NC Constitution and Atheism

[royaldiadem]

From the Constitution of the State of North Carolina, 1776:

That no person who should deny the being of a God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who should hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, should be capable of holding any office or place of trust in the civil government of this State.

What are the subsequent temporal consequences* for the atheist?

Sterling

*other than the obvious: Revelation 21:8

[A Person]

Since this temporally predates, and is trumped by, the US constitution; Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Unitarians, Mormons, and - yes - atheists, can be thankful that the Constitution authors explicitly rejected this chauvinistic bigotry and unequivocally embedded the separation of Church and State into the Constitution.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Since this temporally predates, and is trumped by, the US constitution; Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Unitarians, Mormons, and - yes - atheists, can be thankful that the Constitution authors explicitly rejected this chauvinistic bigotry and unequivocally embedded the separation of Church and State into the Constitution.

And that this point has been explicitly addressed by the courts and invalidated... as we have already discussed in this forum a year or so back.

[Liv]

[BecauseHeLives]

Since this temporally predates, and is trumped by, the US constitution; Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Unitarians, Mormons, and - yes - atheists, can be thankful that the Constitution authors explicitly rejected this chauvinistic bigotry and unequivocally embedded the separation of Church and State into the Constitution.

It certainly doesn't help your claim that America was not founded on Christian principles now does it?

[A Person]

Are bigotry and chauvinism Christian principles?

[Sanjuro]

It certainly doesn't help your claim that America was not founded on Christian principles now does it?

Actually it absolutely does. They could have easily incorporated wording of this nature and chose not to.

[BecauseHeLives]

It certainly doesn't help your claim that America was not founded on Christian principles now does it?

Actually it absolutely does. They could have easily incorporated wording of this nature and chose not to.

Are we talking about the writing of the constitution or the founding of our country? Not really the same thing.

[A Person]

squeek squeek squeek

the sound of goalposts being moved

[RebelSnake]

squeek squeek squeek

the sound of goalposts being moved

What else would you expect? Like SFI said, this is all old crap that we went over some time ago.

[BecauseHeLives]

It certainly doesn't help your claim that America was not founded on Christian principles now does it?

Actually it absolutely does. They could have easily incorporated wording of this nature and chose not to.

Are we talking about the writing of the constitution or the founding of our country? Not really the same thing.

Just a bunch of blabbering going on. Maybe you don't know the answer to my question??

[Liv]

Yeah... I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were pot smoking hippies who liked to fart.... and resulting influence of religion was accidental.

[A Person]

Firstly no one disputes that the thirteen colonies were founded by Christians and that many of these colonies had explicitly Christian laws. Hence the Salem Witch Trials under the Puritan theocracy. Under Massachusetts Puritan Law your religion was dictated to you, if you were not a member of the Puritan Church you were not considered a freeman or permitted to vote. Even Quakers could not hold office.

One law forbade the wearing of lace, another of "slashed cloaths other than one slash in each sleeve and another in the back." The length and width of a lady's sleeve was solemnly decided by law. It was a penal offense for a man to wear long hair, or to smoke in the street, or for a youth to court a maid without the consent of her parents. A man was not permitted to kiss his wife in public. Captain Kimble, returning from a three-years' ocean voyage, kissed his wife on his own doorstep and spent two hours in the stocks for his "lewed and unseemly behavior."

Slavery was ensconced in law, Christmas outlawed, blasphemers and those who persisted in the wrong faith executed.

So - yes, the colonies were indeed founded on Christian principles. It was so bloody awful that when it was time to write a constitution there was a strong argument - with support from religious leaders - to maintain a separation of Church and State. They argued this as a Christian principle - referring to Matt 22:21 and other verses.

So exactly when the US was founded is rather irrelevant. When it adopted its constitution that constitution was and is explicitly secular, making 'that which is Caesars' clearly separate from the things that are God's. It explicity did not establish the US as a Christian nation.

[BecauseHeLives]

Firstly no one disputes that the thirteen colonies were founded by Christians and that many of these colonies had explicitly Christian laws.

You can stop right there and you'd be correct.

Hence the Salem Witch Trials under the Puritan theocracy. Under Massachusetts Puritan Law your religion was dictated to you, if you were not a member of the Puritan Church you were not considered a freeman or permitted to vote. Even Quakers could not hold office.

One law forbade the wearing of lace, another of "slashed cloaths other than one slash in each sleeve and another in the back." The length and width of a lady's sleeve was solemnly decided by law. It was a penal offense for a man to wear long hair, or to smoke in the street, or for a youth to court a maid without the consent of her parents. A man was not permitted to kiss his wife in public. Captain Kimble, returning from a three-years' ocean voyage, kissed his wife on his own doorstep and spent two hours in the stocks for his "lewed and unseemly behavior."

