What else is "not in the Constitution"?

[Daggah]

A few times here, when someone makes the claim that the separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution, I've seen it claimed that something else also isn't contained literally in the Constitution, and yet we have that right as well. What was it?

(Sorry, I know I'm making it sound like a quiz-type question but I don't know the answer)

[enemigo]

Some other phrases that aren't in the Constitution:

"checks and balances"
"separation of powers"
"right to a fair trial"


Since those exact phrases aren't in the Constitution, then neither are the principles which they describe.

[GaryP]

"Right to assemble"

"Freedom of the press"

"Freedom of speech"

[Daggah]

"Freedom of speech" is literally in the Constitution.

But those others were the ones I was looking for - thanks guys!

[Writer@Large]

"Right to assemble"

"Freedom of the press"

"Freedom of speech"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's really stretching it to say those phrases aren't in there ...

--W@L

[cuziamthecaptain]

Will, remember guys:

The next time believers tell you that "separation of church and state" does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word "trinity." The word "trinity" appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed (or unphrased) by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural, Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible.
-- Dan Barker

[MrDarwin]

The ninth amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Aravnah Ornan]

Freedom of expressive association. Ironically, that seems to be one of the theocrats' favorite constitutional rights.

[Shake]

Will, remember guys:

The next time believers tell you that "separation of church and state" does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word "trinity." The word "trinity" appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed (or unphrased) by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural, Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible.
-- Dan Barker
Oooh! I like that quote. It's going into my file of good quotes!

Thanks, MrDarwin, for posting the 9th. Next time Dubya considers his amendment banning gay marriage he ought to be read that.

[markd]

Oooh! I like that quote. It's going into my file of good quotes!

Thanks, MrDarwin, for posting the 9th. Next time Dubya considers his amendment banning gay marriage he ought to be read that.

Ought to be read that??? :rolling:

I couldn't agree more, I'm not convinced he CAN read. He sure can't pronounce words very well.
Anybody have the photo of him holding a book...upside down?

[someotherguy]

Ought to be read that??? :rolling:

I couldn't agree more, I'm not convinced he CAN read. He sure can't pronounce words very well.
Anybody have the photo of him holding a book...upside down?

That photo was actually faked. That doesn't mean Dubya's not idiot, but that picture isn't proof.

[philian]

Will, remember guys:

The next time believers tell you that "separation of church and state" does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word "trinity." The word "trinity" appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed (or unphrased) by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural, Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible.
-- Dan Barker

Not to nit pick, But the word "Christian" is in the bible. Not "christianity" per se, but "christian". I don't know the exact verse, but I believe it's in Acts.(Though I could be wrong). Another one that is in there, and again I'm not sure where, but I remember reading it, is "unpardanable sin." Jesus describes "Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit" as unforgivable.

Something else that's NOT in the bible that should be added to your list though is "personal lord and savior"

[Buffman]

Not to nit pick, But the word "Christian" is in the bible. Not "christianity" per se, but "christian". I don't know the exact verse, but I believe it's in Acts.(Though I could be wrong).

Acts 11:26

[MrDarwin]

Nobody has pointed out yet that not only are the Ten Commandments not in the Constitution, but that the First Amendment directly contradicts the First Commandment.

[GaryP]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's really stretching it to say those phrases aren't in there ...

--W@L

Correct. I was hyperventilating.

[WhackAGod]

Nobody has pointed out yet that not only are the Ten Commandments not in the Constitution, but that the First Amendment directly contradicts the First Commandment.

Not only is the first amendment unconstitutional, I think fully half of them are.

1-4 and 10

[Styrofoam]

Please explain how a constitutional amendment acn be unconstitutional. Unless you mean the commandments.

[keitht]

"education"
"energy"
"agriculture"
"labor"
"environmental"
"marriage"

Keith

[Arizonaepu]

"freedom of religion"

Tax exempt status for churches.

[Shake]

Ought to be read that??? :rolling:

I couldn't agree more, I'm not convinced he CAN read. He sure can't pronounce words very well.
Anybody have the photo of him holding a book...upside down?
Errm ... oops! I think I was typing faster than I was thinking ... or something like that. I don't know, I think I was going to say something else but then edited it and obviously goofed. I think I meant to say, "... ought to read that [again?*]."

*one would hope he would have read it at some point!

[Shake]

Please explain how a constitutional amendment acn be unconstitutional. Unless you mean the commandments.
I'm sure he meant commandments. Speaking of which... (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/10command.htm)

[Rusting Car Bumper]

What is IN the Constitution?

"Science" is in the Constitution. Not only that but the phrase "to promote science" is in the Constitution.

DC

[WhackAGod]

Please explain how a constitutional amendment acn be unconstitutional. Unless you mean the commandments.
Wow I don't know how I did that. I meant commandments.

[Buffman]

Wow I don't know how I did that. I meant commandments.

Maybe this was the reason.

I,II,III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X.

Commandments or constitutional Amendments (Bill of Rights)?

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8a.htm

Or perhaps the shape of the tablet on which these Roman numerals are engraved.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087621/

(Just amplification)

http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/roberts3.htm

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/10command.htm

(Just an aside for those who may not have seen/read it.)

