Yay for California!
- Thread starter spicypumpkin
- Start date
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrangell
"Members of minorities in the U.S. have the same civil rights as members of a majority in the U.S."
That's because 'white folks' did not have to suffer from oppression at some time in history....they were always the oppressors....
Originally Posted by Wrangell
"Members of minorities in the U.S. have the same civil rights as members of a majority in the U.S."
That's because 'white folks' did not have to suffer from oppression at some time in history....they were always the oppressors....
No.
Religion has nothing to do with civil rights issues surrounding same sex marriage debate - this reason/ issue is equality / discrimination.........in the same way that religion is not a guiding principle in the U.S. Constitution.
And, as I said before, even if someone was to trumpet religion as the reason, this does not represent a ' rational reason ' IMO.
Besides, there is no requirement that any religion marry same sex couples.......' freedom of religion ' ensures that.
They have ( or should have ) the same civil rights - no more, no less - in the U.S.
- Men have the same civil rights as women in the U.S.
- Blacks, Asians, etc. have the same civil rights as Caucasians in the U.S.
- Jews, Sikhs, Muslims etc. have the same civil rights as Christians in the U.S.
- H0m0sexuals have the same civil rights as heterosexuals in the U.S
.- Blacks, Asians, etc. have the same civil rights as Caucasians in the U.S.
- Jews, Sikhs, Muslims etc. have the same civil rights as Christians in the U.S.
- H0m0sexuals have the same civil rights as heterosexuals in the U.S
It's pretty simple really.
That's what makes the U.S. such a great country and the envy of the world.
Last edited:
Stop... just stop. Do you realize that the "oppressed" you speak of are significantly better off now than they would have ever been.
... I'm signing off now, shaking my head about your embarassing response.
Wow you really need to read up on your history. Maybe take a look at some of our money and see just how much religon has to do with the founding principles of this country.
How can you argue that? That is so far off base. Go read the The Preamble at the very minimum and don't post here again until you do.
There are plenty of Irish-American and Italian-American etc. activities all over the country.
As far as quotas, ethnic based scholarships, etc I tend to agree with you, but that's a whole other subject
I say let them have it. Its up to the individual to take that oppurtunity to succeed anyway.
mind boggling ain't it?
yeah better........I'm sure they enjoyed being enslaved, or hung by rope? ....hmmm....or maybe being put in concentration camps, or imprisoned because of race?
or maybe the poor gay guy in Alabama who died, and his funeral was being protested...wanted the attention?
yeah, sure if they just wouldn't fight for their rights they would all be better off......
It's easy to argue that.
There are no specific religious references ( i.e Bible, Christian, GOD ), within a ' legal framework ' for creating laws at either the state or federal level anywhere in the US.......and the articles of the US Constitution themselves are devoid of Bible, Christian, or GOD references as well.
It is a misconception that the United States government overall is actually derived from religious / Christian foundations, that the U.S. ' founding fathers ' originally wanted some sort of Christian country. That's simply false IMO.
Faith based doctrines are not entrenched in the U.S. Constitution at all - unlike Iran which is a theocratic republic where governmental policies are either identical with or strongly influenced by the principles of the majority religion and typically claims to rule on behalf of God or some other higher power.
The US is a federal republic governed by a democracy - and that is why the word " God ' is not found anywhere in the articles of the U.S. Constitution - so, for anyone to say the U.S. is founded on religious / Christian principles simply isn't true IMO. Nowhere do the articles of the US Constitution appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. Omission of ' God ' references in the articles isn't simply an oversight, but rather a deliberate attempt to keep government distinctly separate from religion IMO.
So while you may have an argument for the U.S. being a predominantly Christian country, influenced by Christian principles, the check and balances with your system ensures that the governmental policies are not either identical with or strongly influenced by the generally accepted principles of the majority religion - as they are in Iran for example.
That's why the abortion issue ( Roe vs Wade ) for example - the US Supreme court declaration that abortion statutes were void - were defined as infringing a person's 9th and 14th Amendment rights of the US Constitution - and certainly not due to any " Christian " religious principles.
Last edited:
Sorry, I'm unable to open the link....perhaps you could just paste in the part that highlights the point you're trying to make.
Sure
Also consider the mention of God in our Pledge of Allegiance, on our money, on every single government building at every level.
Where is God in the Constitution?: Part 1 • Part 2
By David W. New, Esq.
