Note that Madison says it was only intended to prohibit a national religion, force observance of that religion, or stop people from exercising their religion freely, regardless of what faith it is.
But, when the govt. took actions such as granting federal govt. funds to build churches on Indian lands and send off missionaries, that obviously was a pretty strong support for Christianity exclusively.
The First Amendment must have had a pretty narrow intent.
I don't support some sort of theocracy. I am a Reformed Christian, and I certainly understand thet sovereignty of Christ over all things. I also recognize that the govt. should not take charge over the church. The founders were wise to reject this. But, I also recognize as Romans says, that the govt. is to be the sword of God, mainly in civil law, but I believe govt. has a role to encourage morality as well. What the founders envisioned was a government that did not discriminate based on religion, nor control it. But, they did envision a govt. that encouraged Christianity's influence on the culture.
Why don't you believe it was all about the rights of conscience? Now you are the one running right past what Madison said was its purpose.
If the religion clauses are to be interpreted according the provisions found in the Indian Treaties then Madison’s view prevailed over your view by a score of 388 to 1.
You wrote:
I recognize as Romans says, that the govt. is to be the sword of God, mainly in civil law, but I believe government has a role to encourage morality as well.
I say:
The Madison-Jefferson-Leland-Backus-Williams doctrine of no civil authority over the duty that we owe to the Creator was derived in part from: My kingdom is not of this world and Render unto Caesar. The conflict between Romans 13 and Mathew 22:21 was resolved in favor of Christ.
Your view is reasonable and was the prevailing view up to about 1776. It was widely held during the founding era but gradually lost ground until it was overtaken some time between 1776 and 1787. During the days of the Early Republic it ran in second place. Presented below is an excerpt from a sermon that I stumbled onto just today. It is from 1845 by some cool cat named Gilbert Beebe (1800 - 1881) and articulates what I believe was the prevailing view of the times. Beebe's take on the issue is no government supervision or power over what belongs to God, such as matters of faith, conscience and religion.
Things of a civil nature, relating to the natural rights of men, were to be settled by God's own providential appointment, by human legislation; but the things aside from a respect for and obedience to earthly potentates, in natural matters, belonging to God, such as matters of faith, of conscience, of religion, were not things over which the kings of the earth had any supervision or power, and things in which His subjects were not at liberty under any circumstances, to submit to the dictation or legislation of any other than God Himself.
See the whole sermon at http://members.aol.com/twarren20/kingdomchrist.html
You wrote:
I believe government has a role to encourage morality as well.
I write:
Tell me what you believe best advances the type of morality necessary for a republican system of government. I will wager a three pence and cup of fine English tea that you and I will agree that it is a system where Christianity can thrive and blossom into a vibrant and vital force and source of morality.
You and I will most likely disagree on the type of system to best achieve that goal. If I have the right understanding, you advocate what was known during the Early Republic as “public leading in religion.”
Your theology is Romans 13 probably because you are Reformed Protestant. Mine is Matthew 22 because I am Methodist. The only way I will win this debate is to convert you from Romans to Matthew and vice versa, if you are going to win.
That most likely is not going to happen. Therefore, we can either resolve the conflict with force and violence or we can acknowledge that God is all-powerful, men are fallible and it is possible that God may dictate one thing to your conscience but another to mine.
I ask you to respect my duty to obey my conscience. But how can I ask you to extend to me that respect, unless I am willing to extend the same to you?
I suggest that we enter into a social contract where both of us agree to respect the others duty to obey his conscience and agree that we include a provision that forbids you to assume authority over my duties to God and I am forbidden likewise. We will call the social contract a constitution.