New world most have a Religion? if yes,so what Religion?

I have actually read our federal Constitution, in its entirety; I still believe it is one of the most comprehensive documents ever, establishing our federal form of Government.

What part of it confuses you?

 

i agree the doc is fantastic

the part that our country leadership does not follow.

 

Nothing confuses me, but I do not worship it. It method of raising monies for govt usage is sadly lacking, its rules on who can vote is worthless, its method of dividing the congress is sad. The fact it does not allow the direct election of a vice-president is foolish. In this day and age the electoral college is so stupid as to be idiotic, and on and on and on and on and on. It was good at the time, it is outdated and we waste too much money, time and resources fighting about what is constitutional and what is not, because it is SO LEGALLY confusing,

 

You make a lot of assertions, which may or may not be substantiated.

Would you like to elaborate on those topics which you believe may belie our confidence in the sincerity of our Founding Fathers in establishing and ordaining our federal form of Government, for their posterity?

 

The so-called founding fathers were completely and totally ignorant of modern society, the only one realizing that was Thomas Jefferson who said by violence the constitution should be rewritten ever 20 years or so. We have passed his 20 years 14 times, and yet to rewrite the constitution.

 

Those who designed and fought for or against the Constitution of 1787, were not ignorant of government. And times do not change the nature of government. They were proabably more in tune with government than most people today.

Remember Thomas Jefferson was not there at the writing of this constitution, though he should have been. And he was not a signer of it.

Quantrill

 

Answer to the title of this thread:

Roman Catholicism

 

In my opinion, it should not matter what religion is claimed by our elected representative, as long as that religion engenders a moral obligation to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land; simply for the sake of morals and that form of moral absolutism, based on Religion.

 

If anything, a new one should be formed. The religions that exist today are either out of date or really strange.

It doesn't matter how fitting Christianity can be, it's out of date.

 

What about a better religions bureau to help ensure the full faith and credit of forms of holiness and morality?

 

I prefer sense, to nonsense, lets just eliminate religion.

 

Would you like to elaborate on your point of view? You are welcome to provide a hypothetical scenario that illustrates the concepts.

 

Hypothetically, what would a more modern and presumably more enlightened populace do with a committee to intelligently design Religion2.0?

In my humble opinion, Religion should always be used for goodness and not badness whenever possible.

 

If nothing else, such a committee would make sure that the religion was harder to misinterpret or pull weird quotes from. A bit like a law book. Actually, it should be made sure that the religion is compatible with the law.

The perhaps greatest problem with Christianity and many other religions is the fact that it can be interpreted to mean things it is not supposed to mean (of course, the interpretation it was supposed to mean might elude us).

 

Yes this new world must have a new religion. And it is constantly being formed and readied.

It will be the religion of 'man'. Man will be his own master and determiner of things to come. Man will be good and free and treat everyone with respect.

All past religions will be seen as 'man' in his 'evolution' of understanding of 'god' and 'religion'. And all religous writings, are not from 'god', but from man in his efforts and evolving.

And of course 'mans' religion must have its own heresey. And if any hold to such authoritative writings, such dogma, such absolute statements, then they are indeed, wicked fundamentalists. They are the heretics and must be destroyed. And for the goodness of 'man's' religion, they will be.

Quantrill

 

Let's assume that we have a regime that recognizes the concept of natural rights and individual liberty. We can use our federal (US) constitution for reference. Why not bear truer witness to our supreme law of the land, and let persons of Religion have recourse to their system of beliefs, ostensibly to lower our tax burden by not enforcing purely religious laws that may not be consistent with our own supreme laws of the land.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Of course everyone gets to follow whatever they want. I didn't mean my version of religion should be enforced or anything.

 

I agree with you that purely religious based laws should not be tolerated if they are repugnant to our supreme law of the land. However, that should only apply to the public sector. The private sector can engage, collectively, in their natural rights.

 

You may follow what rules you wish as long as you follow the law. That goes for any and all sectors.

Well, I don't believe natural rights exist. For starters, there are different definitions of it, so it wouldn't work legally without incorporating it into the actual law, in which case, you still can't go above the law.

What exactly do you mean be natural rights?

 

Natural rights are those powers not specifically delegated to the State or the Union.

Our Ninth Amendment sums it up pretty nicely.

 

Man I can't believe I missed this thread, particularly its absurd notion on Freemasonry and a NWO religion.

As for those who wish to eliminate religion, you'll never do it. You can't kill spirituality and faith.

 

Correct, as long as humans remain fearful of the unknown, superstitious and willing to accept nonsense, there is no way to eliminate religion.

 

Faith and religion isn't nonsense. You just fall into the extreme side of atheism. You've let your pride/arrogance and ignorance pull you into an evil cycle. Faith/religion and science do co-exist, it is man who endeavors to separate them. Both sides have their extremists who are the cause of the divide, but the two are just two different languages speaking the same story.

 

atheism aint about faith

and many religions dont have a god

Perhaps resort your thoughte!

you were the one making a stupid post

science supercedes much of religion and having faith in that fact is how the two disciplines have managed to co-exist

The only thing to separate is the idea that beliefs supercede the faith of knowledge evolving.

any good mason could tell you that

the pursuit of truth is the underlying concept of both but many of religious observance forget that knowledge evolved well beyond beliefs, a long time ago.



ie... truth destroys ignorance

 

Bishadi,

Atheists seem to have an abundance of faith that there is no god (whatever one calls him).

Many godless religions? Name 10.

How was my post stupid? How about you counter it with something of a little more substance than "it's stupid". I had a teacher tell me once, "We're all ignorant-just about different subjects. Stupidity is the combination of arrogance and ignorance. Arrogance, being the opposite of humility, is the idea you have nothing to learn".

Science nor religion truly supersedes one another. You are just another wedge in the divide.

Don't presume to tell me what another Mason would/could tell me or what we teach in our Orders.