English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of the United States Polski: Fragment preambuły Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By Don Ruhl
How many times does the Constitution of the United States of America mention religion? One time? Wrong! Two times? Wrong!
Before we look at the Constitution, let us consider biblical examples of prophets and apostles who knew the law of the land, and used it to their advantage. Often, we think only of what the law forbids, and we become dejected, concluding that we cannot do anything. If it is true that the church cannot do anything according to the law of the land, so be it; let us obey God and break the law, suffering the consequences. That is how the early church acted (See Acts 4.18–21; 5.27–29; 5.33, 35, 36).
However, we want to obey the laws of the land and be good citizens by honoring the government and leaders, as Paul wrote, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (Rom 13.1–7). (See also 1Pe 2.11–17.)
Know the Law of the Land
Know the law of the land in matters pertaining to religion and the church, because these matters affect what we do and do not do. God gave us government. Therefore, we should use His tools to our maximum benefit, even as we do other things He has given us. Ezra and his generation used the non-Israelite government to their advantage. The Book of Ezra begins with the revelation that the Persian government supported the Jews and their return to Jerusalem, as well as the restoration of the temple (Ezra 1.1–40). Chapter four shows opposition from their enemies that made the Jews stop, “Thus the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem ceased, and it was discontinued until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4.24).
However, the prophets of God stirred up the people to rebuild the temple (Ezra 5.1), and the Jews began again to work on the temple. Without surprise their enemies opposed their work. The enemies appealed to the king to search the law to discover whether the Jews had authority to rebuild their temple, concluding, “Now therefore, if it seems good to the king, let a search be made in the king’s treasure house, which is there in Babylon, whether it is so that a decree was issued by King Cyrus to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king send us his pleasure concerning this matter” (Ezra 5.17). The king did as requested, “Then King Darius issued a decree, and a search was made in the archives, where the treasures were stored in Babylon. And at Achmetha, in the palace that is in the province of Media, a scroll was found, and in it a record was written thus: In the first year of King Cyrus, King Cyrus issued a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem: ‘Let the house be rebuilt, the place where they offered sacrifices…’” (Ezra 6.1–3a). The Jews did not just assume that the law was against them, but they continued as the Lord told them to do and He backed them with the law.
In Acts 22, the Romans prepared to scourge Paul, but watch how he stopped it, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?” (Acts 22.25–29). Later, recorded in Acts 25.9–11, Paul knew how to use Roman law to save his life, appealing to Caesar to save himself from an ambush of the Jews.
The lives of Daniel, Esther, and others also show that we do well to know the laws of the land pertaining to the operation of the church, and the religious activities of individuals. Simply because our enemies say we cannot do things does not mean it is so. If you read the law, you might be surprised by what you find.
How Many Times Does the Constitution Mention Religion?
You probably know one time that the Constitution mentions religion. Another reference might surprise you. However, there are three references to religion in the Constitution of the United States of America. You know the third one well, found in the First Amendment, ratified just over four years after the main part of the Constitution,
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.
Article VI, third paragraph made the first reference to religion,
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Those were the third and first references to religion in the Constitution. The second time the Constitution referenced religion, helps us to understand the First Amendment. The current interpretation of the First Amendment (that government cannot mention God), argues that this second reference violates an alleged “separation of church and state.” The first and third references used the word, “religion,” or a derivative of it, “religious.” The second time these men referenced religion, they did not use that word. I have been told that those men intentionally did not reference God or the Lord, but left out such references as a way of insuring that we have a secular state. However, the framers of the Constitution used an expression, that if anyone in government used it today, secularists would sue him for violating an alleged “separation of church and state.”
Are you ready for this? If you have never read the Constitution, or if you only listen to the news, this reference, right in the Constitution of the United States of America, might shock you. You will wonder why no one quotes this. No one quotes it for the same reason people rarely quote Scripture. They do not read it, so they do not know it exists, but rely on the experts to do the searching for them.
How many times did Jesus battle the religious and law scholars over some controversy, and He solved the problem with a mere reading of Scripture? (See Matt 12.3, 5; 19.4; 21.16, 42; 22.31; Luke 10.26; See also Acts 17.11.)
