U.S. Founded on Christianity?
Will Kiblinger offers an analysis of the situation which draws on ideas not usually seen in the debate:
The point is that government and religion need to be separate. Why? Because the framers of the constitution feared tyranny. If those who have the power of the sword can also invoke God's will as justification for the use of the sword, then there will be no way to prevent tyranny. We would in effect have a king chosen by divine right.
From studying the Hebrew prophets, we see that religion functions in the way the framers envisioned only when religious leaders are willing and able to stand up to the power of the state and criticize it. The prophets were the critics of government. ... Religion becomes dangerous when it becomes too closely aligned with the power of the sword because its motives to serve the world can get mixed with selfish power-hungry motives. We see this happening over and over in world history.
Thus, the framers would have recommended 1. separation of government and religion, and 2. prophetic religion that speaks truth to power. They did not want an empire religion such as Constantinian Christianity in which religion became the justification for anything the power-seeking officials of the empire wanted. That would just be tyranny. Not only is this situation an obvious threat to democracy, it also threatens the independence of the church. In Constantine's empire, the church became just another arm of the state, a mere instrument of the emperor like the department of defense or the treasury. Thus, the separation of the church from the state and the maintenance of the prophetic form of the church serve both democracy and the church.
Yes, it's true that defenders of the separation of church and state commonly cite the fact that separation protects churches as well as the state, but you don't normally see those defenders drawing explicitly on biblical stories and lessons in doing so. Kiblinger cites Isaiah on King Ahaz and King Hezekiah for examples of how religion can and should be separated from the power of the state.
Of course, there wasn't a real separation of church and state for the ancient Hebrews, and orthodox Jews who today take these stories as literal fact would like to see Israel as a theocracy rather than a secular democracy. Still, that doesn't mean that the lessons Kiblinger sees are invalid — it may mean that he is doing a better job at learning from those passages than others are.
Read More:
Comments
Who came over to the America’s? The Pilgrims. Who were they? Christians. Why did they come here? To have freedom of religion.
I would encourage you to read the following article… http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57666
I would also point out your article here on answer has no facts. It should also be pointed out that the bible doesn’t teach to spread the word by the sword.
1. Lots more than they came over here, and for many more reasons.
2. Christians coming here for religious liberty doesn’t mean that the U.S. was founded on Christianity.
Brandon, you claim that the pilgrims came to America “To have freedom of religion.” In so doing, you’re displaying your ignorance of history.
Those pilgrims emigrated to The Netherlands prior to coming to America. They experienced religious tolerance there for the first time. So, why did they leave? It’s because these same pilgrims were intolerant of the beliefs and non-beliefs of the Dutch. Religious freedom was unacceptable to them when that meant tolerance for others. They only wanted it for themselves.
As a result, they risked life, families, hardship, and all their savings to come to America simply to escape religious freedom.
Please read history in order to stop spreading further falsehoods.
Stephen
I never cease being surprised that so many seem incapable of counting even to 2 and are incessantly caught on false dilemmas. The Puritans came not just for religious freedom but in hope of economic success in a land they could develop and control, and they were financed by capitalists hoping to obtain profit. They were not the first colony established by Anglos. Many seem to ignore Jamestown and also ignore subsequent emigrations as they ignore the “unchristian” (in its best moral sense) treatment of native Americans and the immoral, often vicious competition among various colonies and religious sects. If the source of morality is religion and god given why are so many self righteous people so immoral in treatment of others who also think their morality is god given, and of course also of those who are less superstitious? Education that includes acceptance of evidence and logic is surely superior to training and religious guidance and control by leaders who believe (or profess for power) being guided by the holy ghost.
Hoodwinking and bushwhacking the unwary and ignorant surely is immoral. Perhaps everything did not start with a deity or the Puritans?
Forgot to indicate in previous post: The United States was not founded by Puritans, for United States of America is an evidential and logical reference to our government and nation created with the U.S. Constitution which replaced the Articles of Confederation. The Declaration of Independence declared the separation of sovereign states from Great Britain. It is not the law of the land; nor is it some kind of “covenant” as Newt Gingrich declares. The U.S. Constitution does not allude to a deity, separates religion and state while protecting religion in private lives of individuals, and prohibits any religious test for election to national or state and local offices.
And we should be very thankful that the ACLU functions to support the Constitution and civil rights. It is idiotic to attack an entity that actually protects the right of individual belief and opposes theocracy. It need not be a battle between Christian believers and supporters of secular government. The right of freedom of conscience is the most important and a guarantee of “freedom of belief” a phrase that might help those who would impose their often illogical, non-evidential beliefs on others by using government. How pathetically ironic that we oppose theocracy in Iran and elsewhere and so many would establish a theocracy in the U.S.; how pathetic that so much of that desire is based on historical ignorance which allows their votes to be influenced by unscrupulous, greedy for power politicians.
The Civil War was waged not just over slavery but also over the a national unified government being superior to individual states, and the 14th Amendment indicates unity and application of the equality stated in the Constitution to all parts of our nation. By Constitutional law we are a constitutional-democratic-republic, so should count not just to 2 but to at least to 3.
“Federalism” should not be a declaration used to allow decisions to individual states that are more justified and constitutional decisions of our national government, particularly those individual rights stated in the Bill of Rights.
Opposing those who declare “we are a Christian country” in order to elect and use government to proselytize their religion and force observation of it upon others is not, as christian demanders charge, forcing agnosticism or atheism upon them. It is support of the law of the land, the Constitution, and the right of free thought and practice. Legal action against illegal control is protection of rights not attacks on religious rights.
Chuck Norris? Brandon, you quoted Chuck Norris on the WND? Wow, we’re reaching now! What are his qualifications as a historical scholar? To top it all, most of the historical figures he “quoted” were commenting on morality, and you once again assumed that there is no morality without christianity! Pledge to further your investigations and study.
Just watched Mitt’s appeal for the far right evangelical vote. His concentration was like so many who support having a theocracy based on the Continental Congress prayer as indicative of religion in governnment, the oft “proof” that the founders intended a “Christian country”. He also called support of the separation of religion and government “religion of secularism” (note the Constitution does not use the word “church” but rather “establishment of religion”).
Secularism is, of course, a belief, but not a religious belief. To the contrary it is a belief that religion should not dictate governmental function. Like other unprincipled politicians Mitt resorts to doublespeak. Perhaps he could profit from some secular morality not dependent on religion? As previously indicated: the Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation, and knowing distortions of history presented as the establishment of our nation ignore the Constitution that established the United States of America. Surely we don’t need another civil war to establish what the law of the land is and that our nation is secular rather than theocratic? Many of those who swear to support the Constitution seem not to have read it, but of course more likely choose to ignore it and interject religion into government with additions of god in the pledge, prayer, etc not intended by those who created the Constitution. They opposed such additions, hence the 1st Amendment and “no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Obviously “United States” is our country-nation? Those taking office are not required to swear on the Bible; they may use “oath” or “affirmation” that they support the Constitution. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND SECULAR FREEDOM CAN NOT EXIST IF RELIGIOUS DICTIMS (often most ridiculous and grossly non evidential and irrational) dominate government. Those who support religious myth and blind faith should be content that the law of the land protects their right to practice their religions in their private lives, for government control and sponsorship of religion just might not be to their liking and certainly not to the liking of those who prefer using evidence and logic.
The Bill of Rights is designed to guarantee specified rights not just to the majority but to all, including those that base their thinking on rational examination, actual knowledge rather than training and unsupported faith even though they be in the minority. There is a great need and reaponsibility to oppose the distortions of politicians that appeal to ignorance and blind faith, particularly to those who resort to disinformation.
it’s probably just a personal opinion that doesn’t count for much, but here’s an interesting quote by the late Earl Warren, made in 1954 when he was Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court:
“I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that 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 to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut … the same objective 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 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. “
It was a personal opinion an doesn’t count for anything — at best, and assuming the quote is genuine. Portions of it are flatly false. Can you provide an original source for this, or only people who keep repeating the same quote and who have no knowledge of or interest in whether it’s genuine?
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/ 0,9171,936197,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
The numerous ellipses are far too suspicious to warrant taking the quote at face value, and that’s even before realizing that doing so would require finding much of it false.
you can feel free to google earl warren, if you like, but it sounds as though you’ve already decided.
I did do some research, and the lack of a full quotation — not to mention the absence of verifiable citations for the original — is precisely how I arrived at my current position. Your assumption that I haven’t done any investigation is no more or less than I expect from you.
Brooke, if you have not, research the effect of the Enlightenment and its support of free thought vs religious authority and theocracy. Doesn’t the Bible demand a total acceptance of Christian authority rather than freedom of conscience? It is “we the people” as long as the people accept the dictates of religious authority as dictated by a particular religion and enforced by the state. That is obviously a denial of freedom?
You’re way outta line. They didn’t want a government that could ESTABLISH their own religion; and it follows, outlaw all others.
Seperation of church and state—there is NO such thing. Search the constitution all you want, you’ll not find it!!!
Establishing a religion does not entail outlawing all others. Britain has an established religion — Anglican Christianity. Do you honestly believe that this is the only legal religion in Britain? Well, it’s not.
You also won’t find the phrase “right to a fair trial.” What do you think that means?
Given that everything else you wrote is incorrect, perhaps you’d like to rephrase this?
John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington, wrote to Jedidiah Morse Feb. 28, 1797 (the same year the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified), “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
And you are saying he didn’t really mean it when he said this is a Christian nation?
And to what religion is Adams referring? He gave us an answer when he wrote Thomas Jefferson June 28, 1813, “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. … And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united.”
And Jefferson was just kidding, too??
John Quincy Adams, America’s sixth president, spoke at an Independence Day celebration in 1837, “Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity…?
Ol’ John was just pulling your leg here, huh?
Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, pointed to a Bible as he lay sick near death in 1845 and said, “That book, sir, is the rock on which our republic rests.”
He musta pointed at a rock somewhere in the room, huh?
“All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated through this Book; but for the Book, we could not know right from wrong. All the things desirable to men are contained in it.”
– Abraham Lincoln
A little aside from the founders but indicates the laws of our nation weren’t scratched from new cloth!
Quote:
What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an established religion without all these. . . Had the people, during the revolution, had any suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that revolution would have been strangled in its cradle…
At the time of the adoption of the constitution and the amendments; the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. . . In this age, there can be no substitution for Christianity. . .
That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants… — House Judiciary Committee
Quote:
Just lost their heads–didn’t really mean it??
Quote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness… The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. — George Washington
Ah, leave it to George! Maybe he had a toothache that day and couldn’t think???
A letter expressing a personal opinion cannot define the law of the land. A treaty, however, does define the law of the land.
If you think he was right, you should be able to explain where the “first precepts of Christianity” can be found in our government.
Once again, you need to be able to distinguish between a personal opinion and the law.
The quote doesn’t mention the laws at all.
I’m sure they did mean it, but meaning it doesn’t mean that they were correct.
Feel free to make an argument for the position that encouraging Christianity above all other religions is consistent with the separation of church and state.
I don’t think you can, because if you could you wouldn’t consistently quote other people instead of making your own arguments for your own ideas.
While he was the Governor of Pennsylvania, it became the second State to join the Union, December 12, 1787. Pennsylvania’s original Constitution read: “Frame of Government, Chapter 2, Section 10. And each member of the legislature, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: ‘I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governour of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.’” Benjamin Franklin
Seems like they were Christians before the Constitution was drawn up, huh?
Most of those involved with writing the Constitution were Christians of various sorts. The fact that a Christian writes something or is involved with writing something does not mean, however, that what they write is necessarily founded on vague, unidentified “Christian principles.” A Christian is capable of writing something that has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.
And I’m still waiting for you to construct an independent argument rather than just cut & paste quotations which you do not or cannot demonstrate support any point you might be trying to make. Do I wait in vain?
I should point out that such an oath would, today, be found unconstitutional. How do you feel about that? Do you think that people in state and/or national office should take such an oath? Why or why not?