American Government and Christianity - America's Christian Roots

Probe Ministries ^ | 2004 | Kerby Anderson

[Tailgunner Joe]

John Adams was the second president of the United States. He saw the need for religious values to provide the moral base line for society. He stated in a letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.{1}

In fact, John Adams wasn't the only founding father to talk about the importance of religious values. Consider this statement from George Washington during his Farewell Address:

And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.{2}

Two hundred years after the establishment of the Plymouth colony in 1620, Americans gathered at that site to celebrate its bicentennial. Daniel Webster was the speaker at this 1820 celebration. He reminded those in attendance of this nation's origins:

Let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary.{3}

Religion, and especially the Christian religion, was an important foundation to this republic.

Christian Character

It is clear that the framers of this new government believed that the people should elect and support leaders with character and integrity. George Washington expressed this in his Farewell Address when he said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports."

Benjamin Rush talked about the religious foundation of the republic that demanded virtuous leadership. He said that, "the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid on the foundation of religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."{4}

He went on to explain that

A Christian cannot fail of being a republican . . . for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self- denial, and brotherly kindness which are directly opposed to the pride of monarchy. . . . A Christian cannot fail of being useful to the republic, for his religion teaches him that no man "liveth to himself." And lastly a Christian cannot fail of being wholly inoffensive, for his religion teaches him in all things to do to others what he would wish, in like circumstances, they should do to him.{5}

Daniel Webster understood the importance of religion, and especially the Christian religion, in this form of government. In his famous Plymouth Rock speech of 1820 he said,

Lastly, our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits. . . .Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.{6}

John Jay was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers and became America's first Supreme Court Justice. He also served as the president of the American Bible Society. He understood the relationship between government and Christian values. He said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."{7}

William Penn writing the Frame of Government for his new colony said, "Government, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men, than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad."{8}

The founders believed that good character was vital to the health of the nation.

New Man

Historian C. Gregg Singer traces the line of influence from the seventeenth century to the eighteenth century in his book, A Theological Interpretation of American History. He says,

Whether we look at the Puritans and their fellow colonists of the seventeenth century, or their descendants of the eighteenth century, or those who framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we see that their political programs were the rather clear reflection of a consciously held political philosophy, and that the various political philosophies which emerged among the American people were intimately related to the theological developments which were taking place. . . . A Christian world and life view furnished the basis for this early political thought which guided the American people for nearly two centuries and whose crowning lay in the writing of the Constitution of 1787.{9}

Actually, the line of influence extends back even further. Historian Arnold Toynbee, for example, has written that the American Revolution was made possible by American Protestantism. Page Smith, writing in the Religious Origins of the American Revolution, cites the influence of the Protestant Reformation. He believes that

The Protestant Reformation produced a new kind of consciousness and a new kind of man. The English Colonies in America, in turn, produced a new unique strain of that consciousness. It thus follows that it is impossible to understand the intellectual and moral forces behind the American Revolution without understanding the role that Protestant Christianity played in shaping the ideals, principles and institutions of colonial America.{10}

Smith argues that the American Revolution "started, in a sense, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door at Wittenburg." It received "its theological and philosophical underpinnings from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion and much of its social theory from the Puritan Revolution of 1640-1660.{11}

Most people before the Reformation belonged to classes and social groups which set the boundaries of their worlds and established their identities. The Reformation, according to Smith, changed these perceptions. Luther and Calvin, in a sense, created a re- formed individual in a re-formed world.

Key to this is the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer where each person is "responsible directly to God for his or her own spiritual state.... The individuals who formed the new congregations established their own churches, chose their own ministers, and managed their own affairs without reference to an ecclesiastical hierarchy."{12}

These re-formed individuals began to change their world including their view of government and authority.

Declaration of Independence

Let's look at the Christian influence on the Declaration of Independence. Historian Page Smith points out that Thomas Jefferson was not only influenced by secular philosophers, but was also influenced by the Protestant Reformation. He says,

Jefferson and other secular-minded Americans subscribed to certain propositions about law and authority that had their roots in the Protestant Reformation. It is a scholarly common-place to point out how much Jefferson (and his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress) were influenced by Locke. Without disputing this we would simply add that an older and deeper influence -- John Calvin -- was of more profound importance.{13}

Another important influence was William Blackstone. Jefferson drew heavily on the writings of this highly respected jurist. In fact, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England were among Jefferson's most favorite books.

In his section on the "Nature of Laws in General," Blackstone wrote, "as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature."{14}

In addition to the law of nature, the other source of law is from divine revelation. "The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures." According to Blackstone, all human laws depended either upon the law of nature or upon the law of revelation found in the Bible: "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws."{15}

Samuel Adams argues in "The Rights of the Colonists" that they had certain rights. "Among the natural Rights of the Colonists are these: First, a Right to Life; second, to Liberty; third, to Property; . . . and in the case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another. When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent."{16} This concept of natural rights also found its way into the Declaration of Independence and provided the justification for the American Revolution.

The Declaration was a bold document, but not a radical one. The colonists did not break with England for "light and transient causes." They were mindful that they should be "in subjection to governing authorities" which "are established by God" (Rom. 13:1). Yet when they suffered from a "long train of abuses and usurpations," they believed that "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish [the existing government] and to institute a new government."

Constitution

The Christian influence on the Declaration is clear. What about the Constitution?

James Madison was the chief architect of the Constitution as well as one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. It is important to note that as a youth, he studied under a Scottish Presbyterian, Donald Robertson. Madison gave the credit to Robertson for "all that I have been in life."{17} Later he was trained in theology at Princeton under the Reverend John Witherspoon. Scholars believe that Witherspoon's Calvinism (which emphasized the fallen nature of man) was an important source for Madison's political ideas.{18}

The Constitution was a contract between the people and had its origins in American history a century earlier:

One of the obvious by-products [of the Reformation] was the notion of a contract entered into by two people or by the members of a community amongst themselves that needed no legal sanctions to make it binding. This concept of the Reformers made possible the formation of contractuals or, as the Puritans called them, "covenanted" groups formed by individuals who signed a covenant or agreement to found a community. The most famous of these covenants was the Mayflower Compact. In it the Pilgrims formed a "civil body politic," and promised to obey the laws their own government might pass. In short, the individual Pilgrim invented on the spot a new community, one that would be ruled by laws of its making.{19}

Historian Page Smith believes, "The Federal Constitution was in this sense a monument to the reformed consciousness. This new sense of time as potentiality was a vital element in the new consciousness that was to make a revolution and, what was a good deal more difficult, form a new nation."{20}

Preaching and teaching within the churches provided the justification for the revolution and the establishment of a new nation. Alice Baldwin, writing in The New England Clergy and the American Revolution, says,

The teachings of the New England ministers provide one line of unbroken descent. For two generations and more New Englanders had . . . been taught that these rights were sacred and came from God and that to preserve them they had a legal right of resistance and, if necessary a right to . . . alter and abolish governments and by common consent establish new ones.{21}

Christian ideas were important in the founding of this republic and the framing of our American governmental institutions. And I believe they are equally important in the maintenance of that republic.

Notes

1. John Adams, October 11, 1798, in a letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts. Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams - Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes, and Illustration (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1854), Vol. IX, 228-229.
2. George Washington, Farewell Address (September 19, 1796). Address of George Washington, President of the United States, and Late Commander in Chief of the American Army. To the People of the United States, Preparatory to His Declination.
3. Daniel Webster, December 22, 1820. The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1853), Vol. I, 48.
4. Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," Early American Imprints. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), 8.
5. Ibid.
6. Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster, 22ff.
7. John Jay, October 12, 1816, in The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: G.P Putnam & Sons, 1893; reprinted NY: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, 393.
8. William Penn, April 25, 1682, in the preface of his Frame of Government of Pennsylvania. A Collection of Charters and Other Public Acts Relating to the Province of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: B. Franklin, 1740), 10-12.
9. C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1964), 284-5.
10. Page Smith, Religious Origins of the American Revolution (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 1.
11. Ibid, 2.
12. Ibid., 3.
13. Ibid, 185.
14. William Blackstone, "Of the Nature of Laws in General," Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 1, Section II.
15. Ibid.
16. Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" (Boston, 1772), The Annals of America, Vol. II, 217.
17. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987), 94.
18. James H. Smylie, "Madison and Witherspoon: Theological Roots of American Political Thought," American Presbyterians, 112.
19. Smith, Religious Origins, 3.
20. Ibid., 4
21. Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (Durham: Duke University Press, 1928), 169.

[tpaine]

Where is your "evidence"?

[risk]

I have presented evidence whereas you have presented none, because your assertions are unsupportable disinformation.

TGJ, your camp commits the same sort of abuse to the English language and to our Constitution that the anti-gun lobbyists use. They make comments along the lines of, "You must be for violence, because you are against gun control." That's similar to the JBS or 700 club style assertion that the law needs to be explicitly Christian in order to defend Christianity, or you must be a communist if you believe in keeping religion and state separate.

