Skip to comments.Bible Course Becomes a Test for Public Schools in Texas
Posted on 08/01/2005 7:12:16 AM PDT by Crackingham
click here to read article
Well, if you want the *nutshell* version-
Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, ¶ 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago:
The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.
The Ten Commandments are two sets of laws. Enforcement of the first 5 remains only in God's purview. The LAST 5 Commandments were laws between God and men AND punishable BY man. Breaking one of these 5 Commandments is what defines *crime* for ALL of the people.
These moral laws were already well known by Americans. When a person murdered (not to be confused with self defense), failed to live up to a contractual obligation (adultery), stole, lied, or conspired (covet) to do any of the above, that person committed a crime because they negatively and directly affected another human being.
If your interested in the fuller version, try:
Scroll down to the Liberty Library section
BTW If you try to take moral, Christian principles completely out of government, you've pulled 'the principals for which it stands' right out from under the Constitution.
'Cause it's not about God....it's about Freedom :)
Too bad evolution class isn't an 'elective'.
Of course it doesn't. The period of time that the bible encompasses was a time of kings and emperors. At the time that the Constitution was created monarchy was the chief form of government. The Constitution was, at its creation, a unique form of government. To think that a constitutional form of government would be described in a 2000 year old bible is ludicrous.
Nothing listed in the Bill of Rights could be squared with the Bible, either. There is no "Freedom of Religion or Speech" in the Bible. Indeed, much of the OT preaches against such concepts.
Again, you're taking a unique form of government (an 18th century form of government) and trying to apply it to the first century. That's apples and oranges.
Methinks you really didn't put a lot of effort into your response, but simply reacted in a knee-jerk fashion.
Methinks you haven't done your homework. Read about the 56 men who risked their lives when they signed that declaration to be independent of King George, and think about why the first "right" in the Bill of Rights is the "free exercise of religion".
These were religious men who took their religion seriously, and had a firm belief that the Ten Commandments was the basis of natural law. These men built a constitutional government on the concept of men being equally endowed by their "Creator" with unalienable rights.
So, before you go through the Bible looking for rights, freedoms, and constitutional governments remember that the men who wrote, signed, and died for our Constitution, used their Christian faith to build a unique form of government that bibical peoples never knew. No other faith in the world has inspired such a document as ours.
You are still hung up on the *Jefferson was not a Christian thing?*
Do you think Jefferson was the ONLY Founder? There were FIFTY-FIVE men who attended the first Continental Convention, and THIRTY-NINE signed the Constitution.
Do you think Jefferson's admiration for the moral teachings of the Bible (FROM THE LINK IN YOUR PREVIOUS POST) NEGATED the most basic principals of the Decalogue?
Have you even BOTHERED to read anything that falls outside your personal views, or do your eyes slam shut when you see the word *Christian*??
Why don't you stop beating your anti Christian drum, Mylo....
and just run along and find Otis, okay?
Your the one who claimed the Constitution is based on the Bible.
Ah, yet again, you put words in my mouth (never said founded ONLY by Christians, did I?), and you do not do me the courtesy of reading the material I posted in order to back up my assertions.
See post #43 for an explanation of the correlation between the Christian faith, English common law and the rule of law in America.
No my dear, it's a historical FACT that the laws in this country was based on the Christian faith.... so much so that the Commandments are listed in the CURRENT and LEGAL definition of natural law. (See post #20)
____________________________________________________________ Did Jefferson mean the laws of the Bible when he said 'natural law'?
Did Jefferson mean the God of the Bible when he said 'nature's god'?
Yes... He was not so foolish a man to throw away diamonds just because he'd found them in a dunghill, now was he?
In fact, he says so himself in his letter Letter To Dr. Benjamin Rush, dated April 21, 1803 :
In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.
This is the Introduction to Jefferson's Bible where it states:
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Canby, "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus."
You seem erroneously convinced that any acknowledgment of the Christian faith and it's role in American government means you have to be a Christian.
In order to avoid that oh-so-horrible fate, you DENY the very thing that gives you your freedom.
I think Jefferson would be appalled!
No kidding. Could that be because of the altered orbits, they were talking about then, hmmm?
Anyway, thanks for the tip, I had never noticed before. /sarcasm.
I was trying to be polite. The entire theory is, frankly, moonbat crazy. Maybe good for a segment on the Art Bell show, but not something taken seriously by actual scientists. If you think it has any sort of plausibility, you are seriously mistaken.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Note how those on the left hate and fear actual religion, any symbol, however small, like changing the city (or was it county) seal of Los Angeles?
Folks, this is an ELECTIVE course. Not mandatory. And when you consider the inroads that homosexual activists have made in the public schools, and this one small effort to give shoolchildren the opportunity to hear the word of God - in historical context, this is not a sectarian missionary project - this is a drop in the bucket.
But they can't stand it. I don't know about you, but I am sick and fed up. Really sick, and really fed up.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
And consider how much of the pro-homosexual (and what to speak of other leftist crap) teaching/promotion in schools is absolutely mandatory!
I really don't know much about it, so the comparison is unfair. But it seems about as plausible as macro evolution. But of course since I don't know much about it comparing it to something as ridiculous as macro evolution is unfair.
You need to get your facts straight. Check my profile page.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.