• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think the US Constitution is a holy, infallible document?

Do you think the US Constitution is a holy, infallible document?

  • Yes, the Constitution is political perfection and infallible. Worthy of worship.

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • No, it was created by men and while it's a good document, let's not get wrapped around the axle.

    Votes: 30 83.3%

  • The Constitution sucks, we need a new one every few years.

    Votes: 1 2.8%

  • The Constitution surpasses even politics and is THE document for all of society and civilization.

    Votes: 3 8.3%
  • Total voters
    36
OldWorldOrder said:
Some people (especially here) seem to think the US constitution is the end-all and be-all of political thought, and should be adhered to like a holy document. Do you agree? Or is it possible for it to be fallible and, in fact, wrong? Should we follow it as a means to an end, or is following the constitution the highest political end possible?
Click to expand...

If it was perfect then it wouldn't have an amendment process in it. Should the Constitution be followed? Hellz to the yes. If you don't agree with a part of it then follow the procedures to get it changed just like any other law on the books. Otherwise, our government had damn well better follow it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the u.s. is a union of 50 states....we practice federalism... a separation of powers.

our government is federal.... not national.


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...

OK now you're talking about the constitution (lower-case) of the governments, not its supposedly religious basis.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Some people (especially here) seem to think the US constitution is the end-all and be-all of political thought, and should be adhered to like a holy document. Do you agree? Or is it possible for it to be fallible and, in fact, wrong? Should we follow it as a means to an end, or is following the constitution the highest political end possible?
Click to expand...

In the hierarchy of laws the constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US.So until it is amended it should be strictly adhered to.
 
Phys251 said:
wait what did I miss?
Click to expand...

I asked you what religion Bob Baylock (?) could be referring to when he said:
"MY religion uniquely has a passage of canonized scripture which explicitly states that God inspired the Constitution to be written and established, through men that he raised up specifically for this purpose.

To me, the Constitution itself is scripture; perhaps not directly the word of God, but very close to it."

You responded with something about thinking it was Christianity.

So I, in turn, said "If you are right, that might just be the biggest stretch I've seen to date". Meaning, WTF, is he referring to because I can't think of anything in the Old or New Testament that could be understood in this way.
 
opendebate said:
I asked you what religion Bob Baylock (?) could be referring to when he said:
"MY religion uniquely has a passage of canonized scripture which explicitly states that God inspired the Constitution to be written and established, through men that he raised up specifically for this purpose.

To me, the Constitution itself is scripture; perhaps not directly the word of God, but very close to it."

You responded with something about thinking it was Christianity.

So I, in turn, said "If you are right, that might just be the biggest stretch I've seen to date". Meaning, WTF, is he referring to because I can't think of anything in the Old or New Testament that could be understood in this way.
Click to expand...

Ahh, okay, I think I see where you're coming from. And you're right, nowhere does the Bible predict that a group of white males would someday form a new, conservative Christian government, on a continent that whites did not yet know even existed. Nor does it state that a government should ever do so. Oh, if only the Religious Right accepted that. Sadly, and unfortunately, they do not. And that's putting it very mildly.
 
The Constitution is a framework for our governing, while the Bill of Rights lays out explicit rights of the individuals. We are the oldest continuous constitutional republic.

So you gotta think the Framers did a very good job of setting this up. Franklin's statement sums it up nicely after the Constitutional Convention.

Our Republic - Benjamin Franklin

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy.
Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors

The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin)
 
opendebate said:
I asked you what religion Bob Baylock [sic] (?) could be referring to when he said:
"MY religion uniquely has a passage of canonized scripture which explicitly states that God inspired the Constitution to be written and established, through men that he raised up specifically for this purpose.

To me, the Constitution itself is scripture; perhaps not directly the word of God, but very close to it."

You responded with something about thinking it was Christianity.

So I, in turn, said "If you are right, that might just be the biggest stretch I've seen to date". Meaning, WTF, is he referring to because I can't think of anything in the Old or New Testament that could be understood in this way.
Click to expand...

I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more popularly known as the “Mormon church”.

In addition to the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, we have a number of other volumes of what we also recognize as canonical scripture.

One of these volumes is the Doctrine and Covenants, and it contains a passage, in which God tells the prophet Joseph Smith the following…

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
·
·
·​
And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.​

I have to admit to engaging in a bit of personal interpretation and extrapolation beyond what is explicitly stated here, to get to my own belief that the Constitution is scripture, and that it represents God's will as to how this nation is to be run.


The other reference that I made is to a more widely-known volume of our scripture, the Book of Mormon; which mostly contains the account of a group that left Israel around 600 BC, traveled to the Americas, and here established a great civilization. After about a thousand years, they fell into wickedness and degradation, and were wiped out.

