Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Proof We Are a Christian Nation - (declarations from our Founders)

Posted on 04/17/2005 10:27:53 AM PDT by CHARLITE

About the Writer: Artwork by Brenda Stocks. Graphic designing since 1986, Pasadena, Calif. Recent artwork for: Ronald McDonald House, Pasadena Firefighter's Assn., Re/Max Realty Magazine, Shopping for Real Estate Magazine, ERA Castle Realty, and a variety of other businesses and individuals. Logo & ad print design.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: christiannation; churchandstate; patrickhenry; thomasjefferson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 04/17/2005 10:27:53 AM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]



2 posted on 04/17/2005 10:34:10 AM PDT by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? 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?"

- Benjamin Franklin, To Colleagues at the Constitutional Convention

3 posted on 04/17/2005 10:36:06 AM PDT by Tempestuous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

Founders? Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution and Jefferson wasn't even in the country at the time it was drafted and ratified.

4 posted on 04/17/2005 10:38:50 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, ¶ 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago:
The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.


Christianity is part of the Common, or Natural Law. Therefore it is Christianity that is the basis of our government. Religion of any other type is not synonymous with the American experience of Liberty!"

God . . . is the promulgator as well as the author of natural law.

Justice James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration, the Constitution, Original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, and the father of the first organized legal training in America.

"It is the duty as well as the privilege and interest for our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians to be their representatives, as this is a Christian republic

- Justice John Jay, Supreme Court Justice

“It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe: . . . As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essential depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of Public instructions in piety, religion and morality...”

Justice Brewer Trinity v. United States. 1892

In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator.

Samuel Adams, Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration

[T]he laws of nature . . . of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and government.

John Quincy Adams

The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”

Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution

The “law of nature” is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator and existing prior to any positive precept. . . . [These] have been established by the Creator, and are, with a peculiar felicity of expression, denominated in Scripture, “ordinances of heaven.”

Noah Webster, Judge and Legislator

5 posted on 04/17/2005 10:41:05 AM PDT by MamaTexan (* NATURAL LAW * - - - If it was good enough for the Founders, then it's good enough for me!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Founded by christians does not mean you must be a christian however to be a good American. Freedom to worship as you choose or choose not to at all is fundamental to this nation just as much as the beliefs of those that founded it. Not to mention native Americans still believe in many of their beliefs that pre-date the founding of this nation. America is about freedom. Religous freedom is one of the reasons people came here in thei first place. That one word is all you need to know to understand America. Freedom. The flag represents us all. Not just christians, be they even the founders with all their wisdom.

6 posted on 04/17/2005 10:41:27 AM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Are you actually saying that Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence and our third President was not one of America's Founding Fathers?
7 posted on 04/17/2005 10:48:31 AM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

We are NOT a Christian nation.

We are a nation founded upon Christian principles, and have strayed from most of them.

The only Christian nation is the church, and that is made of those who obey Christ.
8 posted on 04/17/2005 11:05:39 AM PDT by AlGone2001 (You will never know that Jesus is all you need, until Jesus is all you've got-Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Thomas Jefferson is hardly proof that the US is a Christian nation. He considered himself a Christian in that he thought the moral doctrine of Jesus was superior to others, but he denied the divinity of Jesus repeatedly, claiming him to be a human like any other. He simply viewed Jesus as an excellent philosopher.

In fact, if you read the rest of Jefferson's letter, the "tyranny over the mind of man" Jefferson refers to above is the tyranny of the Episcopalian and Congregationalist churches! That makes the quote especially odd for this purpose.

9 posted on 04/17/2005 11:09:58 AM PDT by Phocion (Abolish the 16th Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlGone2001

BUMP. What you said.

But how much pluralism can the United States accomodate in the name of freedom? Satanism and Mohammedism are religions that accept perjury as a necessary good in certain cases.

10 posted on 04/17/2005 11:19:41 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I would consider them founders in terms of nation founding, though they were not founders of the Constitution which is the basic law of our country.

11 posted on 04/17/2005 11:29:33 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Phocion
Thomas Jefferson is hardly proof that the US is a Christian nation.

No but if you read the writings , speeches and letters of all of the founders from Washington to Franklin to Webster and including Jefferson, in fact all understood the importance of morality and virtue through Christianity, Now if you want to get into a pissing battle over whether they in their own minds "believed" fine, but it is absolutely irrelevant to the principles of our founding. The principle was in fact this.... Reason and Revelation two previously insoluble concepts were reified into what was our founding, one as important as the other.

12 posted on 04/17/2005 11:32:18 AM PDT by Archon of the East
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Phocion
Thomas Jefferson is hardly proof that the US is a Christian nation.

No but if you read the writings , speeches and letters of all of the founders from Washington to Franklin to Webster and including Jefferson, in fact all understood the importance of morality and virtue through Christianity, Now if you want to get into a pissing battle over whether they in their own minds "believed" fine, but it is absolutely irrelevant to the principles of our founding. The principle was in fact this.... Reason and Revelation two previously insoluble concepts were reified into what was our founding, one as important as the other.

13 posted on 04/17/2005 11:34:03 AM PDT by Archon of the East
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AlGone2001; CHARLITE

When a staunch post-millenialist theonomist, and an equally staunch pre-millenial dispensationalist agree on something, you can take it as a criterion. Both of these sources make interesting reading, whatever your eschatogical views.


Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism
Who Is Lord Over The United States?

A Christian citizen knows the answer: Jesus Christ. But if this really is the true answer, grounded firmly on the Bible, then why is it that so few Christians are willing to proclaim this fact publicly, and why is it that no Christian political candidate dare mention it?

There is a reason: the theology of political pluralism, the dominant public theology in our day.

Political pluralism is not simply a political philosophy: it is a theology. it is American's civil religion. This theology teaches that there must never be a nation that identifies itself with any religion. Well, not quite. The nation of Israel is grudgingly allowed to do so, as are the Islamic nations. But no nation is ever supposed to identify itself as Christian. "A Christian nation is self-contradictory!"

So we are told. But who tells us? Secular humanists who are dedicated to wiping out all political opposition. Also, Christian teachers who teach in tax-supported schools. Also, professors in Christian colleges who attended either state universities or secular humanist private universities, which are the only accredited universities in the United States that grant the Ph.D. degree.

Also, the U.S. Constitution.

This is the problem. God-fearing Christian Americans have been told that the Constitution teaches the absolute separation of Church and State. They have been told correctly. But what they have not been told is precisely where it says this. It does not say this in the First amendment. The First amendment says only that Congress shall make no law regarding religion or the free exercise thereof. So, where does the Constitution prohibit a Christian America? In a section that has been ignored by scholars for so long that it is virtually never discussed-the key provision that transformed American into a secular humanist nation. But it took 173 years to do this: from 1788 until 1961.

Political Polytheism discusses this crucial provision in detail-the first Christian book to do so in over two centuries.

But if Christ is Lord over the United States, yet the citizens of the United States either publicly deny this or are afraid to affirm it publicly, and if the elected politicians and appointed officers of the nation are legally prohibited from pursuing the implications of this fact, then what does this mean for the nation? It means that God intends to bring American under judgment. Why? Because this nation was originally founded as a Christian nation, covenanted with God, and then it broke the covenant. The results are predictable:

"And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish, As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God."
(Deuteronomy 8:19-20)

This book presents a new vision of politics and a new vision of America, a vision of self-consciously tied to the Bible. It challenges the political myth of humanism: many laws, many gods.

In 1787, every nation on earth was openly religious. Rulers and citizens around the world affirmed the existence of a particular god, and they called upon their god publicly to defend the nation, bless it, and bring his will to pass in history. Even in those religions that affirm no god, such as Buddhism, the people affirmed their faith in a particular religion. Nations were explicitly religious.

There was only one exception to this rule in all the earth, one isolated political experiment that had affirmed the possibility-even the moral necessity-of avoiding all public references to religion in its covenantal charter. Its founder believed that no city, not state, and no nation should ever publicly affirm the existence of any particular god or religion. This was the first public experiment in secular humanism. In 1787, it had been in operation for a century and a half. That experiment was called Rhode Island.
Three and a half centuries after its founding, Rhode Island's vision of political order has conquered the Western world.

Forty miles north of Providence, Rhode Island, another experiment was in progress in 1640. In Boston dwelled the Puritans, the most self-consciously biblical people in history. They had turned to the Bible in search of moral and political order. Their Body of Liberties (1641) served as their political charter, and that charter was biblical to the core, even citing specific Bible verses to justify its laws.

