I agree that the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are differenttypes of
documents, with different purposes and functions.And I have argued against
reading the Constitution through the lens of theDeclaration without an
extraordinary justification for doing so. But I do not
Bobby,
Thanks for the helpful summing up.
The Egyptian Constitution originally noted the Shariah (Islamic law) as a source of law. It was more recently amended (15 or so years ago) to make the Shariah the source of law.
I think one plausible reason god is not mentioned is the very varied
Steve. thanks for your illuminating post. Best, Bobby.
Robert Justin
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of
LawDelaware
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005
12:10 PM
To: Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: God in the Constitution
Was
the omission of any mention of God in the Constitution an issue discussed
during the ratification debates
It seems to me that the absence of a
specific reference to God in the Constitution has more to do with the nature of
the document than the nature of the founding generation. In the
Declaration of Independence, a product of the same founding
generation,reference to God was central
However, references to God in the Dec. of I were mostly diestic rather
than to the Christian God or God of the Bible. It was to nature's
God and the creator.
Friedman, Howard M. wrote:
It seems to me that the absence of a specific reference to God in the
Constitution has more to do
Academics
Subject: Re: God in the Constitution
However, references to God in the Dec. of I were mostly
diestic rather
than to the Christian God or God of the Bible. It was to nature's
God and the creator.
___
To post, send message
Was the omission of any
mention of God in the Constitution an issue discussed during the ratification
debates? Is there literature discussing whether this omission was used as an
argument against ratifying the Constitution? Thanks.
Bobby
Robert Justin
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener
Krammick and Moore, THE GODLESS CONSTITUTION
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/30/05 12:09 PM
Was the omission of any mention of God in the Constitution an issue
discussed during the ratification debates? Is there literature
discussing whether
this omission was used as an argument against ratifying
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was the omission of any mention of God in the
Constitution an issue discussed during the ratification debates? Is
there literature discussing whether this omission was used as an
argument against ratifying the Constitution? Thanks.
Yes and yes
-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/30/05 12:09 PM
Was the omission of any mention of God in the Constitution an issue
discussed during the ratification debates? Is there literature
discussing whether
this omission was used as an argument against
In a message dated 1/30/2005 12:39:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some New
England antifederalists complained that the Constitution did not
establish religion.
Although perhaps
difficult to draw, in every case, I think there's a distinction between
New Englanders who complained about this wanted, at a minumum, a religious
test for officeholding. See Morton Borden, JEWS, TURKS AND INFIDELS.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/30/2005 12:39:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
likely explanation is federalism. Any recognition of
God in the federal Constitution could be read to imply a certain
degree of federal responsibility over a matters religious. Everyone
agreed that the federal government was to have no power to regulate
religion, so, following the Madisonian
there is no question that the framers of the U.S. Constitution
acknowledged God. I cite George Washington's very first proclamation as
President of the United States on October 3, 1789. As you know, George
Washington was President of the constitutional convention. Here is the
opening sentence
In a message dated 1/30/2005 1:44:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
think
the most likely explanation is federalism. Any recognition of God in
the federal Constitution could be read to imply a certain degree of
federal responsibility over a matters religious
udying these issues who would dispute his
simplistic notions of what the framers "acknowledged." Moreover, what they
meant by "God" might be quite different from what we mean today. I am also
uncertain what in fact he means witht the sentence: "I think there is no
question
In a message dated 1/30/2005 1:55:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For
example, most historians agree that New Hampshire had anestablished
religion until 1817. However, the first state Constitution ofNew
Hampshire did not use the word "God" at all nor did it
ional duty and therefore urged the Constitution to recognize God in some way
or other, and(2) Washington thought acknowledging God was a national duty
but did not urgethis be recognized in the Constitution. What
explains why Washington did (2) and not (1)? Something must explain
aboutWashington and
In a message dated 1/30/2005 3:13:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, the
term God is not in the Constitution, but its impossible to understand the
justification of the principles that are behind the text without understanding
the worldview from which they
? I certainly don't know the answer to this
question. But why should a desire to keep matters of religion under local
control trump acknowledging the connection between the Constitution and God?
Some might argue that the valueof localism should notoutweigh the
importance of acknowledging
In a message dated 1/30/2005 5:21:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems
to me that the inclusion or failure to include language acknowledging G-d
in the U.S. Constitution has little to do with the level of religiousity
in America at the time and a lot to do
.
Mark S. Scarberry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: 1/30/2005 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: God in the Constitution
In a message dated 1/30/2005 5:21:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me
There is a key difference between penumbral rights and structures the Constitution protects without direct mention, and an official recognition of God. The Constitution has provisions that directly protect rights of privacy, for example, even though the right itself is not named. There is little
:
There is a key difference between penumbral rights and structures
the Constitution protects without direct mention, and an official recognition
of God. The Constitution has provisions that directly protect rights of
privacy, for example, even though the right itself is not named
25 matches
Mail list logo