Another group left Israel some short time after the main group, also traveled to the Americas, and eventually met up with, and merged into the first group. This second group, before finding the first group, encountered the last survivors and records of a previous civilization that had followed a similar course, having left the Old World shortly after the Tower of Babel, having also crossed the ocean, landed in the Americas, having built up a great society, but eventually fell into wickedness and destruction.

There is a warning here for our society. God has given us the blueprint for our nation. We can follow it and thrive, or we can disregard it, and fall into destruction.
 
Phys251 said:
Ahh, okay, I think I see where you're coming from. And you're right, nowhere does the Bible predict that a group of white males would someday form a new, conservative Christian government, on a continent that whites did not yet know even existed. Nor does it state that a government should ever do so. Oh, if only the Religious Right accepted that. Sadly, and unfortunately, they do not. And that's putting it very mildly.
Click to expand...

Okay, sounds like we are clear.

Like I've always asked- how do you have a conversation with anyone who actually believes the one all knowing God is on their side? I've just never seen that going anywhere.
 
Phys251 said:
Ahh, okay, I think I see where you're coming from. And you're right, nowhere does the Bible predict that a group of white males would someday form a new, conservative Christian government, on a continent that whites did not yet know even existed. Nor does it state that a government should ever do so. Oh, if only the Religious Right accepted that. Sadly, and unfortunately, they do not. And that's putting it very mildly.
Click to expand...

images.jpg
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more popularly known as the “Mormon church”.

In addition to the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, we have a number of other volumes of what we also recognize as canonical scripture.

One of these volumes is the Doctrine and Covenants, and it contains a passage, in which God tells the prophet Joseph Smith the following…

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
·
·
·​
And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.​

I have to admit to engaging in a bit of personal interpretation and extrapolation beyond what is explicitly stated here, to get to my own belief that the Constitution is scripture, and that it represents God's will as to how this nation is to be run.


The other reference that I made is to a more widely-known volume of our scripture, the Book of Mormon; which mostly contains the account of a group that left Israel around 600 BC, traveled to the Americas, and here established a great civilization. After about a thousand years, they fell into wickedness and degradation, and were wiped out.

Another group left Israel some short time after the main group, also traveled to the Americas, and eventually met up with, and merged into the first group. This second group, before finding the first group, encountered the last survivors and records of a previous civilization that had followed a similar course, having left the Old World shortly after the Tower of Babel, having also crossed the ocean, landed in the Americas, having built up a great society, but eventually fell into wickedness and destruction.

There is a warning here for our society. God has given us the blueprint for our nation. We can follow it and thrive, or we can disregard it, and fall into destruction.
Click to expand...

I don't like to challenge other peoples religious beliefs. I prefer not to debate the validity, or lack thereof, when it comes to claims made by any religion and it's doctrine. Believe what you believe and I hope it brings you peace and inspiration.

The struggle I have with the religious minded is when they impose devotion or adherence to the principles or rules of their doctrine on people of different faiths or on non-believers. I won't ask believers not to believe or practice in their private lives things that I consider most healthy and rewarding but I expect the same consideration in return.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
View attachment 67162147
Click to expand...

Already resorting to infantile responses? That didn't take long. Can you please show us where in the Bible it commands a nation--which had yet to exist at the time--to base its government on a specific and contrived interpretation of said Bible?
 
opendebate said:
I don't like to challenge other peoples religious beliefs. I prefer not to debate the validity, or lack thereof, when it comes to claims made by any religion and it's doctrine. Believe what you believe and I hope it brings you peace and inspiration.

The struggle I have with the religious minded is when they impose devotion or adherence to the principles or rules of their doctrine on people of different faiths or on non-believers. I won't ask believers not to believe or practice in their private lives things that I consider most healthy and rewarding but I expect the same consideration in return.
Click to expand...

Some religious people choose to give this consideration. Other religious people choose not to.

Exactly one of these groups deserves respect.
 
Phys251 said:
Already resorting to infantile responses? That didn't take long. Can you please show us where in the Bible it commands a nation--which had yet to exist at the time--to base its government on a specific and contrived interpretation of said Bible?
Click to expand...

Straw_Man2.jpg
 
Please explain exactly how my questions are strawmen.
 
Phys251 said:
Please explain exactly how my questions are strawmen.
Click to expand...

You're demanding that I defend claims that I never made, with which I do not agree, and which if I did make and defend them, you could easily refute; as a distraction to avoid addressing anything that I have actually said. This is the very definition of a strawman argument.

You're not even doing it very well. Most attempts at strawmen arguments are not so puerile and transparent as yours.
 