Just because an expert says things are such and such, do not believe it until you check it out for yourself, if you are able. Do you believe what every preacher and teacher says? If not, why do you believe everything the world says on the news? Why are you so skeptical of preachers and teachers, but gullible and naive toward the world? The Bible tells us to investigate things. Think and know things for yourself! It is written, “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established” (2Co 13.1b). “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1Th 5.21). “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1Jo 4.1).
Do these passages only refer to religious truth? If so, we should still apply them when discussing the Constitution since it references “religion.” However, these passages refer to everything we hear and read.
When you read the Constitution, starting from the beginning, here is the second reference. This should solve the whole alleged “separation of church and state” issue, because the First Amendment keeps Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion, but referencing God does not constitute an establishment of religion, as the Constitution shall demonstrate, unless the Constitution is unconstitutional! Article VII contains the signatures of the men who put this thing together. Before listing their names, this appeared,
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
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,
Go. WASHINGTON—
Presid. and deputy from Virginia…
Did you catch that? Read it again and notice how they referenced the date. They said it was done by the states present, “the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven…” Did you know that existed? If not, why not? We have not read it for ourselves and our enemies do not want us to know it exists! What do you make of this reference? Dave Miller has rightly said,
The Framers’ declared that their work was done “in the Year of our Lord.” The Christian world dates all of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “b.c.” means “before Christ,” and “a.d.” is the abbreviation for the Latin words anno Domini, meaning “year of our Lord.” If the Framers were interested in being pluralistic, multicultural, and politically correct, they would have refrained from using the b.c./a.d. designation. Or they would have used the religiously neutral designations “c.e.,” Common Era, and “b.c.e.,” Before the Common Era—which already were in use…Instead, the Framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared.
What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ…Observe that the Constitution does not read “Year of the Lord”; it reads “Year of our Lord.” The Founders considered Jesus Christ to be their Lord—a concept flatly rejected by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Any attempt to soften the import of this inclusion is merely sidestepping this fact. Therefore, the Framers could not have believed that references to God or Christ should be excluded from the Constitution—since they did not do so! Yet, incredibly, on the basis of current judicial interpretation, their action was unconstitutional! (“The Constitution Is—Unconstitutional?” by Dave Miller, Ph.D. This item is available on the Apologetics Press web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3545 – it was originally published in Reason & Revelation, issue 6[12]:45-46-R).
What about this reference in Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, last sentence?
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.
Why did they provide the exception for Sundays? They certainly did not have an anti-religion mentality and they even provided for the fact that those in government would do something special on that day! Was it typical back then to use it for sleeping in or fishing or whatever? That was the day of worship! The Framers understood the important part religion played in the lives of America’s citizens, including those in government. They did not want the affairs of the state to interfere with the affairs of the church. Truly, they encouraged the practice of religion, knowing that without a godly nation, our form of government cannot last, but will degenerate. How has something so obvious, as the reference to the year of our Lord, been missed?
How did Israel miss keeping the Feast of Tabernacles? Nehemiah 8 makes an amazing declaration of Nehemiah’s generation, that they did something previous generations had not done. First, the people asked Ezra to bring the Law of Moses and to read it publicly (Neh 8.1–3).
What was the attitude of the people? They wanted to hear the word of God. When Ezra opened the Scriptures, they stood up. As Ezra and others read the Scriptures, “they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading” (Neh 8.5–9).
God’s word pierced their hearts, causing the people to weep, knowing that they had not obeyed the Lord. They were broken hearted over their negligence. Pay attention to a practice they kept and how long it had been neglected, “And they found written in the Law, which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths during the feast of the seventh month…So the whole assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and sat under the booths; for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun until that day the children of Israel had not done so. And there was very great gladness” (Neh 8.13–17).
Do you know how many years passed from Joshua to Nehemiah’s generation? Over 900 years had passed! During the days of the judges, the kings, including many righteous leaders of Israel, yet, the whole nation of Israel had not dwelt in booths for the feast! What prompted this generation to do it? They read of it. Then they were ready to do it.
