The Bible vs The Constitution?

Question

In answering a recent post I thought to ask this question. Mainly for Americans but anyone can give their opinion of course.

Why do so many people disregard the Bible and say that it is out dated, written by men, has flaws in its teachings and yet deffend the Constitution to the death? Was it not written by men also? The Amendments aren't much different from the Commandments, and they have flaws and loopholes, such as Freedom of Speech, how many people have been hurt by speaking their minds or hurt by someone speaking their mind? Freedom of religion, that means you are free to practice your religion even if your religion claims the US is the Great Satan and needs to be destroyed. Thats just a couple, so can anyone give me an honest oppinion as to why the Constitution is more sacred to people than the Bible?

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

Yes, the Constitution was written by men. Nobody claims differently or argues that some supernatural being created it. There is no doubt as to its origin or intent.

The Amendments have no connection to the 10 suggestions and do not resemble them in form or content. They are not "written in stone" and can be altered or negated through a democratic process to fit the will of the people or to repair any "holes" if, in fact, those "holes" existed. The bible is anti-democratic, anti-liberty and rigidly dogmatic with no mechanism for revision or correction.

As for freedom of speech, nobody has been hurt by speaking their minds. They may have been injured by those who oppose what they are saying, but that's an entirely different matter all together.

Yes, freedom of religion (along with the other freedoms contained in the First Amendment) would protect a religion even if its tennants included the belief that the US is evil and should be destroyed. It is not, however, a license to act through violence or other form of coercion on those beliefs to the detrement of others. That's one of the beauties of the Constitution. It allows for freedom while insuring that the free are protected.

The Constitution, to date, is the most perfect socio-political document and governmental foundation ever created. It's exclusive intent is to limit the power of government while insuring the liberty and security of the people. The exclusive intent of the bible, on the other hand, is to limit the liberty of the individual while allowing no dissent, criticism or input from those who surrender their lives and the lives of others to its teachings.

Answer 3

By allowing amendments, the Constitution admits that it is a flawed document from the outset. People love this level of honesty that is found as sorely lacking in the Bible, which parades itself around as "TRUTH." For those that are not Christian, the Bible is anything but "truth," yet they cannot deny that the Constitution is a relatively thoughtful document, even if it has had flaws and moral errors in the past. Again, this is because the Constitution does not presume itself to be perfect, but instead insists upon allowing amendments to specifically address when flaws arise.

In practice, this means that when the Constitution encounters events that contradict itself, the document may be adjusted to cope with the new reality. People respect such honesty in a document. In contrast, when the Bible encounters a contradition, its proponents either try to deny the reality, attack it relentlessly, or attempt to ignore it entirely. In rare occasions, high ranking chuch officials - for example, from the Vatican - will be allowed to make some sort of judgement to cope with the change. However, this very sort of behavior undermines the presumption of "perfection" of the original document, which leads many to doubt that it is anything other than an imperfect work of men.

Answer 4

The Constitution IS outdated, written by men, and flawed. The primary difference between it and the Bible is the fact that the writers of the Constitution understood and admitted that they were fallible. Because of this, they built mechanisms into the Constitution that allow it to change with the needs of people that it serves. Because of this flexibility, the Constitution can be viewed as a living document, constantly evolving and being improved upon. The BIble, on the other hand, is static. It cannot change and cannot be changed.

Because of these properties, the Constitution has been much more valuable to the development of the American form of government than the Bible. To those of us who appreciate and respect this form of government and the freedoms that go along with it, the Constitution may be seen as being worth significantly more respect than the bible.

Answer 5

First of all, the Constitution was made to be changed and modified - the founding fathers recognized the need for some flexibility, although made it a cumbersome enough process that it can't be changed willy-nilly. No one pretends that the Constitution as originally worded is infallable - the 3/5 of a person lingo is a good example.

Second, it sets standards for our legal system based on fairly straightfoward princibles. It does not take anceint bigotries and dress them up in pseudo-morality.

Third, we know who its authors are and can discern their motives, and the contexts the documnt was written under.

Fourth, it does not muddy up its purpose - spelling out rights, duties and responsibilities, without mixing in parables or stories which one faction can interpret one way and another a different way.

Fifth, it is a document based on fairness for all, and when unfairness has been agreed upon, it is generally amended to be made fairer.

That's the highlights. There are plenty of others.

In general, it is sacred for all because we agreed its contents and its niche make it so. Unlike the bible; at least for all.

Answer 6

The Constitution protects or freedom. The Bible intends to constrict our freedom. The Ammendments are WAY different from the Commendments.

Bill of Rights
1. Freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government.

The 10 Commandments of the Bible
1. You shall have no other Gods before me. (So what you are saying is that we should all believe in your God?? That's not even possible just so you know. The human mind is too complex to ensure that all have the exact same God concept. )

The Bill of Rights
2. Right for the people to keep and bear arms, as well as to maintain a militia.

The 10 Commandments of the Bible
2. No Graven Images..I mean it or I will kill your whole freaking bloodline. (That's sick and wrong.)

The Bill of Rights
3. Protection from quartering of troops

The 10 Commandments of the Bible
3. You shall not take the Lord's name in vain. (Goddammit I wlll. Because it's my right to do so.

Bill of Rights
4. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure

The 10 Commandments from the Bible
4. Keep Holy the Sabath Day (Wtf!?! Like that's even realistic. First of all, people argue when the Sabbath actually is. Secondly, would you really want everyone taking the same day off. What if there was a natural disaster or your house was on fire on the Sabbath Day. Sorry, dude, you're out of luck, it's the frickin sabbath day. Sorry, I don't want to live in that world)

The Bill of Rights
5. Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property

The 10 Commandments of the Bible
5. Honor your Mother and Father. (Well if this isn't a contradiction I don't know what is. You completely ignore the Mother Goddess.)

The Bill of Rights
6. Trial by jury and other rights of the accused.

The 10 Commandments
6. Thou Shall not murder (Kinda funny when you think about the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition)

The Bill of Rights
7.Civil trial by jury

The 10 Commandments
7. You shall not commit adultery.(Hmm, the funny thing is that we are sexual beings. How does the Bible define adultery?? Well if you look with lust that's considered to be enough. Screw that, I like to look at men and women because I was made this way)

The Bill of rights
8. Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment

THe 10 Commandments
8. You shall not steal (But's it's okay to cheat people out of their money if you tell them Jesus needs it.)

The Bill of rights
9. Protection of all other rights not labeled here

The 10 Commandments
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.(But you can say whatever you need to convert them to your ideology)

The Bill of Rights
10. The Powers of the States

The 10 Commandments
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s. (Notice how it speaks of his wife like property. Yet another reason why I would fight to the death any Christian who tried to force me into their ideology)

So are they still the same. If you think so, do the US a favor and don't vote.

Answer 7

The constitution is laws written by men to govern an organized society. The bible is the word of God written down. They both hold man accountable for their actions, however the truth claims of men can always be changed due to new knowledge, societies acceptance or political motive. The truth claims of God do not change and are always consistently true. They are as relevent today as they were when they were spoken and written. Since man has turned away from God he is constantly trying to justify his choices and actions and to hold himself as an equal to God. The maker of his own destiny. In his pride he refuses to accept that all of his talents and abilities come from the Creator of the cosmos and all life in it. In the bible God is clear on what He finds acceptable and what is not. As a created being the only way to deny God is to replace His truths with mans truths. This has nothing to do with logic or reason only an attempt to hide from Gods truths.

Answer 8

I believe the Bible to be the Inspired Word of God revealed to us. The Constitution is also inspired by the Lord. But it isn't the Bible. But it is the Constitution of the United States. And because of it, we the people (including Christians) have equal rights.

Also there is a right to peaceably assemble in the 1st amendment. So, to assemble for unpeaceful reasons is unconstitutional. It is also liberty & justice. Not just liberty. Liberty doesn't consider others liberty. Justice is we have liberty but not at the cost of others liberty. So when someone threatens someone else, that is taking peace from that person. It isn't liberty & justice.

Answer 9

The shape substitute into a great deal inspired by utilising the Bible. besides, the bible is a record by utilising the human beings, for the human beings, and if the human beings will that something could be a undeniable way then it extremely is the way it's going to be. what's extra is that your 2 examples are flawed, the form would not extremely handle gay Marrige or Marrige at in touch in that remember. we are only debating over in spite of if or to no longer substitute the form to guard marrige. Prayer in school is likewise no longer addressed by utilising the form, in case you think of it extremely is than you have misunderstood the 1st substitute because of the consistent indoctrination by utilising secularism. the 1st substitute only states that "Congress shall make no regulation...." it extremely is it. no longer something extra. It would not say faith shouldn't result government or that prayer should not be in faculties. the belief of separation of church and state is misunderstood by utilising very almost all and sundry. the belief got here from a letter that pronounced: “Believing with you that faith is a controversy which lies fullyyt between guy and his God, that he owes account to none different for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government attain strikes only, and not evaluations, I evaluate with solemn reverence that act of the full American human beings which declared that their legislature could ‘make no regulation respecting an corporation of religion, or prohibiting the loose exercising thereof,’ for this reason development a wall of separation between Church and State.” He substitute into writing to a pair Danbury Baptists who have been afraid that their minority religon could be legislated against. in this letter be borrows the term "wall of separation" from Roger Williams who pronounced there could be a "wall of separation" between church and state yet that it would be a "one way wall" government could save out of religion, yet faith could result Goverment. even with each little thing, the place do adult adult males draw their ideals and convictions from? Washington pronounced that we could continually be a "ethical and non secular human beings" and that's what we nevertheless are, if much less so than we was.

Answer 10

We don't respect the Constitution just because it's old or because we believe it was dictated to the founders by a supernatural power. We respect it because it is rational and time-tested. More than two hundred years of experience have proven that it works. And knowing that society changes, that knowledge increases, and men are fallible, the founders made the supreme law of the land amendable.

The right to criticize is not a "flaw" or "loophole," it's an important freedom. Diversity of opinion is a good thing, and differences of opinion often lead to progress. One can criticize even that which one loves.