Slavery was ensconced in law, Christmas outlawed, blasphemers and those who persisted in the wrong faith executed.

So - yes, the colonies were indeed founded on Christian principles.

Those atrocities were likely carried out by believers and NOT Christians. It's easy to point out the bad things that "Christians" have done in the name of their "faith". It would be just as easy to do the opposite. Or to point out the atrocities done by atheists is the past. You can make the "stats" look as good or as bad as you want to do. It doesn't change your first statement in your reply.

The COLONIES were founded upon religeous principles which were heavily Christianity in nature.

It was so bloody awful that when it was time to write a constitution there was a strong argument - with support from religious leaders - to maintain a separation of Church and State. They argued this as a Christian principle - referring to Matt 22:21 and other verses.

The constitution doesn't refer to seperation of church and state as you INFER. SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS SIMPLY A POLITICAL DOCTRINE AND IS NOT FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION. The 1st amendment does say that the state will not interfere with religeous exercise and worship. What is so hard to understand about that? The 1st amendment also disallows the government to prohibit free exercise of religion.

So exactly when the US was founded is rather irrelevant.

That went to left field.

When it adopted its constitution that constitution was and is explicitly secular, making 'that which is Caesars' clearly separate from the things that are God's. It explicity did not establish the US as a Christian nation.

You are explicittly wrong. A document can NOT be considered secular when there are PROVISIONS allowing for and defending the free exercise of religion.

[BecauseHeLives]

Yeah... I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were pot smoking hippies who liked to fart.... and resulting influence of religion was accidental.

Huh?

[Sanjuro]

***Edited to keep the peace..

[Questioner]

Since this temporally predates, and is trumped by, the US constitution; Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Unitarians, Mormons, and - yes - atheists, can be thankful that the Constitution authors explicitly rejected this chauvinistic bigotry and unequivocally embedded the separation of Church and State into the Constitution.

Good riddance to bad trash, I say. The U.S. constitution has done just fine, thank you. Sadly (stupidly too), all too many misguided funadmentalists assume that if they overthrow the current U.S. Constitution, the silly theocratic constitutions they would write would be substituted. For some wierd reason, they fail to understand that they are in the minority and it is just as likely that a theocratic constitution would outlaw THEIR religion.

For any fundies out there, please take a good look at Northern Ireland over the past 50 or so years for a pretty good picture of what these United States could look like if you got your way and tried to legislate your religion onto everybody else in the U.S.

[Serendipitous]

For any fundies out there, please take a good look at Northern Ireland over the past 50 or so years for a pretty good picture of what these United States could look like if you got your way and tried to legislate your religion onto everybody else in the U.S.

Gotta take dem heads outta the sand first...

[A Person]

Firstly no one disputes that the thirteen colonies were founded by Christians and that many of these colonies had explicitly Christian laws.

You can stop right there and you'd be correct.

I can continue to the end and be just as correct.

Hence the Salem Witch Trials under the Puritan theocracy. Under Massachusetts Puritan Law your religion was dictated to you, if you were not a member of the Puritan Church you were not considered a freeman or permitted to vote. Even Quakers could not hold office.

One law forbade the wearing of lace, another of "slashed cloaths other than one slash in each sleeve and another in the back." The length and width of a lady's sleeve was solemnly decided by law. It was a penal offense for a man to wear long hair, or to smoke in the street, or for a youth to court a maid without the consent of her parents. A man was not permitted to kiss his wife in public. Captain Kimble, returning from a three-years' ocean voyage, kissed his wife on his own doorstep and spent two hours in the stocks for his "lewed and unseemly behavior."

Slavery was ensconced in law, Christmas outlawed, blasphemers and those who persisted in the wrong faith executed.

So - yes, the colonies were indeed founded on Christian principles.

Those atrocities were likely carried out by believers and NOT Christians. It's easy to point out the bad things that "Christians" have done in the name of their "faith". It would be just as easy to do the opposite. Or to point out the atrocities done by atheists is the past. You can make the "stats" look as good or as bad as you want to do. It doesn't change your first statement in your reply.

The COLONIES were founded upon religeous principles which were heavily Christianity in nature.

That's exactly what I said - except tahat I gave examples of those religious principles. Just because your morals have changed in accordance with the moral relativism of contemporary society in the intervening years does not mean that all earlier Christians were not True Christians®. Or if it does then it means there is no such thing as a True Christian® or True Christian® Principles.

It was so bloody awful that when it was time to write a constitution there was a strong argument - with support from religious leaders - to maintain a separation of Church and State. They argued this as a Christian principle - referring to Matt 22:21 and other verses.

