Reading The Constitution In Context: A Critique of Rick Santorum

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

'Preciate the gesture.

You and I are cool and I suspect we always will be. Pressure is pressure so flare-ups will happen.

You just keep on cranking out your high-quality writing. That's the important thing. We'll deal with the BS here on the forum.

Besides, it's fun.

(Sort of... )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Good for you, George Smith.

PDS,

What about me? What about me? What about me?

I did an apology earlier, too.

Dayaamm!

What about me?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Good for you, George Smith.

PDS,

What about me? What about me? What about me?

I did an apology earlier, too.

Dayaamm!

What about me?

Michael

Apology? George don't need no stinkin' apology!

--Brant

uh--u know I'm joking--right?

[Selene]

Glad that's behind everyone.

I have to say that it was painful to watch since I respect both of you.

I was going to write it off to you both being pre-menstrual, but you don't have the equipment.

So I settled on "post testtosteonish syndrome," or PTS. I am hoping to get in into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Adam

[George H. Smith]

Good for you, George Smith.

PDS,

What about me? What about me? What about me?

I did an apology earlier, too.

Dayaamm!

What about me?

Michael

My apology was better than your apology. So there!

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Glad that's behind everyone. I have to say that it was painful to watch since I respect both of you. I was going to write it off to you both being pre-menstrual, but you don't have the equipment. So I settled on "post testtosteonish syndrome," or PTS. I am hoping to get in into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Adam

Conflicts on OL can sometimes add energy to my professional writing. At the very least they keep me at the computer, instead of retreating to the television to watch a movie like Die Hard for the gadzillionth time. There is an outer limit, however, and when I cross it writing OL posts becomes counter-productive. Knowing exactly when I am perched on that invisible and elusive fence, ready to fall over the edge, is an art that I have not entirely mastered.

Ghs

[Selene]

Glad that's behind everyone. I have to say that it was painful to watch since I respect both of you. I was going to write it off to you both being pre-menstrual, but you don't have the equipment. So I settled on "post testtosteonish syndrome," or PTS. I am hoping to get in into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Adam

Conflicts on OL can sometimes add energy to my professional writing. At the very least they keep me at the computer, instead of retreating to the television to watch a movie like Die Hard for the gadzillionth time. There is an outer limit, however, and when I cross it writing OL posts becomes counter-productive. Knowing exactly when I am perched on that invisible and elusive fence, ready to fall over the edge, is an art that I have not entirely mastered.

Ghs

Boy do I completely understand that George

[PDS]

"All people have an instinct for conflict . . . at least, all healthy people." Hilaire Belloc

[Peter]

PDS quoted Hilaire Belloc, "All people have an instinct for conflict . . . at least, all healthy people."

Human toddlers certainly do. If another kid picks up their toy or they want the other toddler's toy, they will pinch, hit, and scratch, to gain that valuable commodity which wins them a time out in Day Care. As we mature we come to distrust the adult who deliberately seeks social conflict in daily life. Yet, we, “the people of the mind,” certainly seek conflict because we know we are right, and our goal is so important to ourselves, our kids, and the world.

I received my monthly Limbaugh Letter today with an interview with Mark Levin, which was good. Levin takes a long historical look at the Constitution like George H. Smith. Seeing things in a bit more depth

is refreshing.

The first article which is like an editorial, was a disappointment. In the last few years Rush has dissed the Moderate Republican Establishment which is fine but now he is declaring the Tea Party his own but in Socially Conservative ways. In his Levin interview he also briefly mentions that the Tea Party is mainly two groups but Levin did not discuss the differences between Religious Conservatism and Political, Fiscal, and Constitutional Conservatism.

Once again my fellow Americans I am hoping Mitt Romney, the candidate of Political, Fiscal, and Constitutional Conservatism wins the nomination. You may be leery of his Mormonism but he is not a Social Conservative. You may be leery that he is appreciated by the Republican establishment for his Social moderation and elect-ability but Mitt is his own, Rich, man.

