The Constitution Party is not Constitutional.

You have a hidden bias.

(Emphasis mine)

The Constitution Party's platform is based on Constitutional principles.

You're kidding, right? The Constitution Party is a fraud and should rename itself the "Christian Constitution Party". At least then I could partly respect them.
 
Constitution Party= not for me. Of course none of the other optons is very palatable either but voting for party so obviously against my beliefs ain't gonna happen.
 
The Preconditions of Constitutionality

You're kidding, right? The Constitution Party is a fraud and should rename itself the "Christian Constitution Party". At least then I could partly respect them.

As most people on these forums, you are very ignorant of our country's heritage. It was founded very much on Christian principles, as this link will prove. The fact that you fail to recognize this only shows how much our citizens have fallen for the humanistic indoctrination of historical deconstruction in our public schools. I think I've labored enough to show how our country was founded on Christian principles numerous times on these forums, but it seems many of you are unwilling to accept the obvious facts. This thread is a sad proof of that reality.

The Constitution Party understands our country's history and its intentions of preserving a republic of moral decency and religious fruition. John Adams once said, "t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor [Boston: Little, Brown, 1854], Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

Equally important, Fisher Ames (Framer of the First Amendment) had this to say on the issue of liberty and morality, "Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers." (Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington [Boston: Young & Minns, 1800], p. 23.)

Even George Washington understood the importance of religion upon government when he stated, "While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support." (George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor [Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932], Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

All of the facts and documents in the archives of our early republic point to the notion and belief that religion (and particularly the Christian faith) is instrumental to the success of our country and our Constitution. If you fail to understand that, then sadly, I have nothing more to say to you.

The anguish of many members on RPF for the ignorance of our general public's knowledge in the distinctiveness of what made our country great is reciprocated on these forums, and it manifests itself whenever the subject of the religious nature of our Republic is published in any given thread. It is evident to me that most of you will never achieve the success hoped for making our nation great again because you refuse to look back to the past and retrieve the keys of what made our nation the beacon of freedom and truth in the world. The Constitution Party boldly and faithfully seeks to do that, but I'm afraid their efforts will merely be trampled upon by those who lack the moral decency, historical proficiency, and religious prudence to turn the helm of our falling Republic out of the waters of humanistic, post-modern bankruptcy (at least on these forums).
 
"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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PLATFORM:

“This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

“The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law.”

These statements imply that our founding fathers founded this country to be a Christian theocracy. And that the laws in the bible are the roots of the Constitution.

Sorry Neil, but BULLSHIT! This country WAS founded on biblical principles. These principles guided the construction of our founding documents. It's too bad if some hate that fact, but that IS the fact. It does NOT mean that the church should run the country. Which was if you recall, what our Founders wanted to protect against. Since that is what was going on in Great Britain at the time.

Freedom of religion. Yes. Not only for others, like Wiccans, but also for Christians.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Neil, but BULLSHIT! This country WAS founded on biblical principles. These principles guided the construction of our founding documents. It's too bad if some hate that fact, but that IS the fact. It does NOT mean that the church should run the country. Which was if you recall, what our Founders wanted to protect against. Since that is what was going on in Great Britain at the time.

Freedom of religion. Yes. Not only for others, like Wiccans, but also for Christians.

Ok, cool.

Now tell us how the CP platform justifies modeling the nation after Christian mythology. When we're supposed to be free to practice whichever religion we want, why are Christian beliefs held higher than all others?

Oh wait, I think I know why.

It's because the "Constitution" Party platform and candidate are

BULLSHIT!!!
 
As most people on these forums, you are very ignorant of our country's heritage. It was founded very much on Christian principles, as this link will prove. The fact that you fail to recognize this only shows how much our citizens have fallen for the humanistic indoctrination of historical deconstruction in our public schools. I think I've labored enough to show how our country was founded on Christian principles numerous times on these forums, but it seems many of you are unwilling to accept the obvious facts. This thread is a sad proof of that reality.

The Constitution Party understands our country's history and its intentions of preserving a republic of moral decency and religious fruition. John Adams once said, "t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor [Boston: Little, Brown, 1854], Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

Equally important, Fisher Ames (Framer of the First Amendment) had this to say on the issue of liberty and morality, "Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers." (Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington [Boston: Young & Minns, 1800], p. 23.)

Even George Washington understood the importance of religion upon government when he stated, "While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support." (George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor [Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932], Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

All of the facts and documents in the archives of our early republic point to the notion and belief that religion (and particularly the Christian faith) is instrumental to the success of our country and our Constitution. If you fail to understand that, then sadly, I have nothing more to say to you.

The anguish of many members on RPF for the ignorance of our general public's knowledge in the distinctiveness of what made our country great is reciprocated on these forums, and it manifests itself whenever the subject of the religious nature of our Republic is published in any given thread. It is evident to me that most of you will never achieve the success hoped for making our nation great again because you refuse to look back to the past and retrieve the keys of what made our nation the beacon of freedom and truth in the world. The Constitution Party boldly and faithfully seeks to do that, but I'm afraid their efforts will merely be trampled upon by those who lack the moral decency, historical proficiency, and religious prudence to turn the helm of our falling Republic out of the waters of humanistic, post-modern bankruptcy (at least on these forums).


Um, Theocrat, I already used your link to disprove everything you said.

Seriously man.
 
Sorry Neil, but BULLSHIT! This country WAS founded on biblical principles. These principles guided the construction of our founding documents. It's too bad if some hate that fact, but that IS the fact. It does NOT mean that the church should run the country. Which was if you recall, what our Founders wanted to protect against. Since that is what was going on in Great Britain at the time.

Freedom of religion. Yes. Not only for others, like Wiccans, but also for Christians.

The founding fathers went to great pains to make sure that their religions had no bearing on the legislation of this country. That is what the 1st Amendment states. In plain English.

I have no qualms with what you post here. Theocrat seems to be of the impression that not only where they Christian, which as some links here has proven already is arguable, but that the nation was meant to be Christian. It was meant to be a nation that Christians and people of ANY faith could live in. And that religious beliefs cannot be allowed to influence our laws.

That's why we cannot have laws that favor Christianity.

That's why we cannot have laws that prevent others from practicing their religions.

The CP platform calls for legislation that favors their religion. And tries to imply that is how it was meant to be. And it clearly was not. There were several forms of religion fighting and I mean FIGHTING in the colonies at the time that the Constitution was being written. It was obvious then as it is now, that you cannot mix government and religion.
 
Last edited:
"Seriously, Man"

Um, Theocrat, I already used your link to disprove everything you said.

Seriously man.

I don't think so. None of your responses have dealt in length with any of the issues presented in the importance of religion upon the founding of our Republic. All you've done is quoted phrases from the link in which I already agree with, as they pertain to a separation of Church and State in our republic. You have not refuted the fact that religion and politics were inseparable from the Founders' intents for establishing America. Your glaring omission of this truth only shows that you're either lazy, or you're just willfully ignorant.
 
Last edited:
I don't think so. None of your responses have dealt in length with any of the issues presented in the importance of religion upon the founding of our Republic. All you've done is quoted phrases from the link in which I already agree with, as they pertain to a separation of Church and State in our republic. You have not refuted the fact that religion and politics were inseparable from the Founders' intents for establishing America. Your glaring omission of this truth only shows that you're either lazy, or you're just willfully ignorant.

My point, was that the intentions of the founding fathers was to keep religion OUT of the Constitution.

Your intentional failure to grasp this point paints you as deluded.
 
As far as laws being based on morals, you are correct. Laws are based on some moral code or standard, and that, in turn, is founded on some beginning religious belief or philosophy. Law is inherently religious.

This is rubbish and completely ass-backwards. You religious freaks think you have a monopoly on morality. Religions are derived from ethics, not the other way around. Morality existed long before Christianity or any other religion. Laws are based on individual rights, not morality.

It is always troubling to see people who do no understand the importance of the separation of church and state. If you want to see what happens when you mix the two go to Saudi Arabia where woman are not allowed to show their faces in public or read about the Salem witch hunts.

Even you Christians can't agree on ethics, half are for the death penalty, half are against, and both have loads of scripture to back up their beliefs. Its like that with virtually any issue and each Christian says, "well thats not the correct interpretation" when referring to the other side. What a f@cking joke! You people have the IQs of monkeys.

The government should never decide morality or base laws on ethics. You would think this would be obvious on Ron Paul forums of all places.
 
Our Founders Paint a Different Portrait Than You

My point, was that the intentions of the founding fathers was to keep religion OUT of the Constitution.

Your intentional failure to grasp this point paints you as deluded.

The Constitution was predicated on Christian truths that civil government must be restrained, due to the sinful hearts of men (Jeremiah 17:9), and thus, their powers should be enumerated. As a matter of fact, our three branches of government came from the Bible in Isaiah 33:22, where it states, "For the LORD is our Judge [Judicial], the LORD is our Lawgiver [Legislative], the LORD is our King [Executive]; He will save us." It did not come from any "atheistic" interpretation of human nature, that's for sure.

I disagree with you that our Founders wanted to keep religion out of the Constitution, and I think the link I've previously posted illustrates that. For instance, Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution acknowledges the Christian Sabbath in dealing with the timeline for a President to stop a bill from becoming a law:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. 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.

Article VII of the U.S. Constitution even acknowledges the Lord Jesus Christ in conjunction with the date in which the Constitution was signed:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day 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.

Now if our Founders were so careful to not include their religious beliefs in the Constitution, then why are these two passages found therein? Surely they could've left them out, but they didn't, and that's because they didn't separate their religious views from the drafting of their own documents. You just need to do your homework before you try to spread your humanistic dogma about the lack of any religious convictions upon our nation's founding and its documents.
 
The Constitution was predicated on Christian truths that civil government must be restrained, due to the sinful hearts of men (Jeremiah 17:9), and thus, their powers should be enumerated. As a matter of fact, our three branches of government came from the Bible in Isaiah 33:22, where it states, "For the LORD is our Judge [Judicial], the LORD is our Lawgiver [Legislative], the LORD is our King [Executive]; He will save us." It did not come from any "atheistic" interpretation of human nature, that's for sure.

Jesus Christ. The political philosophy of the bible is Socialism. If you don't know this then you are in complete denial, or an idiot. A lot of things in the bible are up for interpretation, that is not. The bible is very clear on it. In fact, "Thou art thy brother's keeper" should be the trademark slogan for socialism. The idea of three branches of government comes from the bible? LMFAO Did you graduate from Harvard???
 
Theocrat the stuff your quoting from the constitution in no way justifies crafting legislation based on any religion's beliefs.

Please explain to me what you believe the 1st Amendment means? I cannot wait to hear this.
 
I wondered into this site yesterday, purely by accident. Neil's posts have been very educational. As many, I am completely at a loss as to who to vote for this year. Up until yesterday I THOUGHT I had the answer, but clearly Mr. Baldwin's religious position is bothersome. I was concerned with the CP's "tarriff" position in their platform and was willing to overlook that aspect but I can NOT overlook all of the "Christian" overtones.

The truly scary part, Living in SC if the "thumpers" here paid enough attention Chuck could get lots of traction.

Glenn
 
love thy neighbor never anywhere implies that Government should serve as an intermediary siphoning off your "love" for its own purposes.
 
A Voice From One of Our Fathers

Theocrat the stuff your quoting from the constitution in no way justifies crafting legislation based on any religion's beliefs.

Please explain to me what you believe the 1st Amendment means? I cannot wait to hear this.

Since you refuse to believe what I have to say about the religious intents of our Constitution, perhaps you'll give heed to what Justice Joseph Story has to say on the subject in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, written in three volumes in 1833. Justice Story was appointed by President James Madison to the Supreme Court and served from February 3, 1812 to September 10, 1845. Before then, Justice Story was also a U.S. Congressman, serving from December 1808 to March 1809. He was elected again in 1811 and served as Speaker of the House. Justice Story was even a Harvard Law Professor from 1821 to 1845. I think his credentials on the subject of what the religious implications of the Constitution, and particularly the First Amendment, are worthy of attention.

On the subject of the religious nature of the First Amendment, Justice Story comments as follows (Emboldened text is my emphasis):

722 CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES. [BOOK III.​

§ 1863. Let us now enter upon the consideration of the amendments, which, it will be found, principally regard subjects properly belonging to a bill of rights.

§ 1864. The first is, "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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition government for a redress of grievances."

§ 1865. And first, the prohibition of any establishment of religion, and the freedom of religious opinion and worship.

How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free governments, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character.1 Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of

CH. XLIV.] FREEDOM OF RELIGION. 723​

the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues; -- these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience.

§ 1866. The real difficulty lies in ascertaining the limits, to which government may righttnlly go in fostering and encouraging religion. Three cases may easily be supposed. One, where a government affords aid to a particular religion, leaving all persons free to adopt any other; another, where it creates an ecclesiastical establishment for the propagation of the doctrines of a particular sect of that religion, leaving a like freedom to all others; and a third, where it creates such an establishment, and excludes all persons, not belonging to it, either wholly, or in part, from any participation in the public honours, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities of the state. For instance, a government may simply declare, that the Christian religion shall be the religion of the state,

724 CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES. [BOOK III.​

and shall be aided, and encouraged in all the varieties of sects belonging to it; or it may declare, that the Catholic or Protestant religion shall be the religion of the state, leaving every man to the free enjoyment of his own religious opinions; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect, as of Episcopalians, as the religion of the state, with a like freedom; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect, as exclusively the religion of the state, tolerating others to a limited extent, or excluding all, not belonging to it, from all public honours, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities.

§ 1867. Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great, basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by

CH. XLIV.] FREEDOM OF RELIGION. 725​

its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. He has gone even further, and affirmed, that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the spirit of political freedom, than the Catholic. "When," says he, "the Christian religion, two centuries ago, became unhappily divided into Catholic and Protestant, the people of the north embraced the Protestant, and those of the south still adhered to the Catholic. The reason is plain. The people of the north have, and will ever have, a spirit of liberty and independence, which the people of the south have not. And, therefore, a religion, which has no visible head, is more agreeable to the independency of climate, than that, which has one." Without stopping to inquire, whether this remark be well founded, it is certainly true, that the parent country has acted upon it with a severe and vigilant zeal; and in most of the colonies the same rigid jealousy has been maintained almost down to our own times. Massachusetts, while she has promulgated in her BILL OF RIGHTS the importance and necessity of the public support of religion, and the worship of God, has authorized the legislature to require it only for Protestantism. The language of that bill of rights is remarkable for its pointed affirmation of the duty of government to support Christianity, and the reasons for it. "As," says the

726 CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES. [BOOK III.​

third article, "the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through the community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality; therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize, and require, and the legislature shall from time to time authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, &c. &c. 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 voluntarily." Afterwards there follow provisions, prohibiting any superiority of one sect over another, and securing to all citizens the free exercise of religion.

§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

CH. XLIV.] FREEDOM OF RELIGION. 727​

§ 1869. It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government.

§ 1870. But the duty of supporting religion, and especially the Christian religion, is very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshipping God in the manner, which, they believe, their accountability to him requires. It has been truly said, that "religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be dictated only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence," Mr. Locke himself, who did not doubt the right of government to interfere in matters of religion, and especially to encourage Christianity, at the same time has expressed his opinion of the right of private judgment, and liberty of conscience, in a manner becoming his character, as a sincere friend of civil and religious liberty. "No man, or society of men," says he, "have any authority to impose their opinions or interpretations on any other, the meanest Christian; since, in matters of religion, every man must know, and believe, and give an account for himself." The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority, without

728 CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES. [BOOK III.​

a criminal disobedience or, the precepts or natural, as well as o.r revealed religion.

§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head; and even NewEngland, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, would furnish out a chapter, as full of the darkest bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals. Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity had been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue.

§ 1872. Mr. Justice Blackstone, after having spoken with a manly freedom of the abuses in the Romish church respecting heresy; and, that Christianity had be on deformed by the demon of persecution upon the continent, and that the island of Great Britain had

CH. XLIV.] FREEDOM. OF RELIGION. 729​

not been entirely free from the scourge, defends the final enactments against nonconformity in England, in the following set phrases, to which, without any material change, might be justly applied his own sarcastic remarks upon the conduct of the Roman ecclesiastics in punishing heresy. "For nonconformity to the worship of the church," (says he,) "there is much more to be pleaded than for the former, (that is, reviling the ordinances of the church,) being a matter of private conscience, to the scruples of which our present laws have shown a very just, and Christian indulgence. For undoubtedly all persecution and oppression of weak consciences, on the score of religious persuasions, are highly unjustifiable upon every principle of natural reason, civil liberty, or sound religion. But care must be taken not to carry this indulgence into such extremes, as may endanger the national church. There is always a difference to be made between

730 CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES. [BOOK III.​

toleration and establishment." Let it be remembered, that at the very moment, when the learned commentator was penning these cold remarks, the laws of England merely tolerated protestant dissenters in their public worship upon certain conditions, at once irritating and degrading; that the test and corporation acts excluded them from public and corporate offices, both of trust and profit; that the learned commentator avows, that the object of the test and corporation acts was to exclude them from office, in common with Turks, Jews, heretics, papists, and other sectaries; that to deny the Trinity, however conscientiously disbelieved, was a public offence, punishable by fine and imprisonment; and that, in the rear of all these disabilities and grievances, came the long list of acts against papists, by which they were reduced to a state of political and religious slavery, and cut off from some of the dearest privileges of mankind.

§ 1873. It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign 'annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as Well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife, and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Armenian, the Jew and the. Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.

Interesting enough, in the U.S. District Court case Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County (554 F.Supp. 1104 [S.D. Ala. 1983]): subsequently, this case led to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court [Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38 (1985)] in which the Supreme Court prohibited a daily moment of silence for public school classrooms), the Court ruled,

The drafters of the first amendment understood the first amendment to prohibit the federal government only from establishing a national religion. Anything short of the outright establishment of a national religion was not seen as violative of the first amendment. For example, the federal government was free to promote various Christian religions and expend monies in an effort to see that those religions flourished. This was not seen as violating the establishment clause. [R. Cord, Separation of Church and State 15 (1982)].

But even President Jefferson signed into law bills which provided federal funds for the propagation of the gospel among the Indians. Based upon the historical record Professor Cord concludes that Jefferson, even as President, did not interpret the establishment clause to require complete independence from religion in government.

One thing which becomes abundantly clear after reviewing the historical record is that the founding fathers of this country and the framers of what became the first amendment never intended the establishment clause to erect an absolute wall of separation between the federal government and religion. Through the chaplain system, the money appropriated for the education of Indians, and the Thanksgiving proclamations, the federal government participated in secular Christian activities. From the beginning of our country, the high and impregnable wall which Mr. Justice Black referred to in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18, 67 S.Ct. 504, 513, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947), was not as high and impregnable as Justice Black's revisionary literary flourish would lead one to believe.

The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects [denominations] and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government. [quoting Justice Joseph Story]
(Emphasis mine)

In short, it was widely understood from our Founders that the First Amendment was drafted to support the general welfare of the Christian faith, but to also protect the Republic from an national ecclesiastical jurisdiction over one particular denomination (which was also called a particular "religion"). Our Constitution was not created to separate religion from the civil government, as you erroneously want to believe. Our Constitution is inherently religious and very favorable towards the Christian faith, in its original intent.
 
Last edited:
"But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Armenian, the Jew and the. Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship."

The assumptions of an author who is clearly biased on the subject do not constitute proof.

I am also not seeing anything in there that somehow justifies legislation being drafted based on religious beliefs.
 
Since you refuse to believe what I have to say about the religious intents of our Constitution, perhaps you'll give heed to what Justice Joseph Story has to say on the subject in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, written in three volumes in 1833. Justice Story was appointed by President James Madison to the Supreme Court and served from February 3, 1812 to September 10, 1845. Before then, Justice Story was also a U.S. Congressman, serving from December 1808 to March 1809. He was elected again in 1811 and served as Speaker of the House. Justice Story was even a Harvard Law Professor from 1821 to 1845. I think his credentials on the subject of what the religious implications of the Constitution, and particularly the First Amendment, are worthy of attention.

On the subject of the religious nature of the First Amendment, Justice Story comments as follows (Emboldened text is my emphasis):



Interesting enough, in the U.S. District Court case Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County (554 F.Supp. 1104 [S.D. Ala. 1983]): subsequently, this case led to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court [Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38 (1985)] in which the Supreme Court prohibited a daily moment of silence for public school classrooms), the Court ruled,

(Emphasis mine)

In short, it was widely understood from our Founders that the First Amendment was drafted to support the general welfare of the Christian faith, but to also protect the Republic from an national ecclesiastical jurisdiction over one particular denomination (which was also called a particular "religion"). Our Constitution was not created to separate religion from the civil government, as you erroneously want to believe. Our Constitution is inherently religious and very favorable towards the Christian faith, in its original intent.

Why do you quote obscure founders so often? Uncomfortable with the more intelligent ones?

The Founding Fathers were in great disagreement in many things that they did... but nobody in their right mind would suggest that the most important of them ever would consider the flamboyant abuse of Christianity in this country as anything that they intended. They most certainly wanted a secular country. Sorry about this Theocrat, but you have been wrong about it from day one, and you remain wrong.
 
Back
Top