Myth: The Founders Established A Wall of Separation Between Church and State

excerpt from the book Five Lies of the Century pp. 15-30 | 1995 | David T. Moore

[RnMomof7]

You must have missed some of the names I have been called..or that people are belittled and ,mocked for quoting scripture.

I resent having it said that BECAUSE I believe in the word of God,I would eliminate the Constitution and set up a State religion (mine)

I happen to be a lover of our Nation and it's freedom .I believe in freedom to worship where and when you will. But I also believe that the founders meant for free political and religious speech to be the guardian of the other freedoms.

I resent being called a "talibornagain" you better believe it!

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

Exactly when did liberal judges pick up a line-item veto?

Somewhere near the same time time they started Legislating from the bench, instead of intrepreting, Laws handed down via Congress.

[E Rocc]

"Who is it who cannot see that the same who would consecrate Christianity above all other religions would then have to consecrate a particular sect of Christians above all other sects?" - James Madison

I think that our founding fathers did recognize the problems of mixing church and state. Madison's words echo today in all the 10 Commandment flaps. Since the versions of the commandments differ between religions how do you post one version without placing that particular Christian sect above another?

The Framers actually had two reasons to embrace Separation. One of course was the ethical. As true religious belief is completely voluntary and government is inherently based upon compulsion, the two really don't mix.

There was also a more pragmatic reason. The former colonies were a religiously diverse place, and already quite fractious. Placing religion in the sphere of government simply would have given them something new to argue about.

As a result, they created the safest place in the world to belong to any faith, as long as one agrees to the codicil that one does not have the right to act against those one finds to be "heretical" or "pagan". While this theory has occasionally lapsed in practice (as Mormons and Catholics can attest through history), overall its been extremely succesful.

Baptists in particular should appreciate it. In colonial times, their faith was an occasionally oppressed minority.

-Eric

[SusanUSA]

Jefferson, who as a careful historian had made a study of the origin of the maxim [that the common law is inextricably linked with Christianity], challenged such an assertion. He noted that "the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or that such a character existed".

Yes, he did.

Thomas Jefferson acknowledged Common Law's pre-Christian origins in this letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law...This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it...that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians...".

But there's also...

It has been said that “No proper estimate has been made of the effects of Christianity on English law, but there is no shadow of doubt that it was far-reaching.” Our legal system was formed and developed over centuries under the dominating influence of the Christian religion. The ideals and standards of justice that informed our law were derived largely either from the Bible directly or from ancient pre-Christian institutions that have been so completely transformed under the influence of the church that the original pre-Christian practices from which they originate are no longer discernible in the Christianised forms in which we know them. Our very concepts of justice, due process and the rule of law are Christian ideals that we should never have known had the Christian faith not taken root in this land and transformed the nation from a pagan into a civilised society.

This book traces the growth of Christian law in England from the conversion of King Æthelberht, through the reigns of the Anglo-Saxon kings up to the Norman conquest, and examines the influence of Christianity on the development of English common law during its early, formative period in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

What Is a ‘Christian Nation’?
by Rob Regier

There is a lot of confusion today about whether our history proves that we are a Christian nation. It’s safe to say that we are not a nation that uses the Bible as our legal text. Otherwise, disbelief in God or sins such as greed and lust would be illegal and punishable by fines or imprisonment. No, there is no civil law against such things in the United States.

However, it’s also safe to say that our country was founded by professed Christians. From the Pilgrims to the framers of our government, Judeo-Christian principles were not only used as a basis for our law and government, but also were openly proclaimed as necessary to the survival of the new nation.

What’s my proof? The Bible was the most cited book in this country during the late 1700s and early 1800s — in pamphlets, newspapers and political monographs. Scripture accounted for 34 percent of all citations.1 The Rev. John Witherspoon served six years in Congress, and he was, well, a reverend.

President George Washington issued the first proclamation of a national day of thanksgiving, in which he said “it is the duty of all to acknowledge Almighty God” and to “obey his will.” Thomas Jefferson allowed church services to be held in the House of Congress and in the Supreme Court’s chambers.2

Don’t forget about all those prayers prayed before sessions of Congress and the Supreme Court. Every president has included a reference in his inaugural speech a reference to his and our nation’s dependence upon God. “In God We Trust” every time we spend our money.

The Supreme Court in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) ruled, “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.” The Court also said in Zorach v. Clauson (1952): “The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. … Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other — hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said, “One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. … There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity necessary to the support of civil society.”3 Inscribed on the Supreme Court’s walls are the Ten Commandments.

The framers of our government echoed French Catholic attorney Charles Secondat de Montesquieu’s recognition of the need for religion, namely Christianity, to be the basis for a legal framework.4 A virtuous republic and true happiness, they believed, came from obedience to God’s laws revealed in nature and Scripture, or the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Our country’s heritage is replete with references to God and faith.

Yet that doesn’t mean that people of other faiths can’t live in the United States. In fact, the Founders believed that only a country founded upon the Christian religion could be tolerant of other religions. People had to tolerate other religions because the government wasn’t given the authority to judge peoples’ hearts and minds, but only our actions. Hence, there could be no law against being Jewish or Islamic or atheist. The judgment of one’s conscience is left up to God.

Are we a Christian nation? I’ll let the evidence speak for itself.

[R. Scott]

I have seen a lot of name calling on the religious threads – I try to refrain from doing so myself.
While many would not want to change our Constitution, they would like to apply their own interpratation to it, and integrate their own religious ideology into the functional government.
I believe that the religious should be in the realm of the spirit, and government has no business interfering – either by mandating a religious practice or by forbidding a religious practice.

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

...or by forbidding a religious practice.

And yet this they do, forbidding even student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games.

[RnMomof7]

I believe that the religious should be in the realm of the spirit, and government has no business interfering – either by mandating a religious practice or by forbidding a religious practice.

We agree..do you know that there are alot of Christian libertarians? There have been some threads posted by OrthodoxPresbyterian to that topic as of late.

The threat my friend, comes from those that would silence religious speech of any kind because they are uncomfortable with it

That is rarely true of a Christian that knows he stands on the Rock that is higher than he is!

[Melas]

So much talk about Jefferson and what he really believed, and not a single person has posted the VA statute on religious freedom that Jefferson penned in 1786.

The statute makes it clear that any religious belief, or lack thereof was a matter of individual conscience, and not a matter of state.

We, the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief: but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

Somewhere near the same time time they started Legislating from the bench, instead of intrepreting, Laws handed down via Congress.

Indeed.

And the Constitution's Achilles Heel?

Life-tenured, superconstitutional philosopher kings writing society in black flowing robes.

Scary picture huh?

Sigh...

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

Gawain: how then to turn back the tide, and reclaim a Christian nation from this humanistic vice-grip?

[E Rocc]

Susan, no one is saying that the structure of our Nation wasn't influenced by Christianity. It was also influenced by Judaism, English law, Roman and Greek philosophies of citizenship and republicanism, and the development of legal systems going back to the Code of Hammurabi. Yet no one ever calls us a "Jewish Nation", a "British Nation", a "Roman Nation" or a "Hammurabic Nation".

Christianity was one of these influences but not the only one, and not all of Christianity was adopted. A Christian may not, by the most basic rules of the Faith, worship other gods, make graven images, or work on the Sabbath. The First Amendment not only allows these things, it protects the right to do them. Indeed, the laissez faire capitalist system the Framers adopted could be said to be at odds with Christianity. A purely Christian government would have social welfare systems in place, and "charity" might even be mandatory. The Framers and their immediate political heirs largely left such up to private entities, or the discretion of smaller government entitities.

Regier asks "what is a Christian Nation?", then never really answers the question from his perspective. I would submit that it is a nation where Christianity is given a place of legal primacy and the Bible is considered on a par with the founding documents. A place where indeed, the rules of the Bible may be codified into law for no other reason than their presence in the book. A place where laws contrary to the Bible may be struck down, for that reason alone.

Whether or not one wants this nation to become that (and I would suggest that more of the "Christian Nation" crusaders do than will quite admit it), that is not the nation our Founders and the Framers intended to give us. Hence, they did not mean us to be a "Christian Nation".

-Eric

[rwfromkansas]

bump!

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

"...Scary picture..."

** *** ** *** ** *** ** ***

The 'poor view' is only a part of the problem....

It's Their (the judges in question) "Vision" that really scares me !! !! !!

[rwfromkansas]

You are apostate.

[E Rocc]

...or by forbidding a religious practice.

And yet this they do, forbidding even student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games.

The case that led to Doe v. Santa Fe ISD (the football prayer case) was actually brought not by atheists or agnostics, but Catholics and Mormons.

Had the district had a "moment of silence" or allowed all groups to say their prayers they would have probably won their case. Had they alternated groups, they might have won it. But they had a school sponsored and sanctioned election each week to decide which faith would get access to the PA system and a spot on the agenda. That constituted preference, and was found to violate Establishment. (Ironically, the Texas State Constitution specifically forbids preference in addition to Establishment).

One thing also not often noted was the fact that the "prayer vote" was only part of a very highly charged religious atmosphere in the district, where Baptist teachers were allowed to prosletyze and pass out religious tracts in class, and Catholic and Mormon students were often harrased for their dissenting views.

-Eric

[rwfromkansas]

Notice how after prayer was taken out, there is a shooting every year.

[rwfromkansas]

There is another quote in there that is not substantiated from writings scholars have located. However, that does not detract from the real meat that supports the truth that there was not intended to be a separation: HISTORY and SUPREME COURT OPINIONS (early obviously).

[rwfromkansas]

Here we go folks! Jeff wins the prize as the first liberal disrupter to try the slavery line on us. Nice going, Jeff and a great way to avoid the issue by putting in separate issues that do not show any logic.

[rwfromkansas]

Explain to me how 'wall of separation' Jefferson supported these ideals. After all, he supported a law, along with Madison (one wrote the law and the other introduced it) to punish Sabbath breakers in Virginia. This law ended up passing comfortably. Of course, we can't forget that Jefferson gave public money to Christian missionaries either. Oh, by the way, he also made students in Washington, D.C. read the Bible as the primary textbook.