Some people do not read and so they do not know. Some read, but because something has not been a practice, they do not believe they have missed anything. Nehemiah’s generation made a simple reading of the Scriptures. They did something, although others had neglected it. Often neglect by others exerts great influence over us to neglect it also.
Have you read the Constitution of the United States of America? If not, why not? Do you not know the importance of it to your life? Or do you merely depend upon others for the interpretation and application? Do you approach the Bible that way?
Separation of Church and State
What does the First Amendment say?
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.
For the purposes of this article and for the purposes of the government encouraging religious observation, we concern ourselves with only the first part of this Amendment. Look at it carefully. What exactly does it say?
Remembering what the second reference to religion said, do you believe the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any references to God, the Bible, or things of that nature? What does this Amendment prohibit Congress from doing? It prohibits Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion and Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of establishments of religion or of religion. Therefore, the federal government cannot establish a national church, and cannot force its citizens to be members of it.
The First Amendment does not prohibit the government’s encouragement of religion, nor does it mean the government cannot reference the Scriptures and so on. Examining the Constitution, as we have done, and examining the life of Thomas Jefferson shows that he never meant his commentary on the Constitution to be used as it is today.
According to Stephen Mansfield (Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America…and What’s Happened Since),
So it was in America, and not just at the dawn of the nation’s life. For 150 years, this delicate religious balance prevailed. There would be no national church, but there would be national encouragement of faith. There would be no official religion, but the states could nurture as vibrant a faith as the people wished. So solid was this arrangement, so clear this vision of religion and government, that the Supreme Court was not even called upon to issue a ruling directly related to it until just after World War II, more than a century and a half after the defining words were first penned (p. xv).
Then Mansfield wrote,
Yet that ruling was a disaster. In 1947, the majority opinion in a case called Everson v. Board of Education dismantled the wise configuration of the American fathers erected instead a confusing and nearly unenforceable mishmash of prohibitions (Ibid).
He added,
To justify this rejection of the American fathers’ design, the Supreme Court cited the words of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson and concluded that the intent of the first ten words of the First Amendment was to erect “a wall of separation between church and state” (Ibid).
However, Mr. Jefferson’s letter from which that line is quoted was written fourteen years later. Also, he was out of the country when the Constitution was written. Moreover, the use of his words do not fit his attitude and approach toward religion. Within hours from the time Congress adopted the First Amendment, a Congressman Elias Boudinot of New Jersey, “proposed that the Congress ask President George Washington to recommend to the American people a day of public thanksgiving and prayer” (Ibid., p. 24).
The next day Congress passed the following resolution,
Resolved, that a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceable to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness (Ibid., p. 24).
Two days before the House of Representatives approved the wording of the First Amendment, they put into law compensation for chaplains!
Jefferson’s tombstone offers an interesting look at his self-description,
Here was buried
Thomas Jefferson
Author of the
Declaration of Independence
Of The
Statute of Virginia
For
Religious Freedom
And Father of The
University of Virginia
His tombstone says nothing of being a governor of Virginia, a minister to France, a member of Congress, secretary of state under George Washington, vice president under John Adams, and president of the United States. This is interesting because he wanted to be remembered for writing the Declaration of Independence, which has “religious” terminology, and for writing a statute for religious freedom in his state, along with being the father of the University of Virginia. That does not sound like a man who wanted to create a purely secular state.
He received a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, congratulating him on becoming president, but they wanted to make sure that he would preserve religious liberty, and not create a national church or favor one church over another. Note what he said, especially at the end,
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802
He also said on another occasion,
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.
Consider some of his later acts, after he wrote to the Danbury group,
In 1808, Jefferson recommended to Congress the passage of a treaty that provided a stipend of $100 annually to support a Catholic priest in ministering to the Kaskaskia Indians. Similar treaties were enacted with his endorsement for the Wyandot Indians and other tribes in 1806 and the Cherokee in 1807. Another act that originated in 1787 ordained special lands “for the sole use of Christian Indians” and reserved land for the Moravian Brethren “for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity.” When this act was renewed, it bore the title “An Act regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military services and for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen.” Three times during his administration, Congress extended this act and Jefferson signed it into law. Not once did he even consider vetoing it on the basis that it violated the First Amendment or his own “wall of separation” metaphor (Ibid., p. 45).
Also, during his presidency, Thomas Jefferson attended church. That may not seem too unusual, however, he attended worship services where the House of Representatives met! Indeed, a church met there until 1866! Now get this, two days after writing the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, using the expression “building a wall of separation between Church & State,” do you know what Thomas Jefferson did? He attended his first church service in the House of Representatives! He continued doing that for the next seven years.
One Sunday, he was walking to the worship services when Ethan Allen approached him and asked, “Which way are you walking, Mr. Jefferson?” “To Church, Sir.” “You? Going to Church, Mr. J? You do not believe a word in it!” To which Thomas Jefferson replied,
“Sir, no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning, Sir” (Ibid., pp. 49, 50).
Are we seeking to establish a state church? Do we want one? What do the secularists fear from us? They think we desire a situation like Europe during the Revolutionary era. No, we do not want money from the government. We do not want to tell the government what to do. We do not want the government to tell us what to do. We want “the word of the Lord [to] run swiftly and be glorified” (2Th 3.1), and we want government to encourage religion and while we encourage obedience to the government.
The Bible Meditator 
You appear to be unfamiliar with Thomas Jefferson’s direct writings on the subject of Christianity.
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Thomas Jefferson was like any of us, complicated.
He obviously believed in God, as the Declaration of Independence written by Jefferson, so ably testifies. He also embraced many things about Christianity, but also thought that he was a judge of some religious matters.
Also, there were many other founding fathers who had strong biblical beliefs, but often people who do not care for religion quote Jefferson to justify a secular America, as though he is the only founding father who matters, but we all need to be familiar with everything in Jefferson’s life, considering the context in which he spoke things, and the time in his life.
Dear sir,
How dare you twist the words of our founding fathers. How dare you manipulate scripture into your article to better further your agenda. I suggest you take a few history courses concerning the USA and the founders. Most of them were Deists. They believed in a god but not the god of the bible. Especially in the case of Thomas Jefferson who identified himself time and again as a deist. You, sir, are a theist. There is a blaring difference. I recommend you research that and the history of the United States before writing further articles to better your cause. Honesty is the best policy. And the truth is this nation was not founded as a Christian nation. And that whole “lord” bit you tried to work in your favor is an epic fail.
Mr. Daniels,
Actually, you need to read history, and you will discover that the charge of our Founding Fathers being deists for the most part is wrong. Just look at The Declaration of Independence, where they, Thomas Jefferson in particular, spoke of Providence as a present reality, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” That alone shows that they believed God had something to do with the future of America.
Concerning The Constitution, please tell me the meaning of, “in the Year of our Lord.”
Don
What a blatant misrepresentation of Thomas Jefferson. He like most of our founding fathers were Deists. Deists believed in a divine creator of the earth and man but that he had relinquished any and all contact or responsibility. They were also Freemasons which was a brotherhood of knowledge that was condemned by nearly every denomination of Christianity to the point of murder. Jefferson spent his entire political career fighting against the evils of a religious state. Reference his role in the revolution, as author of the Declaration of Independence, references to creator and god were for the benefit of England which was a religious state. Many of the earliest European settlers in North America were looking for religious freedom from persecution by the Christian Church of England.
Most importantly Jefferson believed the Bible to be full of false history. He was adamant that religion was between a man and his god. In the letters to Danbury Baptists He Wrote….
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Oh, I see, Thomas Jefferson only made references to our Creator and Divine Providence in The Declaration of Independence for the benefit of England. Right. He certainly did not want to offend the English, so he insincerely referenced God. Randall, you are an interesting guy.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY UNDER ASSAULT
Muslims are using the 1st amendment to hijack Article 6 (the Supremacy Clause.) It should be obvious that that America’s founders did not intend that the same provision designed to protect our religious liberties would be used to overthrow those liberties. The 1st amendment protects “religions only,” not “religious governments.” Islam is primarily a totalitarian political system. Beyond that, the unvarnished truth is that it is an international Mafia type crime syndicate with a religious front that has historically survived by plundering the wealth of nations. Its founder legitimized the basest lusts of man’s nature, and his followers have followed his example and brutally tortured, raped, enslaved and murdered their way through Islam’s 1,400 year history, and have been responsible for over 270 million deaths.
AMERICA’S CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Prior to, and during the time the constitution was being formed, the founders understood the terms “denomination” and “religion” in the context of Biblical Christianity. They never envisioned our government by precepts of any other religious system. They included the language of the 1st amendment to allow people freedom to worship as they pleased, but not to use their worship as seditious cover to overthrow the U.S. Government and replace it with a theocracy. Those precepts were first proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, and then codified in the U.S. Constitution. The entire verbiage is about avoiding a similar repeat of what the colonies had just thrown off, the totalitarian unity of the British government and the Anglican Church of England. In 1789, under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, the Anglican Church was removed from its official unity with the government of Virginia. Jefferson understood that the only true and legitimate Theocracy in history pertained to the Jewish people under the past dispensation of the nation Israel, which ended when Titus and his Roman legions overran the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A. D.. It is important to focus for a moment on what the word Theocracy really means, because the doctrinal teachings of Islam emphatically require that people submit to an ecclesiastical enforcement authority within an international one-world government framework, just the opposite of our constitution’s teaching that the government has no religious dictatorial authority but is to submit to the people. To my knowledge, until September 25, 2009, no Muslim prayer service has ever been held at the Capitol in Washington. Obama announced (in 2010) that we were no longer a Christian nation, and cancelled the 21st annual Day of Prayer at the White House. If we are not a Christian nation, we are no longer America. Having historically functioned as a nation under Judeo-Christian inspired laws, we have allowed all faiths to worship freely. Now we have an interloper whose faith demands that we retrogress back to an even worse ecclesiastical governmental tyranny than we suffered during English rule, or from that of any other in history.
Jefferson, more than any other leader in American history is known, but grossly misunderstood, for his statement about the relationship between church & state. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123
The Danbury Baptist Association wrote him a letter asking in effect whether the new constitution would put the government back into dictating a particular religious (Christian) denomination, or whether it would simply allow religion (Judeo-Christian principles) to influence the moral conscience of government. Please note that Jefferson did not reject the principle of “religion” (Judeo-Christian Biblical concepts), but that those teachings had a rightful place in influencing the conduct of government. After all, from 1795 (before the Capitol was completed or occupied by Congress), he and about 91 of the other founders (delegates & signers), and many ordinary citizens regularly participated in non-denominational “Christian” worship services in the Capitol Building, later in the Treasury Department and other government facilities in D.C. until some time after the Civil War. For awhile, the Marine Corps band even played at the services. http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=90
It is unseemly that including Islamic totalitarian worship services, which are antithetical to everything the Capitol building represented, would have been welcomed and surely would not have been tolerated by our founders in those halls of freedom. Allowing such a thing today is tantamount to the desecration of hallowed ground. But that is what Muslims do. They stake out conquered lands by building Mosques, demanding waiver from the laws and cultures of the host nations where they reside, then establishing their laws in opposition to laws of their gracious hosts. It is their way of conquest.
In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case, the Supreme Court overturned 150 years of judicial understanding about the meaning of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” statement. The imperial judiciary of the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Vinson, who joined justices Hugo Black, Stanley F. Reed, William F. Douglas, and Frank Murphy in that specious unconstitutional decision, created a legal precedent that has caused us to deny our spiritual heritage and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who gave us the legal system that is tempered with Biblical law, not foreign law or the religious law of any other belief system. No other nation in history can claim to have a foundation that is the moral equivalent of the U.S. Constitution as written in 1787.
Thanks, John. Right on.
