Posted on 12/10/2004 3:38:41 PM PST by Ed Current
Secularists believe that they have the right view of America. They are convinced that America should be a secular state or a godless state. They believe that religion was not a decisive factor in the formation of the Constitution of the United States and therefore, this proves that the framers of the Constitution did not want religion to influence public policy. Simply put, politics and religion don't mix. Government and religion should be kept as far apart as possible. There are several historical "facts" secularists use to support their views. Apparently, one of the most important historical facts is the absence of the word "God" in the U.S. Constitution. To secularists, the absence of the word "God" is extremely significant. Indeed, it has a deep, almost mystical significance to them. It suggests that the framers of the Constitution had little or no interest in religion. Secularists are convinced that the absence of the word "God" proves that there should be a strict separation of church and state in the United States.
The purpose of this article is to argue that the conclusions reached by the secularists goes far beyond what the historical evidence will allow and to offer some reasons for why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment.
The U.S. Constitution Before and After Charles Darwin
Most people would not consider Charles Darwin to be someone important in order to understand the U.S. Constitution. Most people would consider the writings of men like John Locke, Blackstone and James Madison as important in order to understand the Constitution. Obviously, these men had a great influence on the Constitution. But there is a sense in which Charles Darwin is more important than all of them. Charles Darwin, the author of The Origin of Species (1859) had a profound impact on the U.S. Constitution. In fact, a case could be made that he has had a greater or equal impact on the Constitution than the delegates at the constitutional convention! The reason is simple. Charles Darwin changed the way we see the Constitution. For better or for worse, the way many Americans see the Constitution today is very different from the time before Darwin. The dominant legal philosophy in the United States today is secularism. The U.S. Constitution is seen today as a "secular" document. This is what Charles Darwin gave us. Charles Darwin gave us secularism. Secularism as a philosophy is based on the principle that there is an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe. Secularists believe that only scientific evolution is valid. They are not atheists as often claimed. Many secularists believe in God. However, secularists believe that in terms of the government, it does not matter whether God exists or not. The impact of secularism on the Constitution was revolutionary. Secularists read the Constitution in a way that is totally foreign to its framers. In a nutshell, secularists think that religion was not important to the framers of the Constitution. As one of their writers said concerning the majority of the delegates at Philadelphia: ". . . most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone." Note 1.
The Constitution Before Darwin
To the framers of the Constitution, the idea of having a government not based on God would have been unthinkable. It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was special creation. Therefore, all of the delegates at the Philadelphia convention were creationist. This is the reason the framers did not create a "secular" state in the modern sense of the term. Indeed, the concept of "secularism" as it is used today didn't even exist in 1787. It is largely a twentieth century concept. Since the framers of our Constitution predated Darwin and the theory of evolution, the desire to have a "secular" state would have made as much sense to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is only with the advent of Darwin and an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe that a secular state becomes desirable. There were atheists in 1787 to be sure but they lacked a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of the Universe.
At the same time, the framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy. However, this is not to say that they saw no role for religion in government. The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, it called on President George Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "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 to implore His protection and favor . . ." Note 2. The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism." In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people.
The Constitution After Darwin
The rise of modern secularism made the debate about the word "God" in the Constitution very intense. It was not until the legal community in the United States adopted secularism that the absence of the word "God" took on the kind of significance it has today. It is true that before the rise of modern secularism some Americans objected to the fact that the word "God" was not in the Constitution. There were suggestions to amend the Constitution to add it. There were efforts to add "Almighty God" and "Jesus Christ" to the Preamble for example. Some members of Congress suggested that "In the Name of God" should be inserted before the Preamble. As early as the time of the Civil War, Americans have been trying to amend the Constitution to add some sort of reference to God. These efforts did not get very far with the public. Thankfully, Americans were content with the Constitution the way it was. However, in all of these early debates about whether the word "God" should be added to the Constitution, the debate was between one group of creationist verses another. Almost no believed that the United States was a godless country just because the word "God" was not in the Constitution. Today, this is no longer true. Today the fight is between creationist and evolutionist. Secularists insist that the absence of the word "God" means that the Constitution created a godless government in America.
Where is "God" in the Preamble to the Constitution?
Secularists are very quick to point out that the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be 'under God' in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point. The word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. However, it is doubtful that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word "God" will appear in two places in most constitutions. The first place is in the preamble to the constitution. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, the state constitution does not have a preamble. However, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights in each instance. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses. In the case of the U.S. Constitution however, no divine reference appears in either the Preamble or in the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Why is this true?
The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word "God" in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: "Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . and Georgia." When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of the much simpler form We the People.Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularists groups like the ACLU and their 'spin' on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Where is "God" in the First Amendment?
The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here however the textual reason is due to the subject matter of the First Amendment. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clauses in the First Amendment is the government or "Congress." This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference in the subject matter is the reason the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment's religion clauses. Let's compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . . " The subject of the clause is clear. It is "All men." The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses' better wording. It says "Every individual . . ." In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual. In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a "natural right" of an individual to worship "Almighty God" according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the "right" of an individual, the word "God" naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the "Congress." The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion in the United States. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion in America. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words "God" "natural right" "worship" or "conscience" do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word "God" in the First Amendment is because the subject is Congress.
Where is "God" in the Constitution?
The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn't even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common mistake. The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is "God" is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there are a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain. As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers." Note 3.
Special Note: Even if the word "God" was in the Constitution it probably would not make any difference. Secularist groups like the ACLU would probably dismiss it as a mere formality. There are 50 reasons to believe that this is true. Since secularists dismiss all references to God in the state constitutions, there is no reason to believe that they would behave any differently with the federal Constitution. Their commitment to secularism will not allow for the possibility that they might be wrong. Interestingly, in 1915 there was one state supreme court which said that the reference to "in the year of our Lord" in the U.S. Constitution was a reference to Jesus Christ! Note 4.
For a more in-depth discussion of how monotheism and the Ten Commandments influenced the U.S. Constitution read new my booklet: "The Ten Commandments For Beginners." Visit: www.mytencommandments.us for ordering information.
Notes.
1. Clinton Rossiter, 1787, The Grand Convention, pg. 126 (1966).
2. Vol 1. Messages and Papers of the Presidents, p. 64 (1896).
3. State v. City of Tampa, 48 So. 2d 78 (1950).
4. Herold v Parish Board of School Directors, 136 L.R. 1034 at 1044 (1915).
Those are general statements about the need for the populace to have a religious foundation since the Constitution itself is secular. The actual content of most of the Ten Commandments, three of them about monotheism others about not coveting your neighbor's goods and respecting your parents...are not to be found any documents of legal standing in the United States. Unless you're just looking at it as an early example of 'Law Giving'. In which case the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta are bigger influences.
"Those are general statements about the need for the populace to have a religious foundation since the Constitution itself is secular."
It sounds like you have your mind made up about the "secular" Constitution and are just trying to rationalize around what is clearly being said by these founding fathers...
"Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations."
"The law given from Sinai [the 10 commandments] was a civil and municipal ... code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws..."
Of course that is a major anti-biblical statment technically... All authority comes from God alone.
"However since about 85% of the Constitution is English Common Law the traditions you speak of were certainly inherent."
The founders didn't say the ten commandments were inherent as some long gone influence that they would grudgingly have to tolerate as a religious influence from history. They said that the very foundation of the Constitution IS directly based on Christianity and the ten commandments.
There is no mention of a secular basis in the Constitution, so according to your logic that must prove that it is based on God.
All 50 constitutions mention God as the source. Tell me which of the founding fathers (see below) changed the foundation of the Constitution from God, Christianity and the ten commandments to pure secularism completely void of God all of a sudden when it came to the US Constitution?
Joseph Story is THE man to nail this down: "There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations."
Need I say more? Let's hear from a few more important founders...
Thomas Jefferson said, in 1781 just after the Massachusetts constitution was ratified: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.?" -- Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781, p. 237
James Madison: "I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments [of government] and are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way." -- Letter of Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773), in 1 James Madison, The Papers of James Madison 66 (William T. Hutchinson ed., Illinois: University of Chicago Press 1962).
George Washington: "... forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? -- Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796
Benjamin Rush (Signer of the Declaration of Independence): "...the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism. -- Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.
Th Jefferson: "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man [God], and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." -- Jan. 1. 1802.
Thomas Jefferson: "The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind." -- The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.
See: http://www.wall-of-separation.com
Why shoud we? By that very logic those same founding fathers should have obeyed their King over the issue of a very minor tax, instead of sinning against the will of God by rebellion.
"Why shoud we? By that very logic those same founding fathers should have obeyed their King over the issue of a very minor tax, instead of sinning against the will of God by rebellion."
So that's why they revolted, over a "very minor tax"? Last time I checked, there was religious oppression and injustice.
You seem to be comparing obeying God under unjust conditions with obeying God under friendly and biblically conducive conditions.
"Why should we?" Christ commanded us to influence our world for God. That is why. We are to be salt and light. The founding fathers of America incorporated these principles into the Constitution so that we could obey Christ.
We have been given freedom of religious speech. Each individual has been given leadership obligations by the Constitution, i.e., governing officials are now your agents and my agents for us to influence for the cause of good. Since you have been made a leader by your government to influence your legislators and also made a leader by Christ (if you are a Christian) to "make disciples" and influence society, then you can't just do hardly anything and expect the blessing of God. Therefore "give unto Caesar".
Not against those same founding fathers, who where not truly religious. George III was very anti-Catholic, never-the-less, even tho I myself am a Catholic, had I lived at the time I would probably have sided with the Loyalists.
You seem to be comparing obeying God under unjust conditions with obeying God under friendly and biblically conducive conditions.
So you maintain that democracy and republicanism will encourage biblically conducive conditions? I don't see it, not here and now, nor in the history of said government. God said he made Kings and Emperors to do his will... nowhere did he claim authorship of republics. If democracy is a valid form of government should the peoples' voice have superseded that of Moses when they sought to worship a golden calf? Beware of relying on a majority to justify yourself, for many will try to enter through the wide gate that leadeth to destruction.
Democracy is based on the pagan principle that might makes right. Since ultimate power always resided amung the masses, for they can as a group always refuse to obey, or worse, it is assumed that they are also right. Thus legitimacy is based on man not God. And the words of St Paul are forgotten, "For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil."
The founding fathers knew that democracy is dangerious tho they did not really understand why, and to this end they set up multiple "checks and balances." A stopgap for a problem they could not solve, the work of man (and pagan man at that), and thus bound for ultimate destruction.
Education Bump!
He proclaimed that they rule by His will, even those who were seemingly His enemies such as Nebuchadnezzar. And saints Peter and Paul affirm this.
Look at the power our founders gave to Christians to influence our world through our state and US Constitutions.
That "Power's" authority is legitimised by the will of the people. I for one will not put my faith or trust in a majority of the sons of man.
How many times have you visited your legislators? Would they know you by sight? Have you shared God's principles with them?
They likely wouldn't know me, but my mother was a lobbyist at the state legislature. Years wasted pushing and fighting against a bunch of jackoffs who wouldn't know reality if it raped them repeatedly in a dark alley; only to have to do it all over again with each new legislator who thought he was doing something that had not been done before. For a good two years I hardly even saw my mom save for when we went with her to Lansing. Any way it was an educational time for me you might say.
The first treaty was with Morocco in 1786, negotiated by Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. It was written in Arabic with an English translation. The treaty language assumes that the world was divided between Christians and Moors (Moslems), e.g. "If we shall be at war with any Christian Power ... .", "... no Vessel whatever belonging either to Moorish or Christian Powers with whom the United States may be at War ... .", "...be their enemies Moors or Christians." These along with numerous references to God, e.g., "In the name of Almighty God,", "... trusting in God ...", "Grace to the only God", "...the servant of God ...", "... whom God preserve ...". are the only references to religion in this treaty of Peace and Friendship.
The next was the Treaty of Peace and Amity with Algiers in 1795,written in Turkish. The only reference to religion was in Article 17 which gave the Consul of the United States "... Liberty to Exercise his Religion in his own House [and] all Slaves of the Same Religion shall not be impeded in going to Said Consul's house at hours of prayer... ." The Consul's house was to function in lieu of a Christian church.
The Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation with Tunis in 1797 was in Turkish with a French translation. It begins "God is infinite.", and refers to the Ottoman Emperor "whose realm may God prosper", and to the President of the United States "... the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah, ...." Other than a reference to "the Christian year", there is no further mention of religion.
The Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli was signed in 1796 in Arabic, and was later translated into English by Joel Barlow, United States Consul General at Algiers. Except for the typical phrases "Praise be to God" and "whom God Exalt", there is no reference to religion other than the aforesaid remarkable Article 11, which reads,
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (sic) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
The treaty, with this language, was submitted to the Senate by President Adams, and was ratified. Thus, opponents of the 'Christian nation' concept point to this seemingly official repudiation of the very idea. Yet the language is less a repudiation of the role of Christianity in the nation's heritage than a reminder that there was no national established church in the United States as there was in the European states with which Tripoli had previously dealt. This provided reassurance to the Moslem Bey and his religious establishment that religion, in of itself, would not be a basis of hostility between the two nations. None of the other similar treaties with the Barbary states, before or after this treaty, including the replacement treaties signed in 1804 after the Barbary Wars, have any language remotely similar.
And there is a deeper mystery: As noted in a footnote at page 1070 of the authoritative treatise by Bevans, Treaties and other International Agreements of the United States of America, citing treaty scholar Hunter Miller.
"While the Barlow translation quoted above has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections since 1797, most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.' does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point" (Emphasis added)
In sum, the phrase was no doubt an invention of Mr. Barlow, who inserted it on his own for his own, unknown, purposes. It was duly ratified without question by the United States Senate, which would no doubt be hesitant to object to any phraseology which was represented as desired by the Bey of Tripoli, with whom the United States wanted peaceful relations. It remains a mystery. - LINK
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
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.