Skip to comments.Which Document is the Best Defender of American Freedoms - The US Constitution or the Bible?
Posted on 04/30/2011 10:00:22 AM PDT by pinochet
The American founding father and second President, John Adams, said that "The American Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other".
Some foreign countries have tried adopting the US Constitution to govern their nations, but the process has been a disastrous failure. This is because those nations were not founded on bibilical Christianity. When you reflect on it, the idea of the First Ammendment is potentially dangerous. It gives everyone the right to shout the F-word in public, in the presence of children.
The second ammendment provides even more potential for danger. If all adults have access to guns, what is there to prevent people from shooting each other? The founding fathers opposed gun control, but they believed in a greater force that could control the gun owner, to prevent him from misusing his second ammendment rights. Colonial America was ruled by the Mayflower Compact, from 1620 to 1776. The compact dedicated America to "the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith".
The first ammendment and the second ammendment of the US Constitution are very dangerous, if they are in the hands of a people who are not bound by Christian morality. If America rejects Bibilical Christianity, the widespread gun ownership would turn America into a nation of bandits, such as Somalia and Afghanistan.
Are you aware that the early American pioneers did not need a police force, judges, the FBI, the DEA, the IRS, or prisons? Ordinary people were able to govern themselves successfully, with the lowest crime rates in American history. Imagine the freedoms they enjoyed, not having to support government bureaucracies?
ping for later
You are entirely right. The Founding proceeded from a Christian principles emanating from a Christian culture. The Bible is the foundation. Any mention of “Separation of Church and State” as reflecting a lack of Christianity in the Founding is historically illiterate. The 1947 Everson decision’s use of that phrase is entirely ahistorical and without basis in the Constitution.
Yes, completely true...I wonder so often, what has happened to this country? What happened to American work-ethic? What happened to American national pride? What has happened to our government? How has our population become to moralally bankrupt, so dumb, so socialistically bent? What has happened to this country? How did it happen? When did it happen? Where has our freedom gone? When did our government turn against us?
I think it is the US Constitution for the simple reason that there are other countries that have the Bible as their cultural as well as legal foundations, but none comes close to America when it comes to protecting our freedoms.
If I had to throw one away, it would be the constitution. Freedom is a great thing, but being free, being American, won't get you to heaven.
Are you aware that the idea of separation of church only meant that the United States would not establish a church where citizens would have to pay taxes to support it? As you wrote, this country was founded on the basis of belief in God,but we did not want a state religion like all the rest of the world, even to this day. Religion and church are two different concepts. You are right in writing that our form of government only works for those with
You are correct; our form of government cannot work without the social principles expressed in the Gospels. This nation was founded by Christians and dedicated by the first pilgrims to the teachings of the Living God. Only He can save our nation from destruction; and He can only do this one heart at a time, now that the government that rests upon His shoulders has been so distorted by anti-Christians, atheists and marxists.
There is nothing protecting the freedoms of Americans except for Americans willing to stand the hell up and do whatever it takes to ensure their freedoms remain in tact.
There’s nothing to hide behind. And, no one’s fault but our own once those freedoms are gone.
Nothing gets you into Heaven but belief in Jesus Christ and what He accomplished on the Cross. The Gospel in 1 Cor. 15: 1-4 defines it clearly.
Your logic is unassailable.
Yes, thats what I said.
The Bible is NOT the law of our land, but is the documented laws of GOD that are reflected in the foundation of the Constitution that is the law that governs our land.
Let’s not open ourselves to admitting Sharia as acceptable replacement for the Constitution we have today, which is ultimately where this discussion could take us.
IOW don’t aid and abet the enemy.
As I tell students, after asking them “what is the source of your authority for your actions while living on this earth?”, mine is Holy Scripture for spiritual matters, and the U.S. Constitution for secular matters.
Clearly there is overlap; in those cases I defer to Scripture.
For those who believe in neither, I point out that, in the U.S., they are inviting anarchy. 312 million people “doing what is right in their own eyes” leads only to chaos.
Would we be a nation of bandits if we followed Jewish ethics?
Adams’ quote is about religious people, it doesnt just apply to Biblical Christians. What about the influence on the Constitution that John Locke and David Hume had on the Constitution?
The Bible is the best way to defend your spiritual freedoms, but the Constitution is the document that will protect your physical freedoms. The Bible didnt free Europeans from monarchs. Yearning to be free did, which actually goes against historical Hebrew wishes in the Old Testament. They wanted to be free of foreigners, but wanted a king among themselves.
Natural rights existed before both the Constitution and the Bible. They exist because we exist.
No piece of paper can protect your rights, they can only remind you of what they are. It takes blood, sweat, tears, and gonads to keep your rights.
Primary source documents from 500 BC to 1800 AD. Many of the links are dead but most docs can be found with a minimal search.
You don’t have to inform us of anything, so stop being insulting. The Constitution is the law and defense of our freedom, not the Bible. Which version of the Bible would you pick? Which denomination? Which religious leader’s or preacher’s preference of interpretation would you impose on the rest of us?
While separation of church and state is not defined in the false terms which the democrats prefer to use, the Constitution does proscribe that there will be no state religion. This was wisely set up by the founding fathers to ensure that no particular religion or denomination would be forced on our citizens as the basis of law.
To say that the Bible should be put forth as the defense of our freedoms is no different than a muslim saying that sharia law and the koran would best defend our freedoms. The Constitution has some basis in biblical writings and the Christian Bible derives directly from the Jewish Old Testament and many of those concepts have proven basis in older religions and cultures that predate Old Testament tradition.
The Constitution gives us the force of law to defend freedom. John Adams was a great man, but he and Jefferson were precluded by the framers from taking part in the drafting of the Constitution because of both their secular and religious views that might have been in opposition to the framework the Constitutional framers gave us.
I have spent my adult life sworn to defend the Constitution which details and preserves our freedoms. I did not swear to support and defend the Bible, the koran or any other religious dogma. I swore to support a document of laws that defend your right to subscribe to any religious belief you want, or none.
Your implication that if we are not bound to one or more of the various Christian views of morality or the view of the Bible you subscribe to that we cannot be good Americans who support the Constitution and the freedoms given to all of us in the Constitution. Your proposal would supplant some or all constitutional law with a religious document.
You owe many of us an apology.
Actually, that is exactly my problem with those who want to mix up religion and state. They open the doors to Moslems and will make the US like UK. This is why I support atheists on this point. Zero tolerance is best as long as government too is not allowed to infringe on religious rights.
:-) You and I get it. There are others here who do not understand. That is why I laid it out.
Long before the Revolutionary period, the original colonies were primarily founded on religious freedom not available in Europe. Most early colonists came to the New World to escape religious persecution. You and your ilk want to bring persecution back.
Today, Christianity, as a broad religious category, is the largest religion in the world, with some 2.1 billion adherents. Yet Christianity is not a single, homogenous organized religion, but approximately 38,000 denominations. Which one, in your mind, is the right one to govern these United States? Hmmmm?
I was raised a Roman Catholic -- you know, the first, original version of Christianity. Yet some fundamentalist Protestants try to claim Roman Catholicism is a "cult." Laughable, considering that over half the Christians in the world -- about 1.2 billion -- are Catholics. The overwhelming majority, about 1.1 billion of them are Roman Catholics.
There are about 670 million Protestants in the world, with the so-called Modern Protestantism churches being the largest group (about 250 million). The various Baptist denominations combined are the next largest group (about 100 million), followed by Lutherans, Methodists, and Reformed churches (each about 75 million). The various Eastern Orthodox churches combined have about 274 million believers. Anglicans, Restorationism, Unitarians, and assorted others combined have about 120 million.
So again, which version of Christianity would you have govern these United States? Would you bother to protect the other versions, let alone non-Christian religions, agnostics and atheists?
Oh, and there is nothing dangerous about the United States Constitution to those who value freedom and each individual's God-given right to exercise that free will Christians insist we all have.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge,
about to jump off. So I ran over and said, “Stop! don’t do it!”
“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.
I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”
He said, “Like what?”
I said, “Well...are you religious or atheist?”
He said, “Religious.”
I said, “Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?”
He said, “Christian.”
I said, “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”
He said, “Baptist!”
I said, “Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”
He said, “Baptist Church of God!”
I said, “Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed
Baptist Church of God?”
He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”
I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879,
or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”
He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”
I said, “Die, heretic scum”, and pushed him off.
Not trying to start something here, but the Roman Catholic church with its pope simply did not exist before the second or third century AD.
The original church was a group of Jewish believers who split from the false religion being taught be the Jewish authorities of that time to follow the true Messiah.
Constitution hands down!
Well, this “separation” clause does not prevent Bush, Zero and Democrates from embracing climate change religions and islam... you know, sort of cool to condition people of the cities into concentration camp tombs, making them believe man made famine is due to “global warming”.
It’s not the state which can separate religion, but the Bible doeth separate itself from the state. This is what irks them the most.They cannot stand that their perversions settles them for a limited time in a limited age when others have eons of good inheritence ready to praise them.
Murder and feeling more intelligent, leading to empowerment, is the cult of these death dealers and losers.
A hearty bravo to your excellent post. With the exception of the above statement, I completely agree with you. May I gently pick one small nit regarding regarding the historical inaccuracy of the above? Adams and Jefferson were both in Europe at the time the Constitution was written. In 1785, Adams had been appointed Minister to Great Britain, and Jefferson Minister to France under the by the Continental Congress. They were our new nation's first official ambassadors (although Benjamin Franklin was our first unofficial ambassador-at-large in Europe prior to the Revolution). The Constitution was written two years later, in 1787.
It isn’t which, the real question is who.
What KIND of people allow for freedom? A moral people do. IF we had a moral foundation, it won’t matter which document is the better defender. IF you have an immoral foundation, like killing babies, uneven enforcement of laws, and fascism, NEITHER document will matter. Because an immoral people will twist EITHER to its desire. Or vote for those who will steal the most from others.
Case in point, the Ozombie in the White Hut.
Morality is the foundation this country was founded on, not a certain document.
Hahahaha, funny...I love when humor can be used to make or reinforce an important point. Thank you. :)
Amen and amen.
Absolutely wrong. The Lord Jesus Christ, himself, made Simon Peter the first head of His church (i.e., the first pope).
Matthew 16:18, And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
It is the "Roman" church because St. Peter, the head of the church, went to Rome and was martyred there. Historical evidence does show that Peter did go to Rome and exercised his authority as head of the Apostles from there. The earliest Christians provided plenty of documentation in this regard.
“... but the Roman Catholic church with its pope simply did not exist before the second or third century AD.”
St. Peter would beg to differ with you on that. He was, after all, a contemporary of Jesus Christ, who made him the first pope.
James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 20 June 1785
“They cannot stand that their perversions settles them for a limited time in a limited age when others have eons of good inheritence ready to praise them.”
James Madison addressed this point. He attributed religious liberty in the United States not to any inherent qualities of Christianity, but to the multiplicity of sects.
Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.
James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention 12 June 1788
Sorry, the head of the church is Christ. The apostles recognized no other head, nor should any other Christian.
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Galatians 2:11
At best, Peter is an Apostle and the steward of the Church. Also, Peter could not even be a priest in the RC Church today, since he was married.
"And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her." Luke 4:38
(Here, Peter is referred to by his given name, Simon. This is the first mention of Peter in Luke. In Luke 5, Simon is also referred to as both Simon and Simon Peter.)
Furthermore, it was not Peter who established churches in Asia Minor, it was Paul. Paul, on his own authority, sent Timothy to preach and set-up elders. No mention of his conferring with Peter to get his blessing.
Quite simply, the elevation of the Roman Primate to Pope would not have occurred if Constantine did not convert to Christianity.
Neither matters if neither can be used to convict (legally or of-the-conscious) those who are our leaders.
God will take care of those who reject their duties as leaders, which is to do Justice, whether or not they reject or embrace Him. (See Eli, the high priest before Samuel; and Saul, first King of Israel)
>but none comes close to America when it comes to protecting our freedoms.
Are we free? Truly?
Because everywhere I look I can find “State Statutes” that violate their State Constitution; Federal Laws which are VERY selectively applied; Federal agencies [with attendant rules/regulations] which are wholly unsupported by the Constitution; and a group of blacked-robed god-kings & bureaucrats telling me that “The System Is Working.”
So Jesus’ declaration in Matthew — upon this rock I will build my church — means nothing to you. Well it does to me. Different strokes for different folks. That’s why the Constitution protects religious liberty.
I have no problem with the nit you’re picking at since there seems to be a lot of debate on these two patriots. From what I have read and been able to put together they were appointed as ambassadors primarily because they held similar status during the war. I have also read indications that some of the factions that constructed and gave us the Constitution moved to keep them there while the Constitutional Convention was being held. There were many who considered both Adams and Jefferson far too absolute and divisive in their views of government and freedom and feared that their inclusion would result in something other than the document we now hold dear. The heated divisions between the two in their personal dealings did not seem conducive to bringing together all of the states and factions under one, concise codacyl of law. For all of their passion and dedication to the new nation they would probably have been hard-pressed not to stand fast on each of their own entrenched opinions.
Thanks for posting Madison’s very crucial statement, Ken. :)
I couldn’t agree with you more. We are nowhere near as free as earlier Americans. The income tax, for one example, has become so burdensome and confiscatory that a whole industry has sprung up to help people deal with IRS and state tax agency intrusions into their lives.
>>Lets not open ourselves to admitting Sharia as acceptable replacement for the Constitution we have today, which is ultimately where this discussion could take us.
>Actually, that is exactly my problem with those who want to mix up religion and state.
In the End, that’s exactly where things will be: God will be God of His People here, on Earth, and the King of Kings will Rule, breaking the nations with a Rod of Iron.
That is a Theocracy that I can stand.
St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (which is the title from which pope evolved, as the pope is known as the Bishop of Rome). Thus, Peter was the first pope (the actual word “pope” came later, but the Catholic Church recognizes Peter as the first pope). Jesus referred to Peter as the shepherd of His (Christ’s) Church. The pope is known as the Shepherd of the Church.
>I was raised a Roman Catholic — you know, the first, original version of Christianity.
Just a nit to pick, but wouldn’t Messianic Judaism be the original version of Christianity? If not that, then the Church in Antioch where the believers were first named Christians?