A Christian Nation
by Jeremy D. BoreingIn the comment section of a recent post, I drew some fire for making the following, apparently shocking claim:
We [Americans] see America, from the Pilgrims who signed the Mayflower Compact to the Biblical scholars… who birthed the nation, to the spirit of sacrifice and charity that thrives to this very day, not as a nation of Christians (for that freedom is at the deepest core of our common philosophy) but as a Christian nation.
It seems that there is a growing belief that because our Founders were stalwart advocates for religious liberty, and because some of them had very nuanced and sometimes cynical views about organized religion, the United States was somehow conceived to be a secular nation. This belief is not only untrue, but detrimental to an adequate understanding of the underlying political philosophy of the founding, not least of all because it envisions the government as the nation instead of merely the organization through which the nation conducts its civil affairs, and more importantly because it betrays the singular belief that undergirds the entire American experiment: That the rights of man come not from government but from God.
When the Founders crafted the Constitution of the United States, they were not setting about to create a nation; they were setting about to create a system of government. The people of the United States had successfully waged war against Great Britain, formed alliances with foreign powers, brokered trade, and secured national debt before the current system of government was ever established. The Constitution merely created a system of administrative and judicial structures meant to represent the nation and to conduct the affairs of the people of that nation. This is perhaps best evidenced by the opening words to the document itself: “We the people of the United States… establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The United States already existed. Its people created the Constitution to “form a more perfect Union… and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
The birth of the nation occurred in 1776 when the second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. It was this document that “dissolved the political bands” which connected the people of America to the people of Great Britain and assumed for them “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” entitled them. It was also in this document that the Founders outlined the uniquely American philosophy of the legitimate rights of the governed. “Self-evident” truths, they called them: that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (not afforded by their government) with certain un-alienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Governments, says the Declaration, are formed to help man secure these rights and derive their power only from the consent of the people themselves. If government should exceed the people’s authority, or encroach upon the rights man received from his Creator (also called, in official documents by the same congress, “Providence,” “Almighty God,” “the Common Father,” “Nature’s God,” “God,” “Supreme Being,” “Holy Ghost,” and, wait for it, “Jesus Christ”), it was “the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.” The Founders then go on to cite, as the moral authority from which their philosophy is derived (rectitude as they called it), the “Supreme Judge” of the world, and call upon “Divine Providence” for their protection in carrying out their God-given rights.
It was hardly a secular origin then for these United States. Instead, a founding document that proposes a theory, really a theology of government, never enacted before. The people of this country are entitled by God to independent statehood. They were created by God with rights that no government can legitimately take away. Their philosophy was deemed morally correct because it has been judged so by God, and God will protect them in the execution of war against those that would subjugated them in violation of that philosophy. This is how the Founders viewed rightful governance, and this is the sort of government that they sought to give life when, a decade later, they drafted the Constitution of the United States.
Of the four claims about God and Americans outlined in the Declaration, it was the idea that man was made by God to be free that was the most radical, and which was so pivotal. The British press mocked it openly. It is, however, at the very heart of the founding ideology. If it is God who made men free, then Liberty is not a pragmatic imperative; it is a moral one. Governments that encroach on that liberty are not only violating the preferences of the governed, they are violating the very intention of God for government. For the Founders, this idea would fundamentally redefine the relationship between government and citizen. Man does not exist to be governed; governments exist to protect man’s freedom. Man does not owe government anything, other than what is necessary to aid that government in securing his basic rights. Likewise, government does not owe man anything other than protection from those who would intrude upon his freedom, be it his fellow citizen, foreign enemies, or the government itself.
It is this idea, above all others, that marked this country as unique among the nations of the world. It is an idea so deeply held by our Founders that many actually feared making references to the rights of man in the Constitution itself. They didn’t think they needed to. They also knew that to do so might one day be interpreted to mean that those rights were not natural at all, but rather were gifts from a benevolent master called the state. When the Bill of Rights was finally added, the Congress selected the language very carefully to make clear that the document was not bestowing rights on the people, but limiting the rights of government: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble…,” “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” “The right of the people to be secure… shall not be violated…” The Constitution doesn’t grant man rights; God does. The Constitution only protects those rights from the government. The idea that the Founders believed government must exist independent of God is thereby false since their own view of the rightful place of government was in the protection of the rights granted to man by his Creator.
The tired argument that the Founders were not Christians but Deists is not only false (there were more overtly Christian men among the Founders than even supposed Deists by orders of magnitude), but more importantly, it is irrelevant. Whatever the nuances of their personal faiths, the Founders were to-a-man theists, believers in God, and in the Christian tradition. While some of them, men like Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson, were skeptical of many of the miraculous claims of the Bible, they were none-the-less scholarly about and reverent toward what they saw as its philosophy, and its God. They may not have been Christians by the standards of the church, but they were certainly Christians by the standards of atheists. They believed in the God of the Bible and believed faith was critical to the workings of a free society. Not only that, but they made clear what they thought about the relationship between God and government in both word and deed. Franklin called for prayer at the Constitutional Convention and suggested spending government revenue on chaplains. Adams declared the Constitution was “made only for a moral and religious people…” and wrote the Massachusetts State Constitution, which required that its governors pledge their Christian faith in order to serve (This was considered a legitimate state law under the original reading of the First and Tenth Amendment). Jefferson spent federal revenue on Bibles, declared that the Bible should be taught in public schools, and approved of the use of federal buildings for church gatherings – including the capital building where he personally attended services during his presidency. Oh, and he wrote the Declaration of Independence.
Of course Jefferson also, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, first coined the popular phrase, “Separation of Church and State,” which has been used for so long to inform a reading of the ‘Establishment Clause’ which seeks to excise all religious expression from public institutions. So how could he approve of the innumerable expressions of faith by himself and the government under his watch? It is important here to bear in mind the context of Jefferson’s thinking.
The Danbury Baptists were concerned that the First Amendment’s very existence might one day be taken to imply that it was the government who gave men religious freedom, not God, and therefore imply government could also take that freedom away (a possibility Alexander Hamilton had also raised in Federalist No. 84). The Baptists feared that this left open the possibility that at some point in the future the government might claim for itself the power to enforce religious edicts through civil coercion. This fear was not without historical precedent.
The original European settlers of what would become the United States of the Revolution were almost exclusively British. They were also immensely religious. That’s why they were here. After a millennia of state-religion mandated by Rome, Henry VIII had rejected the authority of the Pope in Britain and created a state-religion of his own. The Church of England made the king not only the ultimate political power in the land, but the ultimate religious authority as well. A violation of Henry’s religious positions was a violation of the law, and a violation of the law was heresy. The punishment was severe: Beheading, hanging, burning at the stake… Terrible things happen when civil and religious authority are mingled together.
The problem for Henry, and for Rome, was that a Reformation was also taking place. Men like Martin Luther and William Tyndale (who Henry had strangled and burned) had begun translating the Bible into common languages, giving the people the opportunity to explore God for themselves. What they discovered surprised them. In the Book of Exodus, God establishes a civil leader for his people in Moses. He also establishes a religious leader in Aaron. Then he does something really interesting: He commands that they remain separate forever. If the king tries to supersede the religious authority of the priesthood, God will destroy him, as he does in 2 Chronicles, cursing a king named Uzziah for conducting a religious rite in the temple. Of course, God was God of the state, as well as the religion. He gave guidance to Moses just as surely as he did to Aaron. He just precluded the civil leader from also being the religious leader. Undoubtedly, God understood that without that distinction, all kings would be like Henry VIII. Separation of church and state, then, is actually a Biblical principle.
When Jefferson’s own American forefathers, the Pilgrims, took sanctuary from religious persecution in this new world, they sought to be true to the Biblical teachings that their former rulers had violated. In America, as in Israel thousands of years before, government and religious authority would be forever separated, though just as in Israel, God would be God of both. God and religion, after all, are not the same thing. One is the Supreme Being over all, and the other is the institution by which he is taught and worshiped. Jefferson understood this distinction, which is why he could assure the Danbury Baptists that there was a “wall of separation between church and state,” ensuring that the government would never dictate or enforce religious decrees, while at the same time he also recognized God though the government, and based the legitimacy of both on him.
There is far more to say on this subject than could possibly be explored in one sitting: The fact that the opening lines of the most important state law concerning religious freedom discuss how God made the mind free though it was within his Almighty power not to as Lord of both and Author of our religion (Jefferson). There is Washington’s Presidential warning that no man can call himself a patriot and oppose religion, since it is intrinsically linked to free government. There is Congress authorizing an official translation of the Bible and Thanksgiving Proclamations calling upon Jesus Christ to forgive of our national sins. For nearly two centuries government was separated from religious authority by Jefferson’s wall, but there was simply no separation of the government and God. The Bible was read in schools, there were prayers at most public functions, churches continued to meet in federal buildings, and America’s rich Christian heritage was taught and celebrated, not denied, suppressed, and scorned. To be sure, there were always Americans of diverse faiths, but as the nation was settled by Christians, founded on the principles of Christianity, and peopled by an overwhelming majority of Christian citizens, it didn’t seem a terrible thing to consider her a Christian Nation. It was not until 1947, when the Supreme Court heard a case called Everson vs Board of Education, that the modern understanding of America as a secular nation was first introduced. In a stunning act of judicial activism, the court declared that Jefferson, in his Danbury Letter, in contradiction to earlier court rulings on the subject and to everything Jefferson himself had ever written including the Declaration and the actual letter itself, must have intended that the government be legally bound to secularism. This effectively turned two centuries of American history on its head. In the sixty years since, generations of Americans have been fed a radical reinterpretation of the Founders’ intent. Government, we are now taught, must protect the people from public expressions of, or support for, religion. God must be stripped from the public square, which is in large part why the true history of our founding has been so stripped from our schools. In this newly interpreted separation, the chief concern of our Founders seems to have been preventing anyone from encountering religion at all. That they often argued publicly that the republic could not survive without religion is ignored entirely, as is their own reliance on God for their authority to create the government in the first place. Like so many other issues in post-New Deal America, if the courts disagree with the Founders, they simply re-invent them, avoiding the sticky democratic practices of debate and legislation all together.
Since God no longer exists in government, and his history there is no longer taught, is it any wonder that millions upon millions of Americans believe, in utter opposition to the founding philosophy, that our rights come from the government? Where else would they come from? And should it be any surprise if those same Americans desire that the government give them other things as well? After all, if our rights are not by the grace of God but by the grace of government, then whoever controls the government has the ultimate authority over man. Government by definition can do no wrong. This is precisely the kind of thinking our Founders literally warred against. It is also precisely why Americans of all faiths should be proud to own America’s Christian Heritage, and why without it, America is lost.
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. 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 forever.” – Thomas Jefferson, “Deist”
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian Nation…” - Barack Obama, “Christian”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
1,146 Comments
"If it is God who made men free, then Liberty is not a pragmatic imperative; it is a moral one. Governments that encroach on that liberty are not only violating the preferences of the governed, they are violating the very intention of God for government."
Like Dr. King Jr. you've laid out the meaning of God's Freedom brilliantly and with conviction.
Obama is just sucking up to the Islamic dictatorships. I don't know whether our rights derive from a deity, natural law, or just common sense, but they sure don't (or at least shouldn't) derive from government.
Jeremy, this is excellent and I wish I could write something this clear and well put. I am sending it to everyone I know.
