Is the US Government Founded on Christian or Non-Christian Premises?

Tenspace wrote

Then why would you agree that states should codify a Deity in the preambles to their constitutions?

Or, are you just stating the point, but not agreeing with it?

I have no problem with states giving credit to or acknowledging god in their constitutions. I don't think states should bar anyone from serving in government. I want the best man/woman for the job regardless.

Not bar anyone? I think you mean not bar any qualified candidate. Nitpicking is my specialty.

[Tenspace]

lurker wrote

I have no problem with states giving credit to or acknowledging god in their constitutions. I don't think states should bar anyone from serving in government. I want the best man/woman for the job regardless.

How would you feel about a state constitution that preambled, "We the People declare that the constitution of this State, and the laws governing thereof, shall in no way acknowledge, endorse, or promote any religion."

Ten

Tenspace wrote

How would you feel about a state constitution that preambled, "We the People declare that the constitution of this State, and the laws governing thereof, shall in no way acknowledge, endorse, or promote any religion."

I'd prefer something along these lines...

"We the People, grateful to Almighty God for our many blessings, declare that the constitution of this State, and the laws governing thereof, shall not establish religion, but shall support freedom of religious expression for all its people."

[Philboid Studge]

lurker wrote

I'd prefer something along these lines...

"We the People, grateful to Almighty God for our many blessings, declare that the constitution of this State, and the laws governing thereof, shall not establish religion, but shall support freedom of religious expression for all its people."

I guess that's be okay -- if you replaced the word "People" with "theists." Other than that, it's fine.

How about this: We the people dedicate our government to the presevation life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Philboid Studge wrote

I guess that's be okay -- if you replaced the word "People" with "theists." Other than that, it's fine.

Freedom of religion also means the freedom not to practice it. You're doing it now. I think "People" is accurate.

[Philboid Studge]

"We the People, grateful to Almighty God for our many blessings ...

I'm not grateful to AG and I'm a "people." What if you changed "Almighty God" to "Nature"? I could go along with that. Otherwise you're excluding 14% of the population with the first sentence. I might have freedom "not to practice it" -- but I'd still have to acknowledge AG in a secular document intended for ALL the people. Why should I?

Philboid Studge wrote

I'm not grateful to AG and I'm a "people." What if you changed "Almighty God" to "Nature"? I could go along with that. Otherwise you're excluding 14% of the population with the first sentence. I might have freedom "not to practice it" -- but I'd still have to acknowledge AG in a secular document intended for ALL the people. Why should I?

I'm stating my preference in response to Ten's question, however it doesn't have to mention god at all. I'm assuming the people that wrote the document believed in god as most seemed to believe given the list of state preambles. If you want to assume the writers were atheists then you're welcome to tweak it any way you want.

[Philboid Studge]

lurker wrote

I'm stating my preference in response to Ten's question, however it doesn't have to mention god at all.

Cool. So we're agreed. I was responding to your suggestion that we start state constitutions by thanking God.

I think everyone needs to grow a thicker skin. Frankly, I could care less the words "there is no god but allah" was emblazoned on our flag 22 times like Iran. It's just not that important.

VOICE-of-REASON wrote

If you have specific questions after that, I'm willing to answer them as best as I can.

I'm just going to insist on a quick difference here: Social darwinism means the competition of CONSUMERS for a limted supply of products. The inverse is true with Capitalism, which means: The competition of PRODUCERS for a limited supply of consumers. And as I said earlier, if there is any "survival of the fittest" here, it is the survival of the best products and of the best methods of production--with the ensuing raise of the standard of living of anyone and everyone.

Products, or more generally, resources, are limited. There is always competition for resources regardless of who seeks them. Producers are also consumers, I might add, so your statement is really just a theoretical play on words.

There is a difference between regulated and laissez-faire capitalism. Without laws restricting capitalistic practices, capitalism implodes and theoretically destroys competition. The logical conclusion of unregulated capitalism is one world corporation which controls all resources. Indeed, the object of any capitalistic enterprise is to destroy its competitors while reducing its costs to the bare minimum. Reducing costs results in slave labor which is unsustainable.

Capitalism is a fine system with the proper checks and balances. Sadly, we've seen what happens with deregulation. The fox cannot be trusted with the henhouse.

Nearly all capitalistic theory requires perfect competition, which includes timely and accurate information for every consumer. These conditions do not nor cannot exist, especially in our ever more complex world. Adam Smith's invisible hand assumes each person acts in his best interest. Not only are people unaware of what their true best interest may be, even when knowing, they often act contrary to this knowledge.

I don't know if it was you who stated communism was evil, but I'm puzzled as to that statement. I see many aspects of capitalism as immoral (evil is not a word I would associate with an economic theory). The aspect of birthright apparent in capitalist societies is no different than archaic aristocracies. As a capitalist society matures, capital is increasingly rewarded with wealth, while work is valued only as a tool to acquire capital.

A workable system cannot be found in laissez-faire capitalism nor pure communism. A blend of the two would serve to protect everyone's interests.