|
|
Someone identified as
"Bell" sent an email with the comments at left. My
response is on the right. Bell pretty much repeats standard
secularist mythology.
- History marches to one of these two sides:
- • "Christian Theocracy," a land where everyone
"dwells safely under his own Vine &
Fig Tree," or
- • an atheistic "worker's paradise."
|
| Somebody had better
reread (or read) The Constitution of 1787. Not only is the name of
God (Jesus, Holy Spirit, Allah, etc.) absent from the document,
Article VI specifically says that there shall be "no
religious tests for public office."
Moreover, Article IV specifies a republican form of government
(usually defined as indirect democracy).
|
- A
Secular Constitution?
- Every one of the 13 states were Christian Theocracies. Some
leaned Baptist, others leaned Presbyterian. All of them
strenuously resisted any movement from the other to include
religious language in the federal constitution which would even
possibly imply favoritism toward the other variety of Christian
Theocracy.
Other Christian Theocrats wanted no mention of religion in the
federal constitution in order to ensure that nobody might
someday infer that the feds had any authority in religious
matters
The idea that all the Christians wanted religious language in
the federal constitution and they were held off by far-sighted
atheists, who prevailed in their attempt to create a government
that was atheistic and autonomous from God is ludicrous.
- A
"Religious Test"
- Some Christians opposed all oaths, even if this meant an
atheist would be able to hold office. All Christian Theocrats
opposed a "test oath" which required loyalty to a
particular church (especially the other guy's church). No
state permitted an atheist to hold office or be an elector,
which made it virtually impossible for an atheist to make it to
Washington D.C. This was the case until 1961, when the U.S.
Supreme Court "discovered"
that Christian Theocrats actually intended to give the federal
government power to make laws respecting religion and impose
them on the states.
- Republic/Democracy/Theocracy
- The Founders opposed democracy.
The Hebrew Theocracy was also
a Republic. The American concept of "consent
of the governed" was taken right out of the Hebrew
Republic.
|
| It's not until 1791
that religion (along with freedoms of speech, press, assembly)
enters The Constitution again (in the form of the First Amendment to
The Constitution)! Even then, Christianity is NOT mentioned. |
So Christians are not protected by
the First Amendment? Christians did not demand a First Amendment to
protect their churches against the newly-created federal government?
What exactly is Bell's argument here? |
| In fact, not even the
presidential oath contains any allegiance to God. Listen very
carefully on January 20, 2009. |
Here
is a clip of the swearing in of that Great Defender of Christian
Theocracy, Bill Clinton. Or listen here
(Real Audio). I'll be listening on Jan. 20,
2009, though the actions of Barack Obama are hardly definitive of
the intent of America's Founding Fathers.
The
first law passed under the Constitution dealt with oaths. Every
member of Congress at that time believed that an oath was an
act of religious worship. This is why a more specific
"religious test" (requiring loyalty to a specific church)
was not required:
- Hon. OLIVER WOLCOTT:
- I do not see the necessity of such a
test as some gentlemen wish for. The Constitution enjoins an
oath upon all the officers of the United States. This is a
direct appeal to that God who is the avenger
of perjury. Such an appeal to him is a full acknowledgment of
his being and providence.
An acknowledgment of these great truths is all that the
gentleman contends for. For myself, I should be content either
with or without that clause in the Constitution which excludes
test laws. Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this
country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever
be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others
under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place
hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to
the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether
superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the
possibility of such oppression. I shall only add, that I give my
assent to this Constitution, and am happy to see the states in a
fair way to adopt a Constitution which will protect their rights
and promote their welfare.
- Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of
the Federal Constitution, Vol. 2, p.202
Fragment of the Debates in the Convention of the State of
Connecticut, January
9, 1788
|
| Then, there's the
dispute over wording in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli as signed by the
last Founding Father to serve as President. As commonly found in the
English translation, the United States eschews Christianity as its
official religion! |
There
is indeed a "dispute" over this treaty. The words were
inserted by an apostate chaplain with an atheistic axe to grind.
Congress approved the Treaty to assure the Muslims that we were not
going to declare "holy war" on them because of their
religion. The wording was ambiguous (at best) and
was removed when the treaty was next renegotiated. Citing the
old discarded Treaty of Tripoli is like citing the Dred Scott
decision. |
| There is a pretty good
reason for not having established a state church. Being quite well
read (not to mention educated), the Founding Fathers were quite
familiar with the religious wars that swept Europe. |
Churches conduct fewer wars than
States. Atheistic states have killed more people than so-called
Christian states. We advocate abolishing both. |
| "In God We
Trust" didn't become the OFFICIAL motto of the United States
until 1956, the Cold War, and the tail end of McCarthyism. By the
way, replacing E Pluribus Unum with In God We Trust probably opened
the door to diversity in American culture such that immigrants could
come in without assimilating! |
"In
God We Trust" as a concept unquestionably goes back 300
years in American history.
Not sure what the point about assimilation is. The question is
always, "Assimilation into what?" Immigration
laws are un-Theocratic.
|
| The mess in which
Christianity in the United States finds itself today is largely its
own doing. Telling lies about the secular origins of the present
constitution is not particularly helpful in reestablishing Christian
credibility! |
This is amusing, if not hysterical.
It's hard to find an atheistic (i.e., non-religious) basis for anything
in the Founding Era.
Is America a
Christian Nation?
|
| To argue FOR a
theocracy is to approach national governance from a state's rights
perspective. At this juncture of history, any attempt to rewrite The
Constitution of 1787 would result in fragmentation of the United
States into South American-like small countries that are, in many
cases, barely on speaking terms with each other. |
Name one state that is "barely
on speaking terms" with any other state.
|
| Bluntly put, to
resurrect the Articles of Confederation of 1777 would be a disaster.
While it would give Southern theocrats their cherished separation
from Washington, it would also make them vulnerable in ways that few
would ever dream possible. I have likened it to Iran without the
oil. |
Abolish the federal government and
Missouri would be slightly smaller in economic power than Saudi
Arabia. It the Saudis are a threat to Missouri, it's because the
Bush Administration armed them. |