From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: America & Xianity Message-ID: Sender: hedrick@farside.rutgers.edu Date: 19 Jan 93 06:02:06 GMT Organization: FNAL.GOV Lines: 497 On 1/12, Brian Kendig put forth the liberal notion of separtaion of church/state with such quotes as: "Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separated."- Ulysses S. Grant I have put together (mostly w/o references attached) a statement against that position. I think that it is a myth that the founding fathers of this great nation thought of separation of c/s as some now propose, including some supreme court justices, and the far left liberals. In my word processor, it shows me that I have typed out 13 pages of material, but I do not want to edit anything out so I'm leaving it as is. Most of the material is verbatum of original documents with some commentaries of that period. It is my hope that this will help those who wish also to take the stand that the US was established as a Christian nation, yet allowing the freedom of the worship of individuals of others faiths. (many lib's quote Jeferson, but read toward the end of this article what Jeff really said) --Rex From Christopher Columbus' Book of Propheces: "It was the Lord who put into my mind-I could feel His hand upon me . . ..All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me...There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because he comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures...For the execution of the journey. . . did not make use of intelligence, mathematics, or maps. It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied.. .No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Savior, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His Holy service. ..the fact that the Gospel must Stin be preached to so many lands in such a short time-this is what convinces me." From William Bradford's "History of Plymouth Plantation": "A great hope and inward zeal they had of laying some good foundation, or at least to make some way thereunto, for the propagating and advancing the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world; yea, though they should be but even as stepping-stones unto others for the per~ forming of so great a work." The Mayflower Compact, from William Bradford's "History of Plymouth Plantation": "In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign lord King James, by the grace of Gocl, of Great Britain, France, and keland, king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith, and the honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute and frame such just and eclual laws, ordinances, acts, constitu~ tions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the reign of our sovereign lord KingJames of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth and of Scotland, the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620." From the "First Charter of Virginia:" "We, greatly commending and graciously accepting of their desires for the furtherance of so noble a work, which may, by the providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian religion to such people, as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time...." From George Washington's "Inaugural Speech to Both Houses of Congress," April 30, 1789: "Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes....No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. . . . We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordainedJ and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps finally, staked on the experiment...." From Abraham Lincoln's "Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day," March 30, 1863: "Whereas, the Senate of the United States devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation: And whereas, it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history: that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord: And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world~may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people; We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined,, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness. [. . . ] All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the nation will be heard on high and answered with blessings no less than the pardon of our national sins and the restoration of our now divided and suffering country to its former happy condition of unity and peace. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. By the President: Abraham Lincoln. Various Colony Declarations New England "The synod of the New England churches met at Cambridge, Mass, Sept 30, 1648, and defined the nature of civil government, the functions of the civil magistrate, adn the duties of the citizens, as follows: I. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, and for his own glory and the public good; and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword for the defense and encouragement of them that do well, and for the punishment of evil-doers. II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of magistrate when called thereunto. In the management whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of the Commonwealth, so for that end they may lawfully now, under the New Testa~ ment, wage war upon just and necessary occasions. III. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercises of it, resist the ordinances of God,. . .may be called to account and proceeded against by the censure of the church and by the power of the civil magistrate. IV. It is the duty of the people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority for conscience's sake." "Civil government on the basis of the Bible and free principles of a pure Christianity was not the only object th~t the Puritans had in view in coming to the New World. They had also the great and good end of extending and establishing the kingdom of Christ, and of bringing the whole continent under the reign of Christianity and filling it with its saving blessings" . "In 1643, a confederation between the colonies of Massachusetts, New Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven was formed, in which it is affirmed that 'we all came into these parts of America with the same end and aim, namely, to advance the kingdom of our Lord ]esus Christ, and to enjoy the liberties thereof with purity and peace, and for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the gospel"' (p. 56). Massachusetts "In the charter granted to Massachusetts, in 1640, by Charles I., the Colonies are enjoined by 'their good life and orderly conversation to win and invite the natives of the country to a knowledge of the only true God and Savior of mankind, and the Christian &ith which, in our royal intention and adventurer's free possession, is the principal end of this plantation"' Connecticut "In Connecticut the first organization of civil society and government was made, in 1639, at Quinipiack, now the beautiful city of New Haven...A constitution was formed, which was characterized as 'the first example of a written constitution; as a distinct organic act, constituting a government and defining its powers."' Listed below are some of the articles which made up the constitution of Connecticut: I. That the Scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to God and men, as well in families and commonwealths as in matters of the church. II. That as in matters which concerned the gathering and ordering of a church, so likewise in all public offices which concern civil order,-as the choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature,-they would all be governed by those rules which the Scripture held forth to them. III. That all those who had desired to be received free planters had settled in the plantation with a purpose, resolution, and desire that they might be admitted into church fellowship according to Christ. IV. That all the free planters held themselves bound to establish such civil order as might best conduce to the securing of the purity and peace of the ordinance to themselves, and their posterity according to God.' "The governor was then charged by the Rev. Mr. Davenport, in the most solemn manner, as to his duties, from Deut. i. 16, 17:-'And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it'. The General Court, established under this constitution, ordered,-'That God's word should be the only rule for ordering the affairs of government in this commonwealth"'. New Hampshire "In 1679, NEW HAMPSHIRE, was separated from Massachusetts and organized as an independent province. The colonists, having been so long a part of the Christian commonwealth of Massachusetts, constituted their institutions on the same Christian basis. Its legislature was Christian, and the colony greatly prospered and increased in population". Pennsylvania "The settlement of the province of Pennsylvania by William Penn formed a new era in the liberties of mankind. It afforded a resting-place where the conscientious and oppressed people of Europe might repose, and enjoy the rights of civil and religious freedom which mankind had derived as an inheritance from the Creator. He [Penn] obtained from Charles II. a grant of territory that now embraces the States of Pennsylvania, New ]ersey, and Delaware. He was legally inducted to the governorship of this immense domain, in England, by the officers of the crown, and in 1682 arrived in the New World and assumed the civil government of the colony. He avowed his purpose to be to institute a civil government on the basis of the Bible and to administer it in the fear of the Lord. The acquisition and government of the colony, he said, was 'so to serve the truth and the people of the Lord, that an example may be set to the nations.' "The frame of government which Penn completed in 1682 for the government of Pennsylvania was derived from the Bible. He deduced from various passages 'the origination and descent of all human power from God; the divine right of government, and that for two ends,-first to terrify evil doers; secondly, to cherish those who do well;' so that government, he said, 'seems to me to be a part of religion itself.'-'a thing sacred in its institutions and ends.' Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad.' 'That, therefore, which makes a good constitution must keep it,-namely men of wisdom and virtue,-qualities that, because they descend not with worldly inheritance, must be carefully propagated by a virtuous education of youth'. "The first legislative act, December, 1682, "announced the ends of a true civil government. 'Whereas the glory of Almighty God and the good of mankind is the reason and end of government, and, therefore, government in itself is a venerable ordinance of God..."' And it is the purpose of civil government to establish "laws as shall best preserve true Christian and civil liberty, in opposition to all unchristian, licentious, and unjust practices, whereby God may have his due, Caesar his due, and the people their due, from tyranny and oppression". ". . . . . But religion, as a life, as an inward principle, though specially developed and fostered by the Church, extends its domain beyond the sphere of technical worship, touches all the relations of man, and constitutes the inspiration of every duty. The service of the Commonwealth becomes an act of piety to God. The State realizes its religious character through the religious character of its subjects; and a State is and ought to be Christian, because all its subjects are and ought to be determined by the principles of the Gospel. As every legislator is bound to be a Christian man, he has no right to vote for any laws which are inconsistent with the teachings of Scriptures. He must carry his Christian conscience into the halls of legislation" (The Collected Writings of James Henley Thomwell, Vol. IV, p. 517). _______________________________________________________ Separation of Church & State _______________________________________________________ Myth #1: The system of law and its principles are religiously or morally neutral. It must be remembered that neutrality is impossible. Some authority, whether it be God or man, is used as the reference point for all enacted laws. If a political system rejects one authority, it adopts another. If a biblical moral system is not being legislated, then an immoral system is being legislated. Any moral system that does not put Jesus Christ at its center, denies Christ: "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other..." (Matthew 6:24); and, "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters" (12:30). "Our standard of right is that eternal law which God proclaimed from Sinai, and which Jesus expounded on the Mount. We recogni2e our responsibility to Jesus Christ. He is Head over all things to the Church, and the nation that will not serve Him is doomed to perish" (James Henley Thornwell, The Collected Writings of ]ames Henley Thomwell, Vol. IV, p. 517f. ). Myth #2: The First Amendment calls for a "separation of Church and State." When an individual is questioned as to whether a Christian should involve himself in the political realm, a protest is made by an appeal to the "separation of Church and State" found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Many Christians usually do not have an answer when they are confronted with this standard argument. Most people do not realize that the First Amendment says nothing about Church and State or a separation between the two. It simply states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." In the Constitution of the Soviet Union, however, the doctrine of the separation of Church and State is found: "In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the State, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens" (Article 124). The Constitution of the United States of America has the First Amendment as a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it. Myth # 3: The silence of the Constitution regarding Christianity. It is assumed that the United States was never Christian in its basic ideals and values because the Constitution does not specifically mention Christianity. The myth is shattered when one realizes that it was never the purpose of the Constitution to give religious content to the nation. Rather, the Constitution was an instrument whereby already existing religious values of the nation could be protected and perpetuated. The Constitution is not devoid of Christian references, however. It is interesting to note that the Constitution acknowledges Sunday as a day of rest: "If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law. . ." (Article I, section 7). Moreover, there is a direct reference to the Lord Jesus Christ in the Constitution: "DONE in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our Names." Myth #4 The states were to be religiously neutral and that the federal government had an obligation to ensure that the states remained religiously neutral. By studying the State Constitutions, one begins to realize that they were not religiously "neutral" but were, in fact, explicitly Christian. After the adoption of the First Amendment, several states even had established Churches. Here are some examples: The Connecticut Constitution (until 1818): "The People of this State...by the Providence of God. . .hath the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State. . . and forasmuch as the free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility, and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion...hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of Churches and Commonwealth; and the denial thereof, the disturbances, if not the ruin of both." The Delaware Constitution (1831): "...no man ought to be compelled to attend any religious worship..." but it recognized "the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of the Author of the Universe." The following oath of office was in force until 1792: "I. ..do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration." The Maryland Constitution (until 1851): "That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested...on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion~ any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality. . .yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion." The Constitu~ tion of 1864 required "a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion" for all State officers. The Massachusetts Constitution (until 1863): This state Constitution included the "right" of "the people of this commonwealth to. . . invest their Legislature with power to authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntary." The North Carolina Constitution (until 1876): "That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State." These State Constitutions provide ample evidence that the First Amendment was not originally intended to remove all Christian influence from our civil government. "And yet, the Supreme Court and some Constitutional authorities ask us to believe that the founding fathers would have forbidden even a voluntary prayer in a school supported by a State....Paul Eidelberg "The Philosophy of the American Constitution", p. 271), having cited these provisions of the State constitutions, remarks that the various decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment and the 'establishment of religion' clause should be reviewed in the light of this information" (James M. Bulman, It Is Their Right, pp. 111-112, 119). Myth #5 Historically the concept of the separation of Church and State has been part of official governmental policy. "If the American people have ever adopted the principle of complete separation of church and state, we would find the evidence of it in the federal Constitution, in the acts of Congress, or in the constitutions or laws of the several states. There is no such evidence in existence. In its absence, the mere opinion of private individuals or groups that there should be absolute separation of church and state (a condition that has not existed in recent centuries in any civilized nation on earth) does not create a 'great American principle"' (J.M. O'Neill, Religion and Education Under the Constitution, p. 4). The origin of the phrase "separation of church and state" is found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802). Jefferson was assuring the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. The Baptists feared that the Congregationalists would be the preferred denomination. The Supreme Court has taken Jefferson's "separation" clause (divorced from Jefferson's own explanation of the phrase) and used it to create a new, and completely arbitrary, interpretation of the First Amendment. (cf. Robert Borks' books/lectures on contitutional and the Supreme Court) Since Jefferson is the best interpreter of Jefferson, his own words concerning the issue of the national government's authority over individual states and churches should be considered. In Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address of March 4, 1805, he made the following comment: "In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies" (Saul K. Padover, ed., The Complete Jefferson, p. 412). Jefferson also feared the Supreme Court. He believed that the Court by its exercise of the power of judicial review was in the process of usurping the authority of the national and state governments. In 1820 he wrote: "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarch [rule by a few]....The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots" (Letter to Jarvis, 1820). (Jefferson also wrote about the need for the Bible to be taught to society at large -as a utilitarian ethic- and so enacted such legislation as the head of education. He put forth the principle that it was to be the standard from which school teachers were to teach. He also encouraged prayer in the class room!!!) [I've seen these arguments in other groups, and there are just as long sets of quotations (sometimes from the same people) indicating the reverse. My conclusion from this is that people in the 18th Cent. were no more unanimous in their intentions than people are now. I am certainly convinced that many people saw the U.S. as in some sense a Christian enterprise. Thus I think the complete and radical disassociation between Christianity and the State that is sometimes advocated now is not what they had in mind. On the other hand, it's also clear that they had seen entirely too many religious wars and religious tyrannies in Europe, and thus that they did want to make sure that no specific church or creed had authority over the State. In the current debates, the choices presented seem to me generally too extreme on both sides. It is clear that some Christians want to use the State as a vehicle to enforce their Christian ideas on everyone. This seems to me exactly the sort of thing that the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent. On the other side, it is also hard to envision that the Founding Fathers would have wanted a situation where one can't mention God in any publicly sponsored forum, for fear of having the State appear to support religion, which seems to be the goal of others. Somehow, between alternating volleys of quotations from devout Founding Fathers and anti-clerical quotatios from Tom Paine, we've got to find a better approach. One complicating issue is that there is one basic situation that is no longer true. I just looked through the Federalist Papers, and found no very explicit discussion of the relationship between Church and State. What I did find was the following interesting statement. (This is taken from the Project Gutenberg on-line edition.) FEDERALIST No. 2 Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence For the Independent Journal. JAY To the People of the State of New York: ... With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties. For better or worse, this is no longer true. (Of course it wasn't really true then either, but non-Christians were in a position that one could conveniently ignore them.) I don't have a real solution to this problem, and as moderator it probably isn't my job to supply one in any case. How I do think it's appropriate to ask people to try to avoid oversimplified answers. --clh]