Is the Constitution divinely inspired?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If God inspired the Founding Fathers, then he also inspired the Greeks for their groundbreaking notions of Rationality, and Democracy. He inspired the Phoenicians to create the alphabet we enjoy and the other ancients for knowledge of the Starts, Mathematics and Sciences.

I'll drink to that.

[SeattleUte]

The killing irony here is that the Constitution would not even have been thought of, much less made possible, were it not for the hard thought and work of, and enormous risks taken by, a lot of great men (a good number of whom such as Tom Paine and David Hume were flaming atheists) who through an agonizingly slow process over centuries pioneered the novel idea that God and talk of God should be gotten the hell out of public discourse, and kept within the four walls of the churches. The linchpin of the Constitution is the establishment clause that erects a wall between the public and religious spheres. (I'm sorry but the Mormon Church has the same gene as any other religion perceiving itself to possess a patent on truth that drives it to set up a theocracy hostile to civil liberties if given half a chance; it just does.)

Despite repeated passing references to God none of the founders and their precursors were "religious" in the sense that devout Mormons are, i.e., believing in Bible-like miracles and the traditional Judeo-Christian God. I would go so far as to say that this was their hallmark, and that feature of their personalities was the key to what they achieved.

The United States was the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment, whose archbishop was Charles Darwin. So at a symbolic level talk of the Constitution being "divinely inspired," even if you could make a highly subjective personal metaphysical case for it (and I don't know why anyone else should even care to hear it) reflects such blindness to what really happened that it just makes me want to vomit. I don't know how any reasonably educated person could feel any differently.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The killing irony here is that the Constitution would not even have been thought of, much less made possible, were it not for the hard thought and work of, and enormous risks taken by, a lot of great men (a good number of whom such as Tom Paine and David Hume were flaming atheists) who through an agonizingly slow process over centuries pioneered the novel idea that God and talk of God should be gotten the hell out of public discourse, and kept within the four walls of the churches. The linchpin of the Constitution is the establishment clause that erects a wall between the public and religious spheres. (I'm sorry but the Mormon Church has the same gene as any other religion perceiving itself to possess a patent on truth that drives it to set up a theocracy hostile to civil liberties if given half a chance; it just does.)

Despite repeated passing references to God none of the founders and their precursors were "religious" in the sense that devout Mormons are, i.e., believing in Bible-like miracles and the traditional Judeo-Christian God. I would go so far as to say that this was their hallmark, and that feature of their personalities was the key to what they achieved.

The United States was the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment, whose archbishop was Charles Darwin. So at a symbolic level talk of the Constitution being "divinely inspired," even if you could make a highly subjective personal metaphysical case for it (and I don't know why anyone else should even care to hear it) reflects such blindness to what really happened that it just makes me want to vomit. I don't know how any reasonably educated person could feel any differently.

Ever heard the phrase "God works in mysterious ways"?

Once again, you want us to accept your opinion as truth.

You're entitled to believe as you believe without us belittling your thoughts. Why not allow those of us who do believe there was some divine intervention the same courtesy?

[All-American]

Darwinism is hardly the "archbishop" of the enlightenment. He sits somewhere between Romanticism and Modernism.

Also, your hyperbole is a little overdone. We love and embrace the separation of Church and State. We even think THAT idea was inspired. Doesn't the whole idea of "enlightenment" somewhat hint at "light" and "truth," the source of which we believe to ultimately be God?

Yet another of the crowning and defining ideas of the enlightenment is that educated beings could come to different understandings and tolerate the discrepancies-- nay, embrace them. It is no less ironic that you, while extolling the virtues of the enlightenment, fail to see how any educated individual could see differently than do you, and be so sickened by the thought as to induce vomiting.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Darwinism is hardly the "archbishop" of the enlightenment. He sits somewhere between Romanticism and Modernism.

Also, your hyperbole is a little overdone. We love and embrace the separation of Church and State. We even think THAT idea was inspired. Doesn't the whole idea of "enlightenment" somewhat hint at "light" and "truth," the source of which we believe to ultimately be God?

Yet another of the crowning and defining ideas of the enlightenment is that educated beings could come to different understandings and tolerate the discrepancies-- nay, embrace them. It is no less ironic that you, while extolling the virtues of the enlightenment, fail to see how any educated individual could see differently than do you, and be so sickened by the thought as to induce vomiting.

The Romantic movement was as much as anything a reaction specifically to Darwin. Darwin was the culmination of the Enlightenment. Darwin's achievements came and he even died long before Modernism.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The Romantic movement was as much as anything a reaction specifically to Darwin. Darwin was the culmination of the Enlightenment. Darwin's achievements came and he even died long before Modernism.

What, you didn't have anything to say regarding the rest of the post?

The Enlightenment is related to the scientific revolution of the 17th century and is thought of as extending almost to the 19th century. The culmination of the Enlightenment is not Darwin-- if anything, it is either the Constitution or the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man." The French Revolution is regarded by many as the opening of the age of Romanticism.

Romanticism is thought of on the timeline as ranging from the late 18th century to not quite the beginning of the 20th century. Darwin was born 1809 and died in 1882, his key work was published in 1859, and wasn't fully accepted by the scientific community until the 1930's. He is far too late for the Enlightenment-- I'd sooner agree with you if you said he was the father of Modernism.

[All-American]

In fact, Wikipedia (that ever reputable source, I know) doesn't even mention Darwin in its article on the Enlightement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Though Modernism does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by All-American

In fact, Wikipedia (that ever reputable source, I know) doesn't even mention Darwin in its article on the Enlightement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Though Modernism does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism

I'm gonna score that one to All American

My thought on the debate is what does "inspired" mean?. Does it mean the FF had an idea that an inkling came from god? Does it mean that an angel appeared to thomas jefferson and told him to write the declaration of independence?

[Indy Coug]

Inspiration does not necessarily equate Revelation. God enlightened the minds of the Founding Fathers sufficiently enough to put forth a Constitutional framework that would allow the restoration of the Gospel to succeed.

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Inspiration does not necessarily equate Revelation. God enlightened the minds of the Founding Fathers sufficiently enough to put forth a Constitutional framework that would allow the restoration of the Gospel to succeed.

I tend to agree with this sentiment, and maybe it is oversimplifying a bit, but really, the Founding Fathers and Constitution provided a place where people could worship their religions freely and as such created a culture some years later that was filled with religious uproar...and we know the rest of the story...or the story as we believe it.

I think it is more of a matter of there being a location where such a document could come forth and having the intellectual resources to put pen to paper and make it happen.