The first amendment is no way forbids a 100% Christian nation (even if it be theoretical) - if all the people willingly chose to be so.
What the first amendment forbids in this regards is hindering religious practice of faith (though there can be moral limits to that, reflective of an underlying ethos of the gov.) and which practice includes evangelization, and it also forbids Congress establishing a formal religion, thus requiring souls to belong to it. But which was not intended to forbid States from affirming religious faith at all.
And as it is impossible for the gov. not to operate out of an ideology which somewhat functions as religion, and which usually finds its roots therein, and as in a Democratic Republic those who make laws are elected, directly or indirectly, then the laws that the gov. makes will be reflective of the beliefs (and the wisdom thereby) of the people.
This form of government also presupposes that the people will be sufficiently controlled from within by God and conscience so that they need not be controlled from without by the government (God-control vs. gun control).
And that they will be guided by wisdom so that they do not elect such things as lying politicians promising a socialist utopia, and or whose interpretation of the first amendment replaces Christian morality with the ever-morphing immorality of secular humanism.
A difference here is that in a Republic, government is sppsd to be limited by constitution or charter which reflects the Founder’s ethos, even when those who concur with it are a Minority, while in a Democracy the Majority has unlimited power over the Minority. However, in practical application the Majority can elect those who interpret the constitution as supporting the current Majority view.
John Quincy Adams — “In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.”
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not on the power of government...[but] upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
John Adams — “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with passions unbridled by morality and religion.”
“Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.”
Abraham Lincoln — “It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”
“I know that the Lord is always on the side of right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I - and this nation - should be on the Lord’s side.”
Alexis de Tocqueville — “The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.” (Democracy in America, Volume I Chapter XVII (1835)
Daniel Webster — “If there is anything in my thoughts or style to commend, the credit is due to my parents for instilling in me an early love of the Scriptures. If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”
More: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Quotes_compare.pdf
In addition is the dictum attributed (but disputed) to Alexander Fraser Tytler ( 1747 - 1813) a Scottish lawyer, writer, historian, and professor:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy collapses over loose fiscal policy...always followed by a dictatorship.”
The grand daddy of them all may even right now be waiting in the wings.
Outstanding! What you’ve described is, I’m convinced, as immutable a law of nature and of nature’s God as dogs giving birth to dogs and not cats. (The rebellious and the atheistic will deny both, of course.)
I’d add only this familiar adage: “He who will not rule himself will be ruled by another.”
your post sounds like stuff I’ve posted before. Concur.