The constitution doesn't refer to seperation of church and state as you INFER. SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS SIMPLY A POLITICAL DOCTRINE AND IS NOT FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION. The 1st amendment does say that the state will not interfere with religeous exercise and worship. What is so hard to understand about that? The 1st amendment also disallows the government to prohibit free exercise of religion.

That is noy my inference. It is the repeated conclusion of over 200 years of Supreme Courts, staffed by professing Christians - but I suppose they aren't True Christians® either, since in your expertise as a constitutional lawyer you disagree.

So exactly when the US was founded is rather irrelevant.

That went to left field.

Let's leave it there then.

When it adopted its constitution that constitution was and is explicitly secular, making 'that which is Caesars' clearly separate from the things that are God's. It explicity did not establish the US as a Christian nation.

You are explicittly wrong. A document can NOT be considered secular when there are PROVISIONS allowing for and defending the free exercise of religion.

Yes it can. Look up what secular means.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Firstly no one disputes that the thirteen colonies were founded by Christians and that many of these colonies had explicitly Christian laws.

You can stop right there and you'd be correct.

Having trouble with hearing the complete situation?

[Liv]

Yeah... I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were pot smoking hippies who liked to fart.... and resulting influence of religion was accidental.

Huh?

Oh come on... They were dopeheads.

[A Person]

Eight reasons that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones
1. Because they have more Knowledge of the World . . .
2. Because when Women cease to be handsome they study to be good . . . there is hardly such a Thing to be found as an Old Woman who is not a good Woman.
3. Because there is no Hazard of Children, which irregularly produc'd may be attended with much Inconvenience.
4. Because through more Experience they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion.
5. Because in every Animal that walks upright the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part. The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the Last as plump as ever; so that covering all above with a Basket [!], and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to tell an old one from a young one. And as in the Dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of Corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior; every Knack being by Practice, capable of Improvement.
6. Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her Ruin . . .
7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflection; none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy.
8th and Lastly. They are so grateful!

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

A document can NOT be considered secular when there are PROVISIONS allowing for and defending the free exercise of religion.

A document sure as heck CAN'T be "Christian" if it establishes freedom of religion. Christianity is a particular religion (or more accurately a Family of religions that have the same central figure). Freedom of religion means that ANY religion and ABSENCE of religion in individuals is supported. True freedom of religion for all individuals is necessary for a secular society. The problem is that having a secular society necessarily precludes the exercise of religions that aim to deny that freedom to those who don't follow them.

[Questioner]

A document can NOT be considered secular when there are PROVISIONS allowing for and defending the free exercise of religion.

A document sure as heck CAN'T be "Christian" if it establishes freedom of religion. Christianity is a particular religion (or more accurately a Family of religions that have the same central figure). Freedom of religion means that ANY religion and ABSENCE of religion in individuals is supported. True freedom of religion for all individuals is necessary for a secular society. The problem is that having a secular society necessarily precludes the exercise of religions that aim to deny that freedom to those who don't follow them.

Sorry, SFI, but it is sort of a waste of time to try to explain that the U.S. was explicitly founded as a secular country to people who are determined to revise history so as to favor their own personal religious beliefs. Facts, evidence, and truth are of no interest to zealots. No matter how much we try; no matter how excellent our evidence, we are wrong. They want the U.S. to have been founded as a Christian country so that they have some basis for discriminating against those who are not Christians. People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of how false it might be.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Sorry, SFI, but it is sort of a waste of time to try to explain that the U.S. was explicitly founded as a secular country to people who are determined to revise history so as to favor their own personal religious beliefs. Facts, evidence, and truth are of no interest to zealots. No matter how much we try; no matter how excellent our evidence, we are wrong. They want the U.S. to have been founded as a Christian country so that they have some basis for discriminating against those who are not Christians. People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of how false it might be.

The myth that these people are working from -- that total compliance with God's wishes will result in "blessings from above" -- is one of the most insidious and ludicrous ideas around. It must be fought at every turn, because it erodes away at everything that we have gained as a nation and society from day one.

Only a warped view of history and the world can support such an idea. As I pointed out a little earlier, the theocrat-in-waiting that I linked to considers the societies of Calvin and the New England Pilgrims to have been "true Christian societies." He doesn't appear to have checked into whether those societies were happier or more successful or more "blessed" than their neighbors. The fact that they did not survive doesn't appear to have affected his judgment of their viability either. Yet he (and many others) are today urging America to try it out again.

No way will I stand idly aside and just say "I can't convince them, so let them be." Their aim is to spread a killing virus. I have a different plan in mind.