Not at all. I used opinions from more Supreme Court Justices with longer and more respectable careers and you denied their expertise on the basis that they were judges. Then you find one judge that agrees with your opinion and he becomes absolute. That's not exactly honest thinking.
Prove it
The Constitution requires that faith not be an issue in government officers.
Any mention of Christianity is omitted from the Constitution. The Preamble invokes the People, not God.
The Constitutional Convention refused to have prayers open sessions. (1787: The Grand Convention, Clinton Rossiter)
The Federalist Papers do not site any Biblical basis for our government - Greece and Rome are used. The only religious references are "Nature's God" (not Christian), "Almighty," and "Heaven." (#'s 20, 38, 40)
Likewise, the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson as primary author, used "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." No "Christian" terms were used.
Christian preachers attacked the Constitution during ratification because it wasn't a Christian document.
Kramick, Moore, The Godless Constitution quote articles from ratification saying the lack of religious tests would allow, "1st. Quakers, who will make the blacks saucy, and at the same time deprive us of the means of defence - 2dly. Mahometans, who ridicule the Trinity - 3dly. Deists, abominable wretches - 4thly. Negroes, the seed of Cain - 5thly. Beggars, who when set on horseback will ride to the devil - 6thly. Jews etc. etc."
Another contemporary account of the Founders said, " Constitution is de[i]stical in principle, and in all probability the composers had no thought of God in all their conclusions."(Kramick)
The sources of the Founding Fathers in the enlightenment were not only homegrown varieties like Paine, a deist like Jefferson, but also Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, all humanists. No 'divine' sources.
Words from the Founding Fathers:
John Adams wrote in "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787:
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
Of course, many use the example from the Treaty of Tripoli that Adams signed as President, ratified by the Senate containing Founders, and part of the laws of the land as described by the Constitution, wherein Article 11 begins:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;
James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," wrote, as used in the Remonstrance,
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
In his letter to Livingston, 1822:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Ben Franklin wrote in essays a distrust of the power of Christianity such as from "Toleration":
If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution.
Thomas Paine, in the Age of Reason, a primary influence on the Founding Fathers:
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."Thomas Jefferson created the phrase Separation of Church and State, Danbury letter, and in response to the Virgnia Act:
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
During the Trinity case, Brewer wrote the quote you used in dicta.
Later Brewer felt obliged to explain himself: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all." Judge Brewer, Christian Nation, 1905
Would the daily congressional prayers count as non-religious behavior?
There is no such thing as "daily congressional prayers." There are prayers at the opening of sessions of Congress. This a prayer by a group of individuals - not against the Constitution. A legislative requirement for prayer - against the Constitution. Do you see the difference? Members of government at any level can pray or use religious language, if the voters don't like it - they not reelect him. If a member of a government at any level requires a religious belief or behavior as part of law, the voters are screwed.
The conclusion is that the American experiment in democracy was one wherein government and religion would be separated for the first time in much of human history. Religion belongs in the control OF the people, not to control the people through government. Taking religion out of the government ensures maximum freedom of religion of the people. A religious people will provide a firm basis for a free government. A religious government only leads to tyranny.
Justice Story is a hard nut for atheists to crack. Better you shop for more modern, easily corruptible, "judges". BTW, Joseph Story served 34 years on the Supreme Court, with distinction! He also served before the judiciary became nearly 100% corrupt.
The Constitutional Convention refused to have prayers open sessions.
After weeks of debate, when the convention had become bitter and hopelessly deadlocked, Benjamin Franklin rose and spoke, ". . . I therefore beg to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business." Franklin then proposed that the Congress adjourn for two days to seek divine guidance. When they returned they began each of their sessions with prayer.
The Federalist Papers do not site any Biblical basis for our government - Greece and Rome are used. The only religious references are "Nature's God" (not Christian), "Almighty," and "Heaven." (#'s 20, 38, 40)
I cannot begin to count the number of times atheists have used that argument in their vain attempts to perpetuate their anti-Christian myth. But you will never hear an atheist quote this segment from Federalist Paper No. 2: "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence." John Jay, the author of that paper, was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S. Note how Jay's argument parallels George Washington's argument in his Farewell Address (quoted in a previous post).
. . . the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson as primary author, used "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." No "Christian" terms were used.
True. It was, after all, written mostly by Jefferson. At least he recognized a "Creator". You do know that at least three (3) times in his letters Jefferson claimed he was a Christian? He also believed in "future rewards and punishments", which means he is NOT a deist as you and other atheists claim.
Christian preachers attacked the Constitution during ratification because it wasn't a Christian document. Kramick, Moore, The Godless Constitution quote articles from ratification saying the lack of religious testswould allow, "1st. Quakers, who will make the blacks saucy, and at the same time deprive us of the means of defence - 2dly. Mahometans, who ridicule the Trinity - 3dly. Deists, abominable wretches - 4thly. Negroes, the seed of Cain - 5thly. Beggars, who when set on horseback will ride to the devil - 6thly. Jews etc. etc."
Kramick and Moore certainly gave the leftists and other atheists something to wave in front of Christians. Unfortunately, Kramic and Moore proved nothing in their poorly researched, poorly written book. For example, Kramic and Moore quoted Oliver Ellsworth in their book. But as a Connecticut delegate to the Constitutional Conventionof 1787, in explaining to the people the clause that prohibits a religious test for public office, Ellsworth stated, "A test in favor of any one denomination of Christians would be to the last degree absurd in the United States. If it were in favor of Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, or Quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of the American citizens for any public office and thus degrade them from the rank of freemen." In other words, Ellsworth and Justice Story have similary understandings.
Professor Daniel Dreisbach, on "The Godless Constitution", stated, "[Kramick's and Moore's] argument, while an appealing antidote to the historical assertions of the religious right, is superficial and misleading," adding, "The professor's inordinate reliance on the Constitution's most vociferous critics to describe and define that document results in misleading, if not erroneous, conclusions. Furthermore, like the extreme anti-Federalists of 1787, the professors misunderstand the fundamental nature of the federal regime and its founding charter . . . The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God."
That, Ophiucus, is exactly what I have been telling you all along.
Regarding the accuracy of the book, Dr. Dreisbach wrote, "The Godless Constitution's lack of clear documentation is a disappointment. In order to examine the book's thesis more fully, I attempted to document the claims and quotations in the second chapter, which sets forth the case that the "principal architects of our national government envisioned a godless Constitution and a godless politics." It was readily apparent why these two university professors, who live in the world of footnotes, avoided them in this tract. The book is replete with misstatements or mischaracterizations of fact and garbled quotations. For example, the professors conflate two separate sections of New York Constitution of 1777 to support the claim that it "self-consciously repudiated tests" (p. 31). Contrary to this assertion, neither constitutional section expressly mentions religious tests and, indeed, test oaths were retained in the laws of New York well into the nineteenth century. The Danbury Baptists, for another example, did not ask Jefferson to designate "a fast day for national reconciliation" (pp.97, 119).. . The suggestion that the U. S. Constitution is godless because it makes only brief mention of the Deity and Christian custom is superficial and misguided. Professors Kramnick and Moore succumb to the temptation to impose twentieth-century values on eighteenth-century text. Their book is less an honest appraisal of history than a partisan tract written for contemporary battles. They frankly state their desire that this polemic will rebut the "Christian nation" rhetoric of the religious right. Unfortunately, their historical analysis is as specious as the rhetoric they criticize."
Andrew Sandlin of the Christian Statesman wrote: "Recall that all of the states had establishments of some sort and several had established churches. The bedrock Calvinist (and other) clergy were in the forefront of the battle to avoid explicitly religious language in the Federal Constitution because they didn't want the Feds messing with their state establishments. The fact that it was the orthodox clergy who opposed an explicitly religious Federal Constitution should by itself refute the silly notions that the omission of reference to Christ denotes a secularizing motivation...Indeed, the fact that the Constitution does not mention Christ or the church is a testimony to a potent localized Christianity. It just so happens that these early Americans had a libertarian strain we today sorely lack. The federal government was not the civil be-all-and-end-all for them as it is for too many (including Christians) today, and they resisted any attempt of the Feds and the proposed Constitution to meddle with their explicitly Christian state establishments...It is hard for Christians suckled on USA Today, The Capital Gang, Dan Rather, and Bill Clinton's ultra-federalism, but they need to understand it...One writer pointed out Benjamin Franklin's and Thomas Jefferson's questionable relation to orthodox Christianity. Fair enough, but as Bradford noted in his essay, "Religion and the Framers" (Benchmark, Fall, 1990) (which the writer admits he has not read), the vast majority of the Founders were devout Christian men, though the secularists focus on the minority of radicals since the latter buttress the modern Godless cause. Why do Christians join the secularist God-haters in highlighting only the few heterodox Founders like Jefferson (who was not present at the Convention ) and Franklin, et al., while ignoring the 95% who were unashamedly Christian?"
Sandlin continues: "Thomas Woods concludes his review (Modern Age, Winter 1997) of Kramnick and Moore's, The Godless Constitution by noting: [I]t is an unstated but palpable nationalism on the part of Kramnick and Moore that renders them unable to break out of a self-imposed either-or dichotomy: either the federal government permits an established church or even minorexpressions of religious belief--including nondenominational benedictions at graduation ceremonies--are prohibited to every community in America. The possibility that the Framers may have envisioned a position between these extremes, that practices forbidden to the central [Federal] government may be perfectly licit at the state and local level, never enters their constitutional calculus. The Godless Constitution ultimately brings to mind Disraeli's famous description of one of his opponents: "He had only one idea, and it was wrong.""
One of Kramick's and Moore's colleagues at Cornell, Richard Baer, agrees with them in part, but disagrees with them in some major points, as follows: "Most liberals--and indeed many conservatives--simply do not want to deal with the fact that government public schools today routinely violate the consciences and the religious freedom of millions of Americans. The Godless Constitution completely misses the fact that neither Thomas Jefferson nor Horace Mann opposed the teaching of religion in the common schools. What they opposed was the teaching of what they called "sectarian" religion, in other words, the religion of many orthodox Christians. They considered their own Unitarian-deistic theology and morality entirely appropriate, indeed essential, to the task of public education...What has changed in our own day is that establishment educators now oppose the teaching of all religion in government public schools. Religion in toto is now considered sectarian; only what comes under the umbrella of the secular is judged to be nonsectarian. This leaves us with a troubling and unstable state of affairs, for secular beliefs and values have come to function in public education in an essentially religious fashion, directly displacing and undermining many traditional religious beliefs and values. Thus, rather than excluding religion, public schools today are utterly pervaded with religion, but of a humanistic variety that carries the misleading label "secular."... Liberals, of course, typically ridicule the claim that secular humanism is a religion (or is religious), but they overlook the fact that this claim was made originally not by fundamentalist Christians but by humanists themselves, including John Dewey. Nor do liberals want to deal with the claims of eminent scholars such as Emile Durkheim and Reinhold Niebuhr, who have argued that secular beliefs and values often function exactly like supernatural beliefs and values."
In a nutshell, Ophiucus, you should consider better (e.g., accurate) sources if you expect to get any significant mileage out of your myth.
James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," wrote, as used in the Remonstrance...
Ophiucus, according to David Barton:
"Madison’s religious views and activities are numerous, as are his writings on religion. They are at times self-contradictory, and his statements about religion are such that opposing positions can each invoke Madison as its authority. An understanding of Madison’s religious views is complicated by the fact that his early actions were at direct variance with his later opinions. Consider six examples of his early actions.
First, Madison was publicly outspoken about his personal Christian beliefs and convictions. For example, he encouraged his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation: [A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. Madison even desired that all public officials - including Bradford - would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony: 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 and [who] 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.
Second, Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that: It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
Third, Madison’s proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrates that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. His proposal declared: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established. (Madison reemphasized that position throughout the debates.)
Fourth, in 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains.
Fifth, in 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
Sixth, throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.
These were the early actions of Madison. In later life Madison retreated from many of these positions, even declaring in his Detached Memoranda his belief that having paid chaplains and issuing presidential prayer proclamations were unconstitutional. Recent Courts have made a point of citing Madison’s Detached Memoranda in arguing against public religious expressions.
Significantly, the Detached Memoranda was discovered in 1946 in the papers of Madison biographer William Cabell Rives and was first published more than a century after Madison’s death by Elizabeth Fleet in the October 1946 William & Mary Quarterly. In that work, Madison expressed his opposition to many of his own earlier beliefs and practices and set forth a new set of beliefs formerly unknown even to his closest friends. Since Madison never made public or shared with his peers his sentiments found in the Detached Memoranda, and since his own public actions were at direct variance with this later writing, it is difficult to argue that it reflects the Founders’ intent toward religion.
There are numerous ... public religious activities by the Founding Fathers that might be cited, and Madison participated and facilitated many of them. Yet Madison later privately renounced his own practices, thus distancing himself from his own beliefs and practices as well as those of the other Founders. Therefore, to use Madison’s “Detached Memoranda” as authoritative is a flagrant abuse of historical records, choosing a long unknown ex post facto document in preference to those concurrent with the framing and implementation of the First Amendment.
Newdow’s use of James Madison is typical of most revisionists: it gives only the part of the story with which he agrees and omits the part with which he disagrees. If Newdow wants to take the position that the “Founding Fathers” (plural) opposed the use of chaplains, then he must provide evidence from more than one Founder; he must show that the majority of the Founders opposed chaplains - something that he cannot do. "
John Adams wrote in "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787
Ophiucus, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813 Adams wrote::
"The general principles, on which the Father 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 the General Principles English and American Liberty, in which all these young men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert her Independence. . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."
On August 28, 1813, Adams wrote:
"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society."
Of course, many use the example from the Treaty of Tripoli that Adams signed as President...
The Treaty of Tripoli stated that the federal government was not founded on the Christian religion. That is possibly true, possibly not, but meaningless in either case since religion was a state, local, and individual matter until the meddlesome federal judiciary started imposing its religion (secularism) on the states and people. On the Treaty, David Barton wrote:
"Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States...It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared: "The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours".
Furthermore, it was Adams who declared: "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature." Adams’own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation."
Ben Franklin wrote in essays a distrust of the power of Christianity such as from "Toleration"...
Did you know that Roger Sherman seconded the motion by Benjamin Franklin to start each session of Congress with prayer? And how about what Norman Cousins wrote (part of which was aforementioned): "Once, when breakdown in the constitutional debates seemed imminent, he cooled the passions and restored the perspective of the delegates: 'Our different sentiments on almost every question,' he said, '...is me thinks a meloncholy proof of the imperfection of human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it...I have lived,sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice,is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assurde, Sir, in the sacrted writings, that 'except the Lord building the house, they labour in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest. ' I therefore beg leave to move-- that henceforth paryers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business...' "
Thomas Paine, in the Age of Reason, a primary influence on the Founding Fathers...
You may have finally found a non-Christian member of the founding fathers (note I wrote, "may have").
Thomas Jefferson created the phrase Separation of Church and State, Danbury letter, and in response to the Virgnia Act:
Read about Thomas Jefferson above in Dreisbach and Sandlin.
Judge Brewer explained, "... On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians...
There is that pesky 1st Amendment wording, the "Congress shall make no law", again...
There is no such thing as "daily congressional prayers."
The House and Senate Chaplains (first appointed in 1789), who open the House and Senate each day with prayer, will most likely disagree with you.
The conclusion is that the American experiment in democracy was one wherein government and religion would be separated for the first time in much of human history. Religion belongs in the control OF the people, not to control the people through government. Taking religion out of the government ensures maximum freedom of religion of the people. A religious people will provide a firm basis for a free government. A religious government only leads to tyranny.
Absolute rubbish.