I believe we should have a moral of respect for Tradition and the most excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention in order to ordain and establish our form of federal government.
 
Phys251 said:
OK now you're talking about the constitution (lower-case) of the governments, not its supposedly religious basis.
Click to expand...

the states form the union, the union is bound together by the federal government who power for mostly external, where as the states deal with internal, with the federal government being the arbitrator of problems between states, and people and states.

our federal government is non religious, however states, did have state religions, after the constitution was ratified, until the early 1810's.

since you referenced the treaty of Tripoli, by Adams.

here is Adams on the federal constitution..... "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." .
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Some people (especially here) seem to think the US constitution is the end-all and be-all of political thought, and should be adhered to like a holy document. Do you agree? Or is it possible for it to be fallible and, in fact, wrong? Should we follow it as a means to an end, or is following the constitution the highest political end possible?
Click to expand...

Nothing man creates is infallible. Usually everything man creates can be used in more than one way. Even something as innocent as gunpowder can be used for good (when creating fireworks or through mountains to make people travel more safely in regions with loads of mountains) but also for bad (murder, terror, war). Hell, even war can be both good and bad.

The US constitution was a very good document and for the most it still is, but something written for a few million people living on a relatively small part of Northern America centuries ago, may need to be updated by the wisest men and women of today.
 
Peter King said:
Nothing man creates is infallible. Usually everything man creates can be used in more than one way. Even something as innocent as gunpowder can be used for good (when creating fireworks or through mountains to make people travel more safely in regions with loads of mountains) but also for bad (murder, terror, war). Hell, even war can be both good and bad.

The US constitution was a very good document and for the most it still is, but something written for a few million people living on a relatively small part of Northern America centuries ago, may need to be updated by the wisest men and women of today.
Click to expand...

our constitution requires an amendment for its change, if the federal government can get the states to agree to change it,.....so be it......but it does require the states of the compact to make that decision, ...not the federal government on its own with people who think they are wiser then the rest of us.
 
16 to 5ish, that it's not infallible or holy.

I wonder why so many use it as the end-all and be-all of arguments, then. When they are at odds, should we follow what promotes the interests of Americans or the constitution?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
16 to 5ish, that it's not infallible or holy.

I wonder why so many use it as the end-all and be-all of arguments, then. When they are at odds, should we follow what promotes the interests of Americans or the constitution?
Click to expand...

Because, bearing true witness instead of false witness to our own laws should important to the greater glory of our immortal souls, as moral and legal ethic in modern times.
 
Look to original intent when in doubt; we all agree we are a nation of laws, and we all are bound by the enumerated powers of the Fed'l gov't. But the idea is more subtle then "states rights"

The idea is co sovereignty / the fed's the states AND the people are all sovereign. Federalism is the relationship between the states and the Fed's
Federalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people
Click to expand...

basic idea of power sharing. Throw this out of whack, and we wind up with the unitary presidency, or the rise of the "ABC" agencies to govern by regulation.

Obviously the definitions/relationships change over time; but since we're easily willing to just acquiesce to the fed'l gov't powers; we wind up with a bloated DC bureaucracy;
remote and unable to respond to local concerns.
Unless anyone out there thinks "one size fits all" mandates is preferable to a nimble localized gov't.

Medical marijuana is the ex. of late -without the states being the "laboratories of democracy" it wouldn't have happened.

Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of filtration where state and local governments act as “laboratories,” where law is created and enacted from the lowest level of the democratic system, up to the top level.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution makes all “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is a basis for the laboratories of democracy concept, because the Tenth Amendment hands a number of responsibilities down to the state and local governments. Policy is experimented on the state level first, before it is on the national level, and because these governments are only tied together by the federal level government, a diverse patchwork of lower government practices is created.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You're demanding that I defend claims that I never made, with which I do not agree, and which if I did make and defend them, you could easily refute; as a distraction to avoid addressing anything that I have actually said. This is the very definition of a strawman argument.

You're not even doing it very well. Most attempts at strawmen arguments are not so puerile and transparent as yours.
Click to expand...

Again, more childish remarks. Stop beating around the bush and explain specifically how my analysis of your position is wrong.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the states form the union, the union is bound together by the federal government who power for mostly external, where as the states deal with internal, with the federal government being the arbitrator of problems between states, and people and states.

our federal government is non religious, however states, did have state religions, after the constitution was ratified, until the early 1810's.

since you referenced the treaty of Tripoli, by Adams.

here is Adams on the federal constitution..... "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." .
Click to expand...

Slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow laws, and the South's response to the Civil Rights movement all prove how disastrous giving state governments too much freedom from the federal government can be. If you're gonna cite amendments, you'd better include the Fourteenth and Ninth as well as just the Second and the Tenth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom