Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America Founded To Be Free Not Secular (Dennis Prager On Americ As A Judeo-Christian Nation Alert)
Townhall.com ^ | 01/03/2007 | Dennis Prager

Posted on 01/02/2007 9:31:20 PM PST by goldstategop

Contrary to what you learned at college, America from its inception has been a religious country, and was designed to be one.

As the greatest foreign observer of America, the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, noted in his "Democracy in America," "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power." Or, as the great British historian Paul Johnson has just written: "In [George] Washington's eyes, at least, America was in no sense a secular state," and "the American Revolution was in essence the political and military expression of a religious movement."

In fact, the Founders regarded America as a Second Israel, in Abraham Lincoln's words, the "Almost Chosen" People. This self-identification was so deep that Thomas Jefferson, today often described as not even a Christian, wanted the seal of the United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt at the splitting of the sea. Just as the Jews left Egypt, Americans left Europe.

There has been a concerted, and successful, attempt over the last generations to depict America as always having been a secular country and many of its Founders as deists, a term misleadingly defined as irreligious people who believed in an impersonal god.

It is also argued that the values that animated the founding of America were the values of the secular Enlightenment, not those of the Bible -- even for most of the Founders who were religious Christians.

This new version of American history reminds me of the old Soviet dissident joke: "In the Soviet Union, the future is known; it's the past that is always changing."

Once almost universally acknowledged to be founded by religious men whose values were grounded in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, the average college graduate is now ignorant of the religious bases of this society, and certain that it was founded to be, and has always been, a secular society that happens to have many individual Christians living in it.

That explains the attempts by activists to erase whatever public vestiges of religiosity remain -- any cross on a county or city seal, the replacement of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays," the Supreme Court's rulings against school prayer even of the most non-denominational type, etc.

This country was founded overwhelmingly by men and women steeped in the Bible. Their moral values emanated from the Bible, and they regarded liberty as possible only if understood as given by God. That is why the Liberty Bell's inscription is from the Old Testament, and why Thomas Jefferson, the allegedly non-religious deist, wrote (as carved into the Jefferson Memorial): "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders were religious people who wanted a religious country that enshrined liberty for all its citizens, including those of different religions and those of no faith. But our educational institutions, especially the universities, are populated almost exclusively by secular individuals and books who seek to cast America's past and present in their image.

Are we a Judeo-Christian country with liberty for people of every, and of no, faith? Or are we a secular country that happens to have within it a large number of individuals who hold Judeo-Christian values?

If you are undecided which side to fight for, perhaps this will help: Western Europe has already become a secular society with secular values. If you think Western Europe is a better place than America and that it has a robust future, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian influence from American life. On the other hand, if you look at Europe and see a continent adrift, with no identity and no strong values beyond economic equality and possessing little capacity to identify evil, let alone a will to fight it, then you need to start fighting against the secularization of America.

Or, if you think that the university, the most secular American institution, is largely a place where wisdom, character and a discerning ability to distinguish between right and wrong prevail, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian values from American life. But if you believe that the university is largely a place of moral foolishness, then you need to start worrying about the secularization of America.

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, its founders' guiding text, we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America's non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: alexisdetoqueville; america; christianheritage; democracyinamerica; dennisprager; europe; foundingfathers; freedom; judeochristian; onenotejohnny; pauljohnson; religion; secularism; townhall
Both by history and providential design, America has been destined to be a Judeo-Christian nation. This country was founded by a religious people and its habits of government and culture reflect this conception. Religion and state where separated but religion and society remained intertwined. America is a religious nation precisely because she is free whereas Europe where people have been compelled to identify with a state church, have given up on religion altogether for a secular outlook that wll probably not survive a generation. As Dennis Prager observes here, if America gives up here Judeo-Christian heritage, she will cease to be America.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

1 posted on 01/02/2007 9:31:27 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; EveningStar; All

ES check this out


2 posted on 01/02/2007 9:32:41 PM PST by SevenofNine ("Step aside Jefe"=Det Lennie Briscoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Hooah!


3 posted on 01/02/2007 9:46:23 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Absolutely it was- The Christian religion is thoroughly infused in all our founding documents and offices- The Supreme court even began their days asking God for guidance and wisdom- Newt Gingrich just had a show on how steeped our nation really is in religion- IF we cease to allow God to guide and bless this nation by kicking Him out- We WILL cease to be a free society that we are today- one that is a unique blessing to all who hope for freedoms and who wish to immigrate here precisely because we are a free Christian Nation that values ALL religions and cultures. Good article http://sacredscoop.com


4 posted on 01/02/2007 9:46:46 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; LiteKeeper; CottShop; All
I recently posted this in another thread and I feel it may be of some value here too:
Quote A.Pole:
Yet the Constitution was created by the British Protestants, not by the Catholics. They were informed by the tradition of Common Law and by such Protestant polities like Congregationalism (which departed from Anglican monarchy). Congregationalism is the very opposite of Roman Catholic style of government. The first is intensely democratic, moralistic and individualistic, the second is authoritative, deeply conscious of human weakness (think about the Sacrament of Confession) and communitarian.
I would go one further: because of the misdeeds of Randy Henry VIII the course of religious liberty in England, Wales and Scotland (but not Ireland for various reasons) took a different way than on the continent. A third way.

In the Catholic south, the struggle was for the State to have some measure of independence from the Church. Thus monarchs sought to expand their secular power as far as they dared. The ultimate expression of this was seen in the tumult of the French Revolution which was largely predicated on the desire to produce a purely secular State where "religious liberty" became something in a private box that people carried around with them.

In the Protestant north the struggle for religious liberty was very different. Even though the kings were ordinary parishioners one day a week––albeit with a really nice private pew––the rest of the week they were the king, and it's good to be the king. This gave rise to the birth of notions that these "Christian nations" were not such because of the Church per se but because of the People in the pews. This notion was skillfully woven into the notions which gave us modern nationalism as well as simpler creeds like volk. In such an environment there was tolerance of difference provided that in the end everyone was a "good" German (or whatever).

Aside: pity the people who weren't proverbial "good Germans" (or whatever).

But because of what Henry did in England the struggle was for the Church to have independence and autonomy from the State. The importance of this difference cannot be stressed enough.

Whereas in the Catholic south there arose a notion that the State should be free of the Church––with the logical inference that it should have some say in moral matters––in England (and especially Scotland) there arose an opposite and yet equal notion that the Church should be free from the State (something the Crown fought long and hard)––again with the logical inference that the People should have something to say about the affairs of the State ... even if they were religiously motivated. At issue is the logical absurdity of the notion of separation of Church AND State: two coexisting institutions with claims for the hearts and loyalties of the People cannot be mutually exclusive. Either the People will be free first and foremost in their duty to the State or they shall be first and foremost free in their duty to God. The French chose the former after we Americans chose the latter; however, either "choice" was predicated by a long history of social and legal development.

As for the contrast between England (but not especially Scotland –.^ ) and the Protestant north: the struggle for an independent Church clearly drew distinctions between Church and State that were blurred on the continent. As a result, I would suggest that English nationalism (and American) differed from the rest because it was not so tightly bound up with the alliance of Crown and Church. Thus before the rise of Social Theory someone could be a "good Englishman" and not necessarily be Christian at all. Indeed, it can clearly seen that nowadays one can be a "good Anglican" in England and be everything but Christian (especially if one is a clergyman).

Thus I would argue that the nature of religious liberty in America is constitutionally different than elsewhere: People are free first and foremost in their consciences towards God (and the State can settle for whatever crumbs remain) but there is a strong inhibition against setting up any specific doctrine or religious truth as a prerequisite for participation in society and its government so that no one is forced away from the table, so to speak.

My two cents.
To this I would add that anyone who looks at the 1st Amendment and is able to accept the text for what it says––rather than be blinded by the accumulated extralegal traditions mistakingly called "jurisprudence"––may well reach the same conclusion I have.

These three clauses and their subclauses were not lumped together simply to avoid repeating the odious phrase "Congress shall make no law" but rather these express different aspects of the same thing, a grand right to a good conscience rather than some incidental list of unrelated privileges.

These are the right to a clear conscience before God (free exercise), before men (free speech and the press), and before man's government (assembly / petition). In the latter cases this right is not absolute but is predicated on acting in good faith––neither perjuries nor riots have ever been protected privileges; however, there is no such consideration to free exercise.

Americans are to be free first and foremost in their duty to the divine as they understand it. The State can have the scraps that remain. Thus I would argue that the only constitutionally protected motivation for Laws would arise from a conscience so informed (provided, of course, that you can muster the political strength either directly or through alliances to see any given matter through).
5 posted on 01/02/2007 10:05:44 PM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

maybe I'm too tired but I'm not really following? I think you're saying that our government was set up with religious ideals to be adhered to first and then good conscience second? If not then I guess I missed what you were getting at- the language you're using is throwing me a bit- too formal


6 posted on 01/02/2007 11:05:04 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; All
No, I was saying that a citizen's conscience before God forms the valid basis for his interactions with men.

The 1st Amendment does not enjoin theocracy or justify someone acting in what I would term a "defiled conscience" by committing perjury or engaging in riots (something the Bible doesn't enjoin anyway); however, it does (or rather it should) empower individuals to work through the political process in order to act upon their most cherished beliefs, whatever those belief may be.

That is why I say that a conscience informed by faith is (or rather should be) a constitutionally valid basis for political action and the enactment of laws. Literally, the People should have something to say about the affairs of the state and that the state doesn't (or should not) have the ability to demand that certain motives are verboten.

In this I'm not too far from even individuals like President Jefferson who deemed the Bible to be too miraculous but nevertheless he also deemed it a worthy addition to the schools––presumably because of the kind of character and conscience it would inform.

Or put another way, the 1st Amendment is about how men interact with each other and their government––an article which implicitly recognizes that the conscience that is employed in that service is a conscience informed by something called "religion."

Or put even another way, if a Person has to act politically in a manner contrary to what they hold to be true in order to be a good citizen or else a good partisan––then they are already acting from a functionally defiled conscience.

Any "legal" theory that requires them to act in such a way is in fact a functional restraint on the free exercise of religion even if it is not respecting the establishment of a given religion.

Now, just to let you know I'm not pie-in-the-sky I do realize that a number of faiths pose severe problems with respect to the ideas enjoined by the 1st Amendment. Notably, both Islam and Scientology actually excuse acting contrary to a good conscience (lying or engaging in unwarranted disputes––either legal or militant) with respect to outsiders if such furthers or protects their respective doctrinal systems.

Also, because of its pretense that it is not theological in its implications, atheism / naturalistic materialism are similarly problematic because proponents have amply demonstrated that they will actively promote their views as the only legally permissible ones––or a basis for laws. If you cannot respect an establishment of religion then neither can you demand the expunging of same without trampling on the exercise of faith of those who have faith.
7 posted on 01/03/2007 12:42:07 PM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

Jefferson only called it 'too miraculous' becasue he was not present to witness the miracles- He did however have witness of thousands of people who wrote about them or were present to go by, but evidently that wasn't enouhg for him- It is however enough for secular philosophers like Humes who have argued that testimony of credible eyewitnesses is enough to validify the events- but some people no matter what happens will always find a way to explain something away rather than see it for what it is.


8 posted on 01/03/2007 12:56:47 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Yes, you are right on the money when you say that some people will never accept any amount of evidence to the contrary as even suggestive that such-and-such may have happened (never mind "proof" of same).

These will often stop up their ears and close their eyes and chant "No!" rather than even consider inconvenient evidences ... like the way that the Cambrian explosion of life took place without evolutionary antecedents (we've got microscopic worms as fossils in Pre-Cambrian strata ... but nothing more complex ... oh, and eyes––not just light sensitive cells but eyes––in Cambrian fossils).
9 posted on 01/03/2007 1:18:28 PM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

ans worms and eyes prove what? Transitional species? Where are the mountains of transitions? We've got fully formed remains by the truckloads but no transitionals as they 'evolved' into their next stages and so on and so forth? All we have are conjectures- yet 'science' tells us it happend as fact? Takes a heap of faith to believe this 'science' if you ask me- We can keep pointing to all these fully formed species in an attempt to take the focus of the fact that it is biologically impossible for a species to spontaniously create NEW information in cells- but the fact is- the evolution model broke down long before even the problem of NEW information- it broke down at the very first stages of hte so called evolution model- the fact that there was simply not enough DNA present to be mathematically feasible for random lightening strikes to create even so much as a neutral mutation let along the billions of mutations necessary in order for evolution to be valid-

AND- once we get that figured out- then we're right back to the fact that NEW info is absolutely necessary for one species to become another- without outside NEW information making it's way into a species- that species is 'doomed' to remain the same forever- you NEED lateral gene transference in order for species to evolve beyond their own KIND- but alas- there are biological safeguards that prevent htis form happening- several complex layers of safeguards infact

of the two faiths- I'll agree with those hwo have studied the problems and concluded that it makes more sense to put ones faith in a designer based on the biological scienctific facts http://sacredscoop.com


10 posted on 01/03/2007 6:58:32 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
ans worms and eyes prove what? Transitional species? Where are the mountains of transitions? We've got fully formed remains by the truckloads but no transitionals as they 'evolved' into their next stages and so on and so forth?
Exactly, the problem that evolution has is that the actual fossil record does not display what Darwin predicted.

Thus some have proposed an idea called "punctuated equilibrium" that essentially states that evolution occurs in rapid spurts ... which incidentally removes the problem of there not being transitional forms.

Funny how they won't allow their "scientific theory" to be considered falsifiable no matter how learned the criticism. They are like communist decrying that the idea has never really been tried the right way.

But I've had fun with this concept (punctuated equilibrium) because of the law of unintended consequences: consider if the notion of punctuated equilibrium removes the vase tracks of time for evolution to occur, then it also allows what evolutionist dismiss as "micro-evolution"––evolution that merely produces differentiation among a species to produce distinct breeds––to rapidly occur.

Why is this fun?

Because it fully allows for species differentiation within a kind in relatively short periods of of time. All that is needed is an opportunity, or an ecological stress, or some change in conditions (like an increase in radiation).

This means that two Biblical epochs, after the Fall of Man and (especially) after the Flood provide everything needed for "micro-evolution" to occur within a kind––the vague term actually used by the scriptures. Thus Noah didn't have to bring examples of every species we know today on the Ark, but all of these differentiated from the each other after the Flood. Thus a cat, for all their diversity, is really just a cat. Big, little, spotted, striped, tabby, calico ... it doesn't matter because they all still have 38 chromosomes and (being the same "kind") are still nominally fertile with each other.

Thus by promoting the idea of punctuated equilibrium the materialistic naturalist are actually providing everything factual Young Earth Creationist––whom they consider to be slope browed knuckle draggers––need to divorce the ONLY sort of evolution (including all their so-called "proofs") from atheism and thereby leaving them with nothing, bupkiss.

Which is strangely suitable considering that these are often atheist.

Of course, a evolutionist would maintain that "micro-evolution" isn't evolution since a totally new thing is emerging from something categorically different.

Yet even a necessary inference needed to promote a world view is only a philosophy about origins rather than a genuine science because a scientific theory must be testable.

So in bending over backwards in their efforts to exclude God and Creation from existence, they have actually provided everything needed to bring these back into the scientific debate in such a way that they loose every rhetorical advantage they currently maintain through ... well, ethical and scientific dirty tricks.
11 posted on 01/03/2007 10:53:17 PM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

micro-evolution is fact- macro-evolution however is a biological impossibility no matter how fast some claim it could have happened- you NEED lateral gene transference in order for macro-evo to happen, and this is an impossibility- we STILL are arguing about this and that and have failed to address the impossibilities of the very first stages- we haven't addressed the impossibilities of the wrong type amino acids for life making the impossible leap to protiens- nor have we addressed the the fact that it would take a universe full of DNA and continuous 24/7 lightening strikes on non animated objects to create life and mutations that would be deemed neutral enough to advance life. you can't speed up this process-

This 'punctuated' theory deals ONLY with macro-evolution and does nothign to address the impossiblities of gene transference necessary for the true evolution of one species to another-

Evolution doesn't work like say a evolution deciding that a snakeit needs to feed on flying insects instead of ground insects, and therefore the species just 'evolves' wings from flaps of skin and convoluted bone structures that were not present before. For that to happen you NEED NEW information from an outside source- but again- remember- species have many layers of complex built in safeguards that prevent new information from taking over- this is an absolute must protection if a species is to remain healthy-

I could go on- but I fear all that will be accomplished is the same round about of presenting isolated incidents of similarities between species and such while ignoring the impossibilities.


12 posted on 01/03/2007 11:10:03 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
we STILL are arguing about this and that and have failed to address the impossibilities of the very first stages
There is a joke that illustrates this idea:
A physicist, a chemist, and an economist are stranded on a desert island with one can of food but no can opener.

The physicist says: "If we drop the can from 30 meters, the velocity plus the force will break the can open."

The chemist says: "We could heat the can to 101 degrees Celsius and the boiling reaction will burst the can."

The economist says: "Assume a can opener."
Is it any wonder that Mark is reputed to have written to Engels after reading Darwin's book: "This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views."?
13 posted on 01/03/2007 11:39:41 PM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Er ... that should be "Marx is reputed to have written"

Truly, that last edit you do is one edit too few.
14 posted on 01/03/2007 11:41:58 PM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

Meh- I type fast & don't take much notice of how hte words come out- the geenral idea gets relayed though which is good enough- spent too many yearws in school dotting my I's and crossing my t's-- call it grammar burnout-- plus Ui'm too mentally exhausted most itmes to care much-- besides- it works the brain harder to see words speeled backerds and to figure htem out-- so I'm helping peopel delay the onset od alzheimers


15 posted on 01/04/2007 9:26:58 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson