We could also add the oath or affirmation clause, which in effect denies the
need to recognize God to hold office (which is slightly different, perhaps,
from no religious test). While some religous people today which to claim the
Dec of I or the Constitution as being religous, the criticism as
that the Declaration includes
religious rhetoric.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 9:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration
In a message dated 12/20/2004 4:47:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I
inferred that because most Americans of theera were Christians, the public
meaning of the document would have beenunderstood as referring to the God
that they generally believed in.
Has
to be a Deistic one
under the modern definition I give.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 10:18 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Volokh, Eugene
Subject: Re: Supposedly Deistic nature
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
The Great God of the Bible? The Father, Son and Holy Ghost?
The Jehovah? These would have been odd things to say in even a
non-Deistic document. Divine Providence and Supreme Judge of the
world were, I suspect, much more normal and idiomatic ways of referring
to
In a message dated 12/19/2004 12:01:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems
to me that onecan be virtually any sort of theist and accept the
principles of theDeclaration.
It's no longer obvious to
me that one needs to be a theist of any stripe to accept the
Title: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
Quite frankly, I think that
that there is not a scintilla of language in the Declaration that bespeaks
"Chrstianity" as a religious doctrine involving a Savior., etc. (There's
nothing in the Declaration that would suggest
Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
In a message dated 12/19/2004 12:01:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that one
can be virtually any sort of theist and accept the principles of the
Declaration.
It's no longer obvious to me that one
I would not lump the Declaration with the Constitution in terms of
God-consciousness. The two times are radically different.
The Declaration was penned at a time when Americans believed that they were
God's chosen for the first successful republican form of government in
history. The
It seems to me that Eugene is right. The God of the Declaration is
theologically minimal, which means that it is consistent with common
understandings of Deism and orthodox Christianity. It seems to me that one
can be virtually any sort of theist and accept the principles of the
Declaration.
Whatever conclusion we might draw about the character of the Declaration's
God/Creator/Judge/Providence, it seems to me that the asssertion that the First
Amendment prohibits the government and its officials from stating that it is
true that we are endowed by our Creator with certain
In a message dated 12/19/2004 1:19:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is not insignifcant, I think that none of the existing records of the federal convention contain any references to God or the Bible (much less the 10 C) and that when Franklin suggesting beginning the
12 matches
Mail list logo
