MiserereNobis Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 How very wrong.The 7th Article of the US Constitution mentions God even Jesus Christ "Signed in the Year of our Lord." I looked at the 7th article and I don't see God or Jesus mentioned there:"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same" ? And saying "signed in the Year of our Lord" hardly counts as a ringing religious endorsement... The Declaration of Independence also mentions God and inalienable rights that men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with their God-given rights, etc, which also established the 13 Independent Colonies and their legislatures and representatives who represented these 13 colonies who ratified the US Constitution to form a framework of Govt to protect those rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence.You cannot separate the US Constitution from the Declaration of Independence even if they are separate documents, I think it is safe to say that we can separate the two documents. The constitution does not refer to the Declaration of Independence. They were written 11 years apart and had the Articles of Confederacy in between them. much better than the 1922 Irish Constitution (copied from the US Constitution as have the majority of countries in the world) with its inclusion of religious teachings - for the Irish Constitution originally prevented divorce-until it was changed in the 1990s! Um, the Irish Constitution that is in effect, from which I quoted, is from 1937 and replaced the 1922 Constitution. I find it strange that you are arguing that God is in the US Constitution and then attack the Irish Constitution for containing religious teachings, such as the prohibition against divorce (and the prohibition against abortion). Wouldn't the inclusion of religious teachings be evidence that a Constitution is in fact religious? I'm not sure of your point here. Also, you say that the majority of countries in the world have copied the US Constitution. It's about a 50/50 mix between presidential systems and parliamentary systems, of which the Westminster system is one. You had better never believe the ridiculous argument that this country's govt was founded on a "godless" US Constitution. Can you show me where God is in the US Constitution? He is quite plain to see in the preamble of the Irish Constitution... there is no argument there 1
MiserereNobis Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 I never said true and divine principles of government were the exclusive province of the U.S. Constitution. Fair enough. Sorry for the misread.
Tony Frank Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 God raised up righteous men to establish the US Constitution. "According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;" "And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood." "And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles. And I will fortify this land against all other nations. And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God." 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Peter Pear: The Founders discussed this. They determined that was merely a writing convention of the time. Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; Treaty of Tripoli SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli The Declaration of Independence is no longer a binding document. We are no longer in rebellion against Great Britain.
jwhitlock Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 You, sir, are bombastic, indeed, you are The Bombastic One. It only counts if I have indeed earned the title. As an aside to all of this, Ken is a pretty decent fellow, so if possible, I'd hold out the olive branch and see if you can patch things up. He can be pretty scathing if you press one of his hot buttons, as I did at one point (he was actually rather restrained with you, from my viewpoint), but we've gotten over it. And no, I'm not going to tell you what that hot button is that I pressed. He's a good guy to be on the same side with, especially if you know how to dialogue with him. You may have noticed that this board is frequented by some rather strongly opinionated individuals, including those that are faithful LDS. The apologetic aspect of the board is still there, though the mods would rather have more dialogue, if such a thing is possible given some of the conflicting viewpoints expressed here. If you are going to post here often, I would suggest that you identify those who could be on the same team that you're on, and compromise with them and nurture those relationships when at all possible. Those who have been on the board for a while sometimes view newcomers as guilty until proven innocent, and if someone comes on strongly, a wee bit of conflict can ensue, as you've experienced. There's nothing worse than getting all sides torqued off at you. In those cases, there's no reason really to continue to post, since no one is interested in listening to what you have to say, or those who do are only interested in taking pot shots at you. In any case, that's my two cents, and it's probably not even worth that much. Sticking to pride on the Internet is generally fruitless in the long run and battles should be carefully chosen. 4
Kenngo1969 Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 I never said true and divine principles of government were the exclusive province of the U.S. Constitution.Indeed. The Founding Fathers drew their inspiration from various other (but equally inspired) sources in crafting that document.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 Indeed. The Founding Fathers drew their inspiration from various other (but equally inspired) sources in crafting that document. Yes, that's true. John Locke, for one, and his theories on "natural law."
