Experts and users discuss christian nation, constitution, religion in society, religion and politics: Judaeo-Christian Beliefs Form Basis for Constitution and Legal Code
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Judaeo-Christian Beliefs Form Basis for Constitution and Legal Code
- From Dr Paul S Vickery
By Dr. Paul S. Vickery - History Prof., Oral Roberts University
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agre with at least one aspect.
I agree with the contention about the freedom of religious pluralism. It is unrealistic to expect that different religions can co-exist with one another without trying to dominate each other. Most religions, including Islam and Christianity, are predicated on the basis that their way is only true way. In validating their own view, they inherently invalidate any other view. Both Christianity and Islam have a goal of converting the whole world for their own religion. Neither religion is content with moral relativism. These ideologies, and similar ones found in many other world religions, create a spirit of competition between religions for superiority. When one religion is dominant, like America during the creation of our democracy, the others are not very evident. When the public starts preaching moral relativism other religions begin to grow and gain prominence. This is evidenced in America today, with Islam growing rapidly. When one religion is overthrown as in post-Christian Europe, the door is open for other religions to become the dominant religion of a nation. There will always be religions vying for the position of the most prominent religion of a nation.
- eaglesfan12089 October 5, 2008 8:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Divided into competing cults, we fall...jt
eagles fan 12089 wrote: "It is unrealistic to expect that different religions can co-exist with one another without trying to dominate each other. Most religions, including Islam and Christianity, are predicated on the basis that their way is only true way."
That is a prescription for a persecuted minority perpetually at the mercy of a delusional majority. The is precisely the dynamic that civil society is designed to prevent. In fact, that is the genius of our founding fathers who were dominated by the ideas of Freemasons who despised the rule of popes and imams. That is what has made America exceptional. Despite the frequently overwhelming power of primitive Christian cults, America has been in the main a place where many religions flourished, while none dominated. The attempt by Christians and now Catholics to dominate American liberty will — if successful — destroy Liberty in America. There is nothing else that is special about America that's worth preserving.
"Culture War" is civil war . That unnecessary and unwise division gives cynical politicians the power for economic domination. Is anyone really so stupid as to think that those who fund this foolishness care about our souls? It is the puerile divisions among us that these creeps exploit to profit from our weakness. Divided we fall.
- Joey Tranchina
November 13, 2009 6:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, not anymore....Yes, at one point in time
I believe America was built on christian priniples in the sense that the founding fathers believed in "One nation under God". This can be seen all over historical manuscripts such as the "Decleration of Independence", to name one.
However it was never a Theocracy, nor was our great Nation ever meant to be one. Radical extremities was never to be our partisanship. On the other hand, the nation was to be based on tolerance and freedom for the "Pursuit of Happiness".
Yet, since the term "Christian Nation" differs from the term "Theocracy", It wouldn't be inaccurate to state that America was ounce a Christian Nation; being so that the overwelming marjority were fervent believers. Today however, this would not be as accurate. Meaning the United States of the 21st century is not a Christian Nation.
Habib Kimso
His 101
- habibk October 9, 2008 1:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I wouldn't even say "at one point in time"
The Pledge of Allegiance was not written until 1892, over 100 years after the founding of the nation. “One nation under God” was added to the pledge in 1954.
God is only mentioned once in The Declaration of Independence: “...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...” This sentence does not reflect Christian principles, nor does the rest of the document.
I know you didn’t mention it, but... Since the Constitution, the Presidential Oath of Office, money and the motto often are mistakenly thrown in with these as references to God in the founding, I’ll add them here too.
The Constitution doesn’t contain the word God. The Presidential Oath of Office requires neither the Bible nor the phrase “So help me God.” In fact, technically the Chief Justice should not prompt “So help me God” as it could be considered illegal or at the very least invalidate the oath. "In God We Trust" did not appear on money until 1864; and was not declared as the national motto until 1956.
Even with the mentions of God, Jesus –the very icon of Christianity- is never mentioned.
- Johnny
April 8, 2009 5:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Our laws
Our laws may agree with a lot of religions. No killing No stealing, But that doesn't mean this is a christian nation. We don't kill, not because god told us not to, we don't kill because it's wrong. It hurts people. We would always be at war with each other. I don't see why people can't be moral without being christian. Our laws make sense (most of them) to run a nation that isn't in total chaos. If you read enough into anything you can find what you want to see i.e. Religion
- Gavinsmama
October 16, 2008 10:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
After much deliberation, Yes. America IS a Christian nation.
