The Bible vs The Constitution?
817820
It isn't more sacred than the Bible, but people in this century want to be able to believe in something that they can see. The Bible was written as an instruction manual on how to live your life, based on the lives of the ancestors mentioned in the Bible. The Constitution is a secular set of rules on what to do while you live your life. However, people would rather have someone tell them what they should do and not how they should do it. Also, the Constitution was written solely for political, social, and economical reasons. The Bible was written for spiritual reasons. The Constitution restricts life, but the Bible shows you how to live it.
1076858
I agree with you.  I consider myself a Christian, and I say this with as much respect as possible: it doesn't really matter what God's opinion is on the subject because the Constitution guarantees everyone's right to religious freedom.  That includes Jews, Muslims, Baptists, Atheists, and yes, GAY PEOPLE.  I live my life according to God's law, but that does not give me the right to tell someone else how to live.
965155
I agree. Jesus Himself used that model....He is a pretty good example to follow! Plus I myself am always most interested in what God has said - for His opinion is far more valid than mine.\n\nAlso it seems logical. For if we were answering questions about the constitutionality of something, it would only make sense that we would refer to the Constitution wouldn't it?
1023212
I beg to differ with Swordsmith, his reasoning is a bit dull (pun intended).  For example, he sites the First Amendment to undergird his argument.  Said amendment I'll quote, "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."  The plain intent in historical context is this:  the federal government cannot *establish* a particular Christian sect *by federal law* as the official church of the nation (as was the Anglican church in Britain) nor prohibit the freedom of worship (*free exercise*) for other Christian groups outside of the Church of England within the nation.  As an example Virginia, like some of the other states, did have a state established church [1].  The state established churches at the time were not disestablished by the ratification of the Bill of Rights, but rather by each states' legislature...and definitely not because the legislators thought that they should prohibit the state government "from taking any religion's side" with regard to the foundation of law.\n\nAs to this nation's founding document -- the Declaration of Independence [2] -- to say that it religion (in context, the common precepts of Christianity to be found in the Holy Bible) had nothing to do with law is ridiculous.  Let's take a look:\n\n* The signers based their actions to separate from Britan upon the Law of God (paragraph 1).  Again, in historical context we are not talking about any god: not Allah, nor Budda, nor Krishna, nor the Force, nor a secular general concept of a higher power, etc. but rather the Almighty God revealed in the Bible. "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."\n\n* That the rights they had were given by God and saw them as truth, not their opinion against the opinion that sided with King George III, Parliment, and their sympathizers in the Colonies (paragraph 2).  "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."  If Swordsmith is correct then the King and Parliment were correct in rejecting the Colonies representatives appeals based on this basis (surprising since the Colonist's view had its source in English law.[3])  Sir William Blackstone, author of the Commentaries on the Laws of England and a contemporary with our nation's Founders, explained this foundation at length. (By the way, the Commentaries were a top seller in the American colonies.) The following Blackstone quote is a bit long, but I include it because it gives you some context of what foundation our nation's founders' stood.\n\n"Law, in its most general form and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; and is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey.\n\nThus, when the supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When he put that matter into motion, he established certain laws of motion, to wh
1179358
The Constitution does not discuss any Biblical laws.  The expressed reason for that can be found in the Establishment Clause of Article One of the Constitution.  Lengthy debate accompanied this clause in the Constitutional Convention.  Ultimately it was decided that the institutions of government and religion MUST be kept separate and independent of eachother to prevent future infringement upon either one upon the other.  As a result, this clause is typically referred to as the 'separation of church and state' clause.\n\nConstitutionally and historically, it is apparent that the constitution has no legal precedence for any amendment that would in any way limit the rights or priveleges of American citizens.  No amendment (other than Prohibition, which of course was repealed) has ever provided that rights be lost.  The founders of the U.S. and drafters of the Constitution make clear that constitutional law and religion do not, and should not mix.
978285
You infer correctly, and bravo for pointing this out.  People insist on it because that is what they want to believe, whether it is true or not.  They will insist that this is a "Christian" country, simply because Christianity is the main religion of the people.  In reality that doesn't mean squat to our Constitutional principles or freedoms.  If the founders wished to create a Christian nation they had the perfect opportunity to do so.  They chose instead to create a democratic republic in which religion has no say.  This fact gets conveniently ignored by fanatical Christians who think they automatically have the right to run everyone's lives.  They'll quote scripture as though it is civil law, but have little clue what the meaning of separation of church and state is at all.  Better education in our schools could help dissolve their ridiculous notion.\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nAce?  For every quotation from a founder supporting the role of religion in government, I can produce two from the same founder speaking against it.  This debate went on for quite some time and the founders wrote and spoke about both sides of it extensively.  The proof in the pudding is that they had a chance to install a theocracy and chose not to do so.  They chose to keep that distance between church and state in the end.  How can you even argue with that when they didn't take the opportunity to create a theocracy?
