Myth: The Founders Established A Wall of Separation Between Church and State

excerpt from the book Five Lies of the Century pp. 15-30 | 1995 | David T. Moore

[Sir Gawain]

MYTH: THE FOUNDING FATHERS ESTABLISHED A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

The founding fathers were certainly men of faith, and it was their intention to establish a nation built upon the principles of Christianity. American statesman Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not to be religionist but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ."² Granted, by today's standards, Henry's words are narrow and offensive, but to ignore or deny them is censorship of history. Ambassador to France Benjamin Franklin wrote, "He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world."³ Indeed they did--and there is much evidence to combat any myth to the contrary.

Evidence from presidents and statesmen

On April 30, 1789, George Washington took the presidential oath of office and delivered America's first inaugural address, acknowledging God as the reason for America's birth:

It would be improper to omit, in this fisrt official act, my fervent supplication to that Almighty Being....No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some providential agency....We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.⁴

Our second president, John Adams, once told Thomas Jefferson,

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were....the general principles of Christianity....I will avow that I believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.⁵

John Quincy Adams, sixth president of the United States, summarized American history: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government and the principles of Christianity."⁶ Adams's statement is diametrically opposed to the separation myth.

Noah Webster claimed,

The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is the genuine Christianity, and to this [Christianity] we owe our free Constitution of government.⁷

Those are not the words of some wing-nut fundamentalist. Webster literally wrote the English dictionary, and he used words as precisely as a surgeon uses a scapel. His words cannot be redifined to say anything less than the Christian origin of the Constitution.

Evidence in the Supreme Court

When James Wilson was unanimously confirmed as George Washington's appointment to the Supreme Court, he said, "Christianity is part of the common-law."⁸ "Common-law" referred to the basis on which all other laws were built and reflected the posture of the Supreme Court for decades. In the case of Runkel v. Winemiller in 1796, just twenty years after the Declaration of Independence and nine years after adopting the Constitution, the supreme court of Maryland ruled, "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing and are equally entitled to protection in their liberty."

This case is crucial because it makes two issues very clear. First, it illustrates the real meaning behind the First Amendment: Each Christian denomination was placed upon an equal footing. Notice it didn't say all religions were equal in America, but that all denominations of Christians were equal. The intention behind the First Amendment was to prevent one denomination from becoming the national church. Everyone understood that; most could remember what it was like to live under the oppressive Church of England. This was one of the primary motivations for leaving England. But and "equal footing" had nothing to do with a wall of separation.

The second issue is quite a bombshell. The truth about the First Amendment is that it was adopted to prevent any one denomination from infringing upon another but was never intended to be hostile toward Christianity or designed to exclude Christianity from political life. The Supreme Court affirmed Christianity as the established religion. Following the case, there was no public outcry, no suits by the ACLU, and no conflict with the Constitution. While the separation of church and state might well be entrenched in the political thinking of today, it was absolutely foreign to both the founding fathers and the Supreme Court prior to 1947.

Nearly 120 years after the birth of our nation, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fact that America was a Christian nation. In the case of Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) the unanimous decision stated:

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teaching of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian....This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation...we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth....These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.⁹

Following the Court's statement that America was a Christian nation, three pages were devoted to eighty-seven authoritative citations. From the commission of Christopher Columbus onward, the Court built and airtight case for its proposition that America is a Christian nation. That's why Congress saw no conflict when it spent federal money to support ministers and missionaries for over one hundred years. Nor was there a conflict with appointing chaplains to the Senate, the House, or the armed forces. They saw no problem with Washington's being sworn into office with his hand on the Bible opened to Deuteronomy 6. That's also why the very same Congress that gave us the Constitution decided that President Washington's inauguration would conclude with a church service at Saint Paul's Chapel, led by the chaplains of Congress. The same Congress that approved a national day of prayer and thanksgiving, "whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor."¹⁰

Evidence in other political, educational, and spiritual arenas

The spirit of Christianity continued to engulf the American political arena well into the next century. Alexis de Tocqueville's classic text on early America's political institutions says, "The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other."¹¹

