Posted on 07/01/2002 6:47:06 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
For over thirty years we have been indoctrinated by some politicians and most of the national media that ‘the separation of church and state´ is part of the U.S. Constitution, and that it requires the removal of all references to God from the public arena, or consideration of His principles. Both are bald-faced lies, spawned by those who would dismantle this republic for their own idealistic, though deadly, purposes.
As supporting evidence of that claim, I offer here but a small sample of what the Founding Fathers thought about G-d and religion. With apologies to Tom Brokaw, those who established this nation were truly ‘the greatest generation,´ and they wrote with clear intent and meaning, not needing the misinterpretation of modern demagogues:
Statesmen by dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand...The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People…they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. – John Adams, 1776
Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness. – Samuel Adams, 1778
Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.
– Benjamin Rush, 1783
I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation. – George Washington, farewell letter to the Army, 1783
It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. – James Madison, ‘father of the Constitution,´ 1785
And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need its 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, Motion for Prayers in the Constitutional Convention, 1787
A State, I cheerfully admit, is the noblest work of Man: But Man, himself, free and honest, is…the noblest work of G-d.... – James Wilson, 1793
Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?
– George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Of all the dispositions and habits which least to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. – Washington´s Farewell Address, 1796
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams, 1798
The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.
– Benjamin Rush, 1806
Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society. – John Adams, 1811
And finally, this last quote, from the man who authored the phrase ‘separation of church and state,´ but in a context far different from that which ‘liberals´ use to justify their assault on G-d—
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever. – Thomas Jefferson, 1781
That the Founding Fathers recognized and acknowledged the central place of G-d in the establishment of this republic is easily discernible from reading their many documents. It would appear, then, that those who would argue otherwise are ignorant of our history—in which case they show themselves to be unqualified to serve in government in any capacity—or that they willfully and deceitfully misuse and wrongly wield selected parts of that history in support of an agenda in direct opposition to the principles of our founding.
But in this democratic republic the decisions still remain with the people, be they faithful or not in carrying out their responsibilities. So I leave the question with you, American citizen: Do these writings reveal the thoughts of men who would support the removal of God from the public sphere?
What conclusion must you draw, then, about those who would remove Him, and who have supported and argued for that removal? Is it not that their interests and ideology are in direct contradiction to those of the Founders, and thus to our rights and freedoms? A reasonable person would not discern otherwise, and will act to remove from public office, or prevent the election of, those whose ‘liberal´ ideology—no matter how well-intended—threatens the republic and our freedoms. Though we don´t deserve it … G0d bless America!
Gee, I guess he was a real "right-winger." [irony]
Just as I figured.
However, the Jefferson and Franklin quotes both speak of divine intervention in the affairs of men. Divine intervention is not a fixture of Deism, but of Theism.
No, they do not. However, these writings were composed of men who are mere mortals, humans that is, who breath air and bleed blood, just as you and I. They made a good talk of "freedom, liberty and equality for everyone", but then engaged in perplexing behavior not much different than politicians of today.
The FF's got us where we are today, and they deserve much credit for that, for everyone should be eternally thankful for their sacrifices. But many of their ideas and philosophies are contrary to a free people. And by reading many of their works, they were not really interested in a free society. They were authoritarian. The main difference is that the "governments" control was not nearly as far reaching as it is today. 200-250 years ago, if I did not like what government was doing in the colonies, I could pick up and move west, and essentially be under no government control. Such laws against "witchcraft", sodomy, sexual positions etc would not apply any longer. I think many envisioned an authoritarian theocracy on a small scale, with no idea that as the authoritative nature of government grew, "morals" would decline. And as people realized some of the warped translations of the Bible that were prevalent at that time, they realized such authoritative edicts were contrary to the ideas that the FF's espoused(Not to mention woman's suffrage and slavery). This also resulted in, over the years, many people rejecting true Christianity because of the warped version that they had been blindly following.
What's the point of this rant? To answer the question again, no, the FF's did not intend to remove relgion from the public sphere. Just keep in mind, though, that they were not really for religious freedom, unless you were of some type of "christian religion", and even then, you better not let your teachings stray too far from theirs. Religions of all kinds have every rightful place in the public sphere. Notice I said all religions, not just ones I may agree with. That being said, I agree with the supposed intent of the FF's to not allow a "state sponsored, recognized" religion for "the free excerices thereof" is to not be prohibted.
This is an area in which it's easy to play the game of "dueling quotes." You can mine the writings of many of the Founders-- especially Jefferson, Madison and Franklin-- for both Deist and Christian quotations. Generally, they sounded like devout Christians in public, especially when they were running for office, and like skeptics or Deists when writing in their private diaries or in letters to their friends.
You've stood the issue on its head. The central government was very small and modestly funded through its first century of existence. During the same period most American professed belief in theism of a Judeo-Christian variety and sought to live the greater part of their lives accordingly.
Central government got its initial boost in the Civil War, but the afterburners weren't lit until the dawn of the 20th Century when the state-based counterfeit millennialism of communism and socialism struggled to displace the personal religion-based salvation and self-reliance of Judeo-Christianity. As a consequence of this tendency, ordinary Americans started to buy into the lie that morality is an individual standard and that God is irrelevant. The more they surrendered to this peculiar anomie, the more powerful central government became.
Central government grows to fill the vacuum left when people reject God and religion-based morality out as regulating forces in their personal lives. They surrender an endoskeleton of religion-based spine and take on a exoskeleton of governmental coercion. In time, God-haters are no longer individual up-standing men but mere clattering social insects.
That is their sure and unavoidable fate. But our Constitution was designed by and for men--not insects.
Well, as we all know, the Constitution in the form that was ratified was a "compromise". They compromised over many issues including slavery, religion and the "enumeration" of rights. Just as many FF's wanted to end slavery, but compromised, we had many who didn't like anyone who didn't fit their brand of Christianity, and compromised on the wording of th constitution. I personally think that history shows their hypocrisy on many issues, but sometimes its hard to recognize because there was so much "undiscovered" land in America that, rather than fight, people could just move and start a new life under their own "moral" rules. We do not have that today. We see many people wanting a christian theocracy in this country. If "America" in the 1700's was only the size of the original 13 colonies, we would have been living under a theocracy for nearly 250 years.
I think the laws passed on State and local levels show that many "leaders" in the 1700's and 1800's had no intention of a "free society". But, back then, they had a legitimate claim of "If you do not like it, then move". And back then, people in Maryland didn't know or care what people that moved out west really did(let me emphasize "didn't know"). In the 21st century, its hard for people to turn on television, see someone living on the opposite coast, and not say, "government, make them stop! Conserve that land(that I dont own)! Raise taxes on them! Make them abide by the laws of my State!"
The point? The Constitution has flawes, simply because it was written by men who are natually "flawed" creatures. We will never get anywhere as a nation until everyone realizes this, and realizes that the flaws have to do with the respect of the natural rights of all.
God as a creator, not as a religion, is that source (as the Founding Fathers stated many times). That creator maintains the Legitimate Moral Authority that endows our inalienable right to life and liberty. Without that "God" (Legitimate Moral Authority, due to authorship) inalienable rights (and basic morality) become institutions of man, allowing man to change or remove at will what he reasons best. Man has no authority to dictate inalienable rights or morality, they must come from an incorruptible legitimate source, i.e. God.
So you see it is impossible to remove God from our Republic or Western Civilization without undermining the authority of inalienable rights. And as we all know, without inalienable rights outside man and his reason, man becomes wild (anarchist, animal like) or ruled (communism, socialism, Nazism).
The establishment clause is part of this philosophy; that government cannot legitimately force a person to conform to a religion as that violates the inalienable rights endowed by the Moral Authority (God). The establishment clause does not separate God from Government, it verbalizes the constraint Government has regarding God and His creations (as does the Bill of Rights as a whole).
By it's very existence it affirms Gods Moral Authority and authorship of Life and Liberty.
If we as a people disregard or remove God as that Moral Authority, we undermine our very system of Freedom and will have no place demand such. As then there is no authority outside our own thoughts to dictate what is right.
American tradition is under attack today from every conceivable direction. The efforts to prevent normal relgious sentiments in public gatherings is just one more step in an effort to destroy our heritage.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Hence, the supposition that our nation is "under God" isn't the establishment of religion, but is, rather, an historical fact. It's a fact that, whether they like it or not, even the atheists would have to acknowledge.
Supreme Court of New York 1811, in the Case of the People V Ruggles, 8 Johns 545-547, Chief Justice Chancellor Kent Stated:
The defendant was indicted ... in December, 1810, for that he did, on the 2nd day of September, 1810 ... wickedly, maliciously, and blasphemously, utter, and with a loud voice publish, in the presence and hearing of divers good and Christian people, of and concerning the Christian religion, and of and concerning Jesus Christ, the false, scandalous, malicious, wicked and blasphemous words following: "Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore," in contempt of the Christian religion. .. . The defendant was tried and found guilty, and was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of $500.
The Prosecuting Attorney argued:
While the constitution of the State has saved the rights of conscience, and allowed a free and fair discussion of all points of controversy among religious sects, it has left the principal engrafted on the body of our common law, that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired.
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court:
Such words uttered with such a disposition were an offense at common law. In Taylor's case the defendant was convicted upon information of speaking similar words, and the Court . . . said that Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths. And in the case of Rex v. Woolston, on a like conviction, the Court said . . . that whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government. . . . The authorities show that blasphemy against God and . . . profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures (which are equally treated as blasphemy), are offenses punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings . . . because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church. They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society. . . .
We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only ... impious, but . . . is a gross violation of decency and good order. Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful.. ..
The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious' opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile ... the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. . . . We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].. .. [We are] people whose manners ... and whose morals have been elevated and inspired . . . by means of the Christian religion.
Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment. . . . This [constitutional] declaration (noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. . . . To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. . . . Christianity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our law. . . . The Court are accordingly of opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed: [that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, are offenses punishable at the common law, whether uttered by words or writings].
The Supreme Court in the case of Lidenmuller V The People, 33 Barbour, 561 Stated:
Christianity...is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. The fact is everwhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, and well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1817, in the Case of The Commonwealth V Wolf stated the courts opinion as follows:
Laws cannot be administered in any civilized government unless the people are taught to revere the sanctity of an oath, and look to a future state of rewards and punishments for the deeds of this life, It is of the utmost moment, therefore, that they should be reminded of their religious duties at stated periods.... A wise policy would naturally lead to the formation of laws calculated to subserve those salutary purposes. The invaluable privilege of the rights of conscience secured to us by the constitution of the commonwealth, was never intended to shelter those persons, who, out of mere caprice, would directly oppose those laws for the pleasure of showing their contempt and abhorrence of the religious opinions of the great mass of the citizens.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1824, in the Case of Updegraph V The Commonwealth 11 Serg. & R. 393-394, 398-399, 402, 507 (1824) recorded the Courts Declaration that:
Abner Updegraph . . . on the 12th day of December [1821] . . .not having the fear of God before his eyes . . . contriving and intending to scandalize, and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth, in the Presence and hearing of several persons ... did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say . . . : "That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies." To the great dishonor of Almighty God, to the great scandal of the profession of the Christian religion.
The jury . . . finds a malicious intention in the speaker to vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures, and this court cannot look beyond the record, nor take any notice of the allegation, that the words were uttered by the defendant, a member of a debating association, which convened weekly for discussion and mutual information... . That there is an association in which so serious a subject is treated with so much levity, indecency and scurrility ... I am sorry to hear, for it would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows, and young women for the brothel, and there is not a skeptic of decent manners and good morals, who would not consider such debating clubs as a common nuisance and disgrace to the city. .. . It was the out-pouring of an invective, so vulgarly shocking and insulting, that the lowest grade of civil authority ought not to be subject to it, but when spoken in a Christian land, and to a Christian audience, the highest offence conna bones mores; and even if Christianity was not part of the law of the land, it is the popular religion of the country, an insult on which would be indictable.
The assertion is once more made, that Christianity never was received as part of the common law of this Christian land; and it is added, that if it was, it was virtually repealed by the constitution of the United States, and of this state. . . . If the argument be worth anything, all the laws which have Christianity for their object--all would be carried away at one fell swoop-the act against cursing and swearing, and breach of the Lord's day; the act forbidding incestuous marriages, perjury by taking a false oath upon the book, fornication and adultery ...for all these are founded on Christianity--- for all these are restraints upon civil liberty. ...
We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection--the constitutionality of Christianity--for, in effect, that is the question. Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law . . . not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church ... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.
Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people. This is the Christianity of the common law . . . and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. . . . In this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity . . . without which no free government can long exist.
To prohibit the open, public and explicit denial of the popular religion of a country is a necessary measure to preserve the tranquillity of a government. Of this, no person in a Christian country can complain. . . . In the Supreme Court of New York it was solemnly determined, that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and that to revile the Holy Scriptures was an indictable offence. The case assumes, says Chief Justice Kent, that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted on Christianity. The People v. Ruggles.
No society can tolerate a willful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down its laws--a general, malicious and deliberate intent to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity. Without these restraints no free government could long exist. It is liberty run mad to declaim against the punishment of these offences, or to assert that the punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our government. They are far from being true friends to liberty who support this doctrine, and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunners of anarchy, and finally, of despotism. No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.... Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep. .. it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws. . . .
Christianity is part of the common law; the act against blasphemy is neither obsolete nor virtually repealed; nor is Christianity inconsistent with our free governments or the genius of the people.
While our own free constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of the country; these two privileges are directly opposed.
The Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina in 1846 in the case of City of Charleston V S.A. Benjamin cites an individual who broke the Ordinance that stated: "No Person or persons whatsoever shall publicly expose to sale, or sell... any goods, wares or merchandise whatsoever upon the Lord's day."
The court convicted the man and came to the conclusion: "I agree fully to what is beautifully and appropriately said in Updengraph V The Commonwealth.... Christianity, general Christianity, is an always has been, a part of the common law; "not Christianity with an established church... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."
We have been under a systematic attack now for about a century--not from without, but from the Centers of the Left within America;--and those attacking on the different fronts will work together when it best suits them, although they often work on single issues, when they see profit in so doing. (See Destroying Cultural Continuity, as well as the essay cited in my reply above.)
Unfortunately, because the Fabian Left attacks with different rationale on different fronts, many Conservatives focus on single issues, as the ultimate battleground, and do not see how they are losing on those single issues by ignoring other fronts in an ideological war in which we are all the targets of the same Socialist mindset. But whether the issue is a denial of the right to publicly proclaim our dependence upon God--as the Founding Fathers did at every opportunity;--or our Southern compatriots' right to publicly proclaim their love for their own unique and distinct heritage; or our people's right to seek an immigration policy designed to protect the unique cultural and ethnic heritage that created America; or the right of parents to insist that their values and not the NEA values be taught to their children; or any of a score of other vital cultural issues; a closer examination will show that the same overriding Leftwing ideology is behind the attack.
It is that Leftist mindset that we must encounter, engage with all of our intellectual resources, and expose as the gargantuan pack of lies that it in fact is based upon. (See The Lies Of Socialism.)
William Flax
William Flax
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.