Was America's Constitutional Republic crafted to tolerate Atheism-Moral Relativism?

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, there can be no freedom of religion unless there is also freedom From religion.

Anyone who claims otherwise stands against US values.

Besides this, Religion is dying in the US and will soon be reduced to myths and legends, the way it was always supposed to be. Religion doesn't make you more moral, it doesn't give you greater capability, and it doesn't give you wisdom that you can't get elsewhere.

The only thing that religion is good for is to make sad people tolerate their pathetic existence, but since fewer people are sad due to increases in technology, it matters very little.

I can hardly wait for the inevitable dilution of religious ideas in our society, not destroyed the way Christian book burners would do it, but buried in a sea of more relevant information. This is the unstoppable trend that will consume all religions, and there is nothing that can stop it.

Right now, religious "nones" are the single largest group in the US, and they are rapidly growing as people are relieved of their mind parasites and turn away from the travesty that is all religion. The US was not a Christian nation in the past, just because most people were Christian, and it is not a Christian nation today, nor will it be in the future.

Rejoice! For the tyranny of religion is in decline! Reality will be the victor!

https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

Dee

America was founded by Christian’s who supremely honored Biblical Principles and God’s edicts

RickeyD

@Dee ; Atheism-Sodomy-Abortion-Socialism are anti-Americanism and have no business in this beautiful Nation.

AlofRI

We could go round and round with quotes from the founders. You can find some to cover about any situation, just like Bible quotes.
J.Q Adams had one of, if not thee highest IQ of all Presidents, took his Presidential Oath on the Constitution, NOT the Bible. Even though he was President of the American Bible Society he wanted to recognize the legal distinction between church and state. Something you, RickyD don't seem to want to recognize. Are you smarter than our smartest Presidents?

Maybe James Madison also?? "The purpose of the separation of church and state is to keep, forever from these shores, the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." HE recognized that the churches, especially joined with politics, were dangerous, deadly entities.

How about Thomas Jefferson: "We discover, in the Gospels, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." He thought Christianity a dangerous thing to base our Republic on. But, YOU know better??

Teddy Roosevelt ALSO swore his oath on the Constitution. He considered "The Republics Constitution" more important than "Being Christian-like."

The Declaration refers to "THEIR CREATOR" not OUR creator, implying that everyone can have a unique creator as THEY believe, not necessarily the one's who "soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." But, I guess RickyD isn't afraid of blood … like our founders were ….  

Let's look again at the John Adams RickyD mentioned above: "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history  of mankind has produced, the CROSS. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" This was in a letter to T. Jefferson. It seems there is some misunderstanding of the feelings of Adams, here. Hmm, RickyD?

Let's take another founder, Thomas Paine: "Of all the systems of religion that ever were ""invented" (quotes mine), there is none more derogatory to the almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason and more contradictory to itself than this thing called "Christianity"." Strange, he seemed to believe in an "almighty", but certainly not YOURS, RickyD. That's why our founders were smarter than you. THEY knew that, for the sake of our "Republic", people would have to be allowed to believe in whatever they were comfortable with, because, as Thomas Paine also said: "Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man." , and often "soaks the soil with blood".

There are several here that will never absorb the bloody thing you are trying to sell. Why don't you do what the founders actually wanted for "America's Constitutional Republic", and follow your own belief …. stop trying to mix your church with a "state" that wasn't "crafted to tolerate" yours alone, but a mixture .… including no church at all, and a morality based on "relativism" with a mixed society, certainly NOT just Christianity.

Dee

@RickeyD

Yeah , yeah I get that it’s a lovely little speech unless you were black in the US in the 60’s suffering from that “Christian love” 

MayCaesar

None of what you have said implies that atheism was not supposed to be tolerated. Three of the Founding Fathers actually were deists, which is a fancy term for an atheist who believes in some moral principles associated with some religion. Ideological pluralism is the cornerstone of the Republic, which is why the Founding Fathers prescribed that there is to be no state religion or ideology, and that everyone is free to believe whatever they want and openly advocate for any beliefs they want.

You, Rickey, should grow up some and realise that, living in a society of millions of people, you will have to deal with those who do not agree with you on anything. The way to deal with that is not to compel them to agree with you by force, but to realise that you are not the center of the Universe and, frankly, nobody gives a !@#$ about you. You live your life your way and let other people live their lives their way; that is the basic individualistic principle this nation was founded on.

If you want to live in a society with monopolised ideological space, you can always move to Saudi Arabia or North Korea. Those places might be more to your liking than the US, as there your ideological sensibilities are protected by the law.

RickeyD

@Dee ; Who fought to free the slaves, Dee? Democrats? You're evil, confused, dangerous, Dee.

How Christians Ended Slavery

https://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2008/01/14/how-christians-ended-slavery-n962085

RickeyD

@AlofRI ;  Well looky here...my little friend came into the light...where ya been son? Ready to debate...religion? Atheism? Want me to set-up that page?

1) Your concerns about Church and State and your revisionist history is a myth...

Church and state were distinct in that the Federal Government could not elevate one denomination over others. Nor could government and its flawed inhabitants usurp divine authority by harnessing politics to the church. Faith is no civil contract, but a personal matter not to be profaned by politics.

Your atheistic support for what you believe is separation of church and state was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”  In your case, as a Democrat-Progressive-Socialist-Atheist...obviously, the KKK-apple does not fall far from the corrupted tree?

You cite Jefferson, as do most historically ignorant atheists.

Jefferson said the “Separation of Church and State” applied to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.” Such were state matters. I don't think your revisionist definition of the First-Amendment and Jefferson coincide.

Freedom of religion was partly moral – protecting our most cherished liberty – and partly pragmatic. Religious animosity tears society asunder, particularly when church is affixed to government. With freedom of conscience assured, conflict becomes less likely. The First Amendment was an insightful compromise between church and state, federal and local authorities. The framers desired to avoid the controversies which engulfed Europe.

As James Madison warned in Federalist 10, “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; . . . A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, . . . ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power . . . divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good.”

Thus the Constitution decreed that Washington had no occasion or authority to interject itself into matters as obviously local as doctrines of faith. Congress was not empowered to establish a church because the framers feared that concentrated power, whether favored religions, standing armies, banking monopolies, or an overarching federal government, invited tyranny.

Again...Church and state were distinct in that the Federal Government could not elevate one denomination over others. Nor could government and its flawed inhabitants usurp divine authority by harnessing politics to the church. Faith is no civil contract, but a personal matter not to be profaned by politics.

State controlled churches frequently exploited this latent power for evil. The Spanish Inquisition didn’t originate in the Vatican, but the Castilian court. It was not of the church, but the king. By Philip II, Spain had the makings of the first police state infused with the ill-gotten moral authority of a tyrannical clergy.

Much of our Bill of Rights was meant to prevent dictatorships such as Cromwell’s, which married church and state in such manner as to mar many of the freedoms our forefathers sought to enshrine.

The framers witnessed the incessant wars of the mother continent and understood official churches and centralized power fomented abuses. Having two or three competing factions spurred struggles between the parties to secure power, but divesting authority to innumerable smaller jurisdictions without the prospect of any gaining control promoted peaceful freedom.

Episcopalians in Virginia would live amicably next to Catholics in Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania or Baptists in their midst. None saw cause for contention because there was no threat that others would gain dominion over them or any prospect that they might gain such dominion themselves. Rivalry was unnecessary because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Establishment has been redefined. Limitations on government have been altered into restrictions on religious expression, which clearly violates the amendment’s next clause: "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and third clause “abridging the freedom of speech.” Meanwhile, Washington publicly imposes politically correct secular religions like worshiping diversity or the environment.

2) Significantly, every existing law or legal commentary from before, during, and after the writing of the Constitution unanimously affirmed that the taking of any oath by any public official was always an inherently religious activity; and numerous Framers and early legal scholars agreed (emphasis added in each quote):

[An] oath – the strongest of religious ties. 35 JAMES MADISON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

[In o]ur laws . . . by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system. 36 RUFUS KING, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. 37 JOHN ADAMS, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of Hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation [calling down] of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate [lie]. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship. . . . In vows, there is no party but God and the person himself who makes the vow. 38 JOHN WITHERSPOON, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION The Constitution enjoins an oath upon all the officers of the United States. This is a direct appeal to that God Who is the avenger of perjury. Such an appeal to Him is a full acknowledgment of His being and providence. 39 OLIVER WOLCOTT, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, GOVERNOR According to the modern definition [1788] of an oath, it is considered a “solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments . . .” 40 JAMES IREDELL, RATIFIER OF THE CONSTITUTION, U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE APPOINTED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON The Constitution had provided that all the public functionaries of the Union not only of the general [federal] but of all the state governments should be under oath or affirmation for its support. The homage of religious faith was thus superadded to all the obligations of temporal law to give it strength. 41 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, PRESIDENT “What is an oath?” . . . [I]t is founded on a degree of consciousness that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues or punish our vices. . . . [O]ur system of oaths in all our courts, by which we hold liberty and property and all our rights, are founded on or rest on Christianity and a religious belief. 42 DANIEL WEBSTER, “DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION”

RickeyD

@MayCaesar Deism is not the insanity of atheism nor does it espouse moral relativism giving way to sodomites and other forms of perversion and godless behavior that fills our prisons and mental institutions. Atheism is an untenable psychosis for the lost, deceived, hopeless, mentally and spiritually ill. There is no room in a healthy and sustainable Nation's government for the lies, deceit, demonic persuasion, relativistic morality, of the atheist.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Are your Atheist values, compatible with United States values?

You state this:

"Besides this, Religion is dying in the US and will soon be reduced to myths and legends, the way it was always supposed to be."

If Religion is dying, why is the Pope as popular as he is Globally?

When I drive past a Catholic church, or a Jewish synagogue, or a Christian church, their parking lots are filled with vehicles.

When I got to Church, the place is 80% percent packed.

With parents bringing their babies, toddlers, school aged kids with them.

There are college students, police officers, senior citizens, single adults, and the Church leaders, who are all going to church at the same time?

Korean Veterans, Vietnam Veterans, Gulf War Veterans, and Veterans who served both in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

So if Religion is struggling, or "dying" as the word you chose to utilize, IM NOT SEEING any proof, that can be used by you in a REAL WORLD manner, to support your individual comment?

Millions, and millions of parishioners are going to their Religious buildings of choice, including Muslims, week after week, month after month, and year after year.

"Religion doesn't make you more moral, it doesn't give you greater capability, and it doesn't give you wisdom that you can't get elsewhere."

And Atheism doesn't make you more moral either, does it @Happy_Killbot?

Your pretty much express your individual moral compass on a near daily basis, don't you @Happy_Killbot?

piloteer

America's Constitutional Republic WAS crafted to not just tolerate Atheism-Moral Relativism, but cater specifically to them. Because all morality is relative, the US constitution is supposed to be used in place of objective morality. The only objective moral code we need to abide by is the law.