To expand on the final line of this essay: Remember, this is a president who claimed not only that we are no longer a Christian nation, but that we are one of the largest Muslim countries on earth.
I forgot to add: Excellent piece, Jeremy, thanks.
Excellent article. I'm from Britain but love reading about the founding of the United States and it's authors. I'm currently reading "The 5000 Year Leap" and hope to get my friends and family to read it too, for if my country is to become prosperous, a sound knowledge of the philosophy of America's founding is important. This is why I'm a fan of Daniel Hannan (some of you may have heard of him). He gets America and is trying to export the founding values to Britain.
Keep fighting for your country America! Educating the people is a vital task. Goodness knows your country is the key to ending the slow demise of Western civilisation and Christianity plays a key role.
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington
“It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive, and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty…Pat Robertson has written in a book a few years ago that we should have a world government, but only when the Messiah arrives. He wrote, literally, any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the devil. Well, join me. I’m glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan. ” (Walter Cronkite, 1999 speech at the U. N., accepting the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the World Federalists Association)
just as i had to correct my son when he erred, god will correct his. man, barry is so gonna be grounded….
my daughter's school, teaches her nothing of the founding fathers. i do. schools since i can remember, are teaching us to be ashamed of America, of Christianity, always balking at the Crusades & Inquisition yet saying nothing of Stalin, Mao, & Islamic slave armies. nothing of communism & islamic regimes. we must take back the schools, the textbooks, and our American history.
I salute you sir…
As an atheist I don't necessarily endorse seeing the nation as necessarily being characterized by any religion. However, I do agree that the concepts expressed in the First Amendment have been misconstrued.
Too many people think that it means we cannot allow people to voluntarily pray or have religious assembly on public grounds. This is an overreaction and it really proves that you don't have to be religious to be dogmatic.
I graduated from high school the year before the law was passed making it illegal to have graduation prayers. Even at the time I thought this was ridiculous. While everyone else was praying, I just kept my head up and thought my own thoughts. Nobody bothered me. I wasn't lynched or tarred and feathered and nobody even said anything about it – frankly, I doubt they noticed. And I grew up in the Bible Belt.
The most ironic aspect of this is that we never actually got rid of religion. All the laws created a vacuum, and liberalism/statism/Marxism happily filled that void. All the anti-religious kids always recite those old quotes, how "religion is the opiate of the masses" and so forth, and don't make the connection: if religion is the opiate, and you get rid of it, the people will get high on something else.
This is a brilliant article. I too will post it on my facebook page for my friends to learn from. I thoroughly believe that the reason we find ourselves in the mess we are in is because we have walked away from God and stopped teaching accurate American history.
I have to point out that your summation of "Everson vs Board of Education" is actually misleading. While it, to a certain extent, implied what you say, the case itself was hardly as clear cut.
Since many people do not know the specifics of the case, allow me to explain. In 1941 New Jersey passed a law authorizing local school boards to provide "any transportation for public school children to and from school," to also supply transportation to children living in the school district to and from nonprofit private schools. The Ewing Township decided to use tax money to reimburse parents for transportation cost incurred in sending their children to school because the township had no public highschool of its own. This included, of course, the cost of transportation for kids to goto private religious schools. The titular Everson, one of the taxpayers in the district, challenged these actions claiming they violated the Establishment Clause.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the School District.
Let me repeat that.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the School District.
In other words, the claim that Everson brought charging establishment was thrown out, almost laughably, on it's face if you take the time to read the decision. Sadly, the phrase "separation of church and state" was brushed off and used later to try and secularize society, but the case it first appeared in upheld the ability of a government to support religion, albeit indirectly.
I'll end with a quote from the Majority opinion, written by Justice Black:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the first Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor a Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa, In the words of Jefferson, the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'"
Well said, friend.
.
Because America was founded as a Christian nation,
it has been a haven to people of all beliefs (even a-belief ism
God Bless.
Jed,
In the light of his former attendance to Wright's services, coupled with the fact that finding a church in D.C. takes a backseat to exercising on Sundays, it seems that the President sees little need for leadership in this topic.
I don't think that he was solely trying to placate Islamic states. On several occasions he has gone out of his way to mention atheists when speaking of religion in this country. Maybe it was done out of spineless, opportunistic politicking to not offend anyone. But why would most atheists, with the exception of the militants, care if they were mentioned at all in that context? I got the feeling that he agrees with atheism and would openly espouse it, if it would not cost him any votes among the bitter, gun-and-religion clinging crowd.
Either as a faithful believer or atheist, this “new” and “post-partisan” type of politician should be more forthcoming on many things, including what he really values, and provide the example to back it up.
Thanks for the great article Mr. Boreing.
There is a few lib atheists (get that LIB atheists) who I know who are utmost irked that the virtue of this country, the good things happened because of Christianity and also a bit from Judaism. They have to wake up in a country that they want to live in because of something they hate and don't believe in, whereas the multiple attempts through history to found a nation on atheism aka communism and other psychotic beliefs they would not dare only to live there, but the people are oppressed and flee for their lives if need be.
Tough thing being a lib atheist. Their prejudice and hateful racist terms like "flyover country" cannot overcome the complete failure of everything they believe in.
Sheer evidence of success before their eyes versus their faith of liberalism and atheism.
I guess good ol' Uncle Walt (Cronkite, not Disney) just felt he did not do enough with his outstanding reporting on the American debacle of the Tet Offensive and had to mouth off about the glories of the UN too. I am not sure where Cronkite is now although I would not mind it terribly much if there is the smell of sulphur in the air where he is at.
“if religion is the opiate, and you get rid of it, the people will get high on something else.”
Judging from the zealotry seen on campuses towards some environmental and other “awareness” issues, I have to agree that traditional faith in a god is often only swapped for pet causes; any individual sanctimony is just repackaged to suit politics.
when man does not believe in God, he will believe in just about anything" dosteoyesky dude…
I believe in this saying "Atheism is the opiate of the selfish:.
anyway, i believe even atheists should learn the true history of our Christian nation. i am against atheism though, for as an ex-liberal democrat, i know very well how they act. but sigh, as a Christian i must treat them equally and love them thusly… however annoying as an evangelist they are.
It would be curious to see the President's response to the questions "Do you believe that Jesus is "The Christ" , and no one come to the Father but through him?" Any evasion or delayed reaction might be as damning as an unqualified denial.
200+ years of freedom, and some still can't evolve past clinging to past beliefs in imaginary gods. Haven't we learned that it is possible to have ethics and morals and "inalienable right" without some god? Why do we have to keep referring back to what some (albeit ver smart ) dudes said 200+ years ago VERBATIM? They believed in a myth. So what? They were fallible. Let's find an intelligent way to keep the good from the founding fathers and finally dispense of the supernatural.
Prepare for another lively debate here at Big Hollywood…
Obama is the closest thing this great country has gotten to or hopefully will ever get to a Euro-style, neo-socialist, 21st century politician. Modern secularism IS Euro-land and their elected leaders the *clergy* of this new religion.
They have seemingly reverted to an ancient pre Roman Druid-like Enviro-religion and it's driving them into ruin.
We must not YEILD to this modern Democrat abomination of our country and Constitution…
Is that to mean that only those who believe in a divine Jesus are fit for public office?
nicely put…you speak for many of us with that point….
I feel *dirty* because of the rancour and ill will I feel about the ~dog and pony~ show being conducted in memory of Teddy K.; he stood for everything I find abhorrent and wrong.
Unearned wealth, unpunished crimes, unbridled debotchary and undisiplined use of our Treasury as a balm to sooth his guilty conscience. As an academic (kinda sorta) throw in academic dishonesty to boot.
"Enviro-wackyism" is the cool, *new* religion and Al Gore is the new Enviro-Pope, er Pimp…
It means that Barry claims to be a Christian yet there is little proof of genuine faith. He adopted the faith most likely to get him elected.
That's true…I'm a in the middle guy, I've haven't been to regular Mass in years but I feel I'm tolerant of all views (except extremist Islam, which is writ, crazy) atheism is just one choice and not one for me to condemn.
When I told my elderly and very devout parents I was visiting the Vatican I joked that I hope I'm not struck dead by lightning upon entrance…I think they feared the same…
…and damn it, this is why I'm pissed about the deification of a guy responsible for killing an innocent woman and held to minimal legal consequences…It's unfair and hypocritical, but typical of our justice system. Money corrupts some and buys alternate justice for others…that sux.
That's true…I'm a "in the middle guy", I've haven't been to regular Mass in years but I feel I'm tolerant of all views (except extremist Islam, which is writ, crazy) atheism is just one choice and not one for me to condemn.
When I told my elderly and very devout parents I was visiting the Vatican I joked that I hope I'm not struck dead by lightning upon entrance…I think they feared the same…
…and damn it, this is why I'm pissed about the deification of a guy responsible for killing an innocent woman and held to minimal legal consequences…It's unfair and hypocritical, but typical of our justice system. Money corrupts some and buys alternate justice for others…that sux.
"200+ years of freedom, and some still can't evolve past clinging to past beliefs in imaginary gods."
And what are your un-imaginary ones like?
I think that Asimov in the end of the first Foundation novel makes a great quote
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". I think there are two tyoes of atheists. Those that do not beleive in God but follow some sort of higher principle that mirrors the higher authority of God the founders were talking about.
Then there are humanists which had there start I think first among the Jacobins who felt that all rights came from Man and therefore could be taken away be man.
I think the ideas of the Constitution survive without God. The idea that there is a higher authoity in the world (even as only a philosophical concept) to which the right's of men derive. Ultimately the atheism of the Marxists and the Utopian Jacobins from which they derive is not about ending the belief in God but combating the idea that ideas and freedom derive from some source outside the State. The religious trappings of the argument serve in my mind only to distract from the real purpose.
"The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.
Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties."
NOW THAT REALLY IS BLOOD FOR OIL!
Here,Here! At the risk of appearing to be a cold, cruel, conservative, I have to be honest and say I'm glad both he and Mr. Kennedy are no longer with us. I'm not happy I'm starting to think this way. In the end, I sincerely pray that the influence that these two people have had as a result of their respective positions in media and government , will fade away.
Crap, crap, crap. The authors and ratifiers of the Constitution had every opportunity to codify Christianity, and they didn't. Why not? Because it was never their intention for this to be a "Christian" nation. And any other documents of the period that invoke God or Christ in passing are just that — peripheral documents — with no force in law. And for the record, Jefferson in particular thought biblical "miracles" were absurd — just as we'd expect from a pure rationalist. It's ironic how social conservatives, who espouse a literal interpretation of the Constitution, tie themselves in knots trying to read into that same Constitution some endorsement of Christianity. It ain't there, folks.
OK Peregy
In your legal opinion what was the first court case that allowed my high school to block attempts to have a benediction or blessing said at the student's graduation. Jeremy may be incorrect as to which is the first application of this thought in the law but I don't think he is off point in explaining that this has happened. I assume you don't disagree wiht that.
If this case is not the first then which is or is it a collection of cases that eventually led to the idea that Church must be removed from State.
Jamesb I'm right along side of you on the Extravaganza of this National disgrace's passing .Please don't get me started on the Kennedy's. I'll get a nose bleed. They're not good enough to dig or clean the moat of Camelot much less live in it…..Got to run my nose is leaking.
You said it, Peter — except that I suspect that any mention of "God" in our founding documents was merely a rhetorical device, common to the period. But we should take the Constitution verbatim in any event, without reading into it some silly recognition of a supernatural being that 99% of the population have confused with Santa Claus.
Hunter Baker writes about this topic in his new book, "The End of Secularism." It's more than just the founding of the nation, but it deals with it, so I mention it to you. If you haven't heard of it, you may want to look it up.
I’m not a particularly religious person, but I was raised with the good book and admire those who can adhere to the ideals, expressed, some can. From the Pilgrims to the founding of this country to present day and into the foreseeable future this will be a Christian country so get over it. In my opinion this a good thing all societies needs guard rails, for most of us it’s the “Bible,” and a higher power. For the statist it’s Nancy Pelosi, …I’ll go with the higher power, thank you! Did everyone notice today when The Liberal Lion of the Senate, the abortion defender, the ultimate statist, etc. was buried, there were more Catholic priest than at The Vatican, hmmm… I wonder what that was about? Don’t want to take any chances, …huh!
I refuse to pollute my T.V. but stopped by to visit my parents and the end of the *planting ceremony* was on…I launched into a small diatribe but ughhhh…while panning the family I did supply their true inner dialogues kinda like the old, weird comedy "Soap"….one Kennedy "Dammit hurry up, I got a hooker scheduled for 9:00"…another Kennedy…"come on, I need a Cutty Sark, WICKED BAD"…another…"I don't recognize her, hmmm, ya, that's it, turn around…slowly…I wonder if were related…sha ya, like I care…"
Should I grovel and avert mine eyes like the merry band of Monty Python loons when a picture of "The Exalted One" is displayed with what seems to be a halo?
So the supreme court ruled in favor of the school district. So what? Supreme court rulings have often been not only shoddy but they, at times, flatly contradicted previous rulings. When the US Constitution was signed, several states had official state religions. The fifth amendment says "congress shall make no law" meaning the US Congress, not states.
The Book of Mormon talks directly about America:
10 But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land.
11 And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.
12 And I will fortify this land against all other nations.
13 And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God.
And the Lord goes on in verse 19:
19 "Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed, and them who shall be numbered among thy seed, forever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands, wherefore I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God."
2nd Nephi Chp. 10 verses 10-13,19.
America is a choice land…..above all others.!!!!!! God has always blessed this land and protected those in it.
The problem is that as soon as we become like Israel of old, and turn our backs on him…we will suffer the same fate and be afflicted and smitten.
One of my favorite quotes is from Ezra Taft Benson, former Sec. of Agriculture under Pres. Eisenhower.
"The Lord will have a humble people, they can either choose to be humble,or the Lord will compel them to be humble".
Very, very good article…….!!!!!!
"Fools mock, but they shall mourn"
For Peter…….."Fools mock, but they shall mourn"
Wow, Jeremy. You've got a lot of problems.
LOL. I've got to laugh. My 88 yr.old father who turned on The Ceremony looking for some western said almost said the same thing . He said This SOB does want to go into the ground. The rest of them….. They all can't wait for the bar to open. Funny. Dark but funny.
It's a collection of cases. It started with this one, "Everson vs Board of Education," which is where the "separation of church and state" first appeared. The two cases which set up the school prayer issues are "Engel v Vitale" (1962) and "School District of Abington Township v. Schempp" (1963). Constitutional Law, however, isn't about one major case, usually, it's about a series of cases and how the Constitution is interpreted over time. The Establishment Clause, especially, is complex in how it's affected schools and the relationship of religion and state.
That said, student led and student initiated prayer isn't banned in schools. I don't know the specifics of your complaint though, so I can't tell you what applies and what doesn't.
You're missing my point, which is that the case that is cited as originating the phrase of "Separation of Church and State" actually does no such thing. Also, the amendments were applied retroactively to the states (called Incorporation) via the 14th Amendment. This began as early as 1897 in "Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railrod v Chicago," and continued into the 1970s with various specific clauses and rights being incorporated as cases came up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Ar...
/thread
I am a very Conservative Atheist, should I be against Religion?
Peter,
I am curious regarding this “evolution,” you speak of. Where are we to get our moral guidance from? It appears you have an answer that eludes many of the "myth" believers.
Religion, especially the type practiced by conservatives, is especially alarming. Religion is just illogical, childish mumbo jumbo. No basis in fact or science. It is a blunt political instrument used to subjugate the masses, brainwash the ignorant and incite the faithful towards violence and total control. It's the antithesis of reason and compassion. It's just a cult. There's no difference between Catholics, Mormons, or Baptists, you're all dangerous fools with an agenda to dominate everything and force everyone to believe and live in their vision. I'm not interested. I am a proud atheist and I think religion is dangerous and we'd all be a lot better off without it.
By the way, many of the posters here who declare they are Christians or Republicans, are such hypocrites. You pick and choose from your stupid book–the bible. You hate gays, you hate lesbians, you hate Muslims, Jews, etc…and the dreaded "liberal." You are dangerous and I'm not interested in living in your America. By the way, why is it your side–Mark Sanford, Foley, Gingrich, Vitter are such adulterers, perverts and general scumbags? Because your side talks a good name, but can't live up to any of your convictions. You're hypocrites. You are liars. You are dangerous radicals hell bent on subjugating everyone and converting everyone to your warped sense of reality. I will fight you to the death to keep this great country a free-thinking, free, secular country based on facts, logic, science and the truth. You can waste time on your fairy tales, but don't waste mine.
The court case that resulted in the banning of prayers at graduation ceremonies has an interesting history and it also is an interesting example of how ignorant people are of religion in general.
The man who brought the law suit did so after sitting through his child's graduation ceremony. As a Jew, he was very uncomfortable having to sit there with his family as a Catholic priest led the audience in prayers to Jesus Christ. He had a younger daughter in the school, and so he complained to the principal in the hopes that future graduations would be less specific. The schools response was to add a Rabbi to the next graduation. It was then that he filed his lawsuit.
The day the case broke, it was big news in Rhode Island and I was arguing with an older man I knew who was spouting off about "those damn atheists". I explained to him that atheists actually had nothing to do with that particular case and told him the story about the Jewish man and his kids and them having to sit through public prayers to Jesus Christ. He was all dumbfounded and said "why the heck would a Jew care about a prayer to Jesus?" I just stared at him. I asked him if he understood that Jews don't believe that Jesus was the savior, and why some Jews might find a public school forcing their kids to prayer to Jesus Christ a little offensive. He had no idea what I was talking about.
Most Christians are all for Christian prayers in public schools. That is until you mention any other religion. Then it's a different story. How about a prayer to Satan? To Allah? Nope, that's a different story. And that's where the whole "America is a Christian nation" notion fails.
Are you angry tonight?
How about *you* stop wasting *our* time with your lies and hate? I may not be a Christian or even a Jew, but I'll be damned if I let you trod all over these good people and their right to believe what they want to believe. Go away and don't bother us again.
Why is it, that it seems that the "open minded" libs/secularist always seems so angry in their posts. Both Hate Religion, and God is Dead, if you are so much smarter than the 90% or so of the global population that does believe in some type of higher power, shouldn't you be above the venom you inject in your posts? More importantly though, you CAN"T PROVE there is no higher power, in the exact way that believers CAN"T PROVE there is. That is why it is called faith. If you where truly open-minded individuals, you could have and show a little respect to people that don't think/believe the way you do. Instead, you have to put down other people believe systems, because you, deep inside where you don't like to look, are scared and insecure that you might be wrong but you don't or can't let anybody know that you KNOW you could be wrong.
(Continued) I do believe in God. I don't hate gays, lesbians, Muslims or Liberals. I welcome open discussions with anybody, because I am secure in what I believe, and could not care less if you or anybody else believes in it or not. In that security come the peace of mind, where I can discuss/debate any issue with our the name calling and labels the BOTH sides tend to degrade to very quickly in forums like this. I believe, once more people stop caring so much what everybody else thinks, and worry more about figuring out what they truly believe, we can all come together and continue to make this country into the nation the founding fathers envisioned. BTW, great article
I honestly don't understand athiests really they act like they have proof god doesn't exist but yet they don't. Athieism seems to be worn as worn as a badge of honor for some reason like ive seen meny posters on the internet say they are a athiest but they come off as ignorant and well as kind of a know it all. They bash religion some of the stupidist comments ive ever seen it's childish ect. And you know conservatives are humans just like liberals so they make mistakes for sure. By the way meny people on the far left live in wonderland im afraid ive sen a few post here. By the way science is wrong more then you hear so please don't say logic things in life often defy logic all togethor so don't give the science and logic crap. As for the not liking gays ummm well lets put it this way nature said no to that so thats it nature said no you say yes who's gonna when out in the end nature. Also Obama is the worst president ive ever seen so it goes both ways i guess you are hypocrites so don't give me the liberal athiest talk points memo ive heard it before.
Nobody wants to force you to believe anything……
I would proud stand next to a patriot Atheist defending America…..
You have your agency to choose how you live you life..one with God or without
Here is a direct question for you. Do you believe that today the present interpretations of supreme court precedent in fact demand the removal of religious expressiion from any government institution including peripheral activities such as state run public schools which I do not see as a government enterprize but rather a social institution that is happened to be run by a government. I think it is important to point out whether you are simply pointing out an error in Jeremy's assumption as to which case was the turning point or whether you are in fact challenging the notion that this level of Separation of Church in State has been enacted?
I don't know if you read this Mr. Boreing, but if you have other contact info, I'd like to talk to you about your permission to reprint portions of this article in a project I'm working on. John Nolte knows how to find me on facebook, or you can go to my website by clicking my name. I think you have hit the nail on the head so succinctly that I really would like to use this.
Proud Atheists that were full of Reason and Compassion:
Karl Marx, Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Musolini, Mao Tse Dong, Pol Pot, Ho Che Min, most of the thinkers that started the Eugenics Movements, Fascism, MArxism, the Jacobins in France.
Yes le's all embrace their reason and compassion and not be dangerous fools.
Explain to me the concept of Natural Law in a world with out God?
It is very difficult to envision atheists worrying that they had God Given Rights granted by their creator. We are a nation founded on Christian principles which is Jeremy's point. That does not necessarily mean that the nation is Christian. Natural Law was a pivotal concept to the founders derived from Thomas Paine and Edmond Burke in England as well.
[...] Read More August 30th, 2009 | Tags: Big Hollywood, Christian Nation | Category: Religion | Leave a comment [...]
Great post! I liked the part about the Constitution.
There is no such thing as a "true athiest", despite their claims to the contrary. Such a foolish way to spend a life…anyone with any sense knows that logically there is a creator. Everything has a creator, a designer, a planner, art and form. Who is ignorant enough to think that something as complicated as life, as the world around us, happened out of chance and randomness. Ridiculous!
Yep no athiests in fox holes as a wise man once said.
I'll stick with God. I've failed Him but He's never failed me. I can't say the same thing about Government.
A finely-executed piece of scholarship, though I must ask what exactly it's all supposed to mean in terms of the current controversies over the role of religion in politics.
The author is evidently looking to make the point that – unless I misread him – that because it is demonstrable that a majority of the Founding Fathers were (at least nominally) Christians and peppered their official writings and even casual correspondence with reference to a deity and the supernatural (and, really, only a true fool would try to argue otherwise in the face of MOUNTAINS of historical evidence) it is therefore impossible to seperate one from the other: That America and the Christian God are inseperable, and that the second cannot be "lost" without also losing the first. Frankly, this vision betrays an absence of – for lack of a better word – "faith" in the ability of a good idea to outlive the immediate circumstances of it's inception.
(continued)
(continued)
Is not the history of Western Civilization… of every successful civilization… a history of preserving the systems, ideas and customs that continue to "work" while discarding the ones that no longer do? Hammurabi's Code has influenced nearly every set of written/organized laws in subsequent human history – the VAST majority of which did not share his faith in the gods of Babylon.
(continued)
(continued)
The Rennaissance – the West's DRAGGING of itself up out of the muck and mire of the Dark Ages (an age of horrors very-likely to have been lengthened and exacerbated by medieval Christianity's branding of "blasphemy" upon scholarship and culture connected to earlier faiths) – was largely set in motion by the re-discovery of art, science and literature from the ancient Greeks and Romans and the subsequent reconcilliation of it's overall worth with the new society of the time – i.e. accepting that one could gain wisdom and truth from works initially connected to (for example) Zeus without having to worship or even believe in them. It was in this context that they took their first brave steps toward rediscovering democracy… without having to exchange the beliefs of their time for fealty to Athena.
(continued)
(continued)
The Founding Fathers were Christians, in an age and civilization where almost everyone was. That is a fact. As such, the conception of the constitution and a great deal of our culture has been and continues to be influenced by the stories and lessons of the Bible. That is a fact, as well. But EQUALLY factual is that, like it or not, Western Civilization is moving inexorably toward a "post-Christian" society. For America to deny this, or expend too much energy futiley resisting it, is to doom her to second Dark Ages – exactly the sort that has gripped the similarly modernity-resistant Islamic World.
With appologies for the multi-post.
Jeremey, Thanks for putting this article together. This needs to be forwarded to our Congress so they can learn how our country was founded. Then they could follow the founding principles and pass it onto our children. Time to get back to basics folks or loose our country forever. We are a Christian Nation, a respectful Christian Nation. Not to be trampled on by Government.
[...] nice post by Jeremy D. Boreing at Big Hollywood, A Christian Nation Posted in Politics, Religion | No Comments » Leave a [...]
As an Atheist myself, I have no problem viewing America as a Christian Nation. (it is) I prefer viewing America as a Nation that allows freedom of religion and expression. I understand it is hard for some of my fellow Conservatives to view the world with out God, and rightly so, but I have and do. Even without the guidance of a God, there are a number of things I oppose, as they are a crimes against nature, abortion and homosexuality among them. Freedom and free will still course through my veins, it is a natural law that man desires freedom, and will fight to the death for it.
Any party that tries to argue that they understand what the Founders intended and that means the elimination or rigid seperation of religion in any shape or form from our government is just a liar, and they know it. Hell, the second they accept or trade U.S. currency with "In God We Trust" on it, they're hypocrites at the very minimum. The same nut has been rebuffed for years in Austin in attempts to have the Ten Commandments removed from the Capitol grounds.
That's true…I'm a "in the middle guy", I've haven't been to regular Mass in years but I feel I'm tolerant of all views (except extremist Islam, which is by writ, crazy) atheism is just one choice and not one for me to condemn.
When I told my elderly and very devout parents I was visiting the Vatican I joked that I hope I'm not struck dead by lightning upon entrance…I think they feared the same…
…and damn it, this is why I'm pissed about the televised deification of a guy responsible for killing an innocent woman and held to minimal legal consequences…It's unfair and hypocritical, but typical of our justice system. Money corrupts some and buys alternate justice for others…that sux.
I think that Asimov in the end of the first Foundation novel makes a great quote
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". I think there are two tyoes of atheists. Those that do not believe in God but follow some sort of higher principle that mirrors the higher authority of God the founders were talking about.
Then there are humanists which had there start I think first among the Jacobins who felt that all rights came from Man and therefore could be taken away by man.
I think the ideas of the Constitution survive without God. The idea that there is a higher authoity in the world (even as only a philosophical concept) to which the right's of men derive. Ultimately the atheism of the Marxists and the Utopian Jacobins from which they derive is not about ending the belief in God but combating the idea that ideas and freedom derive from some source outside the State. The religious trappings of the argument serve in my mind only to distract from the real purpose.
Peter, really? Being obnoxious about some one's religion or lack of, is no way to win anyone over. Religion is an expression, if you limit religion, what next? Perhaps something you and I might hold dear. There is room for all, it does not have to be all or nothing. Tolerance goes both ways and I have always found good discourse here, despite my being in the atheist minority.
Sigh. Here we go again. I don't deny that our founding fathers were christian. I don't deny that the Declaration of Independence mentions the Christian/Muslim/Hebrew God. However, the basis of our legal system and our Constitution is English Common Law. english Common Law is based on Saxon/Dane Law and that is not christian in origin. The Magna Carta (THE basis basis for the Constitution) was rejection of the Christian concept of the Divine Right of Kings and a return to the concept of the rights and priveledges of Free Men as excercised under Saxon rule. Those ideals came not from Christianity but from the Nordic peoples who followed the native faith of Northern Europe: the Vikings. If anything, our country's legal origins reside with Forseti, not with Yahweh.
Once one is able to maneuver through all the verbiage, this is simply a bit of a rant that's quite bereft of any substantive argument. In fact, the arguments only exist in some pipe dream of historical revisionism. It brings to mind the rather apt quote, "No one wants advice-only corroboration," especially given many of the responses.
As for quoting Obama at the end of this blog of sorts, at least have the decency and, dare I say, courage to quote him in full, otherwise it simply sounds like schoolyard sophistry unless, of course, your intentions are to mislead or incite: "Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/04/14/c...
Amen.
It is what it is..get over it.
If you are an athiest, I am wondering why you read the article to begin with unless it was to p and moan.
If you don't like it here, there are other places to live.
How unfortunate real American history isn't taught in schools anymore.
" This does, however, mean that a public school cannot mandate a prayer at graduation."
Well I strongly disagree with that interpretation. I know a Private Catholic grade school now costs over 4 grand a year on average. Many people are unable to afford private school because the government taxes them so much for public school. The fact that it is paid for with tax payer dollars does not in my mind make it part of the government. It is and always will be a social institution which in itself should be separate form government.
A gradualtion ceremony is a once in a life time event and a benediction or blessing said at that time a a very special religious meaning. To dissallow such a thing is to effectively deny someone the right to practice their religion. If taxpayer money involvement means this can't happen then the only remedy a court can make is to dissallow government funding of schools. Otherwise you are violating the first amendment by setting up a system where people have no way to meet the requirements of their religion. Its the opposite of freedom.
The 'Hate God' humanist posters here are so full of hate it's amazing. Their Black Hearts reveal evil intent. They actually hate everyone that does not partake of their misery, very similar to Islamist.
Nobody wants to force you to believe anything……
I would proudly stand next to a patriot Atheist defending America…..
You have your agency to choose how you live you life..one with God or without
Just don't force your Atheism on me or my children please.
Here is a direct question for you. Do you believe that today the present interpretations of supreme court precedent in fact demands the removal of religious expressiion from any government institution including peripheral activities such as state run public schools which I do not see as a government enterprise but rather a social institution that is happened to be run by a government. I think it is important to signafy whether you are simply pointing out an error in Jeremy's assumption as to which case was the turning point or whether you are in fact challenging thenotion that this level of Separation of Church in State has been enacted?
"Haven't we learned that it is possible to have ethics and morals and "inalienable right" without some god?"
We have learned that without some God, people will Heil their Hope on immoral and unethical tyrants who believe themselves to be The One sitting upon the government throne dictating everyone's rights by waving around a Harvard Law degree.
Maybe this Country isnt utopia. Maybe there can never be a nation where ALL religions are treated equal. This one sure seems to be falling apart because of it. And the government is begining to take over to "remedy" the situation.
Does the current interpretation of the Constitution point towards the removal of a religious expression from any government institution including peripheral activities such as state run public schools? Yes and no. The current interpretation says that the State (either local or federal) cannot directly use resources to favor religion. Does this mean that a student valedictorian cannot take a minute to say a prayer if they so desire? No. The valedictorian can, even at a graduation (as their right to Free Exercise and Free Speech trump the Establishment clause, no matter what the ACLU might claim, court cases back this up, but I'm getting to tired to look up citations). This does, however, mean that a public school cannot mandate a prayer at graduation.
I should also clarify. Jeremy is absolutely right as to this case being the turning point. As I noted earlier, the Constitutional protections were Incorporated to the States over a period of time. "Everson vs Board of Education" is the one that incorporated the Establishment Clause to the States. I just felt it was necessary to educate people on the particulars of the case, as people need to know that despite the phrase "Separation of Church and State" coming from that case, the case was actually decided in favor of government aiding (indirectly) religious institutions.
Please note, this is what I can gather from my research and study on the matter. I am, at best, an AMATEUR Constitutional Scholar.
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » A Christian Nation bighollywood.breitbart.com/jdboreing/2009/08/29/a-christian-nation – view page – cached In the comment section of a recent post, I drew some fire for making the following, apparently shocking claim: — From the page [...]
My guess is that most of the rabid athiests that troll around the internet are like 17 years old and rebelling against their parents. They read about atheism in a book somewhere by some other angry person. MATURE people don't have to cut down someone else's belief to make them more sure about their own beliefs.
Nice article about the Founders and the Natural Law. It is frankly amazing that when I talk of the Natural Law, the vast majority I talk with do not even know what they are. Nice job on laying out the facts and hopefully people can use their noodle and start looking into the Natural Law, where it came from, and why it is so important to our Founders (and to ME). Those that believe your blog to be crap reject the Natural Law and reject historical accuracy through their own prejudice. This attitude and attempt to re-write history is precisely what opens up the opportunity for people like them to impose tyranny on their follow man. There has been so much written by our founders about this, it takes only the time to read it. However, the progressives do not want people to read it, because it then becomes SELF EVIDENT. Once the public becomes educated there is little hope for the progressives other then them falling back on the idea that the Founders were a bunch of old, white, slave owners and are not longer relevant. I welcome that debate rather than the propaganda war they wage on re-writing history.
Since you live in a country based on the Christian beliefs of the Founding Fathers, you have every right to denigrate my beliefs. And as a former soldier, I'll defend your right to say it. Will you defend mine?
Jeremy,
This is a brilliant article. How sad it is that I am forced to teach my daughters about the founding of the country because the public schools won't. For those interested The 5000 Year Leap is a great place to start. I was shocked how little I actually knew about our founding fathers.
hi i am fadi from syria i really hated obama when he said that america is no longer a christian nation he is liar because i know that christian consist the najority of the american ppl i think you christians in america should be aware of obama because i see that he wants to turn america into a muslim nation he didnt forget his origins and im really surprised that americans voted for such man and i want u to kknow that islam cant live with another religion that means if islam gets over america it will destroy christians and jews and all of relegions that dont agree with it so u should be aware of muslims i live among them and i know that they are soo bad God bless u all and forgive my bad english
Religious people and atheists are all idiots. To say something exists or doesn't exist without any supporting evidence is stupid.
We LOVE Daniel Hannan! I wish we could trade you Obama for Hannan!
You must be logged in to post a comment.