I can’t get behind Santorum unless and until he is the last man standing. We Objectivists cannot have our Ron Paul cake but we can have a smart, principled conservative without the obvious libertarian icing.

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

. We Objectivists cannot have our Ron Paul cake but we can have a smart, principled conservative without the obvious libertarian icing.

Mr. Taylor:

Now I am really confused...I thought you were for Mitt Romney?

Adam

[studiodekadent]

Since when are public officials forbidden from expressing their faith?

Andrew,

It happens. Usually at lower levels. Google it.

But I'll help you start. Here is some interesting reading where you will find some cases: ACLU Defense of Religious Practice and Expression.

The ACLU takes on all abuses, irrespective of religion. It infuriates atheists and Christians alike. You will find mostly non-governmental employees, but you will also find people in the government listed.

I support the ACLU in this instance.

But do your own homework. The information is out there to be had. Just because Obama says "God bless America," this doesn't mean there isn't a push to prohibit officials from expressing their religion.

I've hung around with the New Atheist movement and I've never seen anyone seriously advocate that public officials should never ever state anything even slightly religiously-tinged. It should be added that this kind of "ceremonial deism" is protected by the Supreme Court.

I have seen people advocate that political leaders should not preach, but there's a difference between mentioning one's religion and advocating one's religion as a superior faith that "should" be embraced.

Banning mandatory prayers in public institutions...

The problem isn't mandatory prayers. The problem happens when voluntary prayer is prohibited. Like I said, Google it. Google is your friend.

I'm aware that voluntary prayer is prohibited in some public schools, and I agree with you that this is an awful thing. That said, the Religious Right DO want to reintroduce mandatory, teacher-led school prayer. This is just as much a violation of the First Ammendment as banning voluntary prayer.

[Dennis Hardin]

The essential founding document of the United States and its government is the Constitution.

This is where I would register a slight disagreement, since I do think the Declaration of Independence is just as essential. This is where Santorum actually was correct; the Constitution must be read in the context of the Declaration (which in turn must be understood within the context of its historical and intellectual background etc.).

Andrew,

But that just strengthens my argument. Santorum is obviously totally off base if he suggests that the Declaration of Independence is any more essentially "Christian" than the Constitution. The opposite is true. The Declaration is unquestionably a product of the Enlightenment. Jefferson, in fact, is often accused of having plagiarized John Locke.

I know Santorum makes a big deal out of Jefferson's reference to the "Creator," as if that proves something. Needless to say, it doesn't--except for fools like him.

To say that the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion is to say that the founders based the Constitution on the Christian religion. The Treaty of Tripoli makes clear that they did not.

I agree.

I'm delighted to know we agree on that point.

[Dennis Hardin]

The United States was founded on the ideas of The Enlightenment and, to some extent, Aristotle. That was the philosophy embodied in the Constitution--and the founders knew it. Otherwise, those words would not have been in that treaty.

Unfortunately, today's religious conservatives do not know it and refuse to accept it. That's the problem--and the Treaty of Tripoli is my evidence that they are clearly and unequivocally wrong.

Dennis,

As I showed, some of the states that make up the United States actually were founded on the Christian religion. But I know of no reference to Aristotle in any founding documents.

Michael,

Nor is John Locke mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Would you claim that, therefore, Jefferson was not strongly influenced by Locke?

Aristotle's influence is there, just as it was there in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. And the entire history of Western Civilization.

Fact: In the founding of the United States, the whole (the federal government) is not Christian but some the parts are (state governments).

Does that lead to this conclusion? That means that Christianity did not exist as a philosophical influence in the founding of the United States.

One does not follow from the other in my understanding.

In other words, it's not an either-or proposition. Philosophically, both influences were present.

Michael

Well, I'm not claiming the founders were not influenced by Christianity. And it's clearly true that some states attempted to adopt Christianity as their official creed. I dont think either fact is inconsistent with the fact that the United States was not founded on the Christian religion.

