Is God mentioned in the Constitution?

1. 0

   TheBizWhizposted 9 years ago

   
   Of course, but there are those that will deny this even though it is in black and white. The Lord is mentioned in the last sentence of Article VII:
   
   "Attest William Jackson Secretary
   
   done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"
   
   While His name is not mentioned in a way that insists He dictates the law of the land, I just wanted to clear this up for someone who told me God is not mentioned even once in the Constitution.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't deny this, we also have it mentioned on our currency and on my license plates as well.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I would like to address why I started this subject. I thought I explained it clearly in my first comment, but maybe I didn't give enough information.
      
      This forum came about because of a discussion with a Hub author who expressed her opinions as facts, refused to give real resources to back it up, and told me that she didn't have to give better resources because what  everything she said was "common knowledge". One thing she touched upon was that God was not mentioned in the Constitution. When I provided a link and copied and pasted the part in the Constitution where he was mentioned, her reaction was:
      "BizWhiz: Thank you for your comments. I just looked up Article VII of the constitution. It is about bring suits in court. No reference to a deity at all. Not even remotely."
      
      Not even remotely. Ok...so this was not a matter of opinion about the use of the word "Lord". This was a case of not even doing research even when it is spoon fed.
      
      Like most people with an agenda they lie and suppress facts. Afterwards, she deleted my last comments and began to lie by slandering me. Fun stuff.

      replyreport
   3. 74

      someonewhoknowsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      isn't there a reference to God in the declaration of Independence?
      
      Quotes from The Declaration of Independence
      
      “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
      
      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

      replyreport
      1. 0

         TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, God is mentioned 4 times in the Declaration of Independence. I think a lot of people would like to suppress this information even though it is in black and white. They know the masses will not take the time to read it, just rely on what other people say.

         replyreport
2. 59

   Epleeba1posted 9 years ago

   God is not specifically mentioned except as described by Credence2 but the influence of the founding fathers' religion is definitely present. They were adamant against government imposing any restrictions, requirements, or prohibitions on religious practices. I believe their intentions were to avoid laws inspired by religion as well. But that is up to constitutional scholars to determine.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Epleeba said: "I believe their intentions were to avoid laws inspired by religion as well. But that is up to constitutional scholars to determine."
      
      Sound words my friend. Sound words. You have the right approach to research. Only lay claim to facts that you can prove.
      
      I have no problem when someone has an opinion and expresses it as so, but the person I had trouble with seemed to want to re-write history and pass it off as fact just because she believed it. For instance, she said George Washington was not religious, but was a CINO (Christian in name only) because he didn't kneel to take communion. So, despite the fact that by all accounts he attended services weekly, prayed every day, and spoke of his beliefs in speeches, she decides that is not enough "proof" because he could have been faking it. I named research from top historians and she cited Youtube videos and articles she Googled.
      
      When I write a hub that is my opinion, I let it be known that it is so. I have had one case where my wording insinuated that I was passing it off as fact and after reviewing, I agreed with the persons assessment and changed a word to reflect my true intentions.

      replyreport
3. 96

   wildernessposted 9 years ago

   The use of "proper", formal, language in stating a date hardly constitutes a reference to a god.  Nor does that the convention has fallen by the wayside today indicate anything.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      As I have said before, you seem to have selective seeing. Please read my last paragraph of my first comment

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         The word Lord reference to the date of time rather than the Lord of the Land. Now adays I even stay away from landlords.

         replyreport
      2. 96

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         You might re-read yourself.  The term "lord" in that text refers to a date, not to a god.  That you choose to use the alternate definition does not mean that's what the writer intended; indeed, it is rather plain that if he did intend to reference a god it would not be hidden in a date reference.  He would have simply done so.
         
         Using a date to mean a god would be much like saying that the term "September" in the passage refers to the seventh month (the root of the term) rather than the ninth month.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            What the word means is irrelevant to this forum. The point is that God is mentioned in the Constitution. I never said it meant anything, nor did I insinuate.
            
            To say it doesn't count kind of sounds like a child when they make up rules as they go along.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               LOL  I give!  I give!  The word "Lord" is in the constitution, and it refers to the birth year of the Christian diety Jesus Christ of Nazareth.  Uncle!

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness, your approval for the word "Lord" being in the Constitution was not needed, just like your approval is not needed for gravity to exist. They are both just there.

                  replyreport
            2. 71

               rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Whatever the reason, inference, understanding and or belief, this conversation is an excellent example of why religion should be left out of government. Can you imagine debating a budget if they ever get around to it and then invoking prayer as to what God thinks?

               replyreport
            3. 75

               Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               This Calendars in widespread use today include the Gregorian calendar, which is the de facto international standard, and is used almost everywhere in the world for civil purposes, including in the People's Republic of China and India (along with the Indian national calendar). Due to the Gregorian calendar's obvious connotations of Western Christianity, non-Christians and even some Christians sometimes justify its use by replacing the traditional era notations "AD" and "BC" ("Anno Domini" and "Before Christ") with "CE" and "BCE"

               replyreport
4. 0

   TheBizWhizposted 9 years ago

   Year of our Lord. Year is the time, Lord (capital L btw) refers to God. I wrote this forum because someone said there is not one mention of God in the Constitution. She would not allow my post, so I wrote this forum. I know the meaning, but God is still mentioned. That was my only point.

   replyreport
5. 60

   teamrnposted 9 years ago

   Wilderness, I see we meet again! And I see that we discuss similar topics. That is your opinion, to which you are entitled. But there are those who would differ with your OPINION. "The year of our Lord" is a reference, a way we keep track of time and if the way in which we keep track of time  invokes the lord,  and it is in the Constitution, I'd say that that is a pretty clear reference to God/Lord/Jahweh as individuals know-OR DON'T KNOW HIM/her.
   
   That is my opinion and I'm not telling you that you have to believe it; but in the same token, I'd appreciate if you'd respect MY opinion to have MY/an opinion. Especially one that is different than yours.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I understand your opinion, and even have sympathy with it.
      
      But the fact remains that it was a common usage, in formal language, of the time and refers to a particular form of dating (there were others) - it is not a reference to a god.  Only to a specific date upon which calendars were based.
      
      Were you able to ask the author what "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven" refers to, you would not get a dissertation on God, but a description of a calendar.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Wilderness,
         
         I understand this use was common at that time. Everyone here understands it was referencing a date. I understand you are an atheist, but even someone who is biased knows the "Lord" referenced in "Year of our Lord" is the Judeo/Christian God. Tradition or not, it is referring to God.
         
         And for the umpteenth time, I am not saying this means we are a Christian nation because the Christian God is mentioned in the Constitution. I had a debate with someone who said God was not mentioned once in the Constitution. I showed them Article VII and they deleted my comments.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, it's a rather fruitless debate isn't it?  You want to look at a specific word, I want to look at the phrase it is in, and neither one has much meaning as far as the constitution is concerned.  The entire thing could have been left out without changing a thing.  Just flowery language that had nothing to do with the actual document or it's meaning.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I agree it was a fruitless debate because I was not asking "why" God was mentioned in the Constitution. I had no intentions to get into the meaning of why. I only wanted to show that he "is" mentioned in the Constitution.
               
               So, yes I did only want to look at a single word. I thought I explained that clearly in the first post, but I guess I have to make my explanations a little clearer.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  You did, and I tried to explain that taking a word out of context does not give an actual meaning to the word.  I guess I have to make my explanations a little clearer. 

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     I didn't take it out of context or in context. It is what it is and God is mentioned in the Constitution whether you like it or not.

                     replyreport
      2. 81

         GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         "...Year of our Lord..."
         
         Are you saying it is just a colloquialism then? That even non-believers referred to the year as "year of our Lord"
         
         Of course it is possible you could be right...(after all almost anything is possible), but I think you are wrong. I don't see how the use of that phrase can be anything other than what it is... a religious inference.
         
         Be sure to hold all to something sturdy before you take a step.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 0

            TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I agree GA. Anyone with common sense would agree with you, but some people let their anger and hatred cloud their judgement. Whether one believes in God or not does not change the fact that it is in black and white

            replyreport
         2. 96

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            That's the way I see it, yes - as a colloquialism (if that's the right word) that was used in nearly all formal speech.  It was probably omitted in common language, but when the occasion was formal it became "The year of our Lord" whether the subject was religious or not.

            replyreport