objection to this in his third post, in which he simply repeated that the Preamble was the source of basic principles. By his fourth post, marc had turned the debate almost completely to the second internal component of the debate.
It was marc's responsibility to establish a reasonable set of principles that can be considered "basic" for the purposes of this debate. While he got close in his first post, the remainder of his posts actually contradicted the general overview that he originally outlined. The fact that this happened only after my opening statement had made it clear that he would have a steep uphill climb using that set suggests that his own preferred set -- the most reasonable one by his original standards -- has been defeated.

b. of the Constitution
marc has repeatedly tried to use phrases from the Declaration of Independence, court cases, and quotations to argue that ideas are Christian. marc has absurdly tried to "tie" the Declaration to the Constitution by showing that the Constitution mentions the year the Declaration was signed. The resolution clearly addresses the principles that are actually found in the Constitution.

2. Christian Principles
As the affirmant, it was marc's responsibility to present a satisfactory demarcation of which principles are Christian. Although he attempted to do so, my first post made it clear that his attempt was insufficient: besides being ridiculously generic, marc provided no way to determine whether an activity met his criteria. I instead presented my own criteria, complete with reasoning, and marc accepted these criteria as reasonable, even referring to them later in claiming that his examples fit some of my criteria.
Each of marc's examples have unfailingly fallen to at least one of these criteria. In many cases, he has presented a mere cherry-picked verse that vaguely and passingly references a topic, then proceeds to insist that this topic is therefore "linked" to Christianity; for example, a mention of armor in the Bible cannot reasonably be believed to be impetus for designing a system of defense. In some cases, topics are located nowhere in the Bible, and marc has had to appeal to denominational beliefs because the topic is neither endorsed nor encouraged. Many of the principles in the Constitution are actually contradicted by the Bible; for example, the Bible tells us that people will be stoned and "destroyed" for certain speech or believing different religions. In fact, the only unforgivable sin mentioned in the Bible is a mere utterance that is protected from persecution and prosecution by the Constitution.
The criterion that marc's arguments failed most, however, was number two. It is imperative that a "Christian" principle be truly Christian, not generic. marc stated,

Originally Posted by marc9000

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.

If a markedly contrary philosophy such as atheism can lay equal claim to a principle, it is disingenuous to call it meaningfully Christian. marc's only reply was to challenge the validity of some (non-Christian) philosophy's claim to that principle and then to change the subject to my lack of presenting any atheistic claims. I have shown that many of the ideas that marc claims to be Christian are held by several philosophies, not just a single one, and that those philosophies predate Christianity, so those philosophies cannot have "stolen" Christian ideas. In fact, sometimes it was the other way around. For example, to assert that "defense" is a certifiable Christian principle, then "Christian principles" were around long, long before any of the tenets of Christianity. This is absurd.

marc's failure to present any reasonable criteria contrary to mine and his acceptance of my criteria make it clear that these should establish the demarcation of Christian vs. non-Christian for the purposes of judging this debate

C. On the Christian Nature of Basic Principles
As marc chose to include the word "all" in the resolution, his burden is enormous. Should marc fail to show the Christian nature of even a single basic principle, he has failed to adequately support the resolution.
Contrastly, I need show merely one basic principle that is not Christian in nature in order to defend my position. I believe I have provided several examples of such, and marc has been unable to satisfactorily defend his side against them.

1. Representative Government
I have shown that the Bible endorses systems of kings and have argued that nowhere does the Bible support representative government. marc's only response to this point was to argue that Calvinism, a denomination of Christianity, does. But nowhere does he support this assertion; Calvin was not elected and instead simply took charge of Geneva, establishing what was essentially a theocracy controlled by himself and a collection of church elders³. While a representative government provides an avenue of change for citizens, Calvin executed or banished those who questioned his beliefs, decisions, and authority.¹

2. Separation of Powers
marc's own citation from Isaiah shows that separation of powers is contrary to Christian principle: the verse says that God has each power that is spread amongst the three branches of government that are established by the Constitution. Nowhere do we find argumentation in the Bible for the actual separation that we find in the Constitution.

3. Freedom of Religion
As marc used this example himself, it should clearly be considered a basic principle. The First Amendment protects the right of people to practice their preferred religion without any form of authoritative or legal punishment. marc's best examples of this in the Bible were actually instances where people chose to reject God and were punished because of it, which is completely opposite the First Amendment. I proceeded to give more examples of punishment from authority based on religious deviation from the Christian norm; marc's counters were lacking: He appealed to Calvinism -- but Calvinism was a religious doctrine and is by definition (and practice¹) not supportive of freedom of religion -- and he used special pleading to distance Christianity from Biblical atrocities. Only through fallacy can marc make the case that freedom of religion is a Christian principle.

4. Freedom of Speech
Because freedom of religion can be acknowledged as a basic principle, so can freedom of speech. Nowhere in the Bible do we see promotion of such an idea. The Bible instead contains examples of punishment for speech, such as condemnation to hell for blaspheming the holy spirit or being sentenced to death for cursing one's parent. The Constitution expressly forbids the punishment for these actions.
marc's most fervent attempt to attribute this principle to Christianity was to appeal to Calvinism. marc insists that Calvinism was civil and responsible, endorsing the freedom of everyone. But this is not what Calvin taught based on his religion: history shows¹ that Calvin was a tortuous oppressor when it came to speech he didn't like. Clearly, if Calvinism had anything to do with Calvin himself, marc's defense is no defense: freedom of speech is not a Christian principle.

5. The Judicial System
The Constitution sets up an elaborate system for the courts, including a plethora of protections of those accused of crimes. The Bible has no provisions for court systems and no protection of the rights of the accused. Although marc tried to "link" the provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Bible, he addressed only two of the several, and when asked to elaborate on the others, he dismissed them as "very minor details." These "very minor details" are more examples of principles significant enough to be in the Bill of Rights -- which was a necessary part of ratification -- but marc didn't show their Christian nature.

6. Prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment of lawbreakers. It is acknowledged that torture is certainly forbidden, and minor crimes will not elicit the death penalty in the U.S. But this is not the case in the Bible: for mere sabbath-breaking, the penalty is death. The Bible specifies that it is fine for a man to beat his slave so badly that the slave cannot rise for two days. The Inquisition is notorious for its interesting torture devices created and used in the name of Christianity. Even marc's favorite example of Calvinism was chock full of torturous punishment. To argue that Christianity prohibits cruel and unusual punishment is to completely ignore both the Bible and recorded history.

D. Fallacies
marc has provided numerous lines of argumentation in his attempts to discredit my position. I have shown that none of them are sufficient. However, it is worth pointing out some of his fallacious arguments. Unfortunately, word count prevents me from listing all of them.

• marc provided a bogus quote and insisted without evidence that its authenticity is in dispute.
• He repeatedly attacked the Everson decision even though it has played no part in my arguments.
• He attacked the strawmen of communism, socialism, atheism, humanism, and secularism, none of which are pertinent to the subject at hand.
• He attacked the strawman of my not presenting "atheist arguments." My position does not require that I forward any atheistic arguments, or even anti-Christian ones; my position addresses the nature of the basic principles of the Constitution.
• He referred to documents other than the Constitution, even though the resolution limits the debate to those principles found in the Constitution.
• He engaged in special pleading, picking and choosing which parts of the Bible he wants to acknowledge, including hand-waving away the Old Testament while referring to parts of the Old Testament.
• He engaged in special pleading in rejecting the provisions of the Civil Rights Amendments as basic because they came too long after ratification but wanting me to address the Holy Trinity decision that came even later.
• He engaged in special pleading when, after insisting in the debate setup that we not delve into denominations, he appealed to denominational practices and beliefs. This is particularly egregious because it is a violation of the arrangement upon which the debate terms were decided.
• He improperly appealed to authority in pushing Story because of his relationship to Madison and instead belittled Madison's own words.
• He argued that the personal religious beliefs of some founders are sufficient to determine as Biblical the origin of ideas that went into the Constitution, a non-sequitur.
• He presented a false dilemma in the argument that principles must come from either a religion or an upbringing. Ideas are not dependent upon either.

E. Conclusion
I have presented a collection of principles that I argue are contrary to Christian principles. marc has failed to counter any of my arguments and has therefore failed to show that those principles are Christian in nature. In fact, marc was unable to provide compelling reason that any of his own examples are Christian in nature by any reasonable definition. Virtually all of marc's arguments fall prey to an important criterion that he accepted: non-genericness. marc draws weak links between the Constitution and the Bible and argues that that link makes a principle Christian in nature, but this method would also "establish" that principle as one of any number of non- or anti-Christian ideas. This is clearly insufficient. marc's position remains unaffirmed.

Thanks to marc, 4forums, and judges.

1: http://schismata.com/html/calvin.html
2: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg10b.htm
3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ca...eformed_Geneva

OOo word count: 3500

[marc9000]

Originally Posted by marc9000
Article VII of the Constitution FIRMLY ties the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution.

Originally Posted by electrolyte

Merely by mentioning when the Declaration was signed? This is ludicrous, but if marc wants to add all of the principles in the Declaration to his list of principles that he has to prove to be Christian, that's only more work for him.

That mention encourages STUDY, not hasty generalizations. Study that can come to this conclusion;

“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.”

Originally Posted by marc9000
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.

Originally Posted by electrolyte

I fail to see why someone who wasn't involved in the writing of the Constitution gets to be a reliable source because he was a SCOTUS Justice of the era, but a President who was extremely involved can't be used as a source because he was involved!

I never said Madison can’t be used as a source, but a cherry picked quote mine of his from a state issue doesn’t necessarily sum up his entire view of the Constitution. Madison was extremely involved, but he wasn’t the only one. His words;

"You give me a credit to which I have no claim in calling me "the writer of the Constitution of the United States." This was not, like the fabled Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads and many hands. "
James Madison, letter to William Cogswell, March 10, 1834

http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-...son/index6.htm
(6th one down)

Story, as a Supreme Court Justice of the day had the job of analyzing the work of those many heads and many hands, a few decades after its establishment. Story was not a cherry pick – his was an overall summary. He was close enough, yet distant enough, and quite qualified to provide an overall summary of the Constitution like no other.

Originally Posted by electrolyte

marc calls my citation a quote mine, but it's a quote discussing the right to religious freedom from a document entitled The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. How this can possibly be seen as taken out of context is astonishing.

It’s not astonishing at all if you understand American history. Established churches in states flourished for many years under the constitution – placing denominations on equal footing IN STATE GOVERNMENTS was a slow process. In Virginia, the Church of England (the Anglican church) was the only established denomination, even though members of other denominations (Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Quakers, etc. ) outnumbered them. It was to rectify this inequality, to disestablish one church and place all denominations on equal footing, that inspired Madison to write these words. What he (and Jefferson) accomplished in Virginia – equal denominational protection - had already occurred in several other states. The reason the Virginia statute is so popular is because it involved Jefferson and Madison – two of the four or five favorite founders of history revisionists, the easiest to quote mine in favor of anti-Christian revision.

Originally Posted by marc9000
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.

Originally Posted by electrolyte

It defines "founders" extremely loosely for the purposes of this debate. A person could have had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution and have met nobody who did and still end up on the list.

You’ve provided no resources to back that up; I’m afraid you haven’t shown enough knowledge of US foundations to attempt to disregard the exhaustive research that obviously went into the formation of that list. Proof of that is your attempt to make the Constitution stand completely alone, as if it has nothing to do with other founding documents, like the Declaration, or Federalist papers. And here is yet more proof;

Yet Paine's Common Sense was instrumental in both convincing colonists that a change was necessary and... proposing a framework for a Constitution!

No link? My previous link (the table of prominent founders) and the following link say you’re re-writing history.

After American independence had been won, Paine played no part in the establishment of the new republic. Instead, he busied himself trying to invent a smokeless candle and devising an iron bridge.

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/paine.html

Paine and his pamphlet, Common sense, had something to do with the revolution, but not with government structure. During the writing and ratification of the Constitution, he was in England and France – it was there, in 1793, he wrote his largely anti-Christian “Age of Reason” which was in no way influential in US foundations (since it was written well after the US Constitution was established. He finally did return to the US in 1802, and was largely unwelcome because of “Age of Reason” and died as an outcast. The opinions of other founders, and the general population, of him and his “Age of Reason”, was summed up quite well by John Adams;

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, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.

http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm

I’m not saying Paine was a nobody - he could be considered an intellectual, and can be considered one of over 200 founders of the US. But the constant trouble and poverty he found himself in more often than not indicated that he had little in common with other founders, certainly the more prominent founders on the above prominence list.

Originally Posted by electrolyte

You acknowledge that this is from 100 years after the Constitution and want me to address it, but you won't address the civil rights amendments because they're from too many years after the establishment of the Constitution: less than 90 years. This is special pleading.

The Holy Trinity decision was 100 years after, but it addressed the originality of the Constitution / foundation. Civil rights amendments were changes.

Even if marc's reasoning were true, it is more logical to consider that "unifying philosophy" to be the desire for freedom. These people didn't spontaneously attain their religious beliefs, regardless of what they were, in the middle 1770s. On the other hand, real progress started being made after Paine's Common Sense was published...

They didn’t spontaneously attain them, they brought them from Europe. From my earlier link;

“Furthermore these people came to America not primarily for commercial gain or advantage, but because of deep religious convictions. It seems that the religious persecutions in various European countries had been providentially used to select out the most progressive and enlightened people for the colonization of America.”

marc completely avoids my point. Noticing that humans aren't perfect isn't dependent upon any religion. Slapping a Bible verse alongside common knowledge doesn't make that knowledge "Christian" or dependent upon Christianity.

It’s not common knowledge that humans including leaders, are imperfect. It is not today, and was not then, clearly proclaimed as Christianity always has. You won’t see the humanist manifesto or communist manifesto saying anything negative about their leaders. Because of ever increasing humanist influence, we’re seeing less and less recognition of human imperfection – as stressed by Madison in the Federalist papers - in todays scientific studies and history education. Madison didn't exclude himself from human imperfection like elite humanists do.

Originally Posted by marc9000
It’s a case where a Christian teaching, combined with Old Testament history, leads to a conclusion about defense.

Originally Posted by electrolyte

History in general leads to a more important conclusion about defense: it predates Christianity. Saying that the Founders thought defense important because it's passingly mentioned in the Bible is preposterous.

It’s preposterous to claim that because something has both Christian roots and secular roots, that it can’t possibly have anything to do with Christianity. Crucifixion is central to Christianity, yet it didn’t originate with Christianity, and Christ wasn’t the first, or the last person crucified.

Defense without aggression, as in conquering territory, was quite unique to the US at that time. Most other countries of the day had a military largely for aggression, or had very little military. Even today, the US would have very little military, if anti-Christians had their political way. The Constitutional specification of a navy, in that era (the 18th century) showed an unusual, strong requirement for defense. Many successful countries of yesterday and today have very little defense, compared to even the early 20th century US.

Regarding "imperfection of humans," I have already argued that this is no more a Christian principle than anything else. I have argued that it is ridiculous to presume that a person cannot realize that mankind is imperfect if he or she did not read it in a religious book first; it can be gleaned merely from observing with no a priori knowledge of any philosophy. I have argued that this is clear based on simple history: laws addressing misbehavior of man predate the Bible and philosophies that encourage people to strive for bettering themselves predate the Bible.

The difference is that Christianity recognizes ALL humans as imperfect, in a somewhat equal way, enough for the founders to make the statement “all men are created equal”. Other philosophies recognize human imperfection, but only as applied to the general population, not themselves or leaders. The misbehavior of certain humans or groups, is addressed less and less in recent decades as US Government institutions and bureaucracies continue to grow and grow. Erosions of LIBERTY, a basic Constitutional principle. If peoples money is confiscated to support more and more government to better them, they don’t have liberty.

As marc chose to include the word "all" in the resolution, his burden is enormous.

I chose it because it was the only way to get you to this debate format. Wording technicalities have been largely used since the early 20th century to advance “separation of church and state”. You’re obviously more concerned with word technicalities and victories than you are with finding out what the truth is. Will I have any regrets on what words I chose depending on the judges decisions? Not hardly.





SUMMARY;

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)

In this day and age, the resolution “All basic principles in the US Constitution are Christian in nature”, at first glance looks like a difficult resolution to prove, but as this debate showed, there simply was no other source for the original principles. Christianity was by far the major belief system of the founders and the general population at the time of the revolution, and only Christian thought could have arranged them in their final, accepted order. It was an assertive list of guidelines, blended with NO social engineering. My reference in my first post to the University of Houston political science professors research, (that the Bible was the founders most often quoted book) and my third post reference to the US population at the time (English, Scotch, German, Dutch) being largely Christian, led to this statement in my third post;

Originally posted by marc9000 The US population has multiplied by about 30 in the 200+ years since the revolution. That the descendants of the above 3 million don’t have the same stark recollection of their heritage – that more recent immigrants never knew it – that times and technology have changed, doesn’t change the Christian principles of the Constitution that were incorporated and approved by the population at the time the Constitution was written.

This was my question from my fourth post, which my opponent didn’t address;

Originally posted by marc9000 You take no interest whatsoever in where they [principles] did come from, you’re just passionate about where they did not come from? That simply does not make sense.

Opposition has to be inspired by something. My opponent has brought fourth many beliefs other than Christianity, yet does not commit to any of them. His position can be effective because it’s hard to observe – it actually isn’t even there. Any attempt of mine to question or focus on any anti-Christian arguments simply caused him to call it strawman, then quickly switch to something else. His position is obviously current day humanism, which does not contain the imperfect nature of humans that the founding of the US, a main Constitutional principle does. Humanism states;

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html

This claims an ever diminishing imperfection of man, an eventual complete nullification of my earlier Federalist paper quotes about what is “sown in the nature of humans”. (federalist number 10) Nothing in history shows that a “larger understanding” by certain humans will promote liberty among general populations.

My opponents biggest accomplishment in this debate by far, was his ability to max out his word limits, in an attempt to confound and confuse. He almost completely referred to me in the third person, as if he wasn’t actually debating me, he was just talking about me from some superior position. His several personal jabs - his “[sic]”s by my minor grammatical errors (while committing a few of his own) go along with the one logical fallacy that I believe trumps (summarizes and combines) most of the others – the attempt to ‘use emotionally loaded words to sway the audience's sentiments instead of their minds. Many emotions can be useful: anger, spite, condescension, and so on.’ He showed plenty of all three.

My opponent used up many of his word limits by constantly confusing history with principle. Principle is a comprehensive and fundamental law, a conclusion based on a combination of several things, including history. Principle is not an attempted copy of history, it’s a comprehensive conclusion, of which history can play a part, both positively and negatively.

His most notable false statements that were completely exposed in this debate, with links, were as follows;

"I don’t consider documents that aren’t a part of the Constitution (like the DoI) a part of the Constitution."

"...the Deist Founders were not referring to the Christian God because they didn't believe in the Christian God."

"Yet Paine's Common Sense was instrumental in both convincing colonists that a change was necessary and... proposing a framework for a Constitution!"

My opponent mis-represented both Christianity and US history in this debate. They are two entirely different things of course – Christianity has been mis-represented for 2000 years. It’s a worldview thing, and not much more about it applies to this debate. But the misrepresentation of US history is much more recent, and much more serious in terms of the future of the US. As Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the US said;

"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about.... America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture."

http://catholiceducation.org/article...cs/pg0040.html

Some of that lack of memory is dishonest, and some of it is ignorance. It’s a domino effect – as more and more school children are dumbed-down concerning American history, even in the unlikely event that the dishonesty can decrease, the problem will continue to increase. US Christians often lament that “untouchable” Supreme Court judges are the problem, or that our liberal, unionized education system is the problem. They are controlled by the elected politicians, and the elected politicians are controlled by the public. As we continue to forget what we were yesterday, one thing is for sure; It’s the fault of the people and no one else.

When John McCain said that “…since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles”, he was responded to by anti-Christian groups in a similar way that my opponent responded to me in this debate.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...=ib_topstories

If anti-Christians believe that the current “larger understanding” requires a “NEW statement of the means and purposes of religion” then they need to argue it on the basis of that larger understanding, and not try to dishonestly re-write history to speed the process, fill gaps, or otherwise cheapen Christianity in the US.


That’s all folks! Thanks for reading.

Marc

[billsco]

Thank you both electrolyte and marc9000.

I've PMed the judges to begin their deliberations. The plan is to post them simultaneously. I can imagine this will take some time. Patience is what is on the menu now.

A reminder that Ringside is open and comments are appreciated.

[billsco]

All three judges have weighed in. Here are their decisions in the order received.

E Mutz:

I would like to compliment the participants for their efforts in this debate. I have a new found respect for previous debate judges as I found that I had 78 pages of text to review for my final analysis.

My two key measures of success in this debate were the resolution and the criteria established within the debate to determine what is “Christian in Nature”.

Resolved: All basic principles in the U.S. Constitution are Christian in nature.

Electrolyte posited and Marc accepted the following criteria for determining if a principle is “Christian in Nature”.

1. It must have significant parallels or extensive mention in the Bible.
2. It must be reasonably distinct from widespread, non-Christian or irreligious ideas.
3. It must be endorsed or encouraged by the Bible.
4. It must not be significantly contradicted by the Bible.

Thus, as framed by the resolution and agreed upon by the participants, all basic principles must pass the above criteria.

Of these, the second principle was the most problematic for Marc as Electrolyte noted in his conclusion:

Virtually all of marc's arguments fall prey to an important criterion that he accepted: non-genericness. marc draws weak links between the Constitution and the Bible and argues that that link makes a principle Christian in nature, but this method would also "establish" that principle as one of any number of non- or anti-Christian ideas. This is clearly insufficient. marc's position remains unaffirmed.

Although it was not my belief that the DOI was connected to the Constitution, Marc made the most substantiated claim; therefore, I accepted his view over Electrolyte’s for the context of this debate. All this did; however, was provide Marc the additional burden of proving the “Christian Nature” of the DOI, a needless burden that expended a great deal of hand wringing.

Concerning the preamble of the Constitution, Marc noted:

“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.”

In my judgment, Marc did not explain how these principles are “Christian in Nature” rather; he noted that Christ would consider these “good things”. If anything, this compounded Marc’s problem as the pre-existence of these things (necessary for Christ to approve them) rather argues against these things being “Christian in nature” under Criterion #2.

A great deal of effort was expended debating the religious beliefs of the Founders. I saw this as irrelevant to the Resolution. I am a Christian. That does not make this paragraph “Christian in nature” simply because it was written by a Christian.

In my view, Marc never successfully established Criterion #2, that these ideas are reasonably distinct from “widespread, non-Christian or irreligious ideas”. He notes that these ideas are mentioned in the Bible, but does not demonstrate how these ideas are distinct. Electrolyte made this point clear early on and was not burdened by the resolution with establishing a source for these basic principles despite Marc’s insistence that he do so.

Once Criterion #2 was agreed to all Electrolyte needed to do was provide example one of the basic principles whose origins were clearly not specific to Christianity. He provided the example of the Hammurabic code as an answer to the Christian Nature of Justice.

In my opinion, not one basic principle of the Constitution was established to be Christian in Nature viz a viz the four principles. I make this observation as a Christian.

Winner: Electrolyte
__________________________________________________ ______________

unkerpaulie:

very good debate overall, i am impressed with the structure of the debate, the first 2 posts shows how much these formal debates has evolved. it started to digress a little but overall it was very good. here's the breakdown as i see it

electrolyte
pros: powerful start, excellent work with the definitions. his 4 criteria for what made up a christian principle were right on, except i didnt fully agree with 2, because a christian principle that is followed by non-christians is still, imo, a christian principle. his identification of the burden of proof was also dead on: he was only required to show that ONE basic principle was a non-christian principle, and that would have resolved the debate

cons: electrolyte struggled with the distinction between christian and biblical. christianity didnt emerge until after jesus' time, which was essentially the new testament and onwards. also, christianity overturned many old testament ideas, so there is a distinction between them that cannot be overlooked. as i stated above in his 4 criteria, electrolyte also falsely asserted that a principle followed by atheist made it a non-christian principle. this is not the case, but marc didnt capitalize on this. i was also annoyed by electrolyte's style of agression and mild antagonism as a debating tactic, rather than debating with reasoning and evidence

strongest arguments: 1. freedom of religion is a basic principle which is definitely non-christian. he should have hammered this home, but he did highlight this. 2. the bible, as well as christianity, advocates a political system of sovereignty, not democracy. this is another principle that is in direct disagreement to christianity