Kenngo1969 Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 ... As an aside to all of this, Ken is a pretty decent fellow ... Nonsense! I have The Devil Himself on speed dial! Women, children, and small animals everywhere flee in abject terror at the mere mention of my name! Even mere weeds refuse to grow within a five-mile radius of my home! I had a pet maggot once, but even he found my company distasteful after a remarkably short period of time! I'm "worthy" of mention only with history's most infamous figures: Mao, Stalin, Hitler ... me! When I was born, the doctor slapped the wrong end! Shall I go on? 2
jwhitlock Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Nonsense! I have The Devil Himself on speed dial! Women, children, and small animals everywhere flee in abject terror at the mere mention of my name! Even mere weeds refuse to grow within a five-mile radius of my home! I had a pet maggot once, but even he found my company distasteful after a remarkably short period of time! I'm "worthy" of mention only with history's most infamous figures: Mao, Stalin, Hitler ... me! When I was born, the doctor slapped the wrong end! Shall I go on? So you're the one who's been butt-dialing me. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Nonsense! I have The Devil Himself on speed dial! Women, children, and small animals everywhere flee in abject terror at the mere mention of my name! Even mere weeds refuse to grow within a five-mile radius of my home! I had a pet maggot once, but even he found my company distasteful after a remarkably short period of time! I'm "worthy" of mention only with history's most infamous figures: Mao, Stalin, Hitler ... me! When I was born, the doctor slapped the wrong end! Shall I go on? Next time, if you see the devil hitchhiking, don't give him a ride. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2015 Author Posted October 30, 2015 It only counts if I have indeed earned the title.As an aside to all of this, Ken is a pretty decent fellow, so if possible, I'd hold out the olive branch and see if you can patch things up. He can be pretty scathing if you press one of his hot buttons, as I did at one point (he was actually rather restrained with you, from my viewpoint), but we've gotten over it. And no, I'm not going to tell you what that hot button is that I pressed. He's a good guy to be on the same side with, especially if you know how to dialogue with him. You may have noticed that this board is frequented by some rather strongly opinionated individuals, including those that are faithful LDS. The apologetic aspect of the board is still there, though the mods would rather have more dialogue, if such a thing is possible given some of the conflicting viewpoints expressed here. If you are going to post here often, I would suggest that you identify those who could be on the same team that you're on, and compromise with them and nurture those relationships when at all possible. Those who have been on the board for a while sometimes view newcomers as guilty until proven innocent, and if someone comes on strongly, a wee bit of conflict can ensue, as you've experienced. There's nothing worse than getting all sides torqued off at you. In those cases, there's no reason really to continue to post, since no one is interested in listening to what you have to say, or those who do are only interested in taking pot shots at you.In any case, that's my two cents, and it's probably not even worth that much. Sticking to pride on the Internet is generally fruitless in the long run and battles should be carefully chosen.Ken went after you at one point? I don't even remember that. Did you rag on Utahns or something?
Meadowchik Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 How very wrong.The 7th Article of the US Constitution mentions God even Jesus Christ "Signed in the Year of our Lord."The Declaration of Independence also mentions God and inalienable rights that men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with their God-given rights, etc, which also established the 13 Independent Colonies and their legislatures and representatives who represented these 13 colonies who ratified the US Constitution to form a framework of Govt to protect those rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence.You cannot separate the US Constitution from the Declaration of Independence even if they are separate documents, for the latter more eloquently declares the rights of men come from God and not from some royal British monarch - much better than the 1922 Irish Constitution (copied from the US Constitution as have the majority of countries in the world) with its inclusion of religious teachings - for the Irish Constitution originally prevented divorce-until it was changed in the 1990s!You had better never believe the ridiculous argument that this country's govt was founded on a "godless" US Constitution. Furthermore, I believe that equality and rights as proposed in the US founding documents by references to God and Creator are admittedly based on faith. We cannot prove that all are equal. In fact, by no concrete measurement and objective analysis tells us otherwise. Yet, we chose to believe in the equality of all human beings as a governing doctrine, a shared belief.
Meadowchik Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 God raised up righteous men to establish the US Constitution. "According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;" "And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood." "And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles. And I will fortify this land against all other nations. And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God." Yes, and, like the people of King Mosiah who rejoiced when he replaced a kingship with a system of judges, along with it, liberty, freeing them from "all manner of bondage"...the Restoration of the Church was made possible on US soil because of freedom to worship in America. 1
Meadowchik Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) It only counts if I have indeed earned the title. As an aside to all of this, Ken is a pretty decent fellow, so if possible, I'd hold out the olive branch and see if you can patch things up. He can be pretty scathing if you press one of his hot buttons, as I did at one point (he was actually rather restrained with you, from my viewpoint), but we've gotten over it. And no, I'm not going to tell you what that hot button is that I pressed. He's a good guy to be on the same side with, especially if you know how to dialogue with him. You may have noticed that this board is frequented by some rather strongly opinionated individuals, including those that are faithful LDS. The apologetic aspect of the board is still there, though the mods would rather have more dialogue, if such a thing is possible given some of the conflicting viewpoints expressed here. If you are going to post here often, I would suggest that you identify those who could be on the same team that you're on, and compromise with them and nurture those relationships when at all possible. Those who have been on the board for a while sometimes view newcomers as guilty until proven innocent, and if someone comes on strongly, a wee bit of conflict can ensue, as you've experienced. There's nothing worse than getting all sides torqued off at you. In those cases, there's no reason really to continue to post, since no one is interested in listening to what you have to say, or those who do are only interested in taking pot shots at you. In any case, that's my two cents, and it's probably not even worth that much. Sticking to pride on the Internet is generally fruitless in the long run and battles should be carefully chosen. Leaving any specific commentary about Kenngo out of what follows, as I don't want anyone to feel I'm singling him out like I did earlier... That's an interesting take on the board politics and the tactics of posting. Sometimes, though, I can feel kinship with the way people approach disagreement, despite even diametrically-opposed viewpoints. Those are the people with which I feel like so much progress would be advanced, simply because they can work together. In other words, what furthers the best dialogue between two or more people usually involves a calm attitude, genuine tone and willingness to talk about ideas and work through them. To me, it's a lot less about joining a "team" and building social equity and power and more about refining self and seeking good ideas. I think that, through that, it's possible to ally ourselves within the good in everyone without committing ourselves to fallacy. Edited to add: Ummm, anyone notice how an OP about negotiating the boundary of religion and state has included a tangent on forum diplomacy? Edited October 30, 2015 by Meadowchik
jwhitlock Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Ken went after you at one point? I don't even remember that. Did you rag on Utahns or something? Hush, Scott. Some rocks should never be turned over.
jwhitlock Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Leaving any specific commentary about Kenngo out of what follows, as I don't want anyone to feel I'm singling him out like I did earlier... That's an interesting take on the board politics and the tactics of posting. Sometimes, though, I can feel kinship with the way people approach disagreement, despite even diametrically-opposed viewpoints. Those are the people with which I feel like so much progress would be advanced, simply because they can work together. In other words, what furthers the best dialogue between two or more people usually involves a calm attitude, genuine tone and willingness to talk about ideas and work through them. To me, it's a lot less about joining a "team" and building social equity and power and more about refining self and seeking good ideas. I think that, through that, it's possible to ally ourselves within the good in everyone without committing ourselves to fallacy. Edited to add: Ummm, anyone notice how an OP about negotiating the boundary of religion and state has included a tangent on forum diplomacy? It's very interesting to watch the interrelations, competitions, treaties, truces, lone wolves, negotiations, wars and other types of things that go on in discussion boards. People post here for widely differing reasons, and while it's heavily frowned upon by the mods, it's still fun to psycho-analyze they whys and wherefores of posters and their postings. Diplomacy on the board is very important. People need to recognize where a poster is coming from, and respond appropriately to them with that in mind. If you don't, they'll talk right past each other while yokels like me either egg it on, or kick back with popcorn and root beer to watch the entertainment. Posters need to identify in their own minds, at least, why they're here and what their purpose is for posting. Those who are here just to flame or preach or be generally obnoxious get marginalized after time. If you're here to change people's minds by arguing, it's pretty much futile. This board is interesting, because you usually thing of "dialogue" in terms of learning, passing information along, consensus building and things like that. Boards that are dedicated to certain technical subjects, for instance, are more dialogue oriented because it is recognized that flaming and attack / defense methods are contrary to what is trying be accomplished. This board, however, is used by those who are expressing opinions on religion between those supportive and antagonistic to religion. Real dialogue is, at best, incidental to those kinds of discussions since people's minds typically aren't changed as they defend their strongly held points of view. For that reason, Mormon Dialogue seems to be a bit of an oxymoron by how it operates in the real world, no matter how well intentioned it is. Apologetics is much more straightforward by comparison. Again, this is all my untutored opinion, based on my own biased observations, thrown out for some consideration. I still think that it is necessary, at least on this particular board, to figure out who's on your team and who's not, in order to post effectively - however you want to define it. 1
Meadowchik Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 It's very interesting to watch the interrelations, competitions, treaties, truces, lone wolves, negotiations, wars and other types of things that go on in discussion boards. People post here for widely differing reasons, and while it's heavily frowned upon by the mods, it's still fun to psycho-analyze they whys and wherefores of posters and their postings. Diplomacy on the board is very important. People need to recognize where a poster is coming from, and respond appropriately to them with that in mind. If you don't, they'll talk right past each other while yokels like me either egg it on, or kick back with popcorn and root beer to watch the entertainment. Posters need to identify in their own minds, at least, why they're here and what their purpose is for posting. Those who are here just to flame or preach or be generally obnoxious get marginalized after time. If you're here to change people's minds by arguing, it's pretty much futile. This board is interesting, because you usually thing of "dialogue" in terms of learning, passing information along, consensus building and things like that. Boards that are dedicated to certain technical subjects, for instance, are more dialogue oriented because it is recognized that flaming and attack / defense methods are contrary to what is trying be accomplished. This board, however, is used by those who are expressing opinions on religion between those supportive and antagonistic to religion. Real dialogue is, at best, incidental to those kinds of discussions since people's minds typically aren't changed as they defend their strongly held points of view. For that reason, Mormon Dialogue seems to be a bit of an oxymoron by how it operates in the real world, no matter how well intentioned it is. Apologetics is much more straightforward by comparison. Again, this is all my untutored opinion, based on my own biased observations, thrown out for some consideration. I still think that it is necessary, at least on this particular board, to figure out who's on your team and who's not, in order to post effectively - however you want to define it. I do think places like this do change peoples' minds, though. Not on everything, and not all at once--especially not during the conversation itself, most of the time--but later, when the aggregate of one point weighs enough on them.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 I do think places like this do change peoples' minds, though. Not on everything, and not all at once--especially not during the conversation itself, most of the time--but later, when the aggregate of one point weighs enough on them. Obviously, my mind has changed rather radically about Mormonism since I first started posting on this board. Of course, back in my believing days, I never thought my goal was to change anyone's minds. On my worst day, I wanted to be "right," but most of the time I wanted to learn not only from hearing other perspectives but from engaging those perspectives. I've learned to have a lot of respect for apologists who spend unimaginable amounts of time and effort to find defenses of their beliefs, even if I find those efforts utterly unconvincing. I have likewise learned (mostly) how to identify and ignore the superficial, polemical, and crazy, no matter where it comes from. People here have taught me to be more precise in what I say, more polite in how I say it, and more kind and forgiving in defending what I say. I've also learned to put this discussion in perspective. Almost never do I leave this board with something that impacts my daily life, though it happens sometimes. I don't spend any time at all off the board "criticizing" the church, and I would imagine most "apologists" here spend very little time during the day defending the church. It's a fun and sometimes frustrating distraction, but it's not life. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2015 Author Posted October 30, 2015 It's very interesting to watch the interrelations, competitions, treaties, truces, lone wolves, negotiations, wars and other types of things that go on in discussion boards. People post here for widely differing reasons, and while it's heavily frowned upon by the mods, it's still fun to psycho-analyze they whys and wherefores of posters and their postings. Diplomacy on the board is very important. People need to recognize where a poster is coming from, and respond appropriately to them with that in mind. If you don't, they'll talk right past each other while yokels like me either egg it on, or kick back with popcorn and root beer to watch the entertainment. Posters need to identify in their own minds, at least, why they're here and what their purpose is for posting. Those who are here just to flame or preach or be generally obnoxious get marginalized after time. If you're here to change people's minds by arguing, it's pretty much futile. This board is interesting, because you usually thing of "dialogue" in terms of learning, passing information along, consensus building and things like that. Boards that are dedicated to certain technical subjects, for instance, are more dialogue oriented because it is recognized that flaming and attack / defense methods are contrary to what is trying be accomplished. This board, however, is used by those who are expressing opinions on religion between those supportive and antagonistic to religion. Real dialogue is, at best, incidental to those kinds of discussions since people's minds typically aren't changed as they defend their strongly held points of view. For that reason, Mormon Dialogue seems to be a bit of an oxymoron by how it operates in the real world, no matter how well intentioned it is. Apologetics is much more straightforward by comparison. Again, this is all my untutored opinion, based on my own biased observations, thrown out for some consideration. I still think that it is necessary, at least on this particular board, to figure out who's on your team and who's not, in order to post effectively - however you want to define it. For my part, I've never held out any vain hope of changing the minds of any active participant here. My concern is for the unseen lurker who might otherwise be negatively influenced toward the Church of Jesus Christ. In short, I am here in the interest of precluding the "slam dunks" Elder Maxwell spoke of. Daniel Peterson is fond of using a quote from Austin Farrer in this regard (in fact, he used again this week in his Deseret News "Mormon Times" column; I'll post a link in a separate thread): “Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” 3
Stone holm Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 "The preference in the phrasing also showed “that religiously based scruples are given more solicitude than non-religiously based ones,” Elder Oaks noted." Absolute nonsense when talking about law.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2015 Author Posted October 30, 2015 "The preference in the phrasing also showed “that religiously based scruples are given more solicitude than non-religiously based ones,” Elder Oaks noted." Absolute nonsense when talking about law.Hard to argue with "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]. You may not like it, but the presence of the language in the First Amendment is undeniable. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 Elder Oaks also once said that, with respect to the contention that morality should not be legislated, the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. I agree with him. 2
MiserereNobis Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) Man, and here I was wishing that the contrast between the Irish and US constitutions would be carried forward a few pages... but instead we've got a Kenngo love-fest Hey, Ken, care to weigh in on which constitution is more religious? (as motivation, I include the following emoticons: )(even better! I got an error message that I had too many emoticons. C'mon, Ken, we can bond on that and you can answer my question now, right?) Edited October 31, 2015 by MiserereNobis 2
Recommended Posts