It would be in the same context that it was historically... Such as Washington's Thanksgiving Day proclamation, the court room from 1800 that I referenced in an earlier post, and so forth.
Liberals have been hell bent on removing all vestiges of God, the Bible and Christianity from public life and now apparently evo's are trying to remove/separate God and Christianity from conservatism (which is impossible given history).
Yes...The Constitution protects against a federal establishment of a denomination. And yes...This was also the mindset of the founders.
But...Obviously, given history, the lawful protection against federal denominationalism, did not prevent/cease the adherence to, and communication of, God, the Bible and Christian principles...Not even in public schools (gasp! the Bible was formerly used in public schools).
In fact, a great case can be made, via historical primary source documentation, that denominationless Christianity has been imposed.
And given our country's great Christian heritage, it is quite laughable to have evo's claiming that adherence to God The Creator is destoying conservatism.
You mean this historical context:
There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms.James Madison to Edward Livingston, 1822
In fact, a great case can be made, via historical primary source documentation, that denominationless Christianity has been imposed.
In spite of the principles and ideals of the authors of the Constitution:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?[...]
[E]xperience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity 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. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict a downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or against their interest?
--James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785WE, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
--Thomas Jefferson, Draft of Bill to Establish Religious Freedom in Virginia, 1779
It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England. To account for this we should remember, that the doctrine of toleration was not then known, or had not prevailed in the world. Persecution was therefore not so much the fault of the sect as of the times. It was not in those days deemed wrong in itself. The general opinion was only, that those who are in error ought not to persecute the truth: But the possessors of truth were in the right to persecute error, in order to destroy it. Thus every sect believing itself possessed of all truth, and that every tenet differing from theirs was error, conceived that when the power was in their hands, persecution was a duty required of them by that God whom they supposed to be offended with heresy. By degrees more moderate and more modest sentiments have taken place in the Christian world; and among Protestants particularly all disclaim persecution, none vindicate it, and few practise it. We should then cease to reproach each other with what was done by our ancestors, but judge of the present character of sects or churches by their present conduct only.
--Benjamin Franklin to the London Packet, 1772