It's an issue of fundamentality and essentials. Latter day Rome and the Holy Roman Empire were founded on Christianity. I didn't notice that either of them put a premium on respect for individual rights--which was the primary political idea in the founding of the U.S.A. That concept is the legacy of the Enlightenment.

[BaalChatzaf]

Aristotle's influence is there, just as it was there in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. And the entire history of Western Civilization.

There is little doubt that Aristotle influenced Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had slaves, which proves it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And it's clearly true that some states attempted to adopt Christianity as their official creed.

Dennis,

This is not accurate.

Some states actually adopted Christianity as their official creed.

The way you adopt something like that is put it in the charter documents (i.e., the constitution).

There's all kinds of evidence on record to support this.

A fact and a cognitive bias are two different things. I'm not wagging my finger at you (in the manner of someone we all know and love ) because God knows I have my own cognitive biases and I fight against them, but when facts are undeniable, there is nothing to be gained by calling them "attempted" facts.

Michael

[Selene]

Here are some examples:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;

wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and

subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the:

Protestant religion. (in force until 1877)

The Constitution stipulated:

Article I, Section VI. And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws. And no subordination

of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law. [p.469]

Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), stated:

Frame of Government, Section 9. And each member [of the Legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian] religion. And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.” [p.623]

[Selene]

As Leonard Levy**** sums it up:

The First Amendment bans laws respecting an establishment of religion. Most of the framers of that amendment very probably meant that government should not promote, sponsor, or subsidize religion because it is best left to private voluntary support for the sake of religion itself as well as for government, and above all for the sake of the individual. Some of the framers undoubtedly believed that government should maintain a close relationship with religion, that is, with Protestantism, and that people should support taxes for the benefit of their own churches and ministers. The framers who came from Massachusetts and Connecticut certainly believed this, as did the representatives of New Hampshire, but New Hampshire was the only one of these New England states that ratified the First Amendment. Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, New Hampshire and Vermont were probably the only ones in which a majority of the people believed that the government should support religion. In all the other ratifying states, a majority very probably opposed such support. But whether those who framed and ratified the First Amendment believed in government aid to religion or in its private voluntary support, the fact is that no framer believed that the United States had or should have power to legislate on the subject of religion, and no state supported that power either.(2)

****Levy's most honored book was his 1968 study Origins of the Fifth Amendment, focusing on the history of the privilege against self-incrimination. This book was awarded the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for History. He wrote almost forty other books, such as The Establishment Clause, Treason Against God: A History of the Offense of Blasphemy, Blasphemy: Verbal Offenses Against the Sacred, from Moses to Salman Rushdie, and Religion and the First Amendment. He also was editor-in-chief of the four-volume Encyclopaedia of The American Constitution. In his 1999 Origins of the Bill of Rights he described the political background and intent of most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Levy

The link below has a number of apparently well sourced facts on the states and their Constitutions in regards to religion:

http://candst.tripod.com/cnstntro.htm

[PDS]

Somewhat off topic, but regarding the relationship of the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution: this issue largely depends upon when one is discussing the relationship. Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, essentially turned the prevailing notion about that relationship on its head. Prior to the Address, the term the "United States of America" would have been considered in the sense of a plural, i.e., a number of states that happened to be "united" by the Constitution.

Post Gettysburg Address, the term the "United States of America" would, over time, become considered in the sense of the singular, i.e., a nation created and informed most essentially by the Declaration of Independence, with a heavy dose of the Constitution on top.

We largely have Lincoln to thank or to blame for this, and only someone with his love and artistry for words, set against the backdrop of the Civil War, would have been able to pull this off. The Gettyburg Address, in effect, picked the intellectual pockets of America at the time.

If I were ever sentenced to a stint in debtor's prison with only one book to bring with me on this subject, it would be Gary Willis' Lincoln At Gettyburg: The Words That Remade America. HIghly recommeded for those interested in this topic. And we all should be.

[caroljane]

Somewhat off topic, but regarding the relationship of the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution: this issue largely depends upon when one is discussing the relationship. Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, essentially turned the prevailing notion about that relationship on its head. Prior to the Address, the term the "United States of America" would have been considered in the sense of a plural, i.e., a number of states that happened to be "united" by the Constitution.

Post Gettysburg Address, the term the "United States of America" would, over time, become considered in the sense of the singular, i.e., a nation created and informed most essentially by the Declaration of Independence, with a heavy dose of the Constitution on top.

We largely have Lincoln to thank or to blame for this, and only someone with his love and artistry for words, set against the backdrop of the Civil War, would have been able to pull this off. The Gettyburg Address, in effect, picked the intellectual pockets of America at the time.

If I were ever sentenced to a stint in debtor's prison with only one book to bring with me on this subject, it would be Gary Willis' Lincoln At Gettyburg: The Words That Remade America. HIghly recommeded for those interested in this topic. And we all should be.

Not just Americans. I have read excerpts from Willis's book though not the whole. The Gettysburg Address is one of the most sombrely beautiful, ringingly noble documents in all of human history.

[Dennis Hardin]

And it's clearly true that some states attempted to adopt Christianity as their official creed.

Dennis,

This is not accurate.

Some states actually adopted Christianity as their official creed.

The way you adopt something like that is put it in the charter documents (i.e., the constitution).

There's all kinds of evidence on record to support this.

A fact and a cognitive bias are two different things. I'm not wagging my finger at you (in the manner of someone we all know and love ) because God knows I have my own cognitive biases and I fight against them, but when facts are undeniable, there is nothing to be gained by calling them "attempted" facts.

Michael

I should have known I couldn’t get anything past you, Michael Kelly.

By “attempt,” I simply meant that none of the states which adopted Christianity succeeded in keeping Christianity as any sort of official religion for very long. I probably could have phrased it better. It was almost 2 am. Any half sane person would be in bed at that hour, not posting on a webforum. You should wag your finger at me for that.

[Selene]

You should wag your finger at me for that.

[Peter]

Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day. - Bertrand Russell

Adam wrote:

Mr. Taylor:

end quote

Get rid of that cloud of flies and call me Mister Tibbs.

Cornfused as always Adam continuated:

Now I am really confused . . . I thought you were for Mitt Romney?

end quote

It’s true. He is not a social conservative. But he is a Tea Party fiscal, constitutionalist. Let’s go over the Objectivist pre-flight, checklist, with Mitt.

Personal liberty? Check.

Believes in Individual rights and that a government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area? Check.

Strict constructionist? Check.

Fiscally Conservative? Check.

Will appeal Obamacare? Check.

Will protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and will settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law? Check.

Laissez-faire Capitalist? Check. Unlike you, who posted the Grinch’s Bain Capital video, and Newt.

Will DRASTICALLY CUT REGULATIONS? Check.

Will reduce taxes? Check.

Will drastically reduce the deficit? Check.

Will protect our borders? Check.

Will bomb the crap out of ne’er do wells, with the least loss of treasure and American lives? Check.

Mitt is a fine choice for an Objectivist. He even has the one Objective thing that Ron Paul does not have. He is eminently elect-able. His failing is that he tries to get along, so we will need to keep him from compromising to get reelected when 2016 rolls around.

Peter Taylor

[Dennis Hardin]

You should wag your finger at me for that.

I'm going to try using this as a screensaver.

[Selene]

You should wag your finger at me for that.

I'm going to try using this as a screensaver.

Lol - Glad you liked it Dennis...I thought it was a real find myself. This was my other choice...

[9thdoctor]

Neither of the points you mentioned has anything to do with historical accuracy. Either Barton does not know his historical sources, or he is a flagrant liar. Time and again he misquotes documents or quotes them out of context.

Subsequent events are certainly bearing out your analysis. Barton's recent NY Times bestseller, The Jefferson Lies, has been withdrawn by its publisher. A publisher of Christian books. Maybe they reviewed the "Thou shalt not bear false witness" commandment and decided they wanted to have less to answer for come Judgment Day.

http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/19840

Has Glenn Beck had anything to say about this?