It was against the Puritans' vision of a New Israel in the New England wilderness that the citizens of Rhode Island rebelled, and in doing so, they led the world, step by step, into a politically conspiracy against God.

Governor John Winthrop in 1630 had hoped that Massachusetts would serve the whole world as a city on a hill, a bright beacon of biblical Christianity that would persuade men to construct a biblical civil order in their lands. But is was not Winthrop's beacon that illuminated the future; it was Roger Williams' beacon, a blinding light that promised autonomy from God for humanist political man.

That light has blinded Winthrop's Christian heirs. The thought that a nation can and should be explicitly, publicly Christian is unacceptable to men and women who openly affirm the need for Christian families, Christian schools, and Christian everything else.

"There is no neutrality," they proclaim, until someone mentions civil government. Then they back off. Here, apparently, there has to be neutrality. Somewhere. Somehow.
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union takes another small town into court for putting up a manger scene at Christmas on public property. Meanwhile, another high school coach is threatened with dismissal for praying with his team before a game. Meanwhile, evolution is taught as a fact in just about every public school biology textbook.

Neutrality, you understand. Just good, old fashioned neutrality.

Believe that, and you'll believe anything.

Boston vs. Providence, Winthrop vs. Williams: in this classic confrontation we can see the beginning of a war that has lasted for three and a half centuries, a war not just for American civilization but for world civilization. For the most part, American Christians have applauded Williams. Also for the most part, they are in political and cultural bondage.

by William Gould

Political Polytheism by Gary North. ISBN 0-930464-32-X Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989. 795pp.

While our last book review was chosen to start off the discussion, this book is selected because it is one of the most useful modern books on Christian civil government. Political Polytheism is an extended argument against the prevailing doctrine of pluralism. Political Polytheism is also an extended exposition of the shortcomings of the Constitution of the United States.

In Part 1 of this book, North outlines some of the crucial objections to pluralism. Pluralism is an acceptable temporary expedient, but permanent political pluralism as a principle for citizenship is an illegitimate goal for Christians. It is illegitimate because the confessional pluralist in effect claims that civil government is a neutral zone, in which the Word of God does not rule. It is foolish because confessional pluralism becomes a stepping stone to monolithic secularism.

Christians have embraced pluralism by accepting two errors. Some confuse structural pluralism with confessional pluralism, or else fallaciously assume that because structural pluralism is legitimate, then so is confessional pluralism. Others claim that natural law, which is apparent to Christians and all other reasonable men, is the basis for justice in a society which contains both Christians and others. In doing so they forget that a rebellious mankind will reject natural law as surely as it would reject biblical law.

Also in part 1, North outlines how the concept of sanctuary has disappeared in the world, as America and other countries have adopted immigration controls. They adopted immigration controls because of their pluralistic basis for government. If every newcomer could eventually become a voter, then the natives will lose effective control over their own country. Open borders and an open franchise are incompatible.

In part 2, North criticizes Cornelius Van Til for refusing to apply his philosophy of presuppositional apologetics. In the next chapter he criticizes Francis Schaeffer, for teaching students to adopt a Christian worldview in every area of life, then refusing to seek a Christian civil government. Then he criticized the historians Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden for denying the plain intentions of the colonial founders. The colonial charters explicitly sought Christian governments, and Noll, Hatch, and Marsden selectively wrote a history that suggested the colonists were pluralists.

In Part 3, North shows how the Constitution of the United States is not a Christian document. How did a Christian people agree to submit to a secular document? Because Christians had gradually come to adopt secular ways of thinking about law, ethics, and civil government. Starting with Locke, who flirted with unitarianism but returned to orthodoxy late in life, and Newton, who was a closet unitarian and alchemist all his life, English philosophers embarked on the earnest quest to obtain the fruits of Christian civilization without the Cross. Freemasonry was a major conduit for this quest, and through Freemasonry the ideas of an impersonal God and universalism in religion were propagated. Masonry's outward affirmation of Christianity enabled it to escape censure from all but the most covenantally astute churches.

Several otherwise like-minded writers have criticized this book for its hypothesis of a Masonic conspiracy. The theory is that several of the framers were not only Masons, but also unitarian in belief, and therefore worked together to keep any Trinitarian oath or religious test out of the constitution. The theory is possible: many of the framers were Masons, and present-day Masons are very proud of this fact. The theory is also unprovable: Freemasonry is by nature secretive. Moreover, the point is moot, because one does not need a conspiracy of Masons to explain how our constitution became agnostic. The ideas of political pluralism were so strong, and apparently harmless, that most Christians at the time of independence did not realize their danger. Even the anti-federalists failed to cite the lack of a Christian confession as a reason not to ratify the Constitution.

The final chapter of Part 3 outlines the erosion of liberty and law under a pluralistic system. The American people, having rejected being vassals under God's law and seeking to be the suzerains, have instead become serfs under the rule of thousands of administrative regulators. "We are not under law, we are under lawyers".

In Part 4, North points out the way back: covenantal reformation. First in Christian individuals, second in Christian families, third in Christian churches, and fourth in civil government. This will start when Christians cease to send their children to government schools, or consent to their children marrying unbelievers. It will continue when churches discipline those members who marry unbelievers, or join oath-bound secret societies (e.g. Masons).

Two constitutional amendments are also necessary. First is a declaration in the preamble that the Christ is Lord over civil government. The second is the reinstatement of a religious test to civil office. North's standard is Athanasian pluralism: the franchise would be open to taxpayers who confess the trinity, as stated in the Athanasian creed.

This book's style is vintage North --very readable, entertaining, satirical, and polemical. Many readers like that, others do not. I have at different times first hated, then relished his style. The substance of this book is sufficiently important that I recommend it, even if you find this style a put off.

Then, from the website of Biblical Discernment Ministries, operated by staunch disepensatioalist:
Rick Miesel

The dispensationalist "skinny" on "Christian America'
America's Christian Roots? / Activism & War
Is America a "Christian" Nation? (6/98)
American Masonic History (6/90)
The Puritan's "Christian" Agenda? (6/98)
Notes on "Christian" America (8/01)
American "Christian" Patriotism (5/91)
"Christian" Activism? (6/98)
What the Bible Says About "Christian" Activism / "Just" Wars or Passive Resistance? (6/98)

Is America a "Christian" Nation?

Notes on "Christian" America

Not So Christian America
Should America be considered a religious or secular society? ft9610/articles/reeves.html

14 posted on 04/17/2005 11:35:04 AM PDT by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."... Thomas Jefferson

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"... John Adams

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy"... James Madison

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."...Benjamin Franklin

These men were not Christians...They were Deists.
Just because a man uses the word "God" does not mean he is Christian.

Patrick Henry is the only one in the group who was a Christian. He supported legislation that established a state religion and gave the church the power to tax all citizens. That legislation was defeated by the Deists who demanded separation of church and state. If not for the Deists, we would all be paying taxes to the Episcopal church today!
15 posted on 04/17/2005 11:37:38 AM PDT by mugs99 (Restore the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

Extremely interesting information. Thank you very much. It "levels the playing field" when it comes to defining exactly what many of our Founders meant, when they referred to "God." If many (possibly most) were deists, then that would still prove that they were not secular humanists, wouldn't it?......certainly they didn't intend an atheistic America.

16 posted on 04/17/2005 11:43:41 AM PDT by CHARLITE (I lost my car keys.....and now I have to walk everywhere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob; AlGone2001; CHARLITE

The dispensationalist "skinny" on "Christian America", edited by

Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism
by William Gould

The amusing thing about this conjunction of views on the founding of the USA (with admittedly variant interpretations of the commonly agreed facts, and quite different inferences about the implications), is that if you put North and Miesel in the same room, they would probably end up casting anathmas at each other.

At least, that's what their published statements would suggest.

Miesel's anti-Reconstructionist anathemas (mostly lightly edited comments of others, with indifferent fact-checking, e.g., still, even after being told that North's degree is in history, lists him as having a Ph.D in economics)

And the anti-dispenstionlist anathema by North and friends, including a North-sponsored thorough pulverizing of one of Miesel's favorite sources, a book by Ice and House:

The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology
Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., 1989, 1997

House Divided serves as a tombstone for Scofieldian dispensational theology: a line-by-line refutation of a pair of dispensational theologians. By the time this book first appeared in print in late 1989, one of these authors, H. Wayne House, had left Dallas Seminary and had begun his move away from traditional dispensationalism. This has left his co-author, Rev. Thomas Ice, in a very difficult position. Rev. Ice is today among the last of traditional dispensationalism's published defenders who is under age 60.

But what of Dallas Seminary? Consider the 1989 prediction by Rev. Ice, who is a Dallas Seminary graduate: "By the year 2000, Dallas Theological Seminary will no longer be dispensational. [Professional] priorities are elsewhere than the defense of systematic dispensationalism from external criticism." As of late 1996, this prediction seems to be coming true.

House Divided shows why traditional dispensationalism's last intellectual team effort was a disastrous defense of the position, nor did it answer theonomic postmillennialism. Scofieldian dispensationalism theology has visibly broken up.

17 posted on 04/17/2005 12:01:50 PM PDT by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


More proof~~

No Crosses For Washington
Though it has been said many times – much more eloquently than I can say it – America's first foundational premise is that there is a Creator-God, and it is this Creator-God who alone gives mankind his rights, not human government.

Governments that grant them (Such as the United Nations) can also take them away. But God-given rights take precedence over any government. This is the entire basis of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

This is why our founding fathers made such statements as the following:

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

– John Adams, 2nd U.S. president)

"It can not 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."

– Patrick Henry

"... Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. National prosperity can neither be obtained nor preserved without the favor of Providence."

– John Jay, first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation (State or National) because this is a religious people ... this is a Christian nation."

– U.S. Supreme Court, 1892

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being ... When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs; it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe ... We find no Constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence."

– U.S. Supreme Court, 1952

In the light of our history and founding principles, how dare such cursed organizations as the ACLU pretend to represent the meaning of the U.S. Constitution or interpret its intent.

Religion, particularly Christianity, is not only embedded in our founding documents, but also established by consistent historical profession by our government institutions.

Even the current decisions of our Supreme Court on the myth of separation of Church and State are clearly out of step with the established historical views of the Supreme Court. Most of the current Supreme Court justices are not interpreting law, but seeking to rewrite our most sacred and important foundational premise of law – that they issue from our Creator-God, to whom virtually all of our great leaders of the past appealed publicly.

Why is it that George Washington instituted a day of Thanksgiving to God?

Why is it that the U.S. Congress in 1895 passed the law to have "In God We Trust" placed on all our currency"?

Why is it that it is written over the entrance of the Supreme Court building, "In God We Trust"?

Why has it been from the beginning that presidents and other national and state leaders are sworn in with their hand on the Christian Bible"? Why do they close the oath with, "So help me God"?

The latest obscenity involves the Homeland Security ruling that crosses are among a list of prohibited items for the presidential inauguration.

What is next? Will they go to government cemeteries for our military, such as Arlington National Cemetery, and demand that all crosses be removed from the graves of our fallen heroes?

What is it going to take for the vast majority of God-fearing Americans to wake up and say, "Enough is enough"? We need to make it known loudly and clearly, religion is our foundational heritage. If you want to live here, welcome. But if you want to remove the very thing without which our great country will self-destruct, Get out!

As the second U.S. president, John Adams, clearly warned: "... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The fact that there has been a calamitous decline of both of the above in our nation is the reason we are having so much trouble trying to govern these days. It is the reason our courts are overloaded and jails overcrowded.

Wake up Americans. God is giving us His last warnings. Return to the founding principles of our forefathers before there is nothing to salvage.

18 posted on 04/17/2005 12:20:35 PM PDT by Daisy4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daisy4
Liked your post! What is troubling and quite frankly a bit baffling to me is why all the uproar? I mean exactly who is trying to establish a theocracy that violates the original intent of separation? Why so much attention on trying to prove that this nation was not born of Christian morality? Does the mere mention of God in the public now violate the constitution? Our Constitution was in fact based in Natural Law, which is Christian in origin. you can't get around that fact no matter how hard you try even if you find quotes to the contrary. After all if our Leaders are not held accountable to higher authority then what do you have.....?
19 posted on 04/17/2005 12:51:13 PM PDT by Archon of the East
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Daisy4
"Return to the founding principles of our forefathers before there is nothing to salvage."

This should be placed on billboards spaced every 20 miles on all Interstates throughout America - coast to coast and sea to shining sea.

20 posted on 04/17/2005 1:00:30 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I lost my car keys.....and now I have to walk everywhere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson