God for President in 2012

[Smallc]

So, one of the two big contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination has decided it's time to dispense with this notion about the rule of law in America.

In Tim Pawlenty's view, the president isn't in charge, nor is Congress or the judiciary, nor even all three.

Nope. His exact words: "God's in charge." And that, he said, should be the first principle of governing in the United States.

I haven't heard a politician put it quite so bluntly since my assignments in Iran a decade ago.

When I hear pronouncements like that here, I always try to imagine the reaction if a leading candidate in Canada or Great Britain or even deeply Catholic France said the same thing.

Here, it nearly went unnoticed.

Story by Neil Macdonald

All I can say is.....OK then....any thoughs?

[eyeball]

God's in charge...When I hear pronouncements like that here, I always try to imagine the reaction if a leading candidate in Canada or Great Britain or even deeply Catholic France said the same thing.

Well, that's pretty much what it says at the very top of Canada's constitution too. The established principle of governing in Canada is that authority flows down from on high.

[ToadBrother]

Well, that's pretty much what it says at the very top of Canada's constitution too. The established principle of governing in Canada is that authority flows down from on high.

But that is not what the US Constitution says at all. The only reference to God in the entire document and its several amendments is "Anno Domini". The US Constitution makes it very clear where authority flows from:

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.

One does not have to be an American to see that these words may, in fact, be among the finest ever written in the English language.

Edited February 25, 2010 by ToadBrother

[GostHacked]

The US Charter of Rights has the word God in it. Pledge of allegiance as well. But you are right TB, nothing in the Constitution.

[Smallc]

Well, that's pretty much what it says at the very top of Canada's constitution too.

No it doesn't, that's at the top of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[bush_cheney2004]

God also figured prominently in the US 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

entitles them . . .

“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 . . .

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of

Divine Providence

, We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

[ToadBrother]

God also figured prominently in the US Declaration of Independence:

Which ceased to have an legal weight once the Treaty of Paris was signed. It was a manifesto, anyways, not a description of a government. The Founding Fathers, some of which were most certainly not Christians at all, but who were all children of the Enlightenment, believed that government flowed from the people, not from God, which was the essential assertion of the British Crown (from God to King to subjects).

[ToadBrother]

The US Charter of Rights has the word God in it. Pledge of allegiance as well. But you are right TB, nothing in the Constitution.

The US doesn't have a "charter of rights", it has a Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), and nope, there ain't no mention of God there either. I think you're probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence.

Suffice it to say, the US Constitution makes it very clear that of the major principles guiding the framers; one was that the United States was a secular nation, with liberties (including religious liberties) guaranteed to all, and with very clear assurances (via the 1st Amendment) that a wall of separation (Jefferson's phrase) was to be set up between church and state, as the only way to permanently guarantee that those liberties would go unmolested by the government.

Edited February 25, 2010 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

No it doesn't, that's at the top of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

That's actually worse when you really think about it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Which ceased to have an legal weight once the Treaty of Paris was signed.

Obviously...having achieved its purpose. Looks like "God" was along for the ride.

[Smallc]

That's actually worse when you really think about it.

No, because it's a meaningless passing reference to some God.

[ToadBrother]

Obviously...having achieved its purpose. Looks like "God" was along for the ride.

I never said, and you pretty much clipped out my explanation. The Declaration of Independence was a manifesto, meant to justify the revolt of the American colonies from their lawful ruler. It was not meant to be an instrument of government, or in any way to set up a government (that had already happened de facto by the creation of the Continental Congress). When it came time to create such an instrument, it's very clear from the writings of the Founding Fathers and from the Preamble to the Constitution itself that the United States was not founded on the principle that all liberty and governance flows from God, but rather flows from the people themselves. That is really the complete opposite of the Medieval notions of governance (which, at least on paper, places like Canada and the UK still adhere to).

[bush_cheney2004]

I never said, and you pretty much clipped out my explanation. The Declaration of Independence was a manifesto,

man·i·fes·to : a written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its issuer

[Mr.Canada]

I love God.

[bush_cheney2004]

and with very clear assurances (via the 1st Amendment) that a wall of separation (Jefferson's phrase) was to be set up between church and state, as the only way to permanently guarantee that those liberties would go unmolested by the government.

This is revisionist history, as Jefferson's separation ideals were not realized until many years later (1802, Danbury et al). Connecticut entered the union and ratified the US Constitution as a "religious" state.

Canada's constitution & charter retain preferences for specific religions and denominated schools.

Edited February 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

man·i·fes·to : a written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its issuer

Which still doesn't mean it sets up a framework for government.

[ToadBrother]

This is revisionist history, as Jefferson's separation ideals were not realized until many years later (1802, Danbury et al). Connecticut entered the union and ratified the US Constitution as a "religious" state.

Canada's constitution & charter retain preferences for specific religions and denominated schools.

BS. Jefferson made it very clear what the Framers' intentions were with the 1st Amendment.

[bush_cheney2004]

Which still doesn't mean it sets up a framework for government.

Then why do I have to affirm / swear to tell the truth "...so help me God" in most courts?

[bush_cheney2004]

BS. Jefferson made it very clear what the Framers' intentions were with the 1st Amendment.

...except for Connecticut. LOL!

[Guest American Woman]

Then why do I have to affirm / swear to tell the truth "...so help me God" in most courts?

You don't have to. You have the option to leave God out of it; typically the affirmation reads: Do you affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?

Edited February 25, 2010 by American Woman

[jbg]

All I can say is.....OK then....any thoughs?

Even for someone who generally has no problem with the idea of the U.S. being a rather religious country, this is a bit strong. He's probably a bit of a nutcase.

[bush_cheney2004]

You don't have to. You have the option to leave God out of it;

Irrelevant...the custom exists to this day. Federal judge oaths includes the phrase as well:

§ 453. Oaths of justices and judges

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

So help me God

.

Edited February 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Irrelevant...

No. It's not irrelevant. This is what you said:

Then why do I have to affirm / swear to tell the truth "...so help me God" in most courts?

The fact that you don't have to isn't irrelevant.

[bush_cheney2004]

The fact that you don't have to isn't irrelevant.

The fact that the protocol still exists at all makes your point irrelevant....optional or not (it is not always optional anyway). See US Code for judge oaths.

[Smallc]

The fact that the protocol still exists at all makes your point irrelevant....optional or not (it is not always optional anyway). See US Code for judge oaths.

One day, you'll actually have a debate with someone rather than just deflecting every time you're wrong.