Secularists believe that they have the right view of America. They are convinced that America should be a secular or a godless state. They believe that religion was not a decisive factor in the formation of the Constitution of the United States and that this proves that the framers of the Constitution did not want religion to influence public policy. Simply put, politics and religion don't mix. . . . There are several historical "facts" secularists use to support their views. One of the most important historical facts is the absence of the word "God" in the U.S. Constitution. To a secularist, the absence of the word "God" has a deep, almost mystical significance. It suggests that the framers had little or no interest in religion.
Most people would not consider Charles Darwin, author of On the Origin of Species (1859), to be someone important in order to understand the U.S. Constitution. Most people think the writings of John Locke, William Blackstone, and James Madison are important in order to understand the Constitution. There is a sense in which Charles Darwin is more important than all of them and has had a profound impact on the modern interpretation of the Constitution. In fact, a case could be made that he has had a greater or equal impact on the Constitution than the delegates at the constitutional convention! The reason is simple: Darwin changed the way we see the Constitution. For better or for worse, the way many Americans see the Constitution today is very different from the time before Darwin. The dominant legal philosophy in the United States today is secularism. The Constitution is seen today as a "secular" document. Darwin made us secularists. Secularists believe that only scientific evolution is valid. They are not atheists as often claimed. Many secularists believe in God. But for a secularist, it does not matter whether God exists or not when it comes to understanding government. The impact of secularism on our understanding of the Constitution was revolutionary. Secularists read the Constitution in a way that is totally foreign to its framers. In a nutshell, secularists think that religion was not important to the framers of the Constitution. As one of their writers said concerning the majority of the delegates at Philadelphia: ". . . most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone."1
To the framers of the Constitution, the idea of having a government not based on God would have been unthinkable. It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was special creation. Therefore, all of the delegates at the Philadelphia convention were creationists of one form or another. This is the reason the framers did not create a "secular" state in the modern sense of the term. Indeed, the concept of "secularism" as it is used today didn't even exist in 1787. It is largely a twentieth-century concept. Since the framers of our Constitution predated Darwin and the theory of evolution, the desire to have a "secular" state would have made as much sense to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is only with the advent of Darwin and an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe that a secular state becomes necessary. There were atheists in 1787 to be sure, but they lacked a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of the Universe.
At the same time, the framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy. This is not to say, however, that they saw no role for religion in government. The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ."2 The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism." In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people.
The rise of modern secularism made the debate about the word "God" in the Constitution very intense. It was not until the legal community in the United States adopted secularism that the absence of the word "God" took on the kind of significance it has today. It is true that before the rise of modern secularism some Americans objected to the fact that the word "God" was not in the Constitution. There were suggestions to amend the Constitution to add it. There were efforts to add "Almighty God" and "Jesus Christ" to the Preamble for example. Some members of Congress suggested that "In the Name of God" should be inserted before the Preamble. As early as the time of the Civil War, Americans have been trying to amend the Constitution to add some sort of reference to God. These efforts did not get very far with the public. Thankfully, Americans were content with the Constitution the way it was. However, in all of these early debates about whether the word "God" should be added to the Constitution, the debate was between one group of creationists versus another. Almost no one believed that the United States was a godless country just because the word "God" was not in the Constitution. Today, this is no longer true. Today the fight is between creationists and evolutionists. Secularists insist that the absence of the word "God" means that the Constitution created a godless government in America.
Also consider the mention of God in our Pledge of Allegiance, on our money, on every single government building at every level.
Where is God in the Constitution?: Part 1 • Part 2
By David W. New, Esq.
Secularists believe that they have the right view of America. They are convinced that America should be a secular or a godless state. They believe that religion was not a decisive factor in the formation of the Constitution of the United States and that this proves that the framers of the Constitution did not want religion to influence public policy. Simply put, politics and religion don't mix. . . . There are several historical "facts" secularists use to support their views. One of the most important historical facts is the absence of the word "God" in the U.S. Constitution. To a secularist, the absence of the word "God" has a deep, almost mystical significance. It suggests that the framers had little or no interest in religion.