802687
The Constitution is.  No law shall be higher than the Constitution.  The Constitution overrides all laws (local, state, federal), and anything that's amended to it automatically becomes so.
869143
The Bible was not given to us as a basis of government.  We are supposed to apply it to our personal lives.  If more people applied the Bible to themselves (don't steal, lie, commit murder, commit adultery, etc.), the country would be better off because of fewer broken lives and fewer people in prisons.  That is how the Bible should play a bigger part in society.  I think that too many Christians get caught up in trying to turn the Bible into law rather than convincing other individuals to use the Bible's guidance.
441652
You should read the constitution before you ask constitutional questions
370725
Its a bit of both. How they perceive the bible that differs.
668234
HEY DUMMY (jake) - were you bible-home-schooled???\n\nThe "GUY" you are referring to who talked about church and state separation was THOMAS JEFFERSON.  (you idiot)\n\nIn the United States, separation of church and state is sometimes believed to be in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents interpreting that clause, some extremely controversial. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) makes the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well, although it is arguable that this restriction on state and local government existed in Article VI of the unamended Constitution and that the Fourteenth Amendment was a clarification on the limitation of government power. Many other democratic governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions.\n\nThe phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a "wall of separation between church and state."\n\nJames Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."
975283
I suppose he had his own authority since he founded his own church.  But I agree, the Deuterocanon should not have been taken out of the Bible.  I have pointed out on this site more than once that Protestants would be much better off to read them, regardless of whether they believe in them or not.
854644
It's nice that you listed so many of these inaccuracies, lies, and internal contridictions.  That gives us a lot to go on.\n\nActually, the Bible is one of the most accurate historical documents that exists today.
1078318
I'm a Christian. I know that doesn't mean much, but I try my hardest to honor and love the Lord.\nI'm also an American who believes the Constitution of the United States. \n\nHere's my take: \nWe should not allow the 10 Commandments to be posted in Government buildings. It violates the Bill of Rights, specifically the establishment clause in the First Amendment. Just like the Second Amendment should not be violated, the First Amendment should not be violated. The Decalogue are holy laws and moral laws if you're Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. The judicial branch of the government, like the Constitution, must (I repeat MUST) remain secular.\n\nHere is the text of the 10 Commandments:\n\n1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.\n\n2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.\n\n3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.\n\n4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.\n\n5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.\n\n6. Thou shalt not kill.\n\n7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.\n\n8. Thou shalt not steal.\n\n9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.\n\n10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's. \n\nMy take is that there are only 3 of the Holy Commandments that are enforcable: 6, 8 and 9. The rest are moral laws and would never be prosecuted in a United States court. If they were, the United States would look more like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Thankfully, we have the Constitution to make sure that never happens. Besides killing, stealing and lying, the rest of the Laws are moral laws that, if prosecuted and found guilty, would be deemed unconstitutional. \n\nPlacing the 10 Commandments in a U.S. Court building, which should be secular, should never happen because it puts one (or, I guess, three) religions above the people. \n\nWhatever you believe, the Constitution is there to protect us. \n\nI, personally, live by the 10 Commandments, because that's what my Lord wants, and I could never repay the debt. But that doesn't mean that we all have to.
815984
The Founders did not intend a complete "separation of church and state."\n\nTheir concern was the state actively promoting or supporting one religion over the other. There is nothing close to this in the USA.\n\nThe ACLU and other groups, thru mountains of unnecessary litigation, have completely misread the Establish Clause of the First Amendment.  The mere mention of "God" for example, hardly favors one religion over the other. \n\nJefferson's phrase "separation of Church and State" was written to a group of Baptists to assure them that they would be free to practice as they wished. It appears no where in the Constitution.\n\nToday, however, this pseudo legal doctrine has been used as a sword to destroy even the most benign religious expression on public property. We are much poorer for it.
304757
To the Founders of the United States of America, the Bible was an important resource to them. If what they believed was not in the Bible, it did not belong in America.
1132993
Because we all pick and choose the parts that fit our view.\n\nThat's one of the BIG reasons that the people that wrote the constitution, even though they were mostly one form of Christian or another, decided to require that there not be a formal national religion.  They recognized that throughout history, one faction or another has used one phrase or another in the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, etc to justify why one group of people should have rights that another should not.  \n\nThat's also why they made it so hard to modify the constitution -- so that, say, conservative Christians in the 1950's couldn't give the right of marriage to one group (couples of same race) and deny it to another (couples of different races).  \n\nSounds strikingly familiar to a more recent debate, doesn't it?