Judeo-Christianity and the Constitution

nationalledger.com ^ | Aug 15, 2006 | Thomas E. Brewton

[Tailgunner Joe]

In 1639 representatives from the Puritan towns of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield in the Connecticut River Valley assembled in Hartford to create the world’s first written constitution that established a functioning government. It was the progenitor of the Constitution of the United States.

Students are not told anything about this aspect of our history. Instead they are taught that Puritanism was a theocratic, and therefore wholly repressive and undemocratic, mode of society. Thus, in the left-wing liberal construction, to form the United States, Americans had to reject Judeo-Christianity and the Puritanism on which New England was founded.

What progressive historians such as Charles A. Beard and Vernon L. Parrington have taught since the early 1900s is that the true spirit of American history is rooted in the 1789 French Revolution, which suppressed Christianity and turned France toward the atheistic materialism of socialism. Students are taught, by implication if not directly, that the French Revolution’s stirring motto, “Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood,” expresses the true nature of American democracy.

Students are taught that the Declaration of Independence was a hypocritical document, because Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal (this is a deliberate misrepresentation, as Jefferson was speaking not of slavery but of the estate of mankind under God). Students are taught that the French Revolution’s Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen expresses the true aspiration of American democracy, which in liberals’ view ought to be the French-style socialistic welfare-state.

Such falsifications are the ideological basis upon which the mythology of our present-day left-wing liberalism rests.

The truth is starkly different.

Bancroft Prize-winning historian Clinton Rossiter, who described himself as a centrist, somewhere between labor union radicals and the late Senator Barry Goldwater, wrote in “The First American Revolution”:

“Finally, it must never be forgotten, especially in an age of upheaval and disillusionment, that American democracy rests squarely on the assumption of a pious, honest, self-disciplined, moral people. … Whatever doubts may exist about the sources of this democracy, there can be none about the chief source of the morality that gives it life and substance. From Puritanism, from the way of life that exalted individual responsibility, came those homely rules of everyday conduct – or, if we must, those rationalizations of worldly success – that have molded the American mind into its unique shape. … The men of 1776 believed that the good state would rise on the rock of private and public morality, that morality was in the case of most men and all states the product of religion, and that the earthly mission of religion was to set men free.”

Nowhere was this better exemplified than in the Connecticut River Valley in 1639.

Puritanism was indeed exclusionary in the sense that the settlers of the Plymouth and Boston colonies had come to these shores to establish Christian communities that conformed as nearly as possible to the pious and moral life prescribed by the Bible. Excluding individuals who rejected Bible-based Christianity was the settlers’ right, because they had purchased the king’s colonial charters with their own money and had endured great suffering and death to establish their new homes.

For many decades this had no practical effect of excluding individuals from church membership and civil government, because with very few exceptions everyone was of like mind.

Nonetheless, groups who differed about specific Christian doctrinal matters continually arose within older congregations and left to form new church communities. In this manner, led by their minister Thomas Hooker, dissidents in the Newtown, Massachusetts, congregation went to the Connecticut River valley in 1636 and over the next few years settled the Puritan communities of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield.

Because their existence was threatened both by hostile Indians, and by Dutch settlers from the Hudson valley to the west, they sought mutual protection. A General Court was established at Hartford. It opened with a sermon by minister Thomas Hooker who asserted among other things that:

“.... the foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people.... that the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God’s own allowance.... [and that] they have power to appoint officers, and magistrates have the right also to set bounds and limitations of the power and place unto which they call them.”

These ideas of representative democracy were incorporated in the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut adopted in 1639, the first written constitution in history to establish a continuing civil government.

As historian John Fiske expressed it in “The Beginnings of New England”:

“The government of the United States today is in lineal descent more nearly related to that of [Puritan] Connecticut than to that of any of the other thirteen colonies. The most noteworthy feature of the Connecticut republic was that it was a federation of independent towns, and that all attributions of sovereignty not expressly granted to the General Court remained, as of original right, in the towns. Moreover, while the governor and council were chosen by a majority vote of the whole people, and by a suffrage that was almost universal, there was for each township an equality of representation in the assembly.”

That constitution continued as the basis for the government of State of Connecticut until 1818. Because of our socialistic educational doctrines, very very few people today know that its adoption is the reason Connecticut is known as the Constitution State. Nor do they know that Puritanism was the source of our earliest institutions of representative democracy.

[x]

Barry Shain has made a similar point in his book, "The Myth of American Individualism" (more here). He says religion, rather than Lockean individualism or classical republicanism was the main influence on popular thinking in the Revolutionary era.

One thing that makes generalization different is that then, as now, the way that political leaders and intellectuals expressed themselves didn't always coincide with what ordinary people said. If you were brought up in a deferential Anglican culture, and suddenly found yourself fighting the monarchy that your tradition demanded that you cherish and obey, it could lead your thinking into some very new avenues. The same is true of more Calvinist and Puritan colonists who weren't so well disposed towards the king to begin with.

[hellbender]

I don't think the post advocates "Puritanism" as the denomination which should hold a dominant position, nor did your original post oppose "Puritanism." Instead, you used a code phrase often used by anti-Christians on FR. Now you have made clearer your attitude in this second post, which veers completely away from a simple rejection of "Puritanism" to spread more thinly veiled, very unoriginal slurs and negative stereotypes about Christianity, such as the wealthy TV evangelist, the multiplicity of denominations, etc. (I know of no "Puritan" televangelists, nor have I seen any buildings labelled "Puritan Church of New York" or the like). I'm not fooled that you were speaking against Puritanism. And no, I don't belong to any "denomination" myself, nor does any pastor tell me what to think or do. I'm just fed up with sneaky slurs against Christianity on FR. Without Christianity, the U.S. as we know it would never have appeared. All but a tiny handful of the Founders were Christians of various "denominations." Their differences did not keep them from realizing that this Republic would not last if Judeo-Christian morality died out among the population--a belief they often expressed. That, not advocacy of Puritanism, was the point of the post which began this thread. As for Jews, they were in high esteem, especially among Protestants. They were known to have been an integral part of Western culture for centuries. The Old Testament was a Jewish book, and the founders knew that. However, the idea that this country would become a haven for Muslims, atheists, witches, and other "denominations" would have appalled the founders. Many of the colonies were founded to provide freedom FOR Christians. None were founded to provide freedom FROM Christians, which is what is demanded by the ACLU, by atheist libertarians, and others who hate this country's roots.

[truth_seeker]

"Many of the colonies were founded to provide freedom FOR Christians. None were founded to provide freedom FROM Christians, which is what is demanded by the ACLU, by atheist libertarians, and others who hate this country's roots."

Apparently Maryland WAS founded to protect English Catholics, from the other pious, self-righteous brands of Christianity then extant in the faire colonies.

If our founders wanted to advance Christianity and the Bible, why did they NOT use those two words in our founding documents?

Do you get the difference between civil law, and religious law?

In America, there is a difference. In islamic belief, there should be no difference. Since you are the one to bring up islam.

Or would you have some particular Christian interpretation of religious law, be the state laws, too?

For example, does Christianity and the Bible advocate capital punishment? Apparently whatever it does, our states vary as to what they will impose as civil laws.

But you may argue, one particular version is the only RIGHT, CORRECT interpretation. And you will find big, powerful Christian denominations, to support both positions.

In the US today, civil law trumps religious law (whatever interpretation you personally think is the ONLY RIGHT, CORRECT one).

Some of my ancestors:
Rev. Hatevil Nutter
http://www.dover.lib.nh.us/DoverHistory/whippingofthequakerwomen.htm

Rev. Joseph Hull
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~sam/jhull.html

Governor Theophilus Eaton
http://www.famousamericans.net/theophiluseaton/

I don't mention these individuals, to impress you with my lineage, rather to reflect that religious differences and controversy have been present from the beginning.

Americans have never been of only one mind, religiously. That fact was taken into account, in the founding.

[Raycpa]

The Mayflower Compact

Mayflower Compact

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."


http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/mayflower.htm

[Raycpa]

Showing that Christian's may disagree in application doesn't make the case the bible isn't the best source for moral laws. It is just a case that people disagree, a case that can be made about anything.

Using your objection, because liberals and conservative disagree about the meaning of the constitution it is therefore an illegitimate source.

Using your objection of "having something shoved down your throat", then the Supreme Court rulings provide the same effect.