marc9000
pros: i like the way he refined his position throughout the debate and stayed focused to his main points. his debate surrounded and developed around his central argument which ill go over in a minute

cons: he got caught up in a struggle distinguishing between calvinism and christianity. also i felt he wasnt proactive about properly identifying what the basic prinicples in the constitution were

best arguments: the fact that the founding fathers, and most of the american population at the time, were almost unanimously christians or of religions derived from christianity. this fact would surely affect the content and context of the constitution

final verdict: i would judge that the debate was resolved in electrolyte's favor. the basic principle of freedom of religion and plurality is definitely a non-christian principle, and while electrolyte didnt drive this home emphatically enough, i would say that the point stands and the debate is resolved

__________________________________________________ _____________

Steeeeve:

The resolution was that “all basic principles in the US Constitution are Christian in nature”. I think from the very beginning this was an impossible resolution to argue and this was proven in the debate.

While I believe Marc did much better than I could imagine in the debate, I do feel Marc made a few key mistakes of which the biggest was letting Electrolyte establish the principles which are basic and how to determine if they are Christian in nature. This needed to be established by Marc at first to ensure the debate focuses on that instead of Electrolyte wanted. Other than that, Marc had many good points and actually displayed the most interesting fact to me which was the chart showing who was the most influential when it came to our founding (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/quote1.htm). For all the glory Jefferson gets, it appears he wasn’t as big of a founder as one might think. In the end, Marc had no chance at proving this or even giving a reasonable argument because it is something that can’t be proven or disproven sufficiently. The reason for this is because the constitution sets up a government as opposed to preaching about God. If say person X has a Christian background and that morality influences every decision then would be it be easy to prove that person X did his job to the best of his ability because it is a Christian value? I think it would be rather impossible to show this even if true. At the same time I doubt you could prove no Christian principals influenced the constitution. Electrolyte claimed this in the last post but I failed to see where the argument had any real merit.


With regards to Electrolytes posts, I think Electrolyte did a good job of framing the debate the way Electrolyte wanted which made Marc more on the defensive and less likely to make a relevant point. Electrolyte proved to have good tactics and information to back up positions and, for the most part, well reasoned arguments. I was disappointed that Electrolyte seemed to have a more hostile tone in the debate (I admit Marc did at some points) as there is no need to say a poster “lives in a fantasy world”, for example, or something along those lines. There seems to be a growing trend of these personal attacks on this forum and I was hoping it would stay out of the formal debates. In the end, Electrolyte did what was needed to win and Marc couldn’t overcome the overwhelmingly high burden placed by the resolution.


I appreciate getting the opportunity to judge this debate and I hope you two will remain positive debaters who will continue to use the Formal Debate forums. I also would like to stress that the decision in this formal debate by no means establishes a right and wrong answer on the subject; it only establishes who debated better given the resolution. Thanks everyone and have a Merry Christmas (and Christmas is Christian in nature haha).



Winner: Electrolyte
__________________________________________________ ____________

Thank you to all participants for fulfilling your obligations.

billsco

[marc9000]

Thanks to all involved for their time.

I know that many posters here look at the results of these debates as a “success vs. failure”, 100% to 0%, win vs. loss, and that’s fine, but I don’t look at it that way. (the fact that I’ve now lost four may have something to do with that ) I really do think this is an excellent structure for someone to make a case for something they really believe in, and I think it makes for a unique read. Anyone from Ann Coulter to Richard Dawkins can write a book, and it’s only one persons viewpoint that dictates the entire flow of what’s said. I think the back and fourth nature of this 5/4 post structure can inspire a readers thought several levels higher than a book with 100 times more words.

All my resolutions have been tough simply because it was the only way I could get opponents. I really love to assert something politically incorrect and see what I can do with it. I’ll do 20 more of these if I can find enough opponents, judges, and subjects. Subjects shouldn’t be a problem – there are politically incorrect views today that were uncontroversial mainstream thought only a few decades ago. The US is changing fast - the very real possibility of Bill Clinton spending 8 more years in the Whitehouse is proof of that.

Happy Holidays to all

Marc