Was the United States founded on Judeo-Christian principles?

Is the issue really about what religion our founding fathers practiced? With laws prohibiting many, if not all of the Ten Commandments, I wonder how there can be much doubt where these laws originated. However, I understand that many people believe that these are "universal" ideals, somehow ingrained in man from his conception.

In response to the belief that we are somehow born knowing right from wrong, I ask a simple question. Do you have to teach children to fight over toys, or to share them? I have two children of my own, and I assure you...sharing does not come naturally.

Regardless of whether you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian belief that man was created in the image of God, then man sinned, so now man has fallen and is inherently bent on evil until the return of the Messiah, it is inarguable that we are born with natural tendencies toward conflict and selfishness. These are the exact tendencies our laws were put in place to protect others from.

Michael Savage, in his book The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture poses an interesting question. Many people, usually those on the side of this argument believing that this country was NOT founded on Christian principles, would take religion completely out of society. They see religion as a destructive force, a source of great conflict, and something to be avoided in any enlightened society at all costs.

In many ways, their beliefs are justified, if even accurate. Many wars are fought over religious beliefs. Many conflicts begin over religion. So in that respect, I tend to agree. Religion does breed conflict. However, what would you replace it with?

The natural response is science. I actually subscribed to this belief at one point in my life...prior to becoming a Christian. It seems that the more and more society and science progress, the more we can explain through science. Religion can appear as simply something that weak-minded people use to explain things for which there is currently no explanation. So, again, the natural tendency is to believe that science will eventually replace society's need for religion.

There is one huge problem with this, and this is the crux of my argument. Science does not, and can not, define a moral code for a society. The example that Michael Savage uses is Nazi Germany. Look at the experiments that the scientists performed once they were relieved of the "restraints" of morality. They conducted innumerable atrocities on human beings in the name of science. I assure that similar things will happen in any society that removes the morality that is the fiber of it's laws.

So back to the basic question posed: Is the United States founded on Christian principles? I believe that the morality that we all ascribe to, whether Christian or not, stems from the Bible. There is a great deal of evidence of this throughout history, regardless of the specific religious preferences of our forefathers.

The real question, though, is would we have morals without religion? I think that, given the above example, the answer is no. Look at the morality of the Native Americans compared to the morality of European Christians. Look at the morality of a buddhist compared to the Native American. They are vastly different, given different moral and religious influences. Left to our devices, we will seek out religion to bring some form of order to our societies. Native Americans practiced some pretty atrocious and heinous things, but they still had a religion that defined what is and what is not acceptable.

In the end, I think the question that Christianity has influenced many of our laws has to go unquestioned. It is evident by simply picking up a Bible, and then comparing it to our laws. They are (or were) identical in many places. Given all of the evidence presented above, do you really believe that we would have these morals were it not for the effect Christianity has had on society?

While doing so he was informed by his Christianity. To deny this is irrational.

No, it is not irrational. Just read what Noah Webster actually wrote about the Constitution. He may have been a religious man personally, but he was clear that religion and politics do not mix.

In some nations, legislators have derived much of their power from the influence of religion, or from that implicit belief which an ignorant and superstitious people entertain of the gods, and their interposition in every transaction of life. The Roman senate sometimes availed themselves of this engine to carry their decrees and maintain their authority. This was particularly the case, under the aristocracy which succeeded the abolition of the monarchy. The augurs and priests were taken wholly from patrician families. They constituted a distinct order of men had power to negative any law of the people, by declaring that it was passed during the taking of the auspices. This influence derived from the authority of opinion, was less perceptible, but as tyrannical as a military force. The same influence constitutes, at this day, a principal support of federal governments on the Eastern continent, and perhaps in South America. But in North America, by a singular concurrence of circumstances, the possibility of establishing this influence, as a pillar of government, is totally precluded.
Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787,

They were predominately Christian. I doubt anyone back then called it Judeo-Christianity but that's fine with me if saying that today makes us appear more encompassing.

They were Christian, but in contrast to European Christianity, the Founders were highly Philo-Semetic (Jewish Loving).

George Washington visited the Touro Synagouge in Rhode Island and sent letters to all American Hebrew Congregations as a sign of harmony. Alexander Hamilton attended Jewish schools. Ben Franklin contributed to Congregation Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia. And as for John Adams, he wrote:

"[Jews] are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a Bauble in comparison of the Jews. They have given religion to three quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily, than any other Nation ancient or modern."

Even American institutions such as Thanksgiving (Sukkoth) were adapted from Jewish rituals and festivals.

It's funny, when I was growing up, "Judeo-Christian" was the politically correct way to refer to our heritage. Now it's taboo among the Muslim-loving left, and passionately supported by the virtuously Philo-Semetic Right.

