Thomas J. Ramundo, senior pastor at Jackson Free Methodist Church in Michigan, writes in defense of this in The Jackson Citizen Patriot:
Here's [a] quote of [Patrick] Henry's: "It cannot be emphasized too 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 that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."
That quote interests me for a couple of reasons. For one, it flies in the face of the current revisionist notion that our country's founders and constitution's framers were not persons who held and were motivated by strong Christian beliefs. If you never have, you might want to do some digging in the personal writings and recorded prayers of George Washington, John Adams and most of their fellow freedom fighters.
Another reason that quote interests me is Patrick Henry's belief that because of America's Christian founding and principles, and "for that reason alone," people of all faiths may worship as they choose in this great land. When you look at freedom of worship today in light of America's diverse religious landscape, you see Henry was right and would probably be proud of how things have shaped up more than two and a quarter centuries later.
There are a couple of serious flaws with Ramundo‘s argument here. First, no one seriously argues that many of America’s founders had strong religious beliefs. What is argued is, first, they weren’t always motivated by religious beliefs that were identical to the beliefs of conservative evangelical Christians today and, second, that being motivated by religious beliefs is not the same as trying to create a government that is based upon religious beliefs. It is strange that people like Ramundo would fail to consider the possibility that devout Christians might want to establish a national government where religious doctrines play no role.
Secondly, if someone is going to make claims about the meaning of the Constitution, it would make more sense to draw on comments from the people who actually wrote and/or supported the Constitution. Patrick Henry was neither. Henry tried to get religion expressed in the Constitution and he failed. Henry tried to prevent the Constitution from being ratified (he was an anti-federalist) and he failed.
Quoting Patrick Henry to prove something about the meaning of the Constitution is not unlike quoting George W. Bush to prove something about the meaning of the Democratic Party Campaign Platform.
Read More:
I would like to submit some thoughts for the consideration of both the author of this article and the passer-by.
Christianity is a comprehensive worldview. It is rooted in the teachings of Moses; and clarified and fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The Bible has teaching that apply to every area of life.
This is the implication – if the founders really had deep religious beliefs as the author acknowledges, it would be impossible for those beliefs not to inform the way they formed a government. At least it would be impossible if those beliefs were Biblical and Christian.
I agree that the founders had the wisdom to recognize the importance of separating the institution of church and the institution of state. This institutional separation does not, however, forbid the building of government upon beliefs derived from a Christian worldview. It only seeks to separate institutions of authority.
In the old Testament there is a story where King Uzziah entered the temple to burn incense*. The priests confronted him with the fact that it was not his role to do so!
Uzziah became angry and God struck him with leprosy! I suspect that God knew the danger of blurring the lines between religious institutional role & authority and the role & authority of civil government. However, the same Bible is filled with ideas about civil government!
Summary: The institution of church should not be confused or blurred with the institution of state; but this does not exclude the benefits of applying Biblical Christian ideas to civil government, nor does it need to prevent the state acknowledging God.
* II Chronicles 26:16-21
And it is also good to remember that it is extremely helpful to the nation that people follow Christian beliefs. On most occasions families that raise their children in a Christian way of life, those kids usually never step foot in jail or anything like that so, just keep in mind that the christian way of life is in most cases help full to the nation.
Feel free to explain how non-Christians have equal religious freedom to Christians when the common civil government is privileging Christians’ religious doctrines.
Your last sentence comparing Henry to Bush makes little sense. Patrick Henry was commenting on the founding of our country, not on the Constitution. Surely, even you think he knew a little about our founding. And nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of separation of church and state. In fact, all state constitutions did originally reference our Christian God. http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/all-50-state-constitutions-mention-god/
I looked at your link and find a dearth of references specifically to “our Christian God.” The specific references to Christianity quoted there all predate the federal constitution.
As for the others… it is quite a leap to assume that any reference to God, a creator, or divinity must be a specific reference to a “Christian God.”
That some Christians pretend that God is theirs alone, and that religious liberty is a gift they choose to dole out to non-believers, is proof of the wisdom of denying religion the authority to dictate to civil society.
Which is why it makes no sense to cite him on the meaning of the Constitution.
Knowing about America’s founding and knowing about the meaning of the Constitution are different things. Surely, even you know that.
There is also no mention of a right to a fair trial. So, I assume you don’t think you have such a right?
Some even established religions. So, I assume you think an established religion in a state is constitutional, simply because it existed at the time of the Constitution?
It’s also useful to point out that Patrick Henry was considered a bit odd by his peers for his rather extreme Christianity. He was probably the most religious of the Founding Fathers and caught a bit of flak for it from the others, so holding him up as a shining example doesn’t quite jibe with the facts.
Nearly chocked on my morning cup of coffee when I read Jacob’s contribution of : “On most occasions families that raise their children in a Christian way of life, those kids usually never step foot in jail or anything …..”.
A typical comment by someone telling “how it is” by referring to his own prejudiced belief of “how it should be” without bothering to check the facts of how it really is.
The United States of America being a country of extremely high religiosity, (mostly Christian), compared to other western countries, has the dubious distinction of having the highest incarceration rate of any country in the World. And where in this wonderful Christian country is the crime rate worst? — down in the Bible blob.
ThirstyJon and Jacob, which Christian values would those be? That women have no legal input and should be virtual slaves if not property? That white, land-holding slave owners and businesses should call the shots and make the laws? That we should burn suspected witches? That we should kill disrespectful children? That it’s ok to rape women in certain circumstances, and that the raped woman has to marry the man who violated her?
You have to remember that “Jesus” supposedly supported ALL of the O.T. law, or do you prefer to ignore the following:
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
(Note that the earth is rather stubbornly still here…)
“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
Jesus himself even criticized the Jews for not killing their children according to OT law: “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)
Now, if you’d care to show me where he said, ‘Never mind what God or I said before…’