The separation of church and state was so foreign to the roots of America that Congress even approved a special printing of the Bible for use in public schools. In 1781, a publisher petitioned Congress for permission to print Bibles. Congress not only approved his request but issued this statement in 1782: "The Congress of the United States approves and recommends to the people, the Holy Bible...for use in schools."¹² Interestingly enough, that statement isn't included within the NEA policy handbook. When the congressional recommendation was challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, "Why not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the schools? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?"¹³

The founding fathers saw such a blend of Christianity and civil government that most expected officeholders to be Christians. While denominational affiliation didn't matter, a belief in God and the Bible was paramount. Nine of the thirteen colonies had written constitutions. Many of them required officeholders to sign a declaration that amounted to a statement of faith. The Delaware Constitution of 1776 is a perfect example:

Everyone appointed to public office must say: "I do profess faith in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."¹⁴

Many theological seminaries couldn't say that today. I'm not suggesting that we return to such a standard, but the Delaware Constitution blows away the separation myth and illustrates the Christian bias of the founding fathers.

Statements about elected officials and citizens

John Jay, the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and one of the three men most responsible for the Constitution, said, "Providence [God] has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."¹⁵ That's pretty radical. Roger Sherman, the only founding father to sign all four of America's major documents, totally agreed with Jay when he wrote, "The right to hold office was to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination."¹⁶ While the remarks are shocking by modern standards, the comments simply reflect the common political sentiment of that day.

Even as late as 1931, the Court continued to affirm America as a Christian nation. In the U.S v. Macintosh, the Court ruled, "We are a Christian people, according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God." In addition to being a "Christian people," the Court asserted that obedience to the will of God was duty of American citizens. No wonder de Tocqeville wrote what he did about Americans combining the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately that it was impossible to make them conceive of the one without the other. De Tocqueville's testimony is priceless because he was an unbiased eyewitness to what was actually occurring in early America.

IS AMERICA GOING THROUGH "RELIGIOUS CLEANSING"?

It's amazing that the Supreme Court cases Holy Trinity v. United States and U.S. v. Macintosh don't appear in a single law text being used today. It certainly isn't because the cases weren't important. In the 1991 case Chapman v. United States, Justice John Paul Stevens quoted Holy Trinity as controlling precedent. If the case is still controlling precedent, then why has it (and its eighty-seven authoritative statements about America's being a Christian nation) been extracted from law books? And why are the faith-affirming quotes of the founding fathers removed from public-school history books? Furthermore, why do the history books say nothing of a Christian nation governed by Christian principles? And if the founding fathers were Christians who intended to establish a Christian land, governed by Christian principles, how was that dream uprooted? And why do 67 percent of Americans believe that the separation of church and state is part of the First Amendment?

A simple case of censorship

The founders' words and the court cases just cited fly in the face of the separation myth. Given the contemporary court's secular bias, they would be very embarrassing. Politically correct humanists are determined to further the separation myth in the hope that every hint of religion will be removed from public life. The primary objective is nothing less than religious cleansing.

Knowledge of the founding fathers' faith and their intention to establish a Christian nation has been a long-standing part of our American heritage. Even the modern-day liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas confessed, "We are a religious people, and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."¹⁷ More direct still were the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren. Certainly not known for a conservative bent, Warren told Time:

I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing the Good Book and the Spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses....Whether we look to the First Charter of Virginia, or to the Charter of New England, or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay, or the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The same object is present; a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it; freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under the law, and the reservation of powers to the people. I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.¹⁸

How could a contemporary Supreme Court justice utter words so contrary to the current Court's position? The answer is that Warren made his statements in 1954. Justice Warren was educated within a system that had not yet rewritten a secular, sanitized version of American history. He was historically accurate but politically incorrect. His words were also prophetic: "I like also to believe that as long as we do so [live in the spirit of a Christian land governed by Christian principles], no great harm can come to our country."

A radical turn in the courts

In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court made a 180-degree turn. Without citing a single precedent, and ignoring 175 years of historically consistent rulings, the Court claimed, "The wall of separation between church and state must be kept high and impregnable" (Everson v. Board of Education). This was a totally new approach for the Court and a radical departure from the past. With that single decision, the myth of separation between church and state was born. That explains why the phrase "separation of church and state" didn't appear in the World Book Encyclopedia until 1967. The wall is a myth. It was not established by the founders, nor was it part of our national heritage.

The fanatical nature of the Court's decision is obvious when set within the context of the 1940s. Just three years earlier, the National Education Association had published a series of sixteen "Personal Growth Leaflets" to help public-school students become "familiar with our great literary heritage." The back of the booklet read, "It is important that people who are to live together and work together happily shall have a common mind--a common body of appreciations and ideals to animate and inspire them."¹⁹ The NEA's selections for inspiring American students is extraordinary: the Lord's Prayer; the poem "Father in Heaven, We Thank Thee"; another poem that introduced the concept of daily prayers; a thanksgiving poem that admonished kids to "thank the One who gave all the good things that we have." If there was a distinctive "wall of separation" between church and state, why didn't the National Education Association (of all organizations) know about it in 1944? The wall is a myth.

For fifteen years the Court's decision had little impact upon judicial decisions but instead quietly cultivated a whole new thought system. In 1962, the seeds of the Everson case burst into full bloom and became controlling precedent for Engle v. Vitale--the case that removed prayer in public education by ruling voluntary and denominationally neutral prayer unconstitutional. The actual prayer was rather benign: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee and we beg thy blessings upon us and our parents, our teachers, and our country." Tragically, Engle v. Vitale started a domino effect of court rulings that removed our religious heritage from the public arena, especially from education.

In the 1963 decision of Abington v. Schempp, the Court removed Bible reading from public education. The Court's justification? "If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and have been psychologically harmful to a child." Simply amazing. Suddenly, the best- selling book of all time and the most quoted source by the founding fathers was unconstitutional and psychologically harmful. The honorable court certainly didn't share the religious values of the founders nor the sustainers of the Republic. Abraham Lincoln said, "But for the Bible we would not know right from wrong." Exactly. One of the reasons we have lost our moral bearings is that the objective values of right and wrong have been removed from chilren's education.

In 1965, the Court ruled that religious speech among students was unconstitutional (Stein v. Oshinsky). While freedom of speech is still guaranteed for pornographers and political dissidents, one topic is taboo on the campus: religion. Stein v. Oshinsky made it unconstitutional for a student to pray aloud over a meal. In 1992, the Court carried its censorship into the college classroom by ordering a professor to stop discussing Christianity. In the outlandish ruling for DeSpain v. DeKalb County Community School District (1967), the Court declared the following kindergarten nursery rhyme unconstitutional: "We thank you for the flowers so sweet; We thank you for the food we eat; We thank you for the birds that sing; We thank you for everything." The Court's logic baffles common sense. Although the word God was not contained in this nursery rhyme, the Court argued that if someone were to hear it, it might cause them to think of God and was therefore unconstitutional.

In 1969, it became unconstitutional to erect a war memorial in the shape of a cross (Lowe v. City of Eugene, 1969). The Court carried that same religious bigotry into a 1994 case in which a cross in a San Diego park had to be removed. In 1976, it became unconstitutional for a board of education to use or refer to the word God in any official writings (State of Ohio v. Whisner). In 1979, it became unconstitutional for a kindergarten class to ask whose birthday was being celebrated in a Christmas assembly (Florey v. Sioux Falls School District).

By 1980 this incredibly twisted approach made it unconstitutional to post the Ten Commandments on school walls. According to Stone v. Graham, "If posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps venerate and obey the commandments; this is not a permissable objective." James Madison, the man most responsible for the U.S. Constitution said "[We] have staked the future of all of our political Constitutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."²⁰ Once again, the honorable Court is completely out of step with the founding fathers. Madison was absolutely right--the pathetic condition of our culture reflects the inability of individuals to control themselves. While the Ten Commandments hang above the chief justice of the Supreme Court, they are hypocritically censored from the halls of our schools. George Washington said that apart from religion, there can be no morality. We have removed religion from the public arena--and internal self-restraint has gone with it.

In 1985, Wallace v. Jaffree, the Supreme Court declared that any bill (even those which are constitutionally acceptable) is unconstitutional if the author of the bill had a religious activity in mind when the bill was written. With this case the Court carried the wall of separation beyond absurdity. In addition to applying to religious activities, words, and symbols, along with anything else that might cause someone to think about God, now the mythological wall may be brought to bear on an author's thoughts while penning a bill. I suppose the speculations of mind readers will soon be admissible as evidence within our insane court system.

Why did the courts make such a drastic departure from our roots? The answer is self-interest and a complete disregard for the Constitution's intent. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes illustrated his personal contempt for the original intent of the Constitution when he said, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what judges say it is."²¹ The words of Supreme Court Justice Brennan are even more toxic: "It is arrogant to use the Constitution as the founding fathers intended, it must be interpreted in light of current problems and current needs."²² Perhaps the arrogance lies not in interpreting the Constitution as the founding fathers intended but, rather, in reinterpreting the Constitution to meet one's current needs. It takes brazen audacity to ignore the intentions of the founding fathers and to turn one's back on the 175 years of stellar American history that our Constitution provided.

A WAY TO STOP OUR NATIONAL DECLINE

Today, America is unraveling because we are no longer governed by Christian principles. We were once the undisputed world leader in nearly every area of life; now we lead the world in violent crime. Our divorce rate ranks number one in the world. We lead the Western world in teenage pregnancies, and we are world leader in voluntary abortions. We are the number one consumer of illegal drugs, and we lead the industrial world in illiteracy. Meanwhile, our economy limps along, struggling to sustain the $4 trillion debt dumped upon us by unprincipled people. This is all due to the turning of our backs upon the very heritage that made us great. We have bought this lie, but at what price? The indispensible pillars of morality and religion have proved to be just that--indispensible.

While many things can be done to stop our steady decline, the most important issue is truth. The truth must be told about our nation's heritage. The lie concerning the faith of our founding fathers and the myth of separation between church and state must be corrected with historical truth. Only then will we be able to reintroduce into public affairs the Judeo-Christian ethic that made this nation great. From the schoolhouse to the White House, the principles of Christianity must once again be seen as the guiding genius behind our matchless Constitution. Once this is appreciated by the populace, the indispensible pillars of morality and religion can breathe life back into our society.

[RnMomof7]

You must have missed some of the names I have been called..or that people are belittled and ,mocked for quoting scripture.

I resent having it said that BECAUSE I believe in the word of God,I would eliminate the Constitution and set up a State religion (mine)

I happen to be a lover of our Nation and it's freedom .I believe in freedom to worship where and when you will. But I also believe that the founders meant for free political and religious speech to be the guardian of the other freedoms.

I resent being called a "talibornagain" you better believe it!

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

Exactly when did liberal judges pick up a line-item veto?

Somewhere near the same time time they started Legislating from the bench, instead of intrepreting, Laws handed down via Congress.

[E Rocc]

"Who is it who cannot see that the same who would consecrate Christianity above all other religions would then have to consecrate a particular sect of Christians above all other sects?" - James Madison

I think that our founding fathers did recognize the problems of mixing church and state. Madison's words echo today in all the 10 Commandment flaps. Since the versions of the commandments differ between religions how do you post one version without placing that particular Christian sect above another?

The Framers actually had two reasons to embrace Separation. One of course was the ethical. As true religious belief is completely voluntary and government is inherently based upon compulsion, the two really don't mix.

There was also a more pragmatic reason. The former colonies were a religiously diverse place, and already quite fractious. Placing religion in the sphere of government simply would have given them something new to argue about.

As a result, they created the safest place in the world to belong to any faith, as long as one agrees to the codicil that one does not have the right to act against those one finds to be "heretical" or "pagan". While this theory has occasionally lapsed in practice (as Mormons and Catholics can attest through history), overall its been extremely succesful.

Baptists in particular should appreciate it. In colonial times, their faith was an occasionally oppressed minority.

-Eric

[SusanUSA]

Jefferson, who as a careful historian had made a study of the origin of the maxim [that the common law is inextricably linked with Christianity], challenged such an assertion. He noted that "the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or that such a character existed".

Yes, he did.

Thomas Jefferson acknowledged Common Law's pre-Christian origins in this letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law...This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it...that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians...".

But there's also...

It has been said that “No proper estimate has been made of the effects of Christianity on English law, but there is no shadow of doubt that it was far-reaching.” Our legal system was formed and developed over centuries under the dominating influence of the Christian religion. The ideals and standards of justice that informed our law were derived largely either from the Bible directly or from ancient pre-Christian institutions that have been so completely transformed under the influence of the church that the original pre-Christian practices from which they originate are no longer discernible in the Christianised forms in which we know them. Our very concepts of justice, due process and the rule of law are Christian ideals that we should never have known had the Christian faith not taken root in this land and transformed the nation from a pagan into a civilised society.

This book traces the growth of Christian law in England from the conversion of King Æthelberht, through the reigns of the Anglo-Saxon kings up to the Norman conquest, and examines the influence of Christianity on the development of English common law during its early, formative period in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

What Is a ‘Christian Nation’?
by Rob Regier

There is a lot of confusion today about whether our history proves that we are a Christian nation. It’s safe to say that we are not a nation that uses the Bible as our legal text. Otherwise, disbelief in God or sins such as greed and lust would be illegal and punishable by fines or imprisonment. No, there is no civil law against such things in the United States.

However, it’s also safe to say that our country was founded by professed Christians. From the Pilgrims to the framers of our government, Judeo-Christian principles were not only used as a basis for our law and government, but also were openly proclaimed as necessary to the survival of the new nation.

What’s my proof? The Bible was the most cited book in this country during the late 1700s and early 1800s — in pamphlets, newspapers and political monographs. Scripture accounted for 34 percent of all citations.1 The Rev. John Witherspoon served six years in Congress, and he was, well, a reverend.

President George Washington issued the first proclamation of a national day of thanksgiving, in which he said “it is the duty of all to acknowledge Almighty God” and to “obey his will.” Thomas Jefferson allowed church services to be held in the House of Congress and in the Supreme Court’s chambers.2

Don’t forget about all those prayers prayed before sessions of Congress and the Supreme Court. Every president has included a reference in his inaugural speech a reference to his and our nation’s dependence upon God. “In God We Trust” every time we spend our money.

The Supreme Court in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) ruled, “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people. … This is a Christian nation.” The Court also said in Zorach v. Clauson (1952): “The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. … Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other — hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said, “One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. … There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity necessary to the support of civil society.”3 Inscribed on the Supreme Court’s walls are the Ten Commandments.

The framers of our government echoed French Catholic attorney Charles Secondat de Montesquieu’s recognition of the need for religion, namely Christianity, to be the basis for a legal framework.4 A virtuous republic and true happiness, they believed, came from obedience to God’s laws revealed in nature and Scripture, or the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Our country’s heritage is replete with references to God and faith.

Yet that doesn’t mean that people of other faiths can’t live in the United States. In fact, the Founders believed that only a country founded upon the Christian religion could be tolerant of other religions. People had to tolerate other religions because the government wasn’t given the authority to judge peoples’ hearts and minds, but only our actions. Hence, there could be no law against being Jewish or Islamic or atheist. The judgment of one’s conscience is left up to God.

Are we a Christian nation? I’ll let the evidence speak for itself.

[R. Scott]

I have seen a lot of name calling on the religious threads – I try to refrain from doing so myself.
While many would not want to change our Constitution, they would like to apply their own interpratation to it, and integrate their own religious ideology into the functional government.
I believe that the religious should be in the realm of the spirit, and government has no business interfering – either by mandating a religious practice or by forbidding a religious practice.

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

...or by forbidding a religious practice.

And yet this they do, forbidding even student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games.

[RnMomof7]

I believe that the religious should be in the realm of the spirit, and government has no business interfering – either by mandating a religious practice or by forbidding a religious practice.

We agree..do you know that there are alot of Christian libertarians? There have been some threads posted by OrthodoxPresbyterian to that topic as of late.

The threat my friend, comes from those that would silence religious speech of any kind because they are uncomfortable with it

That is rarely true of a Christian that knows he stands on the Rock that is higher than he is!

[Melas]

So much talk about Jefferson and what he really believed, and not a single person has posted the VA statute on religious freedom that Jefferson penned in 1786.

The statute makes it clear that any religious belief, or lack thereof was a matter of individual conscience, and not a matter of state.

We, 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.

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

Somewhere near the same time time they started Legislating from the bench, instead of intrepreting, Laws handed down via Congress.

Indeed.

And the Constitution's Achilles Heel?

Life-tenured, superconstitutional philosopher kings writing society in black flowing robes.

Scary picture huh?

Sigh...

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

Gawain: how then to turn back the tide, and reclaim a Christian nation from this humanistic vice-grip?

[E Rocc]

Susan, no one is saying that the structure of our Nation wasn't influenced by Christianity. It was also influenced by Judaism, English law, Roman and Greek philosophies of citizenship and republicanism, and the development of legal systems going back to the Code of Hammurabi. Yet no one ever calls us a "Jewish Nation", a "British Nation", a "Roman Nation" or a "Hammurabic Nation".

Christianity was one of these influences but not the only one, and not all of Christianity was adopted. A Christian may not, by the most basic rules of the Faith, worship other gods, make graven images, or work on the Sabbath. The First Amendment not only allows these things, it protects the right to do them. Indeed, the laissez faire capitalist system the Framers adopted could be said to be at odds with Christianity. A purely Christian government would have social welfare systems in place, and "charity" might even be mandatory. The Framers and their immediate political heirs largely left such up to private entities, or the discretion of smaller government entitities.

Regier asks "what is a Christian Nation?", then never really answers the question from his perspective. I would submit that it is a nation where Christianity is given a place of legal primacy and the Bible is considered on a par with the founding documents. A place where indeed, the rules of the Bible may be codified into law for no other reason than their presence in the book. A place where laws contrary to the Bible may be struck down, for that reason alone.

Whether or not one wants this nation to become that (and I would suggest that more of the "Christian Nation" crusaders do than will quite admit it), that is not the nation our Founders and the Framers intended to give us. Hence, they did not mean us to be a "Christian Nation".

-Eric

[rwfromkansas]

bump!

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

"...Scary picture..."

** *** ** *** ** *** ** ***

The 'poor view' is only a part of the problem....

It's Their (the judges in question) "Vision" that really scares me !! !! !!

[rwfromkansas]

You are apostate.

[E Rocc]

...or by forbidding a religious practice.

And yet this they do, forbidding even student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games.

The case that led to Doe v. Santa Fe ISD (the football prayer case) was actually brought not by atheists or agnostics, but Catholics and Mormons.

Had the district had a "moment of silence" or allowed all groups to say their prayers they would have probably won their case. Had they alternated groups, they might have won it. But they had a school sponsored and sanctioned election each week to decide which faith would get access to the PA system and a spot on the agenda. That constituted preference, and was found to violate Establishment. (Ironically, the Texas State Constitution specifically forbids preference in addition to Establishment).

One thing also not often noted was the fact that the "prayer vote" was only part of a very highly charged religious atmosphere in the district, where Baptist teachers were allowed to prosletyze and pass out religious tracts in class, and Catholic and Mormon students were often harrased for their dissenting views.

-Eric

[rwfromkansas]

Notice how after prayer was taken out, there is a shooting every year.

[rwfromkansas]

There is another quote in there that is not substantiated from writings scholars have located. However, that does not detract from the real meat that supports the truth that there was not intended to be a separation: HISTORY and SUPREME COURT OPINIONS (early obviously).

[rwfromkansas]

Here we go folks! Jeff wins the prize as the first liberal disrupter to try the slavery line on us. Nice going, Jeff and a great way to avoid the issue by putting in separate issues that do not show any logic.

[rwfromkansas]

Explain to me how 'wall of separation' Jefferson supported these ideals. After all, he supported a law, along with Madison (one wrote the law and the other introduced it) to punish Sabbath breakers in Virginia. This law ended up passing comfortably. Of course, we can't forget that Jefferson gave public money to Christian missionaries either. Oh, by the way, he also made students in Washington, D.C. read the Bible as the primary textbook.