"One Nation Under God", but are we still?
Our nation is formed upon the principles of God and Christianity and we as a people claim to be predominantly Christian. Our constitution was formed to protect all religions and especially the faith of our people; the Christian faith. If you doubt it look at the murals in the capitol building and see the depictions including the cross of Christ in them. When our constitution is used by the faithless to infringe on our practice of faith, it is due to our silence to that abuse and our separation from God that allows it to be used in such a manner and it is only by our returning to God that will save this country from the eminent collapse we are facing if we remain absent of his word and morality. For those who spoof this and believe God is only loving and does not demand we live a code of charity and love without infringing on the faith and God given rights of others, they will not change or return to Him until they personally suffer the great losses a life without true faith spawns.... or the loss of the greatest country known to the world now weakened and cripple both morally, financially and in exceptionalism as it was born and previously flourished. One day their children will ask their parents, "what happened that we do not have the same freedom and opportunities that you had?" What will we tell them? We wanted free things in stead of freedom and voted for those who would give to us in exchange for the opportunity to prosper to our greatest desires and potentials?
Our nation is formed upon the principles of God and Christianity and we as a people claim to be predominantly Christian. Our constitution was formed to protect all religions and especially the faith of our people; the Christian faith. If you doubt it look at the murals in the capitol building and see the depictions including the cross of Christ in them. When our constitution is used by the faithless to infringe on our practice of faith, it is due to our silence to that abuse and our separation from God that allows it to be used in such a manner and it is only by our returning to God that will save this country from the eminent collapse we are facing if we remain absent of his word and morality. For those who spoof this and believe God is only loving and does not demand we live a code of charity and love without infringing on the faith and God given rights of others, they will not change or return to Him until they personally suffer the great losses a life without true faith spawns.... or the loss of the greatest country known to the world now weakened and cripple both morally, financially and in exceptionalism as it was born and previously flourished. One day their children will ask their parents, "what happened that we do not have the same freedom and opportunities that you had?" What will we tell them? We wanted free things in stead of freedom and voted for those who would give to us in exchange for the opportunity to prosper to our greatest desires and potentials?
Posts
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.
ReplyDeleteBarton, who narrates the video you feature, should be taken with a grain of salt. Zealotry more than fact shapes his "work," which has been so thoroughly, repeatedly, and authoritatively debunked by so many who have demonstrated it to be riddled with slipshod research, shoddy analysis, and downright dishonestly that I can but wonder how anyone can call him an "authority" on this subject without turning red from embarrassment. Perhaps the handiest debunking is Chris Rodda's book, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line http://www.liarsforjesus.com/), where she conveniently collects and directly refutes his many mistakes and lies, all with documentation and references so complete one can readily assess the facts for one's self without the need to take either Barton's or Rodda's word for it.
His opening bit in the video, for instance, is a lie. Contrary to Barton's assertions, Congress did not order any Bibles imported or printed. Rather, at a time when the general reputation of local printers was such that they could hardly compete against British printers, Congress simply passed a resolution recommending a Philadelphia printer's recent edition of the Bible based on its chaplain's report of the satisfactory "care and accuracy" of his work and authorizing him to publish that recommendation. Congress did not "print the Bible" as Barton repeatedly claims in his speeches. See C. Rodda, Liars for Jesus, Chapter One, Congress and the Bible.
First, I thank you sincerely for your taking the time to comment with such enthusiasm as you have. With all due respect, let me respond by first addressing your reference to "we the people". Your position is not quite accurate as our founding documents clearly refer to them/us as “the people”, the citizens of this country, all of whom were recognized as individuals created by that "deity" as you referred, our "Creator", our God, who provided us our "unalienable rights” bestowed upon us people as His creation.
ReplyDeleteThe Declaration of Independence and the Constitution can be clearly understood to recognize literally and by intent of the writers and their history the rights to be protected were bestowed by God, not man or government, as referenced to people establishing a government, not by a government establishing a people, and were unalienable as such because they were bestowed by our Creator, hence the reasoning for which the government was limited in its authority either in directing or interfering with religious principles. It is also true that the constitution has been manipulated and distorted in recent years by those who promote the elimination of God and moral principles from government suggesting recognition of God and the practice of morality as it may be attributable to religious teachings must be removed from Government. Such is not only a falsehood, but a deliberate deception clearly promoted against the literal and intended meaning within our founding documents, that intended meaning further supported by the numerous private writings of many of our forefathers. The separation of Church and state does not express nor imply recognition of God should be kept separated from Government or that government should not refer to or acknowledge God. In fact, beginning with our founding documents and throughout the course of American history America has remained deliberate in recognizing and expressing our beliefs in God and Christian principles. As far as the Bible is concerned, based on historic fact, the bible was indeed an accepted reference in public schools for numerous years. Additionally, the history of the state of Pennsylvania even prior to our independence is very interesting in its function to serve as a safe haven for people to practice their faith without interferences.
As far as your claims of Barton’s presentation being inaccurate or fitting the category of a liar, you have presented no valid support other than yet another person’s opinions. However after 25 years as a criminal and civil investigator and investigative researcher I am sure I can find bias more prevalent than fact in these accusations. I can also say I have not met a single person whose words could not be spun if someone wanted to do so, but I have met many in my profession who could spin the truth to work it into a falsehood if determined. Regardless, unless you can remove all references to the acknowledgment of God our Creator from our recorded founding and throughout our nation’s history and from the writings of the men who established this nation and the Christian references depicted in the murals in the capitol building and elsewhere, any argument for the removal of acknowledging God as our Creator or His moral code from our government is nothing more than ignorance toward the principles by which America was established and flourished and many sacrificed their lives to protect.
Finally, I have not met a single person opposing religious principles, opposing the acknowledgment of God or opposing the practice of Christian moral code by our American government who has possessed a proper knowledge and understanding of scripture. It is not difficult for me to say this simply because I myself was once such a person.
I appreciate your thoughtful response.
ReplyDeleteWhile some draw meaning from references to "Nature's God" and "Creator" in the Declaration, references that could mean any number of things, some at odds with the Christian idea of God) and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is largely baseless. Important as the Declaration is in our history, it did not operate to bring about independence (that required winning a war), nor did it found a government, nor did it even create any law, and it certainly did not say or do anything that somehow dictated the meaning of a Constitution adopted twelve years later. The colonists issued it not to do any of that, but rather to politically justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Nothing in the Constitution depends on anything said in the Declaration. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies. Nor could it even if it purported to do so. Once independent, the people of the former colonies were free to choose whether to form a collective government at all and, if so, whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take it as inspiration and guidance if, and to the extent, they chose--or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished--or, as they ultimately chose, a government founded on the power of the people and separated from religion.
Barton's misrepresentations can hardly be dismissed as a difference of opinion with another. With respect to the example, I (1) stated his claim, (2) stated it was false, (3) explained the facts, and (4) offered a citation to a fuller explanation with documentation and references evidencing the facts. You may choose not to check the facts, but that failure hardly warrants supposing my point may be discounted as "claims" akin to Barton's.
I agree with your overarching thesis that the founders would not establish a government inherently at odds with their religious convictions, which were largely Christian in nature. Moreover, given the republican nature of our government, it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government--in both the founders' time and today--largely reflect Christianity's dominant influence in our society.
That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion. By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing individuals to freely choose and exercise their religions and thus allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder as they will. It is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religions, will be reflected in laws adopted by their government. Nothing in the Constitution requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people's expression of political will in a republican government. To the extent that the people's values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in laws adopted by their government. Nothing in the Constitution prevents this; indeed, just the opposite--the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, thus, that if Christianity's influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that--and moreover the establishment clause would preclude using the government to somehow "lock in" (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.
Doug, you seem to have a fixation on the video at the top of the page and the commentator involved. The video is a separate and distinct posting. My article was not directed at nor was it referred to in support of my statements and I am not defending or debating over the producer, I am defending the principles outlined in my article which you happen to be responding to. If you question my suggestions in the beginning of my initial article to vissit and witness those points of interest and documented history for yourself it is your decision to do so.
ReplyDeleteYou say “there is no reason to support that Christianity is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government.” Respectfully I would ask how could you know that when you have limited to no true knowledge of Christian faith via scripture or its principles to compare the practiced principles of our forefathers in life or their governance? It should be noted that as Christians follow the principles of God proclaimed by Christ, there is no distinction between faith in God as our Creator or Jesus Christ; the principles are one in the same. Perhaps it is the word Christian” you do not agree with which is again your free choice to believe in God aside from referring to Christ. Either way you are covered under the constitution. Do you know the faith beliefs or the greatest religious influences on those who discovered and those who established the colonies for example? Did they believe in God? So your claim “there is no reason” is inaccurate based on recorded history which I suggest again you research for yourself.
Again, I invite you to concentrate on my article absent the video and if you have historic documented constitutional evidence to support your position suggesting what I wrote is inaccurate, you are welcome to provide it, but your opinions are just that; personal opinions of which you are entitled to, thanks to the guidance of God in the hearts of our forefathers. I would raise this thought to you; keep in mind your opinions are only permitted due to your constitutional rights of free speech and in most every country, if you spoke against popular faith you would suffer grave consequences. So consider thanking the God who those writers believed in for the rights we share.
No one is suggesting you or anyone else must be a Christian. We are speaking of the majority here, who are predominantly Christian by their own claim. If you are not so be it your choice. Your beliefs or lack of them are yours to embrace. But facts are facts and truth can not be changed to an untruth, only distorted.
Without the intended principles of the Declaration of Independence, we as a people would never have succeeded in our battle for independence to produce our constitution. The constitution followed the principles of the declaration and outlined our rights accordingly. Based on your opinion, each would have had to have been written by two difference entities presenting seriously opposing ideologies. There is more than enough evidence available throughout our history as a nation and the principles of the overwhelming percentage of people both then and now to substantiate our intended recognition and observance of the laws of God. You are urged to research this evidence.
This country’s constitution has been used by some in this regard to turn against its own intent and purpose which has to a point been a successful venture at times only because of the complacency and abandonment of morality since the sexual revolution and its after affects over the last fifty years. However, I have no doubt based on my professional experience that when presented efficiently and with the ample evidence available, the rights of all to freely practice their faith as openly as atheists have publicly displayed their billboards demeaning Christ will be rightfully upheld and those where infringement of that freedom have been adopted will be reversed.
Added note: I wish to make it clear that I do recognize that you, Doug, have presented some information here that is historically correct in regard to the authority of the declaration and the differences between it and the constitution in their purposes.
ReplyDeleteI am thankful for your participation and respect your personal election to your opinions. The position you have expressed is not uncommon. It seems to be shared by those who fear “limitations to self gratifications” that a theological morality may require of its people of faith. However, that obligation is one taken on by those who choose to follow their faith.
In all truth, the evidence supporting the validity of open recognition of God in Government and the expression of that recognition is a totally separate matter form forcing any specific religious system of beliefs on the people, which I would not accept either. If Jesus Christ left each person to choose their beliefs as individuals by their own free will not forcing people to believe in the rules of God, government certainly should not have that authority.
The intent of our forefathers and subsequent leaders of our country as they corroborated in their faith and trust in God and the moral principles He calls us to is clear and was promoted even before our independence. You are entitled to choose the beliefs you wish to adopt and express them as you have here and I have no more right insisting you believe as I do than you have in interfering with my expressions of faith or living by its principles. This is the beauty of country.