Posted on 10/19/2003 10:07:46 AM PDT by rightcoast
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?
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall…be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; [and] be confronted with the witnesses against him."
Compare the above statement to Acts 25:16 (NKJV):
"It is not the custom of the Romans to deliver any man to destruction before the accused meets the accusers face to face [be confronted with the witnesses against him], and has opportunity to answer for himself concerning the charge against him [be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation]."
Coincidence?
Check out the principle in #81 and then get back to me.
FindLaw's Writ - Hamilton: The Ten Commandments and American Law
The Founders and the Framers Adamantly Did Not Intend to Make the Ten Commandments Law
Thomas Jefferson specifically railed against attempts to claim that the common law incorporated the Ten Commandments when he criticized judges for "lay[ing] the yoke of their own opinions on the necks of others by declaring that [the Ten Commandments] make a part of the law of the land." John Adams also questioned the influence of the Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount on the legal system.
At the Constitutional Convention, the Framers looked to the examples of antiquity--the Greeks and the Romans - and not to the Ten Commandments. They were a pragmatic lot, and they were not interested in being bound by their religious heritage (despite today's claims to the contrary). Rather, they were searching for virtually any idea--from virtually any source--that would work to create a better government than the failure produced by the Articles of Confederation.
Those Framers who were well educated had studied antiquity and the classics in depth (unlike the vast majority of Americans today, even those who are college educated). Thus, they were perfectly comfortable borrowing and adapting whatever suited their purposes. It would be a huge overstatement to say that they felt themselves constrained by the four corners of the Bible in finding the right government, or setting up the ultimate law that would rule the U.S.
The sources that influenced the Framers ranged from Greek and Roman law, to John Locke, to Scottish Common Sense philosophers, to Grotius. The influence of the Common Sensists was quite evident in the Framers' strong belief in the power of reason--not revelation or Biblical passages--to determine government. They were also influenced by the dominant religion of the time--Calvinism--in the sense that their world view was rooted in distrust of any human who holds power. And this list is only a beginning.
Meanwhile, the very tenor of the times was distrustful of organized religion, and especially stakeholder claims to truth by religious individuals. Madison declared, in his Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785, "experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
And when Benjamin Franklin presented the draft Constitution to the Congress, he declared: "Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from that it is so far error. Steele[,] a Protestant[,] in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as to that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right . . . ."
Exactly.
"...Non-establishment was intended and this is why I believe in non-establishment; but I do not believe in separation of church and state if we take by separation that view of hostility of government towards, specifically in this case, Christian religion that is being practiced now.
How do I know that separation was not intended? Because they didn't write separation, they wrote non-establishment.
That's what the First Amendment says so there is no illegitimacy here in religious people, or religious institutions, or religious convictions informing public policy. ...
What's really curious to me is that we have a radicalizing here in our culture, but the radicalizing is not coming from the right. The loss is not coming from the right, the radicalizing of the culture and the loss of freedom is coming from the left."
See more excerpts below from the commentary that can be found here:
Culture Wars II - by Gregory Koukl
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/misc_topics/cul-war2.htm
"...Now it seems, by the way, that the Founders, even if they were devout Christians, did not desire a thorough-going Christian nation. ..."
My point exactly. Here you have quoted a letter fromMadison which states that the U.S. has flourished due to the separation of church and state.
Hardly. Again, clear proof that the Founding Fathers looked all the way back to Roman practices.
Jefferson built Catholic Missions with the public treasury and filled them with bibles.
Several of the states had established religions befor, during and after ratification of the US Constitution. They managed to disestablish same without any interference from the federal behemoth.
If your now arguing that the "Wall of Separation" is a Constitutional mandate, you're out in Matsui territory.
You mean like the Coliseum thing where they fed Christians to the lions? I think they took a pass on that one.
Sorry that I'm not up my my bible scholarship. Can you please point to me where in the Bible it states this?
Protestants of the day (18 century) were radicals, but the country IS based on the principals laid down by Jews and Christians alike, regardless of sect or willingness to accomodate the world around them.
If it is important, I am Christiam only by definition, Churches are for weddings and funerals and not necessary for either; but I'd die before living outside of the basic teachings of non Islamic religions, and I'd have a hard time living within the precepts of Eastern (Oriental) belief as I understand them.
Can you tell me what precisely was Noah Webster's contribution to the drafting of the Constitution? He was not a member of the convention.
Noah Webster (1758-1843) wore many hats during the course of his life: lexicographer, educator, author, publisher, editor, lawyer, and political commentator. His most famous work was An American Dictionary of the English Language which was instrumental in fashioning a distinctively American English dialect. His early work included A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, the first volume of which was his famous "Blue Backed Speller," a school book so popular it has never been out of print. In the 1780s he wrote extensively in favor of a new federal constitution, and later urged the Constitution's ratification.
Webster was well know for his religious and political conservatism, which makes him one of the most frequently quoted authors in religious right literature. Especially toward the end of his life, Webster's writings betray a deep sympathy for the "Christian nation" ideal. Understandably, however, most accomodationist literature is silent on Webster's views during what we have designated as the founding period in America (1776-1800); during these years Webster was anything but an accomodationist. On the contrary, during these years he was a passionate defender of separation of church and state.
As a young man Webster was a radical federalist that believed in a strong central government, the elimination of class distinctions, and the disestablishment of religion. His early writings are adamant on these subjects. In 1783, for example, Webster wrote a series of articles for the Freeman Chronicle, a popular political journal. In the November 3, 1783 edition of the Chronical Webster denounced religious establishment in no uncertain terms:
The very idea of a system of religious principles and a mode of worship, prescribed and established by human authority, is totally repugnant to the spirit of christianity. Every establishment is only a milder term for tyranny....It is an insult to humanity, a solemn mockery of all justice and common sense, to assume that right of entailing our opinion and formalities of devotion upon posterity, or to exclude them from the protection or emoluments of government for a non-conformity dictated by conscience.
snip
In 1808 Webster underwent a profound religious conversion that changed both his politics and his religious outlook (some biographers say that changes in Webster's beliefs can be detected as early as 1801). After this time Webster becomes skeptical of democracy, distrustful of government, and far more sympathetic to an alliance between church and state. After 1810, for example, he increased the amount of Biblical material in his speller and reader, and wrote many works suggesting that Christianity was necessary for the survival of America. As noted above, accomodationist publications quote almost exclusively from this second period of Webster's life. David Barton, for example, in his The Myth of Separation, takes all his Noah Webster quotes (or at least the ones we can trace back to specific works) from either Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) or his History of the United States (1832). Both these works were written long after his religious conversion and reflect only his later thinking.
It's important to keep Webster's conversion in mind when assessing his contribution to the founding of America. Put simply, Webster was a separationist during the critical years when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being written, debated, and ratified. The only contribution he could have made to the debate during these years would have been a separationist one. Accordingly, accomodationists cannot quote Webster's later writings as if they prove something about the Constitution. They don't. All they prove is that the later Webster was different from the early one. And without question, it was the early Webster that agitated in favor of the Constitution and Bill of Rights during the 1780s and 1790s.
Noah Webster's views on the Separation of Church and State
They deliberately made sure that our Constitution would stand in the way of all tyrannical mentalities (including a professing Christian) who would try and obtain absolute power over the citizens.
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.