Anti-gunners say things like, "You can't interpret the Constitution literally," which is similar to your argument that the First Amendment prevents any sort of requirement of separation of religion and state. It's completely backwards, but that serves the anti-gunner purpose, and inverting Constitutional meaning serves your Christian nationalist cause, just as well. Anti-gunners argue that to be safe, guns must be removed from the hands of ordinary people. Your camp argues that to be secure, morality must be upheld by explicitly Judeo-Christian law; of course you don't delve into doctrines and dogma because that would reveal the house of flimsy queue cards on which your arguments are based. To your camp, the faith of the common people is not enough. It must be reinforced through the powerful arms of federal and state governments, imposed on citizens so that no lapses of moral certainty might be suffered in our courtrooms.

But in every state constitution of the union, in our own federal constitution, and in James Madison's prodigious commentary about first amendment issues, we see a powerful commitment to a wall of separation between religion and state, between dogma and law, between sectarian beliefs and government. Our laws clearly block any effort to name a preference for one religion or another from our legal language to our court rulings and our treatment of individual citizens. But that doesn't stop your camp! In the face of English statements with crystal clarity like, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," anti-gun people often say things along the lines of "The Constitution does not apply to the states." So does your camp when it argues that states' rights permit the establishment of the 10 commandments as the very foundation of our own law.

Like the anti-gun lobby poses with hunters and fishermen to convey a faux friendliness toward ordinary "sport gunners," your camp would have young Americans and the world believe that all Christians in America do not support the idea of keeping religion and government separate. Your camp cries persecution and punishment for the limits that have been placed on your frail shoulders. But I can tell you that there are devout and faithful Christians in this country who number among some of the most fierce defenders of this important concept. Most of them happen to be less attention-seeking than your camp. Most of them do not have multi-million dollar TV broadcasts from which to exhort their virtual "congregations" to abandon the Constitution, while raking in millions and millions of dollars from the weak and defenseless who think they are helping to secure their own salvation and peace of mind through donations. The truly devout believe that the future is in God's hands, not any human's, and certainly not in any earthly form of government. These are the men of true faith, who see no need to defend God in the courtroom or on the battlefield. They only see a need to defend the people from government. God, their faith has convinced them, is almighty.

As with the best of the anti-gunners, your camp quotes the founding fathers out of context. Your camp cites historic opinions of leaders which had no legal binding on our government before and after the Constitution was written. Your camp links the Puritan movement to our current government. Your camp blurs the lines between culture and religion. And your camp rewrites history for its own purposes. Your camp assumes that because most Americans have always trusted in Jehovah, and believe in Jesus Christ as their savior, that we have a de facto government with religious underpinnings, or that we must place those beliefs into law or else lose them. If you believe that Americans would lose their faith without an establishment of religion, you would be unable to find any hope for the future. Your camp can present no material from either the Constitution, any of its amendments, or the Declaration of Independence to show that this country is established as a legally "Christian nation," or that its most important laws are directly based on the Ten Commandments. So your camp finds devotional comments made by our founding fathers while they were in church, writing letters to church men, or leading their fellow countrymen in prayer -- to prove that what they chose not to place in the Constitution is in fact what they intended, and even the most important thing that they intended to convey! Yes, if you can believe that, you can also be persuaded to give up your guns.

And so the attack on our Constitution continues from all sides.

You can find nothing from our core founding documents to even suggest that we have an established form of Christian government. Yet the writings of each of our Founding Fathers, even the most devout among them, demonstrate a profound mistrust of establishments of religion via government. And the historic record bears this out as well, given the terror spawned on the European continent century after century -- as well as England and its colonies -- by religiously-motivated warfare. What we have is a Christian culture whose faith is one of the important powerhouses of freedom in this country. In fact, Christian faith -- their personal freedom of conscience -- is explicitly protected by our legal and civic-minded defense of separation of religion and state. No where on earth are Christians more free, more protected in their personal beliefs, or more able to spread their faith. And this we can attribute to the First Amendment. And we can also attribute it to the Second Amendment. Those who would tear asunder either one are grave threats to our nation's freedom, and therefore the world's.

Why is your camp able to bear so much rotten fruit? Fear. Without a doubt it is fear.

Americans are struggling with the internal and external threats we face. Christian nationalists have searched for a simple solution to our problems. Establishing Christianity retroactively and proactively in our government is deemed to be a simple solution to all of our problems. At best, this is a retreat from the political clarity and brilliance of our Founding Fathers, who were educated by the very best the Enlightenment and the Reformation had to offer. At worst, it is a convenient means for manipulating the devout into pursuing a destructive and undemocratic political agenda that could end in monarchy or pure theocracy. You may doubt it, but think of the political swamps from which we emerged. They are waiting for us, ever threatening in their stench and depths. In your camp, where devotion ends, a form of dangerous Christian nationalism begins, one that has nothing in terms of true Christian values in mind. The Christian Identity movement is not far beyond that, which teaches that Anglo Saxons are the true lost tribes of Israel and modern "Jews" do not exist, taking a page stright from Hitler's Mein Kampf.

Again, if President Bush believed in this manipulative and unconstitutional pablum, I wouldn't be able to vote for him. In all of his campaigning, his quotes, his writings, and in what his wife and family have said about him, I understand him to be fully committed to the important principle of keeping state and religion separate. The ACLU is confused about this issue. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would like nothing more than to equally confuse us about this issue. But President Bush has a clear concept of our Constitutional protection for religious freedom. There can be none better, so it's essential that a leader claiming to want the law to be upheld to understand this.

As you grapple with the moral threats we face in the 21st century, if you grasp the nearest "lifeline" offered you by the 700 Club and Coral Ridge Ministries, you'll pull America back into the Dark Ages. It's no accident that many Christian Americans understand this and stand firmly against the theocrats. It is their faith on which America stands, and as long as it does, people will have true freedom of religion in America. Intellectual and political freedom depend on religious freedom and the freedom to keep and bear arms. Even if in your simple view of the situation you feel that those of us who doubt Jerry Falwell's sincerity are part of a dark, sinister socialist movement, at least try to understand that we have just cause to fear the bearded men who would establish God's kingdom on earth with their own hands.

[Tailgunner Joe]

You slander me when you try to speak for me and "my camp." You falsely describe our position and the lies you tell about us are straight out of Anti-Christian, Anti-American ACLU Commie propaganda. You are either a liar or a sucker.

you must be a communist if you believe in keeping religion and state separate.

If you believe that the government has a right to ban prayer in school, the Ten Commandments, or the display of religious symbols anytime anywhere then you believe in Communist propaganda.

"In the USSR, the church is separated from the state." - Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In Article 52

Our laws clearly block any effort to name a preference for one religion or another from our legal language to our court rulings and our treatment of individual citizens.

This is simply not true. The plain language of the amendment says no such thing and the Founders intended otherwise when they wrote it. You may disregard the intent of the Founders but I do not. Many Supreme Court rulings affirmed that this is indeed a Christian Nation. Only when an anti-Catholic KKK member got on the Supreme Court was the interpretation of the establishment clause changed to the bolshevik principle and the government became hostile to Christianity. Conservatives will continue to work to undo this evil usurpation of power by the courts, making the government into an enemy of religion which prefers those who profess no religion at all, exactly the tyranny the founders feared.

The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects [denominations] and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government. - Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

Your ad hominem attacks against evangelical Christians reveal the real source of your concern. You don't like certain kinds of Christians so you want to keep them out of power.

Most of them do not have multi-million dollar TV broadcasts from which to exhort their virtual "congregations" to abandon the Constitution, while raking in millions and millions of dollars from the weak and defenseless who think they are helping to secure their own salvation and peace of mind through donations.

Do you have some kind of problem with free enterprise, because it sure sounds like you do. I know you certainly have a low opinion of the intelligence of the Christian Right. Could it be they are not as stupid as you think they are?

You fail to understand that even if Robertson and Falwell are con-men, that doesn't prove their argument wrong. You have to try and prove them wrong using evidence, something you have failed to do. I have presented plenty of evidence to support my own case, none of which you have impugned.

Fear. Without a doubt it is fear.

A healthy fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Establishing Christianity retroactively and proactively in our government is deemed to be a simple solution to all of our problems.

Once again, you falsely describe our position. Please speak only for yourself. We do not seek to make something America never was, nor do any new laws need to be written, only unconstitutional commie rulings by KKK judges need to be overturned. Conservatives are going to take our country back, by hook or by crook, and you are either with us, or you're with the ACLU.

[tpaine]

Joe contradicts himself again:

We do not seek to make something "America never was, nor do any new laws need to be written, only unconstitutional commie rulings by KKK judges need to be overturned."

"Conservatives are going to take our country back, by hook or by crook, and you are either with us, or you're with the ACLU."

-- "America never was", and isn't now a nation with a government "hostile to Christianity."

Nor do any new laws need to be written, or decisions overturned to restrain "unconstitutional commie rulings by KKK judges", seeing that no such "hostile" rulings have ever been made.

You admit that you are "going to take our country back, by hook or by crook". -- Back to what? Colonial theocracy? Using crooked methods?

You say we ~must~ be "either with us," or "with the ACLU". -- Not much choice, but if necessary, I would certainly choose liberty over working with zealots using crooked methods.

[Tailgunner Joe]

You stand with the KKK, ACLU and CPUSA against religious freedom. You are an anti-Christian zealot and the fervor of your dementia has led you to align yourselves with the enemies of freedom in an assault on America's laws, freedom, and heritage.

We are going to turn America back to what it was before evil Democrat vermin turned our laws upside down to autocratically forbid prayers and the display of religious symbols. We will rout the enemies of freedom from the positions of authority they currently have been given by people like you who hate religion more than you love freedom.

[risk]

"In the USSR, the church is separated from the state."

TGJ, personal property ownership and even the right to inherit property was protected by Article 10. Are you against that, too? The union of Soviet Republics was voluntary, as well. Are you against that? Let me guess: those idealistic notions of freedom don't bother you. But the most important contribution of our Founding Fathers to freedom of religion does. Those communists, the Founding Fathers! You would have sent them to Siberia, if our revolution had occurred in Russia, and you had been their contemporary.

Please speak only for yourself.

What do you think religious freedom is, TGJ? It has nothing to do with your own religious views. If it did, the whole concept would break down if you disagreed with me.

Religious freedom begins with an absolute and total protection for every citizen against official religious establishment. The state is prevented from inferring that any given religion is superior to any other. If it could do that, it would leave some citizens less well represented by government than others. The USSR did not uphold this value because it discriminated against Christians and Jews on the basis of their religious beliefs. It also enforced atheism in the classroom and in the public arena.

That is precisely what your camp tries to do with every effort, every ounce of its energy. But since you call it Christianity, you believe you are right. I don't recognize any real Christian values in that position. I do recognize the Christian analog to Shari'a in your comments, though.

I stand with other Americans for true religious freedom in this country, not the faux version your camp espouses for its financial and political gain. You're going to have to work overtime to persuade the rest of the country to agree with your camp's position. It doesn't look like it's working. Furthermore, President Bush himself believes in the separation of Church and State.

So for now, religious freedom in this country is protected. We're safe -- for the time being, from the threat your camp poses to our freedom.

[risk]

"America never was", and isn't now a nation with a government "hostile to Christianity."

I think there are times when the ACLU persuades the government to go too far in demonstrating that it's not an establishment of Christianity. Furthermore, the ACLU appears to be trying to change our culture with some of its cases. I've mentioned the Cima Road cross case in the Mojave desert. We'd be in serious trouble if we only could only choose the ACLU or Coral Ridge Ministries to inform us of our civil rights.

[Tailgunner Joe]

The USSR did not uphold this value because it discriminated against Christians and Jews on the basis of their religious beliefs. It also enforced atheism in the classroom and in the public arena.

This is exactly what you "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" do to America. I believe in the Founders interpretation of Separation, not the bolshevik interpretation your faction has used to forcibly ban prayer and remove religious symbols from public property, something the Founders would have been horrified by and fought to the death to prevent.

I do recognize the Christian analog to Shari'a in your comments, though.

Christian Right = Taliban. Are you Julian Bond? Honestly you guys make it so easy.

---

from your link:

And yet our governments have, frankly, discriminated against faith-based programs. It's the truth. How does it happen that way? Well, oftentimes a faith-based program that applies for federal government says, I want to help; and they say, fine, you can help, but take the cross down from the wall, take off the Star of David, take down the crescent. And my answer to that is, how can you be a faith-based program if you can't practice your faith? It seems to be a contradiction in terms.

The problem is, faith-based programs only conform to one set of rules, and it's bigger than government rules. (Applause.)

See, the debate in Washington oftentimes is, well, the church will become the state, or the state will become the church. To me, that's never going to happen, and we won't let it happen.

We want to fund programs that save Americans, one soul at a time. (Applause.)

In other words, we're changing a culture. And it takes a lot of work.

And it's just the beginning of a lot of change.

Our government must understand America is a hopeful and optimistic place, particularly when we apply the great strength of our country, which is the love of our citizens, to changing America one heart, one soul, one conscience at a time.

[tpaine]

-- "America never was", and isn't now a nation with a government "hostile to Christianity."
Nor do any new laws need to be written, or decisions overturned to restrain "unconstitutional commie rulings by KKK judges", seeing that no such "hostile" rulings have ever been made.

You admit that you are "going to take our country back, by hook or by crook". -- Back to what? Colonial theocracy? Using crooked methods?
You say we ~must~ be "either with us," or "with the ACLU". -- Not much choice, but if necessary, I would certainly choose liberty over working with zealots using crooked methods.

You stand with the KKK, ACLU and CPUSA against religious freedom.

Thats simply unsupported rhrtorical bull, and you know it, joe. You've shown that you have no honor.

You are an anti-Christian zealot and the fervor of your dementia has led you to align yourselves with the enemies of freedom in an assault on America's laws, freedom, and heritage.

Rant on, - please. -- Eventually you will use that personal attack crapolla on the wrong person here, and get suspended.

We are going to turn America back to what it was before evil Democrat vermin turned our laws upside down to autocratically forbid prayers and the display of religious symbols. We will rout the enemies of freedom from the positions of authority they currently have been given by people like you who hate religion more than you love freedom.

You cannot support your personal BS about 'hating religion'. Give it a rest, or take it to the backroom.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Eventually you will use that personal attack crapolla on the wrong person here, and get suspended.

That's obviously not you.

I only make personal attacks on lefties or people who have personally attacked me first. which are you?

[tpaine]

America never was", and isn't now a nation with a government "hostile to Christianity.

I think there are times when the ACLU persuades the government to go too far in demonstrating that it's not an establishment of Christianity.

You'll get no argument from me on that.

Furthermore, the ACLU appears to be trying to change our culture with some of its cases. I've mentioned the Cima Road cross case in the Mojave desert. We'd be in serious trouble if we only could only choose the ACLU or Coral Ridge Ministries to inform us of our civil rights.

We agree. The overzealous of both right & left are enemies of freedom, in my book.

[tpaine]

Eventually you will use that personal attack crapolla on the wrong person here, and get suspended.

That's obviously not you.

I've pretty well learned my lesson joe, and haven't been suspended for quite a while now.
You've claimed I personally attacked you first. -- Can you support that claim?

[risk]

TGJ, you're like all other statists. You seek your security and confidence through the power of the government, which you hope and pray will uphold your vision for utopia. You would impose your faith on every American, forcing Hindus, Muslims, pantheists, animists, agnostics, and atheists to accept a government that ruled not by representation, but by dictation from the Bible. I'm happy to say that you have very little support for your faithless ideology. But since this is so near and dear to your simple heart, can you summarize in 7-8 sentences what Christian nationalism means to you personally? What will you get out of forcing non-Christians and Christians who disagree with your theology to bow down and obey laws based on mere rote, without reason and persuation, and without representation?

[risk]

I don't know about you, but Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere comes to mind right about now. If these people cared about the rights of man, they would at least be curious about what why we are concerned.

We're talking to programmed machines who can't think beyond their Christian nationalist script.

As it stands, I don't really care what they think. But they are not going to seize our right to a religiously impartial government so easily as they might think.

[Tailgunner Joe]

What will you get out of forcing non-Christians and Christians who disagree with your theology to bow down and obey laws based on mere rote, without reason and persuation, and without representation?

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship." - Patrick Henry

I agree with Patrick Henry that religious freedom is a consequence of this nation's Christian character.

You have a low opinion of Christians and their level of intelligence and ability to make decisions for themselves, so it's only natural that you believe that a Christian Nation would be a bad thing, but it's not.

[risk]

Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution. Furthermore, the origins of the quote you cite are in dispute. Even if Henry did say them, he ends by saying that other faiths find assylum here, mirroring what I have been arguing: the state has no purpose in upholding one of those faiths or the other.

I think most interesting is that Henry's voice called out for the defeat of our Constitution. And on a related note, your arguments all hinge on quotes, comments, and assertions about the founding fathers and their biographers, but in no way shape or form the Constitution itself. These arguments raged then, and for good reason, your camp lost.

Henry advocated a bill in the Commonwealth of Virginia which would have established tax-supported churches. James Madison, author of our Constitution's first amendment, successfully defeated Henry's proposal, and instead lobbied for a bill forbidding such conduct on the part of the state. At one point, Madison proposed:

We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority. --Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785

So we were having this argument to one degree or another back at the founding of our country and our states. Your camp lost then, too. While Madison's bill failed to pass, Henry's also lost. And no Virginia church tax was adopted based on Henry's proposal! Thomas Jefferson authored a religious freedom bill which finally did pass the next year, and had no support for church taxes and no establishment of Christianity for the state of Virginia.

This is one area where I differ with the Bush administration: the faith based ministries, in order to maintain their respect for separation of church and state (their words), all faiths are purportedly supported. That means our tax dollars are going to Mosques. The Bush administration is clearly appeasing the Christian nationalists. This program may eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court, and I hope that it is. I would like to be free to choose where my own dollars do the most good, or not, depending on what I can afford. I'd rather not pay taxes for the support of mosques.

President Bush and his cabinet would benefit from reading Madison's comments. But at least they recognize the phrase "separation of church and state," unlike your revolutionary and revisionist camp. I quote georgewbush.com: And so the faith-based initiative that I've launched recognizes the need there be separation of church and state -- the state should never be the church, and the church certainly should never be the state. But the state should never fear the good works of the church.

I look at this proposal as a humane, intelligent, and hopeful one. I happen to disagree with it, but it in no way attempts to establish Christianity as our state religion. I'm grateful to our president for at least trying to find a reasonable path between the ACLU and the John Birch Society. They should be applauded for that, not ridiculed.

Finally, your arguments devolve into quotes that may have not been uttered, text from outside the Constitution, and tired ideas rehashed from the JBS and other anti-communist groups that were convenience crutches for fighting the atheist underpinnings of Marx's theories. But they abandon our most important principle of religious freedom: if the state attempts to establish a given religion, a new form of tyranny occurs.

But you stay with the JBS's formula. I don't think you're willing to go beyond it. In any case, the Supreme Court is on my side. The President is on my side. The founding fathers are on my side. And many sincere Christians are on my side. I have no idea how sincere you are. From your comments here, I have my doubts. You're more interested in a state religion than in a personal religion. I think Christ had serious trouble with Israel's Pharisees, driving them out of the public temple where they were making a mockery of God with their money changing and incessant doctrinal babbling.

Aren't you a faithless Pharisee who is more interested in dead politics than men's spiritual souls? How can we trust your devotion, in fact outright worship of the state as an icon for your God? Oh I'm sure you will continue to minister to the televangelist faithful, but many Americas won't succumb to the false claims they and their TV huckster evangelists sell us.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Thomas Jefferson authored a religious freedom bill which finally did pass the next year, and had no support for church taxes and no establishment of Christianity for the state of Virginia.

Other states had established churches. Can you explain why these did not violate the Constitution if your and the ACLU's interpretation of separation is correct? Under our Federalist system, Virginia was allowed to go its own way and have no establishment, while other states did have establishments. This was exactly the purpose of the First Amendment.

Justice Thomas on Elk Grove v Newdow - Quite simply, the Establishment Clause is best understood as a federalism provision--it protects state establishments from federal interference but does not protect any individual right.

Moreover, incorporation of this putative individual right leads to a peculiar outcome: It would prohibit precisely what the Establishment Clause was intended to protect--state establishments of religion.

(noting that "the Fourteenth Amendment has somehow absorbed the Establishment Clause, although it is not without irony that a constitutional provision evidently designed to leave the States free to go their own way should now have become a restriction upon their autonomy")

the faith based ministries, in order to maintain their respect for separation of church and state (their words), all faiths are purportedly supported. That means our tax dollars are going to Mosques. The Bush administration is clearly appeasing the Christian nationalists. This program may eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court, and I hope that it is.

I guess you finally realized how silly it was of you to cite the President's faith-based initiatives as proof that he believes in the separation of religion from the state.

You are now "affirming the consequent" of your own assertions. If no preference for any one religion is allowed then all religions must be represented.

If we used the definition of Separation as understood by the Founders, there would be no requirement to represent all faiths equally. Your problem is that you are an equal opportunity hater. You think it's just as wrong to give money to Christian initiatives as to the Muslims.

I hope you will still vote for President Bush now that I have alerted you to the dire threat of his "appeasement" of his base, the Christian Right.

In any case, the Supreme Court is on my side. The President is on my side. The founding fathers are on my side.

the ACLU is on your side. The KKK is on your side. CPUSA is on your side. marxists.org is on your side. The Supreme Court is on your side (the leftist majority anyway). But the President and the Founders are on my side. The President will put more people on the Supreme Court like Justice Rehnquist, who ruled:

During the ratification debate in the Virginia Convention, Madison had actually opposed the idea of any Bill of Rights. His sponsorship of the Amendments in the House was obviously not that of a zealous believer in the necessity of the Religion Clauses, but of one who felt it might do some good, could do no harm, and would satisfy those who had ratified the Constitution on the condition that Congress propose a Bill of Rights.(3) His original language "nor shall any national religion be established" obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language--"that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk. When he replied to Huntington in the debate over the proposal which came from the Select Committee of the House, he urged that the language "no religion shall be established by law" should be amended by inserting the word "national" in front of the word "religion."

It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion. Thus the Court's opinion in Everson--while correct in bracketing Madison and Jefferson together in their exertions in their home State leading to the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty--is totally incorrect in suggesting that Madison carried these views onto the floor of the United States House of Representatives when he proposed the language which would ultimately become the Bill of Rights.

None of the other Members of Congress who spoke during the August 15th debate expressed the slightest indication that they thought the language before them from the Select Committee, or the evil to be aimed at, would require that the Government be absolutely neutral as between religion and irreligion. The evil to be aimed at, so far as those who spoke who concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a national church, and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over another; but it was definitely not concerned about whether the Government might aid all religions evenhandedly.

The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson.

The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

You see, the legal groundwork to overturn your mistaken interpretation of the Constitution has already been laid by conservatives on the court. The leftist Orwellian definition of freedom which allows unelected bigoted judges ban school prayer and forcibly remove the Ten Commandments from public property will soon be a closed chapter in our history, a sad memory of a time like the times of slavery, when the people allowed "judges" the right to substitute their own prejudices against certain groups for Constitutional freedom under God.

[risk]

I guess you finally realized how silly it was of you to cite the President's faith-based initiatives as proof that he believes in the separation of religion from the state.

You're saying the President is lying? I say he is telling the truth: he says he believes he supports the separation of church and state, and evidence suggests that he does. The Faith Based Ministries program does not name a particular faith as a preferred religion. That would be unconstitutional, and the President knows that. He said so himself. Either he is lying or you misrepresenting him. I happen to trust him.

I know it's difficult for you to stay on topic. Let's try, shall we? We are discussing the issue of whether or not our government officially expresses your preference for the Christian religion. More specifically, we're discussing the issue of whether or not it should, and why. The Founding Fathers left it out of the Constitution. They had their reasons.

Would you be willing to amend the Constitution in order to realize your Christian nationalist ideas? There are movements afoot to do that. I have more respect for them than I do your revisionist hype.

Why don't you spend a little time reading Dennis Woods's website ismellarat.com about Patrick Henry's opposition to the Constitution and why the Constitution were flawed.

Patrick Henry: I smell a rat!

Patrick Henry was saying in effect, "Those communists, the Founding Fathers!"

Then ask the good, Christian American people to amend their Constitution supporting your views. I'll oppose you. Millions of other American Christians will oppose you. Millions of non-Christian Americans will oppose you. Why? Audemus jura nostra defendere. So good luck!

[Tailgunner Joe]

You're saying the President is lying?

I'm saying he has a different definition of Separation than you do, as your differing positions on faith-based initiatives illustrates.

"Those communists, the Founding Fathers!"

Commies, They were Not! - The word revolution, in its old sense, was "a round of periodic or recurrent changes or events – that is, the process of coming full cycle, or the act of rolling back or moving back, a return to a point previously occupied." (2)

Jefferson suggested in 1776, "Is it not better now that we return at once unto that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man?"

He understood what a revolution was. He was referring to returning to the government of the ancient Anglo-Saxons of the fourth century A.D. and beyond, to the ancient Israelites and their system of judges.

As Edmund Burke noted about this "true revolution," the Founders built a more glorious structure upon the ancient traditions of English law.

Do you think that "under God" should be removed from the pledge of allegiance?

[risk]

I'm saying he has a different definition of Separation than you do, as your differing positions on faith-based initiatives illustrates.

Did I say that I opposed the Faith Based ministries on the basis of our constitutional separation of church and state? No. I said that I didn't want to support mosques with it. Call me insensitive, but I think it will require our already busy Homeland Security LEOs to work overtime trying to figure out which mosque is safe and which ones aren't. Besides, I'm not interested in encouraging Islam here in America. I don't think it should be banned outright, but it should come under intense scrutiny; I think the President agrees, and I support his Religion of Peace language because it helps us appeal to millions of muslims who can and would like to help us. But all of this is separate, in my mind, from the first amendment. It's more of a taxation without representation issue. I don't like that my tax dollars are going to support organizations that I might not agree with. I do think the program offers this country benefits. Isn't it OK to be ambivalent about it?

Do you think that "under God" should be removed from the pledge of allegiance?

No, and I think this is just one of the dozens and dozens of issues the ACLU and its weak-kneed apologists are working overtime for political correctness. I know of no classroom in America where children are forced to speak those words. It's all a sham perpetrated by the overly sensitive, wishing to modify our laws so that their narrow views of culture should be imposed on the rest of us. I oppose all attempts to use our laws to reshape the predominate culture, including the misguided same-sex "marriage" initiative and speech limits on people who speak their minds about morality on college campuses and so forth.

Freedom needs our defense every day. There is no formula for ensuring its security. There is no law that can enforce its health. It lives inside each of us, and we all have to protect it with our own actions. When the love of freedom diminishes, and when we begin to value our lives more than our liberty, the darkness will soon come. But there is no law on earth that can protect us from ourselves.