Your objections sound great but they can be applied to any source whether religious in nature or not and therefore are not useful objections.

[truth_seeker]

"Showing that Christian's may disagree in application doesn't make the case the bible isn't the best source for moral laws."

I think it is the best source, too.

Problem is, it can be interpreted different ways.

Liberals will point out verses which would support that Christ was a socialist or communist, share and share alike.

On capital punishment, is it an eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek?

I am not sure how useful the Bible is, to resolve these differences.

Another example. Right now, we are hearing about "just war" and "proportionality" from folks who draw their basis from religion. Apparently Catholicism has rules on warfare.

But I don't buy that. I don't want to have the Vatican tell me how I can be defended, against savages, such as we face these days.

[A. Pole]

Bump

[xzins]

I thought calvinists would like this article. (Seriously...read it.)

[the invisib1e hand]

kinda makes me glad I didn't pay attention in school.

[itsahoot]

However, the idea that this country would become a haven for Muslims, atheists, witches, and other "denominations" would have appalled the founders. Many of the colonies were founded to provide freedom FOR Christians. None were founded to provide freedom FROM Christians, which is what is demanded by the ACLU, by atheist libertarians, and others who hate this country's roots.

Worth repeating

Bump

[GoLightly]

Hatevil Nutter's daughter, Mary married John Wingate. I have only names, no dates. Rev Joseph Hull's sister Elizabeth married Samuel Gaylord, that much was on the link you posted. He's the the GGSon of Hugh, who's included in "Register of Qualified Huguenot Ancestors, fourth edition 1995;"

My ancestors are among the founding families of Plymouth, Nantucket & Andover, MA; Hampton & Gorham, NH; Falmouth & Blue Hill, ME. The list is a lot longer, but I think you get the drift. One of my ancestors was involved in hiding Connecticut's Royal Charter in a tree. If you know the colony's history, you could probably make a good guess as to who he was.

Of my Plymouth ancestors, one a "saint", one a "stranger". Andover, one was hanged as a witch & his wife was jailed. Nantucket, offered safe haven to Quakers. Benjamin Franklin's grandparents were among the first families to settle there. Hampton, my earliest ancestor was a "controversial" preacher. Gorham, Falmouth & Blue Hill... Just simple folk, knew how to vote with their feet...

Seems to me you have more in common w/ the ancestors you've shared w/ us than you may realize. You feel that controlling the behavior of your fellow citizens is an appropriate role of government, no less than your ancestors did. Lemme show you & maybe it will open your eyes. "And if I revolt from that, the civil laws protect my right to go about my business, free from further harrassment from you and the preacher."

You ignored my previous post to you in this thread. Why?

[itsahoot]

Americans have never been of only one mind, religiously.

Which of the founding religions, with the exception of course of the Jewish, denied the divinity of Christ? For that matter which of your lineage did?

The enterpretation of plain English only comes into question when one diagrees with the plain understanding, it is what lawyers live for.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

The Vatican can suggest anything they want. Citizens can follow the advice or not, their choice. You can't, however, insist that they not use certain sources as their moral guide. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions. We vote and resolve which idea wins. Whether the Bible is or is not a good source and how it is interpreted is up to each citizen to decide. The government cannot stand in the way of a voter's convictions, mandating his sources.

[truth_seeker]

"People could move to places more attuned to their personal beliefs."

Didn't ignore it. I mostly don't get caught up in arguments on FR. This time I did, somewhat.

As to your later post, quoting my comment--

I'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of our legal and religious heretige. I believe it was intended that our civil laws aimed from the outset to avoid a particular religious interpretation being lorded over us.

ps. I also have early ancestors at Falmouth, ME. I'll spare the genealogy, but to say they were from the early Ulster-Irish that first landed Boston 1718, then Londonderry & Nutfield, then Falmouth, ME, then Granville, Nova Scotia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry,_New_Hampshire

Those settlers were Presbyterians. I read that town council meetings decided early on allowing multiple religious denominations at Falmouth. I think in Canada they became Baptists, because they named children after prominent preachers of that time and place.

Mine went to Canada (about 1756) at the invite of the Crown, as what were then called "Planters." Later moving to New Brunswick, they next went to Minnesota in 1856, and Califonia in 1928. (Another line, from NH went to California for the Gold Rush).

[GoLightly]

Absence of religion is being "lorded" over us, which was never part of any of our FF's goals. The kinds of communities our ancestors lived in are no longer "allowed", due to judicial fiat. Now, as to your Falmouth Ulster Irish. Any of them Cunningham's? My Cunningham line has given me fits. The earliest one I know was in Sedgwick, born circa 1780.

My Falmouth ancestors were among those slaughtered 9 Sep, 1675.

[Jacquerie]

For the time being, we are a republic. Period.

[hellbender]

Maryland was not founded to protect Catholics from "other pious, self-righteous brands of Christianity then extant in the faire colonies." It was founded to give them refuge from the established Church of England, which was founded largely to gratify the lusts of Henry VIII, and was tightly linked to the British civil (royal) authority. In effect, the King was the Pope of that church. Massachusetts was also founded to give refuge to Puritans, and Pennsylvania by the Quakers, who were also persecuted by the established, politicized Church of England. Because of centuries of history of religious warfare, the Founders did not want any national established church in the U.S. However, the Bill of Rights specifically prevented Congress from disestablishing the established churches which then existed in some New England states. Anyway, there are now no established churches in the U.S., so it's hard to see how anyone could "force his brand of religion down your throat." If you want to gripe about that issue, you should go to Saudi Arabia, or almost any Islamic country, where Christians face death every day. No one takes that risk in the U.S.

The Founders felt no need to "promote" Christianity and the Bible, because both were almost universally respected in the colonies at that time. It was taken for granted. Nevertheless, many Founders feared that the Republic would not survive if the population ceased to follow Biblical morality, and spoke and wrote to that effect. As I have already said, there were hardly any professing atheists, Muslims, and the like subverting our culture at that time. There were only a handful of Jews, who shared much of the Bible with Christians anyway.

[Frumanchu]

Students are not told anything about this aspect of our history. Instead they are taught that Puritanism was a theocratic, and therefore wholly repressive and undemocratic, mode of society.

Even less known is the fact that at the very same time the Constitutional Convention was meeting in Philadelphia, there was a Presbyterian convention across town where they were formally revising the Westminster Confession to remove some of the language pertaining to government so that the Presbyterian Church wouldn't have a confessional crisis with the new pluralistic government:

"This ecclesiastical battle paralleled an analogous and simultaneous battle in politics: the war between those who held to a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution vs. those who barely believed in the Constitution. These parallel institutional battles--covenantal battles--began at the same time and in the same place: in May of 1787, in the city of Philadelphia, where the Presbyterian Synod and the Constitutional Convention met separately to draw up a pair of anti-theocratic constitutions. In the Church, the debate was over Confessional subscription; in politics, it was over Constitutional construction. Jeffersonians were strict constructionists; Hamiltonians were loose constructionists. The country was more with Jefferson than Hamilton in 1787. To get the Constitution ratified, the pro-Constitution politicians had to promise a Bill of Rights. - Gary North, Crossed Fingers

Confessional Calvinism WAS theocratic to an extent, and the above represented the very first step in what ended in the complete takeover of the Presbyterian Church by theological liberal modernists. It stands as an ominous example of how seemingly small concessions and compromises can ultimately lead to terrible things.

[Jack Black]

For the time being, we are a republic. Period.

Funny thing that states where I have lived in the last 20 years have passed laws via direct vote of the people, as well as ammended the Constitution via direct vote of the people to:
Limit Property Taxes
Legalize Marijuana
Create 3 strikes for repeat offenders
Reduce price of car registrations
Permit Indian gambline
Prohibit non-Indian gambling
Increase penalties for child molesters
Limit property taxes
Support property rights vs. zoning
create a fund to pay for stem cell research
and many others..

So at least in California, Oregon and Washington to say: we are a Republic, period. is kind of wishful thinking.

[Jacquerie]

Things started downhill with the 17th Amendment. The Senate is now composed of grandstanding, pompous, three term congressmen, subject to all the passing feelings of the mob. The previous balance between the people and the merchants, businessmen, and large landholders was destroyed. The mob, through their senators/congressmen will eventually ruin our republic at which time we'll likely find a dictator.

Florida has an abominable referenda process too. Democracy in action.

Still, at the federal level we are, just barely perhaps, a republic.