This question is a big deal for me, especially as I gear up to place my vote for the November 4th election. I’ve been asking myself, do I seek to legislate my personal morality or go with what I think is arguably most practical? Reading both sides of the argument has been extremely beneficial to me in forming my personal opinion.
I realize that my founding fathers, who appear to hold to a Protestant worldview, created a secular government that would allow the free practice of all religion—that is to say, all religion did that did not conflict with basic Christian morality. “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” says John Adams.
It doesn’t seem to me that violent sects like Satanism and Radical Islam would be included in that. (Nonetheless, I can’t help wishing that we would follow Australia’s example and lay down an ultimatum against radicals like Prime Minister John Howard who “invite[d] to leave” anyone who conflicted with what the country stands for. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp .) While we cannot and should not attempt, that is, through the use of political power, attempt to curb the shift from Christianity toward pluralism, we must assure the censorship of anything that interferes with public peace or conflicts with basic Christian morality.
Next, Dr. Martin’s point is plausible. There should be no governmental persecution nor taxation of any sect or denomination (use of Jefferson’s “no injury to others” quote). But this specific restriction of government from religion should not be misconstrued to conclude that religion is restricted from the government.
Having said all that, I do have one point of hesitation about calling America Christian nation, and that is for the reputation of Christianity itself among the world at large. Not everything that our government involves itself in is the proper representation of the Christ in biblical Christianity. Therefore, when the rest of the world associates America’s foreign policy with Jesus’ campaign to the world for salvation, something is wrong. Nonetheless, this misappropriation (which can be resolved by clarification and education both by the church and by the government) is a risk I am willing to take. It is our Judeo-Christian morality that must undergird us, or our democracy will fail. Thank you, John Adams.
I fully agree with Dr. Vickery in that “the reinterpretation and outright omission of our founding documents” must be stopped. Yes, it must be stopped, and it must be stopped by bringing these documents back into the public awareness through education.
In short, yes, America is a Christian nation, in the loosest sense of the term. We are not a theocracy, as Vickery pointed out. We do not favor or give special privileges to one religion, as Martin mentioned. However, we do acknowledge our roots and realize that the same basic morality that our fathers held must never be left behind regardless of the current trend of popular belief.
- jesseprier October 18, 2008 3:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The "wall" is for both sides...
You say: “But this specific restriction of government from religion should not be misconstrued to conclude that religion is restricted from the government.”
Allowing religion into government would lead to religion running government, once religion is running government, government will begin regulating religion. Once the government is regulating religion we will no longer have freedom of religion . It is naïve to think otherwise.
- Johnny
April 8, 2009 5:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Every nation must NOT have a dominant belief system.
"Every nation, however, must have a dominant belief system.."
Why? Who says so? Why does every nation need this? Maybe the empire that finally does NOT fall would be the one that has NO dominant belief system.
- TopCat
October 20, 2008 12:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The bible and the Constitution take OPPOSITE approaches
In this debate much has been made of the history of this nation's founding, and the thinking and personal beliefs of the men who founded it. But beyond historical analysis, a simple examination of the respective underlying principles of Christianity and the U.S. Constitution belie the argument that the latter is based on the former.
Briefly...
Christian morality is based on obedience to god's law. In contrast, the morality contained in the Constitution is based on respect for the rights of the individual human being. Christianity tells us what WE CANNOT DO by reason of god's law, while the Constitution tells us what CANNOT BE DONE TO US by virtue of our humanity. These are fundamentally opposite approaches to defining a moral code, a fact which cannot be reconciled with the notion that the U.S. is Christian nation.
I like to say that in the Constituion we have the Bill of Rights, while in the bible we have "The Bill of Wrongs" (i.e. the ten commandments). These two documents take entirely opposite approaches to limiting the actions of humans. Of course, biblical morality and secular morality do sometimes come to the same conclusions. For example, both moral systems conclude that murder is immoral. But to a humanist, murder is wrong because is violates the humanity of the victim, whereas to a Christian murder is wrong because it violates the law of god. Again,they are completely opposite, incompatible philosophies.
Paul Vickery is wrong. While there may be superficial similarities between Christian morality and the laws of U.S. as defined in the Constitution, they are SUPERFICIAL similarities, from which no cause-and-effect relationship can reasonably be inferred.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
October 20, 2008 7:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rights of individual people
Sid so sorry, but rights were not written for each individual person. It was written for the protection of ALL the GOOD PEOPLE. Good is the key word to draw water (knowledge) from. Read about the making of the Bill of Rights through the very first explanition of why it was written and who these rights were to protect. Our forefathers were not concerned about the individual rights of the bad or evil person. They were only concerned about the rights of a good person being mistreated and abused. Laws were made to protect the good in this land--not bad. Christianity is good. Christianity helps to produce good people and good WAYS. Rules of the Bible help keep people good. Believing in a God as our countries Supreme Ruler of the Universe keeps peace within our country. Look--people are not believing anymore and look at our country now. Paul Vickery is not wrong--you are. Sorry. The U.S. was a Christian nation--Is it now? I believe that even in today's world it is still a Christian Nation. I believe that there is more good people's WAYS of life in this world than bad. but today, the bad and evil WAYS of life are trying to take over the good WAYS in America. Jesus said, I AM the WAY--the truth and the life. Rights were made for the WAYS of people. WAYS is another key word to draw water (knowledge) from.
- lyntel
May 20, 2009 6:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
protecting the good and the bad
"Sid so sorry, but rights were not written for each individual person. It was written for the protection of ALL the GOOD PEOPLE. "
rights protect all people, not just the 'good' ones... The same freedom of speech that protects someone working for civil rights also protects racists...
"Christianity is good. Christianity helps to produce good people and good WAYS"
Though I do agree that Christianity can help produce good people it has produced bad people and bad ways... and that the same can be said of just about any religion out there (following religious teachings can make one more moral, but has also produced a laundry list of atrocities)
"Believing in a God as our countries Supreme Ruler of the Universe keeps peace within our country. Look--people are not believing anymore and look at our country now."
And is our country significantly more violent now then it was 20, 50, 100 years ago?
- MrBook
May 20, 2009 8:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Must?
"Every nation, however, must have a dominant belief system, or worldview, that permeates the laws and practices of that state and binds its citizens together."
Can you provide proof that every nation must have a dominant belief system? Especially since our founding fathers and the documents they wrote for our country imply the opposite.
- mangueken
November 23, 2008 12:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fallacies, Fallacies
"America is a nation built upon Judaeo-Christian beliefs."
This is wrong. We are a nation built upon 18th-century French Revolutionary beliefs, reason and the Enlightenment, a healthy amount of Deism and agnosticism, and even Aristotelian political philosophy. Do not confuse the fact that there were many settlers who were Christian with what actually built the nation (i.e., reason and logic, not faith).
"These values emphasize the dignity and worth of every person..."
Except when it comes to pagans, homosexuals, and men who have sex with their wives during their periods. There are others, but I don't have time to write a book here. I'll just say this is blatantly false.
"Those who founded this nation through their writings and public service were certainly Theists who believed in the authority and significance of the Scriptures."
I am guessing that Dr. Vickery went to great lengths to figure out how he could word that statement to make it sound like all the founding fathers were Christians of his particular ilk. While many were indeed theists, they weren't of his kind of theism, that's for sure. Many (e.g., Washington, Franklin, Paine) were Deists. While Deism is indeed usually Judeo-Christian in its roots, I doubt Vickery would find himself nodding along to the stark reason of Deists, and so I find this statement of his misleading.
"Unfortunately this is no longer an option in the modern debate over issues. We rely more on feelings or the desire to justify our own wants and desires and can find some expert to agree with these."
I am finding it difficult to understand how looking to a man in the sky is any more reliable than justifying one's argument according to personal feelings. Both are problematic. One should use reason and logic, particularly when it comes to laws that affect people of all races and creeds, not what a 2,000-year-old book says or (in a number of cases) what the heart says.
"Every nation, however, must have a dominant belief system, or worldview, that permeates the laws and practices of that state and binds its citizens together."
Like Socialism? Communism? Islam? Those have worked beautifully. No. This is terribly illogical. What must define law is reason. Reason is achieved through objectively viewing situations. For example, though it may be very nice, as a Congressman, to sign into law something that will give you and your family a nice new luxury (for being a Congressional member), this not only affects you; it affects all of those who are not like you, who are paying for you to receive these said benefits. The reasonable thing to do, for the good of all, is to either benefit none or to benefit all. You can't, or you at least shouldn't, give precedence to those who specifically agree with you (or to yourself), unless you find their arguments to be reasonable. Good laws are those which only displace citizens who have broken the law; good laws are few in number; good laws are those which do not favor one party over another.
The idea of promoting a dominant belief system, without seeing the need for logic or fairness, is unbelievably scary. Those who do no agree with that dominating view, as in my example, must "pay" for it. That is not a free society, certainly not a fair one.
"The concept of a pluralistic society in which no one worldview underpins the foundational beliefs of that society describes a society in transition from one dominant worldview to another."
This is a red herring. Of course opinions change and cultures change, and this is noticeable, yes. However, it is my personal hope that laws only reflect this, insofar as changing with *advances* in knowledge (not fickle beliefs).
It is ironic, however, that any Christian could try to argue from the basis that Christians are united. There are more denominations than I can even count (and I am a minister's granddaughter); some agree with abortion , while others do not; some agree with homosexuality, while others do not; some believe in the death penalty, while others do not; some believe the world is ending, while others believe we're entering new, wonderful territory. Christianity has hardly united anyone under one set of laws (even the Ten Commandments) or one set of cultural norms, because it can hardly unite under its own three-in-one deity.
- leliathomas
December 10, 2008 11:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
U.S. law is based on the Code of Hamurabi
For a true student of world history to assert that the U.S. Constitution and laws are based on the bible of the Judeo-Christian sect is ridiculous. The Code of Hamurabi (sp.), on which our laws are truly based, far predates the concept of Christianity. It's even more foolish to claim that most religions are intolerant of the beliefs of others. Only those based on the old testament of the Judaic faith, that is, Judaism, Christianity (in all it's derivative sects), and Catholicism can be so described. While it is estimated that more than two billion people follow those faiths, there are nearly seven billoion people on our planet. That places those who are members of religions that seek to dominate all around them severely in the minority. Even were they not, it is the height of arrogance to assume that their religious beliefs should control the lives of those who do not share their beliefs.
- OddGrouch
December 21, 2008 12:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ehhh
While this is not as bad as most defenses of the " christian nation " thing, it still doesn't convince me. These values existed before and contemporary to christianity , and probably before Judaism. Further, just because the two religions influenced this nation, doesn't mean they lay claim to it's founding and heritage. This point is moot because regardless, there is nothing to gain or lose.
- ikenovak
March 26, 2009 11:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
slavery.
I never knew slavery was an ethical law.
Based on anyone's ethics.
- userk
April 17, 2009 3:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Christianity not basis for American law
The suggestion that Judaeo-Christian beliefs form the basis for our constitution and legal code is an interesting one. Certainly, it has some merit since there is Biblical support for slavery and lack of rights for women, though this is hardly the case anymore.
The basis for the U.S. Constitution and law was in fact going against the religious government of Europe, which was more in line with the Bible's lack of mentioning individual rights. Religious freedom was built into the Constitution and regardless of the fact that many founders were deists, they made sure to ignore the Biblical suggestions of killing all non-believers. In fact, there's a lot in the Constitution and legal code that was never in the Bible or ten commandments--equality, personal freedom, etc.
- Blue Linchpin
June 4, 2009 4:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
wow. you're like that person who ripped that baby out of her neighbor.
you just totally butchered the truth here. So Christian Judaeo teaching promote enslavement and lack of rights for women. End statement. That is you. that lady.
- jxzac June 9, 2009 2:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh,
And just in case you're willing to read your Bible for once:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
- Blue Linchpin
June 10, 2009 5:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
you're like monster all over the place. gwarrrh
well, i'm goin to mention how irratinal your logic is. you're very prejudice, boisterous and ignorant. Your perceptions on what the 'Bible says' don't even attempt to be honest. It's not even an issue. You can be as dishonest as you want. Essentially, you don't see the need to be honest. it's better in your mind to exaggerate, embellish, and join illogical conclusions. We're really done at that point.
I'll just take this opportunity to explain some simple truths that you don't understand, nor see a need to. In essese we're all enslaved. We're enslaved by order. We're enslaved to gravity. No commercially, we're enslaved to pay your debts or face the penalties, and so on and so forth. You don't see things nor does it matter if you do. It doesn't matter to you. You don't need facts. It's about what you want to believe and what you want others to believe.
About women, oh boy. Essentially women are evil. The world bends to you and you don't even give it credit. You credit yourself. Not all women, but you do. It's a tribute to your glory. Women behave differently. For one, society treats them differently,secondly women come with an instinctive pragmatism. There needs be some science on this,but there's no interest. I would think, women exclude things where men try new things. I'm goin into a realm of conjecture but i think evidently, what i'm sugguesting it true.
Now back to what the Bible actually says. Woman will lead men away from God. It says that. True or False statement? Were there woman prophets? yes. But it's talking about the general woman. In short, God's not practical and women would be more earthy for the moment. They would also compromise a man's allegiance to an ideal. Though there were women prophets, church elders, and leaders. You don't understand what the Bible says nor are the things you suppose true.
- jxzac June 13, 2009 12:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A good reason for the US not to be Christian
Jxzac, you have provided some very good reasons why the US should not be a Christian nation... as living under Biblical law would be a horrendous affront to human rights.
"Your perceptions on what the 'Bible says' don't even attempt to be honest. It's not even an issue."
It seems to be very much the issue. Many examples have been given where the Bible says one thing that would appear monstrous to us... selling your family into slavery, beating a slave so hard that he/she dies... these are things that are seen as abhorrent by modern civilization.
"In essese we're all enslaved. We're enslaved by order. We're enslaved to gravity."
Enslaved to gravity? Without gravity everything would just be random atoms of hydrogen and helium, drifting through an otherwise featureless universe. How are we enslaved by order and to gravity?
"Essentially women are evil."
Really? Misogyny like that is unbelievable! What exactly makes women evil?
"There needs be some science on this,but there's no interest. I would think, women exclude things where men try new things. I'm goin into a realm of conjecture but i think evidently, what i'm sugguesting it true."
There actually is a good amount of research done into the neurological differences between the genders... and though there are differences there is no evidence that 'women exclude things where men try new things'. On what basis do you make that statement?
"Now back to what the Bible actually says. Woman will lead men away from God. It says that. True or False statement?"
Probably true... and that is a good reason to leave Christianity behind us.
"God's not practical and women would be more earthy for the moment. They would also compromise a man's allegiance to an ideal."
Well if God created women in a way as flawed as you suggest then I would have to say that he is more the not practical...
- MrBook
July 1, 2009 6:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Get back to the Bible
No women. Read 1 Timothy Chapter 3
- countryboy
July 3, 2009 3:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no women?
Excluding women from where? And how does an argument from the bible apply secular country like the US?
- MrBook
July 28, 2009 6:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are you really that ignroant?
Apparently the comment approvers find my factual, backed up response worse than your ridiculous claim (that pointing out a fact is akin to murder ). Wow.
I'm sorry, but there's really no excuse for Christians to be so ignorant of what's in their own Bible. It's a well-accepted fact that the Bible regulates and gives instructions on how slavery should work (which is, in effect, approval or at least nothing less than condemnation--and nothing less than condemnation is excusable, especially when from a so-called book of morals). In fact, the Bible was the major pro-slavery argument in the United States.
The Bible was also terrible when it came to women's rights. Women were taught as inferior to men, defective and not able to have as many rights. In fact, the Bible's pretty similar to Islam when it comes to women--don't leave the home without your massa'--I mean, husband or father or son. They were told to be submissive and in a nice little weaving of these two, fathers were given instructions on how to sell their daughters into slavery. Lovely, right?
Sources:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm
(As you see I've used the most unbiased source. I could easily have linked you to sources that absolutely tear the Bible apart for it's words on slavery and women. These, however, are more pro-Bible.)
- Blue Linchpin
June 10, 2009 8:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And some quotes
And some quotes. Many from Leviticus, the same book the argument against homosexuality is from:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)
Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever.
Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22 deal with restitution in case of stealing, or damage to, a person's property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the woman's father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the father's property - his daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.
1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.
Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
1 Corinthians 14:34-36 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law . And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church .
- Blue Linchpin
June 10, 2009 8:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I do agree
Our Founding Fathers did fear God,and allowed him to guide them in the formation of this great country, and they were not Muslim.
- Pegleg4570
June 18, 2009 6:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Deism
Many of the founding fathers were Deists, this included the iconic ones like Jefferson and Adams.
- MrBook
June 24, 2009 5:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No more.
At one time the United States was a Christian Nation. Was it written directly into the laws, no. But Americans were for the most part Christians. But no more. Lyndon Johnson had a problem. He was about to run again for the Senate and a few non-profit groups were against his reelection. July 2, 1954 he proposed an amendment to the tax laws that prohibited tax exempt groups from speaking out for or against elected officials. He had nothing against the churches it was just that they were also tax exempt groups. On that day they were silenced.
- mike1948
August 3, 2009 7:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I recommend reading the book titled
SINFUL SILENCE. AMERICA IS ONLY AS CHRISTIAN AS WE ARE ACTIVE IN OUR COUNTRY AND I BELEIVE WE ARE A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY.
- truehappiness
September 30, 2009 10:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.