A more recent quotation from Prodessor Hamilton, which makes it sound like she has changed her mind:

----
PLAYING INTO THE TALIBAN'S HANDS:
The Mistake Of Treating This War As Christianity Versus Islam
By MARCI HAMILTON

----

Friday, Sep. 21, 2001

snip

With these Christo-centric statements, these very public persons have played into the Taliban's perverse worldview by turning this war into the jihad the extremists crave. In so doing, they have betrayed what is best about America. They made a simplistic equation, pairing the United States' identity with just one of its faith traditions. Yet that equation falsifies the true freedom of religion we enjoy: The United States, of course, stands not for Christianity alone but rather for the freedom to believe.

In their statements — particularly Coulter's and Falwell's, and to a much lesser degree, Bush's — these commentators seem to imply that this is a war between Christians and Muslims. In making the implication, they slide past the distinctions that matter, and end up directly in the dangerous territory of a holy war divorced from legal and rights norms.

This is not a war between religions, and this is not a war challenging particular freedoms. Rather, it is a war testing the most basic structure of our freedom: the rule of law. This war was initiated by individuals who use their faith to excuse conduct that is inexcusable under domestic and international law.

Absolute Freedom to Believe, But Not Absolute Freedom To Act

The United States Constitution is premised on the freedom to believe, with the Supreme Court repeatedly reasserting that the freedom to believe is absolute. Action, however, has always been treated differently, even when it is religiously motivated.

Some religious organizations in our country foolishly have tried to erase this crucial distinction between belief and conduct. For example, they lobbied for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997, and enacted the more recent folly of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

There was a time, early in my academic career, when I railed against the belief-conduct distinction like them. But I have learned since that this very distinction is what separates us from the anarchy the Taliban and its harbored terrorists would visit on the world. There is and can be no absolute freedom to act on religious belief.

The Constitution would say even to the extremists that have caused this unspeakable misery that they have the right — yes, the right — to believe whatever their conscience requires. We should not go to war forgetting this pillar of American liberty.

snip
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/hamilton/20010921.html

1776 Declaration of Independence [excerpt]:

"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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*. [snip]

According to recent scholarship, this document was modeled after the Dutch Calvinist Declaration of Independence. In other words, this statement of basic principles was simply a restatement of what Protestant Political theorists and preachers had been saying for centuries.

*

When one studies the history of New Testament "church government", one can readily see that the bottom-up, checks and balances, Republican form of limited government that America's Calvinist Framers gave us, is based straight out of the New Testament CHURCH GOVERNMENT example. [Acts 6:3; 1:15, 22, 23, 25; 2Cor.8:19, etc.] And Paul, Barnabus and Titus are shown as installing the elders that were chosen by the congregations [Acts 6:3-6; 14:23 and Titus 1:5].

Paul says to the whole church congregation: "Pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom whom we may appoint to this duty." (of servant aka deacon)

The apostles had the *unique authority* to found and govern the early church, and they could speak and write the words of God. Many of their written words became the NT Scripture.

In order to qualify as an apostle someone had to had seen Christ with his own eyes after he rose from the dead **and** had to have been specifically installed/appointed by Christ as an apostle.

In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the NT.

Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolute authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church.

Because of that, there is no need for any direct "succession" or "physical descent" from the apostles.

*

John Adams - The Origin of Liberty of Conscience And Calvin's Geneva (Source, Charles F. Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams [1851] Vol. 6, p. 313-314) PRIMARY SOURCES

"After Martin Luther had introduced into Germany the liberty of thinking in matters of religion, and erected the standard of reformation, John Calvin, a native of Noyon, in Picardie, of a vast genius, singular eloquence, various erudition, and polished taste, embraced the cause of reformation.

In the books which he published, and in the discourses which he held in the several cities of France, he proposed one hundred and twenty-eight articles in opposition to the creed of the Roman Catholic church. These opinions were soon embraced with ardor, and maintained with obstinacy, by a great number of persons of all conditions.

The asylum and the centre of this new sect was Geneva, a city situated on the lake ancienty called Lemanus, on the frontiers of Savoy, which had shaken off the yoke of its bishop and the Duke of Savoy, and erected itself into a republic, under the title of a free city, for the sake of liberty of conscience. ....

*

Religion and Patriotism the Constituents of a Good Soldier Samuel Davies (1755) PRIMARY SOURCES

Samuel Davies-Presbyterian preacher and president of the College at Princeton. .. One of Davies' most fond disciples was Patrick Henry. .. The similarities between the tone and rhetoric here and the rhetoric of Henry are apparent:

"To protect your Brethren from the most bloody Barbarities--to defend the territories of the best of Kings against the Oppression and Tyranny of Arbitrary Power to secure the inestimable Blessings of Liberty, British Liberty, from the Chains of French slavery--to preserve your estates, for which you have sweat and toiled, from falling prey to greedy Vultures, Indians, Priests, French, and hungry Gallic Slaves, or not-more-devouring Flames--to guard your Religion, the pure Religion of Jesus, streaming uncorrupted from the sacred fountain of the Scriptures; the most excellent, rational and divine religion that ever was made known to the sons of Men; to guard such a precious Religion (my heart grows warm while I mention it) against Ignorance, Superstition, Idolatry, Tyranny, over Conscience, Massacre, Fire, and Sword, and all the Mischiefs, beyond Expression, with which Popery is Pregnant--to keep from the cruel Hands of Barbarians and Papists your Wives, your Children, your Parents, your Friends--to secure the Liberties conveyed to you by your brave Fore-Fathers, and bought with their blood, that you may transmit them uncurtailed to you Posterity --these are the Blessings you contend for; all these will be torn from your eager Grasp, if this Colony [Virginia] should become a province of France. And Virginians! Britons! Christians! Protestants! if these Names have any import or Energy, will you not strike home is such a Cause?...

*

William Livingston, "Of Party Divisions," Independent Reflector (1753) Swarthmore Edu.

"..Almost all the Mischiefs which Mankind groan under, arise from their suffering themselves to be led by the Nose, without a proper Freedom of Thought and Examination.

Upon this Priestcraft has erected its stupendous Babel, and Tyranny rear'd her horrible Domination. And indeed, well may we expect, as the righteous Punishment of our Guilt, to be abandon'd by Heaven to Delusion and Error, if instead of obeying the Directions of that sacred Ray of the Divinity, in Virtue of which we claim kindred with the highest Order of Intelligences, we blindly surrender ourselves to the Guidance of any Man, or Set of Men whatever."

Etc., etc., etc.

“The command of God is, ‘He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in fear of God,’ (2 Sam. 23:3). This command prescribes the only effectual remedy for public evils. It is an absurd and impious sentiment, that religious character is not necessary for public officers. So far is this from being true, that it is one of the principle qualifications for any man making or administering laws. When the form of government admits men to office by hereditary right, rulers may or may not be good men; the people have no choice, and must submit. But in representative governments, if rulers are bad men, it is generally the fault of the people. The electors may indeed be deceived. But in general, the calamity of having evil counselors, legislators, judges, and ministerial officers, is the fault of the electors. They do not regard the precept to choose just men, who will rule in the fear of God. They choose men, not because they are just men, men of integrity, but solely for the sake of supporting a party ... But surely as there is a God in heaven who exercises a moral government over affairs of this world, so certainly will the neglect of the divine command, in the choice of rulers, be followed by bad laws, crimes, waste of public money, and a thousand other evils. Men devise and adopt new forms of government; they amend old forms, repair breaches, and punish violators of the constitution; but there can be no effectual remedy, but obedience to the divine law." Noah Webster

But don't take my word for it, read Websters A History of the United States (1833) a book in which he "traced the hand of God in America’s founding".

"religion and politics do not mix"

JAMES MADISON TO F. L. SCHAEFFER
Montpellier, Dec. 3rd ,1821

Revd Sir,--I have received, with your letter of November 19th, the copy of your address at the ceremonial of laying the corner-stone of St Matthew's Church in New York.

It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with pure benevolence and of a cordial attachment to a particular creed, untinctured with sectarian illiberality.

It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations.

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported.

A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

In return for your kind sentiments, I tender assurances of my estaeem and my best wishes.

(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: To F. L. Schaeffer from Madison, December 3, 1821. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 242-243).

http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/madisonluther.html

By the way, nobody is arguing for a theocracy or the fact that the founders were arguing for same but you seem to be arguing against it.

Was the United States founded on Judeo-Christian principles?
In the end, I think the question that Christianity has influenced many of our laws has to go unquestioned. It is evident by simply picking up a Bible, and then comparing it to our laws. They are (or were) identical in many places. Given all of the evidence presented above, do you really believe that we would have these morals were it not for the effect Christianity has had on society?

The anonymous author of the posted article muddles two issues, though the blame may go to his editor, if there was one.

Was the U.S. found on Judeo-Christian principles? If it was the author makes no attempt to name any of those principles. I would argue that there is little or no evidence that the Constitution is based on the Bible.

Do any of our laws derive from the Bible? That's a different question. I would argue that a number of laws, most of them repealed, derive from the Christian religion, such mandated sabbath observance laws and blasphemy laws. But just because we have those laws (and had them before the country was founded) doens't mean that our country was founded on the principles embodied in them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.