David Barton, self-anointed early American history expert, has this to say about the Ten Commandments and American Law:

http://www.moseshand.com/studies/db400yrs.htm

[fromtheright]

philian,

Something else that's NOT in the bible that should be added to your list though is "personal lord and savior"

2 Peter 1:10

2 Peter 2:20

2 Peter 3:2

2 Peter 3:17

Psalm 38:22

Psalm 68:19

2 Samuel 22:47

Isaiah 43:11

Isaiah 45:21

Isaiah 49:26

Isaiah 60:16

Hosea 13:4

Micah 7:7

[philian]

philian,

Something else that's NOT in the bible that should be added to your list though is "personal lord and savior"

2 Peter 1:10

2 Peter 2:20

2 Peter 3:2

2 Peter 3:17

Psalm 38:22

Psalm 68:19

2 Samuel 22:47

Isaiah 43:11

Isaiah 45:21

Isaiah 49:26

Isaiah 60:16

Hosea 13:4

Micah 7:7

Not one of these verses contains the phrase "personal Lord and Savior." This is the essence of this OP. A response to the claim that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution.

Yes. both of these claims are true and both are splitting hairs. The question is; do the bible and the constitution contain the essence of these phrases respectively?

The church/state thing has been hashed out several times and will be again. I would just like to address the verses you've given me.

The NT verses all refer to our lord and savior, or your(plural) lord and savior.

Psalm 38:22 ; the author refers to God as his savior for saving him from his persecutors.

2 Samuel 22:47 the author refers to God as "God of my salvation."

These verses are saying that God happened to be the one that saved these two people. He is their savior. It doesn't claim anywhere in these verses that he is your or my personal savior.

Not to be too condescending about the Isaiah verses, but they're the usual spewing of "Hell and Damnation" we've all come to expect from Isaiah. Here God is dictating that we all accept him as our savior or DIE!!!

Hosea 13:4 no where near says anything about a personal lord and savior. The jist of this verse is that God saved the Hebrews from Egypt because he happened to be the only god in the neighborhood at the time.

Like I said, I didn't want to go splitting hairs, but this is what this thread is about. Even though the terms "Splitting hairs," and "The Bible" don't appear anywhere in the original post. :)

[fromtheright]

philian,

Yes, they're both splitting hairs but there is a difference.

First, though, as to the L/S quotes: (1) it seems much more than an inference that "the God of my salvation" would be my personal savior; (2) that the NT quotes at least (your point well taken as to the OT quotes) in referring to "our savior" are referring to "yours and mine".

The difference is that the L/S references, as I've noted, have a clear grammatical construction that can be read as personal, which is a far cry from the inference made by strict separationists from the language of the EC. I agree that it is a silly argument that "the phrase appears nowhere in the First Amendment" which is why we must go to history. And, again, I must admit that, while I disagree with the conclusions, those on your side of the question (my apologies again to him for putting him on a side), such as Buffman, are far better prepared than most on my side. I am continually frustrated by the utter unpreparedness, (maybe it's just unwillingness but I don't think so) of those on BB to even discuss the issue.

[philian]

philian,

Yes, they're both splitting hairs but there is a difference.

First, though, as to the L/S quotes: (1) it seems much more than an inference that "the God of my salvation" would be my personal savior; (2) that the NT quotes at least (your point well taken as to the OT quotes) in referring to "our savior" are referring to "yours and mine".

The difference is that the L/S references, as I've noted, have a clear grammatical construction that can be read as personal, which is a far cry from the inference made by strict separationists from the language of the EC. I agree that it is a silly argument that "the phrase appears nowhere in the First Amendment" which is why we must go to history. And, again, I must admit that, while I disagree with the conclusions, those on your side of the question (my apologies again to him for putting him on a side), such as Buffman, are far better prepared than most on my side. I am continually frustrated by the utter unpreparedness, (maybe it's just unwillingness but I don't think so) of those on BB to even discuss the issue.


Let me just throw this out there for you. There are two possible reasons why those on your side are unprepared. First of all it could simply be that the facts don't support those arguments. Before you get the torches and start hunting me down for this, keep in mind that no matter how much I, obviously, would like this to be true, I am presenting it as one of two possibilities. The second possibility is that when you're on the side of the majority, the only argument you need to defend your position is, essentially, "Just because." This argument works great when everyone around you agrees with your position, but the minute someone challanges it "Just because" no longer works. Conversely, those of us who are going against the stream, as it were, have had to present the most solid evidence to back our position, and that evidence has had to stand up to the most intense scrutiny(usually form your side :) )

[Buffman]

I agree that it is a silly argument that "the phrase appears nowhere in the First Amendment" which is why we must go to history.
And not merely American history. The framing fathers were extremely well educated about World history and the associated writings/views concerning it. Many were capable of reading those writings in the languages of the authors. (i.e.: Greek, Latin, and in Madison's case, Hebrew. I sincerely doubt that many, if any, of our current array of government minions are as capable.)

And, again, I must admit that, while I disagree with the conclusions, ...
In my case, I have reached the conclusion that separating government from religious faith beliefs is in the best interests of both the government AND the religious faith believers. Why do you feel otherwise?

However, as a corollary to my conclusion, I sincerely believe that a government of, by, and for the People (all the People) must be administered only by those elected/appointed representatives with the highest ethical (moral) standards. Therefore it would seem that we do not disagree about C-SS, but only about whose ethical(moral) standards are in the best interests of the majority while protecting the ethical (moral) standards of the minority from the potential tyranny of that majority.

...those on your side of the question (my apologies again to him for putting him on a side), such as Buffman, are far better prepared than most on my side. I am continually frustrated by the utter unpreparedness, (maybe it's just unwillingness but I don't think so) of those on BB to even discuss the issue.

Perhaps that "unwillingness" is merely the reflections of fact versus fiction. In my case, I am on the SIDE of accurate knowledge. However, interpretations of that accurate knowledge are certainly open to analysis and testing. We have tested C-S collusion and C-S separation for successful governance of a multi-cultural/pluralistic population and long ago determined that American society prospered under the latter. When our government selects and advocates for the ethical (moral) values of only one faith belief system (or no faith belief system), IMHO, it is in violation of our constitutional protections and its own sworn oaths/affirmations of office.