Most people would not consider Charles Darwin, author of On the Origin of Species (1859), to be someone important in order to understand the U.S. Constitution. Most people think the writings of John Locke, William Blackstone, and James Madison are important in order to understand the Constitution. There is a sense in which Charles Darwin is more important than all of them and has had a profound impact on the modern interpretation of the Constitution. In fact, a case could be made that he has had a greater or equal impact on the Constitution than the delegates at the constitutional convention! The reason is simple: Darwin changed the way we see the Constitution. For better or for worse, the way many Americans see the Constitution today is very different from the time before Darwin. The dominant legal philosophy in the United States today is secularism. The Constitution is seen today as a "secular" document. Darwin made us secularists. Secularists believe that only scientific evolution is valid. They are not atheists as often claimed. Many secularists believe in God. But for a secularist, it does not matter whether God exists or not when it comes to understanding government. The impact of secularism on our understanding of the Constitution was revolutionary. Secularists read the Constitution in a way that is totally foreign to its framers. In a nutshell, secularists think that religion was not important to the framers of the Constitution. As one of their writers said concerning the majority of the delegates at Philadelphia: ". . . most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone."1
To the framers of the Constitution, the idea of having a government not based on God would have been unthinkable. It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was special creation. Therefore, all of the delegates at the Philadelphia convention were creationists of one form or another. This is the reason the framers did not create a "secular" state in the modern sense of the term. Indeed, the concept of "secularism" as it is used today didn't even exist in 1787. It is largely a twentieth-century concept. Since the framers of our Constitution predated Darwin and the theory of evolution, the desire to have a "secular" state would have made as much sense to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is only with the advent of Darwin and an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe that a secular state becomes necessary. There were atheists in 1787 to be sure, but they lacked a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of the Universe.
At the same time, the framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy. This is not to say, however, that they saw no role for religion in government. The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ."2 The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism." In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people.
The rise of modern secularism made the debate about the word "God" in the Constitution very intense. It was not until the legal community in the United States adopted secularism that the absence of the word "God" took on the kind of significance it has today. It is true that before the rise of modern secularism some Americans objected to the fact that the word "God" was not in the Constitution. There were suggestions to amend the Constitution to add it. There were efforts to add "Almighty God" and "Jesus Christ" to the Preamble for example. Some members of Congress suggested that "In the Name of God" should be inserted before the Preamble. As early as the time of the Civil War, Americans have been trying to amend the Constitution to add some sort of reference to God. These efforts did not get very far with the public. Thankfully, Americans were content with the Constitution the way it was. However, in all of these early debates about whether the word "God" should be added to the Constitution, the debate was between one group of creationists versus another. Almost no one believed that the United States was a godless country just because the word "God" was not in the Constitution. Today, this is no longer true. Today the fight is between creationists and evolutionists. Secularists insist that the absence of the word "God" means that the Constitution created a godless government in America.
Part 2,
Where is God in the Constitution?: Part 2 • Part 1
By David W. New, Esq.
Secularists are very quick to point out that the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be 'under God' in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point: The word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. It is doubtful, however, that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word "God" will appear in two places in most constitutions: in the preamble and the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, there is no preamble. In these cases, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses.
The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word "God" in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: "Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . and Georgia." When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of We the People. Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularist groups like the ACLU and their 'spin' on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here the textual reason is due to the subject. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clause is the government or "Congress." This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference is the reason the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment's religion clauses. Let's compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . ." The subject of the clause is clear. It is "All men." The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses' better wording. It says "Every individual . . ." In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual.
In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a "natural right" of an individual to worship "Almighty God" according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the "right" of an individual, the word "God" naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the "Congress." The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion among the states. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion as it relates to the states. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words "God," "natural right," "worship," or "conscience" do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word "God" in the First Amendment is because the subject is what Congress can do in relation to the states which are explicitly religious.
The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth-century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn't even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common error. The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is "God" is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there is a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain.
The Supreme Court of Florida concluded in 1950 that "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers."3
Even if the word "God" was in the Constitution, it probably would not make any difference. Secularist groups like the ACLU would probably dismiss it as a mere formality. There are 50 reasons to believe that this is true. Since secularists dismiss all references to God in the state constitutions, there is no reason to believe that they would behave any differently with the federal Constitution. Their commitment to secularism will not allow for the possibility that they might be wrong.
Where is God in the Constitution?: Part 2 • Part 1
By David W. New, Esq.
Secularists are very quick to point out that the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be 'under God' in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point: The word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. It is doubtful, however, that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word "God" will appear in two places in most constitutions: in the preamble and the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, there is no preamble. In these cases, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses.
