Founded on Christian principles? Griffon believes otherwise.

[familydog]

While I appreciate where Christians (I am a Christian) are coming from from regarding the idea of the federal government being founded on Christian principles, the idea actually reflects ignorance of the intentions of the mostly Christian Founders. What Christians seem to be overlooking is the Founder's division of federal and state government powers evidenced by the 10th Amendment.

Finally, don't forget that to protect people from religious fanatics who would pirate state government power to regulate religion in order to shove their radical beliefs down people's throats, the honest interpretation of Sec. 1 of the 14th A. now limits state power to regulate religion.

It depends on which founders you look at. It depends on what we mean by "founded." One cannot make a blanket statement either way that this country was or was not founded by Christian principles.

At the same time, can you elaborate on why Section 1 of the 14th Amendment applies to limiting state power when it comes to religion? I'm curious as to what you see as an honest interpretation.

 

[10thAmendment]

It depends on which founders you look at. It depends on what we mean by "founded." One cannot make a blanket statement either way that this country was or was not founded by Christian principles.

Please consider the following. When Christians dispute different interpretations of various passages of the Holy Bible among themselves, specific verse numbers are inevitably used to reference disputed passages. On the other hand, when Christians claim that the USA, aka the federal government, was founded on so-called Christian principles, there is inevitably no references to particular Bible verses in such arguments. One verse that does come to mind which reflects on Articles I, II and III of the federal Constitution is Isaiah 33:22. But that's the only verse and it's not referenced in the Constitution.

The bottom line regarding so-called constitutional and Christian principals, in my opinion, is that both sides of the c&s separation feud are wrongly relying on the vague term "principle" in describing how the USA, aka the federal government, was founded and what the Constitution says about our religious freedoms. This because both sides of fence are using the term "principle" as a license, in my view, to push their respective politically correct understandings of the Constitution, understandings which are actually based on ignorance of what the Constitution and its history actually tells us about our religious freedoms.

At the same time, can you elaborate on why Section 1 of the 14th Amendment applies to limiting state power when it comes to religion? I'm curious as to what you see as an honest interpretation.

Regarding what I see as an honest interpretation, I suspect that you did not read the series of posts at the link I provided in my previous post, but no problem if you didn't. Here's relevant excerpts from those posts:

Justice Owen Roberts, a Hoover-nominated RINO, expressed his politically correct understanding of the relationship of the 14th A. to the 1st A. in the Cantwell opinion as follows.

• "The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87c

The problem with Justice Roberts' "profound insight" into the 1st and 14th Amendments is that he outrageously misrepresented the intentions of John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. This is because Bingham had clarified, both before and after the ratification of the 14th A., that the 14th A. was not intended to take away any state's rights. See for yourself.

"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d

"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy

"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

I'm going to stop here because although I've said many things up to this point, I possibly haven't addressed your concerns. Please let me know.

Added later:

Consider the following remark by Justice Reed in the Opelika, 1942, opinion. Justice Reed describes the relationship between the 10th and 14th Amendments.

• "Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942

 

[tribute_13]

OK peeps.

1.) Just because there is a law that makes adultery illegal doesn't mean that law is constitutional. As for the foundation of marriage itself, what gives the government the right to issue a contract stating that two people love each other? Love shouldn't be a legal obligation. If two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other then where does the government get the idea that that's a cue for them to immediately intervene and say, "OK we need you to sign these forms and provide this information... etc." Just my opinion. If two people can't hold their love and trust eternally without a legal document/contract then they don't really love each other at least not to the extent of marriage to begin with.

2.) Ethics have been around a lot longer than religion has. I remember when I told my dad about The Epic of Gilgamesh and he grounded me for believing there was a book that predated the bible. Its this same mentality that mentally cripples people. Ethics was not an invention of God. If this was the case then Caveman would've had manners and a legal system to convict murderers, thieves, and rapists.

Proof that Ethics existed before the Invention/Institution of Christianity:

Hammurabi's Code- Which clearly and explicitly states that murder, thievery, rape, and other criminal acts are punishable by law, and yes these punishments were extreme but these acts were still deemed criminal and unethical regardless.

3.) I agree 100% with Kade, the government was not instituted here in the U.S. to force us to abide by the Ten Commandments. By doing so, our forefathers would've voided everything they had accomplished. Why would they fight a war and write a constitution stating that I had the right to follow what religion or belief system I wanted but inadvertently forced me to live Christian laws by modeling our country after them.

So your logic is this Tom: The forefathers modeled this country out of Christian morals to give me the right to oppose them? Doesn't make any sense at all. I don't agree with that at all.

 

[familydog]

Please consider the following. When Christians dispute different interpretations of various passages of the Holy Bible among themselves, specific verse numbers are inevitably used to reference disputed passages. On the other hand, when Christians claim that the USA, aka the federal government, was founded on so-called Christian principles, there is inevitably no references to particular Bible verses in such arguments. One verse that does come to mind which reflects on Articles I, II and III of the federal Constitution is Isaiah 33:22. But that's the only verse and it's not referenced in the Constitution.

The bottom line regarding so-called constitutional and Christian principals, in my opinion, is that both sides of the c&s separation feud are wrongly relying on the vague term "principle" in describing how the USA, aka the federal government, was founded and what the Constitution says about our religious freedoms. This because both sides of fence are using the term "principle" as a license, in my view, to push their respective politically correct understandings of the Constitution, understandings which are actually based on ignorance of what the Constitution and its history actually tells us about our religious freedoms.

Regarding what I see as an honest interpretation, I suspect that you did not read the series of posts at the link I provided in my previous post, but no problem if you didn't.

Like I said, it depends on what one means by the "founding."

If by the "founding" we are strictly speaking of the United States Constitution, then there is no room to suggest Christianity had any influence on it outside of Amendment I.

If by "founding" we are talking about the founding documents like the Declaration of Independence (which nobody cared about at the time), the Virginia Delcaration of Rights (which everybody cared about at the time which explicitly mentions Christinianity), or any of the other nearly 100 local and state declarations, then there certainly is room to say Christianity played a room in the founding. Christianity played a role in much of these documents.

If by "founding" we are talking about the culture of the lay people (or even the elites) at the time and the local laws and customs set up at the formation of the country, then there is certainly room to say that this country was founded on Christian principles. Christianity, whether the religion or spirituality, was (and still is) important to many of the average person. They used that to shape their local, state, and even federal laws, to what is acceptable or not acceptable in society.

If by "founding" we are talking about the system of common law carried over from the colonial period, there again is room for Christianity.

Etc.

When I use the term principle I simply mean that Christianity was used as a source or one source for an argument.

As far as the Fourteenth Amendment goes, I did not learn much from that link. Can you point to me a specific clause or clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment that prevent the state from regulating religion? On what intellectual basis could you use that clause?

 

[[email protected]]

Do you remember what happened to Babylon? TONES

You mean the version written by men who were power hungry control freaks many centuries ago?

 

[10thAmendment]

Like I said, it depends on what one means by the "founding."

If by the "founding" we are strictly speaking of the United States Constitution, then there is no room to suggest Christianity had any influence on it outside of Amendment I.

I agree.

If by "founding" we are talking about the founding documents like the Declaration of Independence (which nobody cared about at the time), the Virginia Delcaration of Rights (which everybody cared about at the time which explicitly mentions Christinianity), or any of the other nearly 100 local and state declarations, then there certainly is room to say Christianity played a room in the founding. Christianity played a role in much of these documents.

If by "founding" we are talking about the culture of the lay people (or even the elites) at the time and the local laws and customs set up at the formation of the country, then there is certainly room to say that this country was founded on Christian principles. Christianity, whether the religion or spirituality, was (and still is) important to many of the average person. They used that to shape their local, state, and even federal laws, to what is acceptable or not acceptable in society.

If by "founding" we are talking about the system of common law carried over from the colonial period, there again is room for Christianity.

Etc.

The word "founding," when used in conjunction with the country, is reasonably construed to be a reference to the founding of the federal government, the USA, and its Constitution, as opposed to the founding of the individual colonies. Regarding your pointing out of the various senses of the word, to be blunt, I think that you like arguing word meanings.

When I use the term principle I simply mean that Christianity was used as a source or one source for an argument.

You're sidestepping the following problem. Yes, Christians in the USA are being wrongly persecuted by secular justices and judges who are perverting constitutional religious freedoms. But in sharp contrast to the sad fact that the various Christian denominations base their interdenominational civil wars on differences of opinion about specific Bible passages, the fact that Christians have to use the vague term "Christian principles" when trying to defend their constitutional religious rights is telltale evidence that the mostly Christian Founders intended for the federal government to be religiously sterile.

As far as the Fourteenth Amendment goes, I did not learn much from that link. Can you point to me a specific clause or clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment that prevent the state from regulating religion? On what intellectual basis could you use that clause?

Let's face it. You're not here to learn, you're here to argue.

In your first question to me about the 14th A. you used the word "limit" instead of "prevent" where the exercising of state power to regulate religion is concerned, and there's a big difference. Noting that the 14th A. doesn't use the word religion and only refers to state powers indirectly, please consider the following.

Again, regardless that the 1st A. prohibits government power to regulate religion to the federal government altogether, the states had the power to regulate religion and other 1st A. protections before the federal government was even established. And the states retained such powers uniquely to themselves when they established the federal goverment and its Constitution as evidenced by the 10th Amendment.

But the problem with state power to regulate our basic freedoms is that there were initially no constitutional checks on such power. This is because, unless explicitly stated, general constitutional restraints on government power did not apply to the states. Unfortunately, constitutionally unchecked state power over personal rights helped to precipitate the Civil War.

Although the post Civil War 14th A. was intended to resolve the problem of unchecked state powers, unfortunately, politically correct interpretations of Sec. 1 of the 14th A. came into play. Such interpretations are evidenced by Justice Owen Roberts' politically correct interpretation of the 14th A. in the Cantwell opinion which I included in my previous post.

Justice Roberts wrongly suggested that the 14th A. was intended to apply the 1st A.'s prohibition on religious powers of the federal government to the states, contradicting John Bingham's clarification that the 14th A. was to take away no powers from the states. Consider John Bingham's words from the Congressional Globe concerning the 14th A.'s limiting of state power.

• "These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment." --John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1871 http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

 

[Godfather89]

The founding father have a common denominator they were believers in God that is all... In what way is irrelevant, whether it be philosophical or theological is irrelevant.

 

[Theocrat]

Religion Was Relevant to our Founders

The founding father have a common denominator they were believers in God that is all... In what way is irrelevant, whether it be philosophical or theological is irrelevant.

Actually, the religious beliefs of our Founding Fathers is very relevant because it reflects the culture in which they lived. Christianity was heavily influential upon our Founders for the simple fact that it was the norm in our early Republic. That's why they held church services in Congress, the Supreme Court, and even the Treasury Building.

Interestingly enough, the Constitution itself affirms its Christian character and purpose. Article VII declares it to be framed and adopted "by the unanimous consent of the States, the seventeenth day of September in the year of our LORD 1787, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth." The date of the Constitution is twofold: first, it is dated from the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, and second, from the birth of our independence. Thus, any argument which might be presupposed to proving that the authority of Christianity is not recognized by the people of the United States, in the first mode, would equally prove that the independence of the United States is not recognized by them in the second mode.

Equally interesting is that our Constitution recognizes the Christian Sabbath. In Article I, Section 7, it says, "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 in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law." A constitutional scholar, Dr. Adams, comments on this by saying,

In adopting this provision, it was clearly presumed by the people that the President of the United States would not employ himself in public business on Sunday... [T]he obligation on the President to respect the observance of Sunday is greatly superior to any which could have been created by a constitutional enactment.

 

[familydog]

The word "founding," when used in conjunction with the country, is reasonably construed to be a reference to the founding of the federal government, the USA, and its Constitution, as opposed to the founding of the individual colonies. Regarding your pointing out of the various senses of the word, to be blunt, I think that you like arguing word meanings.


You're sidestepping the following problem. Yes, Christians in the USA are being wrongly persecuted by secular justices and judges who are perverting constitutional religious freedoms. But in sharp contrast to the sad fact that the various Christian denominations base their interdenominational civil wars on differences of opinion about specific Bible passages, the fact that Christians have to use the vague term "Christian principles" when trying to defend their constitutional religious rights is telltale evidence that the mostly Christian Founders intended for the federal government to be religiously sterile.


Let's face it. You're not here to learn, you're here to argue.

In your first question to me about the 14th A. you used the word "limit" instead of "prevent" where the exercising of state power to regulate religion is concerned, and there's a big difference. Noting that the 14th A. doesn't use the word religion and only refers to state powers indirectly, please consider the following.

Again, regardless that the 1st A. prohibits government power to regulate religion to the federal government altogether, the states had the power to regulate religion and other 1st A. protections before the federal government was even established. And the states retained such powers uniquely to themselves when they established the federal goverment and its Constitution as evidenced by the 10th Amendment.

But the problem with state power to regulate our basic freedoms is that there were initially no constitutional checks on such power. This is because, unless explicitly stated, general constitutional restraints on government power did not apply to the states. Unfortunately, constitutionally unchecked state power over personal rights helped to precipitate the Civil War.

Although the post Civil War 14th A. was intended to resolve the problem of unchecked state powers, unfortunately, politically correct interpretations of Sec. 1 of the 14th A. came into play. Such interpretations are evidenced by Justice Owen Roberts' politically correct interpretation of the 14th A. in the Cantwell opinion which I included in my previous post.

Justice Roberts wrongly suggested that the 14th A. was intended to apply the 1st A.'s prohibition on religious powers of the federal government to the states, contradicting John Bingham's clarification that the 14th A. was to take away no powers from the states. Consider John Bingham's words from the Congressional Globe concerning the 14th A.'s limiting of state power.

• "These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment." --John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1871 http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

It's only fair to include more than the establishment of the federal government when we consider the founding of the country. To not do this is giving the federal government too much credit. To ignore the other instututions created and institutions that existed before is going against the entire federalist system set up in the first place. The culture was Christian and the lay person used their religion to shape the state and local institutions at the founding. These instititons were inherently stronger than the federal government. After all, the Constitution directs a lot more power to the people, state, and local than it does the federal.

Also, I'm not trying to argue anything. You're talking about honest interpretations and that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states from regulating religion. Fine. All I'm looking for is some substance which you haven't given. I was thinking you'd argue incorporation of the Amendment I, but it never came up. That is the only logical way to argue the Fourteenth Amendment does anything in regards to religion.

 

[strapko]

Actually, the religious beliefs of our Founding Fathers is very relevant because it reflects the culture in which they lived. Christianity was heavily influential upon our Founders for the simple fact that it was the norm in our early Republic. That's why they held church services in Congress, the Supreme Court, and even the Treasury Building.

Interestingly enough, the Constitution itself affirms its Christian character and purpose. Article VII declares it to be framed and adopted "by the unanimous consent of the States, the seventeenth day of September in the year of our LORD 1787, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth." The date of the Constitution is twofold: first, it is dated from the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, and second, from the birth of our independence. Thus, any argument which might be presupposed to proving that the authority of Christianity is not recognized by the people of the United States, in the first mode, would equally prove that the independence of the United States is not recognized by them in the second mode.

Equally interesting is that our Constitution recognizes the Christian Sabbath. In Article I, Section 7, it says, "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 in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law." A constitutional scholar, Dr. Adams, comments on this by saying,

In adopting this provision, it was clearly presumed by the people that the President of the United States would not employ himself in public business on Sunday... [T]he obligation on the President to respect the observance of Sunday is greatly superior to any which could have been created by a constitutional enactment.

Adams said that, but Washington Said:

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." -- George Washington

 

[Theocrat]

Did George Washington Really Say That?

Adams said that, but Washington Said:

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." -- George Washington

You need to read this.

 

[Godfather89]

Actually, the religious beliefs of our Founding Fathers is very relevant because it reflects the culture in which they lived. Christianity was heavily influential upon our Founders for the simple fact that it was the norm in our early Republic. That's why they held church services in Congress, the Supreme Court, and even the Treasury Building.

Interestingly enough, the Constitution itself affirms its Christian character and purpose. Article VII declares it to be framed and adopted "by the unanimous consent of the States, the seventeenth day of September in the year of our LORD 1787, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth." The date of the Constitution is twofold: first, it is dated from the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, and second, from the birth of our independence. Thus, any argument which might be presupposed to proving that the authority of Christianity is not recognized by the people of the United States, in the first mode, would equally prove that the independence of the United States is not recognized by them in the second mode.

Equally interesting is that our Constitution recognizes the Christian Sabbath. In Article I, Section 7, it says, "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 in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law." A constitutional scholar, Dr. Adams, comments on this by saying,

In adopting this provision, it was clearly presumed by the people that the President of the United States would not employ himself in public business on Sunday... [T]he obligation on the President to respect the observance of Sunday is greatly superior to any which could have been created by a constitutional enactment.

True... however, some were deists. So how can you be a Christian with deistic beliefs? Thats what I am trying to say that was the common denominator a belief in a God. Because when America was young deism was also a major belief as well.

 

[10thAmendment]

Adams said that, but Washington Said:

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." -- George Washington

Will somebody please correct any of the following information if it is wrong?

Regarding the quote attributed to George Washington, please consider the first line in Article II of the Treaty of Tripoli.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -- Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797.

The words attributed to George Washington seems to have actually originated from Article 11 of the treaty for the following reason. I believe that the treaty was signed into law between the Washington and Adams administrations - 1797. So while some people attribute the words to Washington, I am inclined to believe that they originated in Article 11 of the Treaty which was signed into law by Washington or Adams; I don't know for sure.

The issue with Article 11 is that both sides of the c&s separation fence have politically correct - and wrong - interpretations of the article. Given that both sides of the c&s separation fence have forgotten the Founder's division of federal and state government powers as evidenced by the 10th Amendment, here's what's going on.

Neither side of the fence seems to understand that, historically, the terms U.S., United States, etc., including the way that it is used in the first line of Article 11, are references to the federal government, not the state governments. As a consequence, anti-religious expression factions have fallen into the trap of thinking that Article 11's reference to the government of the United States of America is a generic reference to both the federal and state governments. But this interpretation wrongly ignores the 10th A. protected power of the states to regulate religion.

On the other hand, Christian factions, also having forgotten the Founder's division of federal and state government powers, wrongly shrug off Article 11 as a hoax.

What was going on with Article 11, if I remember correctly, is that the North African Muslim nation of Tripoli was attacking American ships. But federal legislators were evidently aware of a religious situation concerning these attacks. More specifically, Christian federal legislators were likely aware that Tripoli families had had to deal with the Christian Crusaders and that these families probably regarded American ships merely as more crazy Christians. So federal legislators essentially resorted to using the 1st A. of the federal Constitution as a diplomatic license to appease Tripoli. But federal legislators went further than simply saying that the federal government of the USA was religiously neutral by bluntly saying that the USA government, the federal government, was not a Christian entity. But such wording possibly saved the lives of a few Americans.

 

[foofighter20x]

Whoever quoted Isaiah 33:22 is incorrect.

For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.

The argument made from this passage is that the seperation of powers in the U.S. Constitution is derived from this chapter and verse.

My question: Where is the seperation of power? If all the powers are inherent in one being, how are the powers separate? How does one branch check or balance the others if ONE being holds all the powers of each branch?

The argument made by those citing this passage as its base is thusly an utter failure and a non sequitur.

The doctrine of the SEPARATION of powers come from the Baron Montesquieu's work of 1752: The Spirit of the Laws.

 

[Soldier of Liberty]

My simple opinion on this is, that Thomas Jefferson, while a Deist, and a denier of Christ divinity, was do nothing more than applying his own words to his own beliefs, and that he expected others to think and do the same. If you remember, our nation began with the Pilgrims seeking religious freedom by launching out on their own in the "New World." Many people who came to America subsequently came to escape the rigidity and forcefulness of the established church in England. We must also consider that these men were the "thinkers" of their day. The average individual, while possibly educated, did not have the wealth of experience that individuals like Jefferson did, so they in many respects did not reach the same conclusions that Jefferson and his colleagues did. Many of these individuals retained their religious inclinations,not neccesarily because of a lack of education, but by simple choice, which I am sure Jefferson would equally applaud on the basis of freedom of religion. Our founders while Christian, and less than Christian, were not so naive to think that their opinions represented everyone, and subsequently because of the COE and religious inclinations of many of the colonist they included Freedom of Religion.

As a Christian, I find many parallel's in the Bible and the Constitution, I believe that it is if not the only, the one of the sources of our Republic, as my Bible tells me I am a free moral agent, I have the choice of being a Christian, or not being a Christian, and I have chose to be one.


SOL

 

[phixion]

Further, we Christians do ourselves and our faith a disservice by majoring in protecting cultural icons instead of majoring in matters of the heart. I'd vote for the removal of every Christian symbol and edifice in this country if it would awaken more hearts to the kind of freedom I possess.

As a Christian your freedom is limited to what is written in the bible, Sir.

You are free to do as the bible tells you.

I guess you couldn't shake your religious upbringing and couldn't continue living as an 'agnostic' any longer. The void needed filling. Is that not so?

Pete

 

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.sovereignlife.com/files/sovereign_manifesto.pdf

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Communists knew their battle was to rid the USA of Christianity in order to take over. By this thread, they have done a damn fine job of it. Watch your country crumble without it. tones

 

[Truth Warrior]

Communists knew their battle was to rid the USA of Christianity in order to take over. By this thread, they have done a damn fine job of it. Watch your country crumble without it. tones

~75% of the US population "claims" to be Christian, so obviously it must be all OK with at least some (enough) of the folks.

 

[LibertyEagle]

communists knew their battle was to rid the usa of christianity in order to take over. By this thread, they have done a damn fine job of it. Watch your country crumble without it. Tones

qft