CRAIGforCONGRESS

Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives

  
 

 

 

Liberty Under God
IRON SHARPENS IRON
Dialogue with "Bell"



Giving Thanks for our Christian Theocracy

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.

back to: Theocracy