The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word "God" in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: "Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . and Georgia." When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of We the People. Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularist groups like the ACLU and their 'spin' on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here the textual reason is due to the subject. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clause is the government or "Congress." This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference is the reason the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment's religion clauses. Let's compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . ." The subject of the clause is clear. It is "All men." The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses' better wording. It says "Every individual . . ." In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual.
In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a "natural right" of an individual to worship "Almighty God" according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the "right" of an individual, the word "God" naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the "Congress." The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion among the states. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion as it relates to the states. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words "God," "natural right," "worship," or "conscience" do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word "God" in the First Amendment is because the subject is what Congress can do in relation to the states which are explicitly religious.
The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth-century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn't even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common error. The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is "God" is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there is a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain.
The Supreme Court of Florida concluded in 1950 that "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers."3
Even if the word "God" was in the Constitution, it probably would not make any difference. Secularist groups like the ACLU would probably dismiss it as a mere formality. There are 50 reasons to believe that this is true. Since secularists dismiss all references to God in the state constitutions, there is no reason to believe that they would behave any differently with the federal Constitution. Their commitment to secularism will not allow for the possibility that they might be wrong.
I have to drag these quotes out again:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion."
-George Washington
"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
-Thomas Jefferson
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion."
-George Washington
"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
-Thomas Jefferson
Last edited:
you did read the article right?
You don't have to be a Christian or pledge an oath to Christian principles to be a U.S. citizen.
Your country is a democracy - not a theocracy. Religion may influence your policies, but religion does not form the basis of your government or laws....which is the point I was making
Take Pakistan as example of a theocracy. If you look at Pakistan's constitution, unlike the U.S. constitution, religion is incorporated in to the legal framework of Pakistan's constitution. These passages are taken directly from the constitution of Pakistan, for example.....
'Pakistan shall be a Federal Republic to be known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan'
'Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan.'
'Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;'
'Faithful to the declaration made by the Founder of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, that Pakistan would be a democratic State based on Islamic principles of social justice;'
'Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan.'
'Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;'
'Faithful to the declaration made by the Founder of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, that Pakistan would be a democratic State based on Islamic principles of social justice;'
Constitution of Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Both the US and Pakistani constitutions form the ' legal framework ' for governing each country - the distinction is that Pakistan's is based on religious principles and the US's is not - it's simply a fact - not a judgment or opinion.
The Pakastani constitution requires that laws be consistent with Islam and imposes some elements of Koranic law on both Muslims and religious minorities. The Pakastani constitution goes so far to state ( impose ) that the President and the Prime Minister must be Muslim. The Prime Minister, federal ministers, and ministers of state, as well as elected members of the Senate and National Assembly (including non-Muslims) must take a religious oath to “strive to preserve the Islamic ideology, which is the basis for the creation of Pakistan” (see Section 3). As I've said , no such oath to ' preserve Christian ideology ' exists anywhere in the US constitution - the President of the US can be of any faith or no faith at all. So again, by comparison, the US constitution does not include religious principles to guide US society - all three of these generic issues, and many more, are found in the Pakistani Islamic based constitution.
The role of religion in Pakistan may not be as extreme and entrenched as it is in my previous example of Iran, but it is much more so than than in the US, where - back to my original point- religion is not part of any US legal framework whatsoever.
However, I agree with you that Christian fundamentalism exists in the US and exerts great influence, but the Christian faith is not the state religion of the US and it isn't indoctrinated in the Constitution as the basis on which to form federal laws and govern society. However, unlike the U.S., religion ( the Islamic faith ) is a documented part of the ' legal framework ' of Pakistan - it's simply a fact.
As for pledges etc. in general I would simply add that pledges and songs aren't legal documents and the law - they, and anyone else , can reference God all they want - they represent Christian influence and they are voluntary, not required. And, these references aren't universally seen ( as in Iran ) in US society, but in selected places ( pledges ) as people choose. The governing principles of the US are simply devoid of any religious foundation for validating laws. Many laws don't sustain their validity on the basis of religious principles.
It's interesting how many US laws actually flout Biblical teachings ( commandments ) such that adultery is not a crime, killing by police and state and armed forces isn't a crime - though some might say they are sins in the eyes of God. How is killing by the government a reflection of Judeo-Christian principles ( i.e thou halt not kill ) ?
Last edited: