The Founding Fathers On God And Religion

Toogood Reports ^ | July 1, 2002 | Paul E. Scates

[Khepera]

Bump

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. – James Madison, ‘father of the Constitution,´ 1785

Gee, I guess he was a real "right-winger." [irony]

[KansasConservative1]

Bump for later read...

[homeschool mama]

bump!

[homeschool mama]

ping

[kinsman redeemer]

I was standing in the hall the other day talking to another fellow. As people walked by, I asked them about the phrase "separation of Church and State" and its presence in the Constitution. All of them said that to the best of their knowledge the quote is, in fact, exactly what is is found in the document.

Just as I figured.

[The Mayor]

It cannot be emphasized to strongly or too often
that this great nation was founded, not by religionists
but by Christians, not on religions,
but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ
For this very reason people of other faiths
have been afforded asylum, prosperity,
and freedom of worship here.
Patrick Henry

[Kevin Curry]

We'll soon have the atheist brigade here telling us that at most the founding fathers--especially Jefferson and Franklin--were "deists" who eschewed traditional religion as folk superstition.

However, the Jefferson and Franklin quotes both speak of divine intervention in the affairs of men. Divine intervention is not a fixture of Deism, but of Theism.

[FreeTally]

So I leave the question with you, American citizen: Do these writings reveal the thoughts of men who would support the removal of God from the public sphere?

No, they do not. However, these writings were composed of men who are mere mortals, humans that is, who breath air and bleed blood, just as you and I. They made a good talk of "freedom, liberty and equality for everyone", but then engaged in perplexing behavior not much different than politicians of today.

The FF's got us where we are today, and they deserve much credit for that, for everyone should be eternally thankful for their sacrifices. But many of their ideas and philosophies are contrary to a free people. And by reading many of their works, they were not really interested in a free society. They were authoritarian. The main difference is that the "governments" control was not nearly as far reaching as it is today. 200-250 years ago, if I did not like what government was doing in the colonies, I could pick up and move west, and essentially be under no government control. Such laws against "witchcraft", sodomy, sexual positions etc would not apply any longer. I think many envisioned an authoritarian theocracy on a small scale, with no idea that as the authoritative nature of government grew, "morals" would decline. And as people realized some of the warped translations of the Bible that were prevalent at that time, they realized such authoritative edicts were contrary to the ideas that the FF's espoused(Not to mention woman's suffrage and slavery). This also resulted in, over the years, many people rejecting true Christianity because of the warped version that they had been blindly following.

What's the point of this rant? To answer the question again, no, the FF's did not intend to remove relgion from the public sphere. Just keep in mind, though, that they were not really for religious freedom, unless you were of some type of "christian religion", and even then, you better not let your teachings stray too far from theirs. Religions of all kinds have every rightful place in the public sphere. Notice I said all religions, not just ones I may agree with. That being said, I agree with the supposed intent of the FF's to not allow a "state sponsored, recognized" religion for "the free excerices thereof" is to not be prohibted.

[f.Christian]

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological/SCIENCE(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values GROWTH!

[Lurking Libertarian]

However, the Jefferson and Franklin quotes both speak of divine intervention in the affairs of men. Divine intervention is not a fixture of Deism, but of Theism.

This is an area in which it's easy to play the game of "dueling quotes." You can mine the writings of many of the Founders-- especially Jefferson, Madison and Franklin-- for both Deist and Christian quotations. Generally, they sounded like devout Christians in public, especially when they were running for office, and like skeptics or Deists when writing in their private diaries or in letters to their friends.

[Kevin Curry]

. . . with no idea that as the authoritative nature of government grew, "morals" would decline.

You've stood the issue on its head. The central government was very small and modestly funded through its first century of existence. During the same period most American professed belief in theism of a Judeo-Christian variety and sought to live the greater part of their lives accordingly.

Central government got its initial boost in the Civil War, but the afterburners weren't lit until the dawn of the 20th Century when the state-based counterfeit millennialism of communism and socialism struggled to displace the personal religion-based salvation and self-reliance of Judeo-Christianity. As a consequence of this tendency, ordinary Americans started to buy into the lie that morality is an individual standard and that God is irrelevant. The more they surrendered to this peculiar anomie, the more powerful central government became.

Central government grows to fill the vacuum left when people reject God and religion-based morality out as regulating forces in their personal lives. They surrender an endoskeleton of religion-based spine and take on a exoskeleton of governmental coercion. In time, God-haters are no longer individual up-standing men but mere clattering social insects.

That is their sure and unavoidable fate. But our Constitution was designed by and for men--not insects.

[BuckeyeForever]

Whether a deist or theist, Jefferson was responsible for the phrase "separation between Church and State." In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.''

[kinsman redeemer]

Did his letter ever become law?

[Dimensio]

Just keep in mind, though, that they were not really for religious freedom, unless you were of some type of "christian religion", and even then, you better not let your teachings stray too far from theirs.

Actually, some like to claim that the First Amendment was intended only to apply to Christian religions however there were rejected drafts of the Amendment that would have amounted to just that -- in the end the Amendment was worded without any conditions of application, one would think that had it only been intended for Christianity that one of the previous drafts would have been chosen instead.

[Gig]

Bump for a later read!

[FreeTally]

Actually, some like to claim that the First Amendment was intended only to apply to Christian religions however there were rejected drafts of the Amendment that would have amounted to just that -- in the end the Amendment was worded without any conditions of application, one would think that had it only been intended for Christianity that one of the previous drafts would have been chosen instead.

Well, as we all know, the Constitution in the form that was ratified was a "compromise". They compromised over many issues including slavery, religion and the "enumeration" of rights. Just as many FF's wanted to end slavery, but compromised, we had many who didn't like anyone who didn't fit their brand of Christianity, and compromised on the wording of th constitution. I personally think that history shows their hypocrisy on many issues, but sometimes its hard to recognize because there was so much "undiscovered" land in America that, rather than fight, people could just move and start a new life under their own "moral" rules. We do not have that today. We see many people wanting a christian theocracy in this country. If "America" in the 1700's was only the size of the original 13 colonies, we would have been living under a theocracy for nearly 250 years.

I think the laws passed on State and local levels show that many "leaders" in the 1700's and 1800's had no intention of a "free society". But, back then, they had a legitimate claim of "If you do not like it, then move". And back then, people in Maryland didn't know or care what people that moved out west really did(let me emphasize "didn't know"). In the 21st century, its hard for people to turn on television, see someone living on the opposite coast, and not say, "government, make them stop! Conserve that land(that I dont own)! Raise taxes on them! Make them abide by the laws of my State!"

The point? The Constitution has flawes, simply because it was written by men who are natually "flawed" creatures. We will never get anywhere as a nation until everyone realizes this, and realizes that the flaws have to do with the respect of the natural rights of all.

[LiteKeeper]

Jefferson was in France at the time, and had NOTHING to do with the writing of the First Amendment.

[CyberCowboy777]

Western civilization falls without legitimate moral authority outside man. It is predicated on inalienable rights (part of a moral code) that must source from outside mans reason. If that morality (unalienable rights) has no authority behind it, outside man himself, morality becomes the imaginations of man. It is then not real, it is only an idea and no person can be force to follow it or be punished for acting contrary to it. Our Founding Fathers knew that.

God as a creator, not as a religion, is that source (as the Founding Fathers stated many times). That creator maintains the Legitimate Moral Authority that endows our inalienable right to life and liberty. Without that "God" (Legitimate Moral Authority, due to authorship) inalienable rights (and basic morality) become institutions of man, allowing man to change or remove at will what he reasons best. Man has no authority to dictate inalienable rights or morality, they must come from an incorruptible legitimate source, i.e. God.

So you see it is impossible to remove God from our Republic or Western Civilization without undermining the authority of inalienable rights. And as we all know, without inalienable rights outside man and his reason, man becomes wild (anarchist, animal like) or ruled (communism, socialism, Nazism).

The establishment clause is part of this philosophy; that government cannot legitimately force a person to conform to a religion as that violates the inalienable rights endowed by the Moral Authority (God). The establishment clause does not separate God from Government, it verbalizes the constraint Government has regarding God and His creations (as does the Bill of Rights as a whole).

By it's very existence it affirms Gods Moral Authority and authorship of Life and Liberty.

If we as a people disregard or remove God as that Moral Authority, we undermine our very system of Freedom and will have no place demand such. As then there is no authority outside our own thoughts to dictate what is right.