-- it is clearly informed by the wisdom of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. That is to say, it is informed by the moral law of Judeo-Christianity; the rationality of Greek philosophy; and Roman concepts of political order.
Are you just denying that pagan natural/common law was a big influence on the writing of our Constitution?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed, I love to turn the issue back to constitutional basics, a subject many here have problems facing, because our constitution is a very [non] sectarian document.
Please, - read the Story quote I just posted, - I'd appreciate your comments on that.
I must differ with your conclusion here, dear tpaine. The Constitution is not "a sectarian document," nor it is an explicitly "religious document" -- in any sectarian sense.
Sorry, I forgot the 'non'. I find it curious that you chose to make that an issue.
If your link was to Joseph Story, I'm glad to give it a look. I've encountered him before. I consider him a very sound souce for the understanding of the American rule of law from the jurisprudential point of view. But that will have to wait 'til tomorrow, for I'm pooped, and it's time for sleep....
But will be speaking with you again soon, dear tpaine!
Thanks Betty.
"- § 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States."
This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own.
Good morning tpaine!
The way I interpret these lines from Justice Story: The “no religious test” underpins the idea that there is to be no “alliance” between any particular religious sect and the federal government. This is not to say that the federal government is hostile to religion; just that the duties and powers of the federal government are not those of a religious authority. The idea here is “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” That is a clear separation. The authority backing up the federal government is the “We the People” – whom the Framers hoped would be moral, virtuous, even godly people. Recall what George Washington had to say on these matters….
Interestingly, though there is to be no religious test, there sort of is one anyway: All senior officers of the federal government swear an Oath of Office, and it is customary that such oaths are sworn on the Bible. This shows that the federal government is not “hostile” to that book, nor to JudeoChristian theology.
Don’t forget that the Declaration of Independence presents the idea of the Creator, from whom all men derive their unalienable rights equally. This is so important, tpaine: For if we ever began to believe we obtain our rights, not from God, but from the State, the State would be effectively unrestrained in what it can do. If we understand that God is superior to the State, and is the source of the moral authority of the sovereign people of which the State is the agent, then this means that the State has limited, not plenipotential powers (such as tyrants forever lust after).
The traditional hierarchy of authority implicit in our federal Constitution is God – Man – State (in descending order). Compare this with a totalitarian State: Tyrant – State – Man (also in descending order). You need God in there, to keep the totalitarians at bay. :^)
Please share your thoughts with me?