Replies

The framework of the US government was designed by people with a Christian worldview to govern people with a Christian worldview.

No, it was an Enlightenment philosophy that was pretty much limited to Northwestern Europe and North America. That philosophy grew more from the horrors of 250 years of inter-Christian bloodletting than it did from scriptural teachings.

The men who developed it were not "anti-Religion" (most were deeply religious) but they understood from history and often from their own experience, that mixing religion and state was a recipe for oppression.

In the 18th Century, the "Christians" of Berlin, Moscow, Madrid, Budapest or Rome could not have produced the Constitution any more than the Saudis could do it today.

The Constitution was based upon philosophy, not dogma.

The Constitution was based upon philosophy, not dogma.

When I say that the Constitution outlined a government designed to govern a people with a Christian worldview, I do not mean that it employed religious dogma to do so. What I do mean is that it provided a framework to provide for governance in those areas where Christian morality was insufficient, and left out provisions for governance in areas where it was assumed unnecessary because the Christian worldview would provide the necessary restraint (or motivation). This is not the same as dogma. This is a government set up on the assumption that its people would be livign within a certain set of principles and needed governance only where those principles were insufficient to prevent conflict.

As an example, the First Amendment, without question, was never intended to protect the rights of people to engage in public pornography. It was designed to protect political speech from government oppression. However, that amendment did not explicitly state that not every kind of speech was to be considered sacred, because it would not have occurred to the founders at the time that such a stipulation was necessary, as most communities at that time would even considered allowing such a thing, much less promoting it.

Two hundred plus years later, this country has become far more secularized and therefore those assumed moral restraints have largely been lifted, resulting in interpretations of the First Amendment which would have been unimaginable at the inception. As a result, we find that the Constitution is wholly insufficient to address this question. Of course, activist judges are more than happy to fill in that gap by pretending that the Constitution does address that very specific issue (just as they did with Roe V. Wade), at which point they effectively create new law by judicial fiat.

The mutilation of our Constitution that we see all to often these days is as much a result of the change in prevailing worldview among US citizens as it is corrupt government officials. In fact, it is the abandonment of the societal Christian foundation that has permitted the wholesale abandonment of Constitutional principles, as many people are not even able to understand the context in which the Constitution was written.