posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:05 AM
The topic here is the idea that the USA was founded "under God" in a literal sense. It seems beyond debate that the predominant language and
cultural context of the time was Protestant Christian. I accept that as fact.
What I can't reconcile is the relative precedence of Biblical law and Constitutional law as applied by a "true believer" of the time. According to
the Bible, no laws should come before the "law of God" or in this case, laws written by humans that seek to replicate God's thoughts and words. My
understanding is imperfect here, but I think I have the "jist".
In any case, what is in the Bible(s) must be held above laws written by men in the course of assembling collective society. I have had a number of
Christians state that as fact and argue why now, it's appropriate for true Christians to simply ignore any common law if it conflicts with a Biblical
law as interpreted.
So what I can't understand is how the Christian founders, if they were indeed that, didn't explicitly state that the USA constitution is explicitly
subordinate to Biblical law? It seems they may have actually codified conflicts with Biblical law or at least formalized a structure which could later
subordinate Biblical law.
My question is how all these devout, unified Christian founders let common law supersede Biblical law in the first place? From a philosophical
standpoint, how can any true believer pledge allegiance to a sovereign nation and truly commit to following the rules? Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, I
understand. They explicitly subordinate common law to their Koran rule book. But no explicit mention of Biblical law in the Constitution? Why? Did I
Is it not the duty of a "believer" to always work towards a Theocracy? If it is so, then the Christian Taliban may be the logical next phase of
the implosion of the US empire. Taking over towns, demanding sovereignty, land, etc. and going straight to holy violence when they don't get their
way. In a sense, "Messianic Zionism". Thoughts?