How, Mr. Ruhl, can the response to the post above be “Right on”? One could moralize and day things like how offensive the above post is in its treatment of Islam, but I’ll just stick to the basis of its factual incorrectness. Islam, obviously, is a religion. Maintaining otherwise doesn’t dignify a drawn out response. What the poster finds objectionable is Islamist theocracy. Well, he and I agree…sort of, in way that he’d likely find unwelcome. In a democratic society, such as the US, theocracy is objectionable…and this is my reason for my exchange with Mr. Ruhl below: to argue strenuously against that idea that the US Constitution allows any room for theocracy, Christian or otherwise. However, I suspect that the poster above is ok with Christian theocracy and has disdain for non-Christian religions…which, of course, is his right: but such attitudes have no place being endorsed by a gov’t that answers to the US Constitution. People have a right to religious bigotry, they just can’t look to the US Constitution to give such attitudes official state sanction.
Nate, I have been sick for several days, and I am still not back to 100%, so sorry for the delay, but I am well enough now to get back to work.
Anyway, concerning Islam and America and her Constitution, I guess we will just have to see what happens as Islam gains a greater presence in the United States.
Let us assume that Islam someday becomes the dominant group in America. I predict at that time, that they will remove the Constitution.
Then again they may never become dominant and so the point would be mute.
Thanks for your response.
Wow what racist and ignorant views you exhibit. Islam is mentioned in the treaty of Tripoli during the presidency of John Adams. It is a religion based on the Quran which was written by Mohammed who taught peace and transcendence. Extremists have skewed the words to justify terrorism but what should we call the CIA overthrows of Iran and Guatemala but acts of terrorism against free elected democratic governments. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a similar hostile act by the U.S. patterned after those takeovers that failed miserably. We made Cuba turn to Communism because we cared more about our own economic interests than the rights foreign nations to vote. We are responsible for the most evil dictators of the last 70 years. We put them in power after removing their elected Presidents at the urging of a minority of rich Americans with business interests and a legacy of lies by every US President during the Cold War. Islam is not the source of evil empires……
WE ARE!!!
My goodness, how were any of John Noble’s comments racist?
here is the 1952 law………..n 1952, Islam, along with Communism was effectively banned by law.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, which was passed June 27, 1952 revised the united States’ laws regarding immigration, naturalization and nationality. This Act, under Section 313 states the following:
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b) , no person shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States-
(1) who advocates or teaches, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government; or
(2) who is a member of or affiliated with (A) the Communist Party of the United States; (B) any other totalitarian party of the United States; (C) the Communist Political Association; (D) the Communist or other totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state; (E) any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association or party; or (F) the direct predecessors or successors of any such association or party, regardless of what name such group or organization may have used, may now bear, or may hereafter adopt, unless such alien establishes that he did not have knowledge or reason to believe at the time he became a member of or affiliated with such an organization (and did not thereafter and prior to the date upon which such organization was so registered or so required to be registered have such knowledge or reason to believe) that such organization was a Communist-front organization; or
(3) who, although not within any of the other provisions of this section, advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, either through its own utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by or with the permission or consent of or under authority of such organizations or paid for by the funds of such organization; or
(4) who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (A) the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or
(5) who writes or publishes or causes to be written or published, or who knowingly circulates, distributes, prints, or displays, or knowingly causes to be circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed or who knowingly has in his possession for the purpose of circulation, publication, distribution, or display, any written or printed matter, advocating or teaching opposition to all organized government, or advocating (A) the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or (E) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship; or
(6) who is a member of or affiliated with any organization, that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, issue, or display, any written or printed matter of the character described in subparagraph (5).
(b) The provisions of this section or of any other section of this Act shall not be construed as declaring that any of the organizations referred to in this section or in any other section of this Act do not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.
(c) The provisions of this section shall be applicable to any applicant for naturalization who at any time within a period of ten years immediately preceding the filing of the application for naturalization or after such filing and before taking the final oath of citizenship is, or has been found to be within any of the classes enumerated within this section, notwithstanding that at the time the application is filed he may not be included within such classes.
(d) Any person who is within any of the classes described in subsection (a) solely because of past membership in, or past affiliation with, a party or organization may be naturalized without regard to the provisions of subsection (c) if such person establishes that such membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or occurred and terminated prior to the attainment by such alien of the age of sixteen years, or that such membership or affiliation is or was by operation of law, or was for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and where necessary for such purposes.
Chapter 2, Section 212 presents a prohibition of entry to the US if the person belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the US government by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” The Koran and the Hadiths present Sharia and demand submission to Islam, which is antithetical to Biblical law and the US Constitution, as well as to our Republic.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/12/islamists-communists-totalitarians-prohibited-law-immigrating-us/#vf4KWJfGxq50Jb2I.99
Do you know what the word “explicit” means? By whatever convolutions of logic you reach the conclusion that Jesus Christ is explicitly referenced in the US Constitution (because the words “Year of our Lord” appear in the document), whatever reference there might be would be *implicit* at most since the words “Jesus Christ” never appear in the US Constitution.
Nate, although you attempted to insult me, I have to look past that and agree with you.
However, if you look back at the reference, you will observe that I was not the one who made it, but I was quoting Dave Miller. I agree basically with what he says, but he should not have used the word, “explicit,” because as you observe, it would have to read, “Jesus,” or something similar. That is what happens when you quote someone else; they say things in their way, but you like enough of the quote that you want to give them credit. Hence, that is why we quote people.
Surely, you recognize that the expression, “the Year of Our Lord,” is a way of referring to Jesus Christ, at least in an implicit way, as you suggest.
Thanks for writing, but please know that we can come together peacefully and discuss things.
From my reading of this site, you seem like a well-spoken person. From this I infer that you must be intelligent as well. Because of this, it’s hard for me to avoid the conclusion that you are willfully misconstruing key facts, thus the less than friendly tone of my previous post. The US Constitution is not a religious document and you are trying to represent it as a *Christian* document! To support my claim that it is not a religious document, just look at the outcry when its contents were first made known to the US public. “Where is God?” “Down with the Virginia Voltaire!” (a reference to Thomas Jefferson due to his affinities with the avowedly atheist French philosopher Voltaire) would have been representative reactions of the American public when first encountering the US Constitution. It is clear that the founders wanted to keep religion from being used as a way to coerce those in public life (e.g., the ban on religious tests for holding public office). Thus there is to be no state religion (cf. the anti-establishment clause in the 1st Amendment. It is just as clear that the founders wanted to keep the gov’t out of religious affairs (cf. the free exercise clause in the 1st Amendment). Any suggestion that the founders supported the idea of a Christian nation is historically way off. They were revolting from Old World ideas such as a state religion. Were they religion-friendly? Sure. But they were smart, visionary thinkers who realized that the best way to be religion-friendly is to keep the state out of church matters.
Now, about this A.D./C.E. business you invoke to try to justify your claim that the US Constitution references Christ: It is disingenuous to claim that the founders meant Christ when they wrote “Year of our Lord” when they could have written “C.E.” for the Common Era. C.E. (to mean the “politically correct,” “religiously neutral” – it’s not neutral at all: it just takes the Christian way of marking time and naturalizes it – “Common Era”) did not reach anything like widespread usage until later in the 20th century. In the mid-19th century, Jewish writers would use “Common Era” as a less overtly Christian way of marking time – and avoiding being overtly Christian makes sense for them since, after all, they were Jews. It all comes to this point: in 1787, using the terminology “Year of our Lord” was not significant of a desire to be explicitly Christian/non-Christian or whatever. It was simply the way folks back then marked time. References to “C.E.” that predate the mid-19th century Jewish usage most likely meant “Christian Era.” The US Constitution was a momentous document, worthy of pomp and circumstance so it should not be surprising that the date was marked in a manner befitting the customs of the day, and those customs included dating things in such a way, e.g. the language of A.D.
The United States Constitution, Mr. Hilberg, is friendly toward religion, or more specially Christianity. It is not the anti-religious document that many people want it to be.
Moreover, the Declaration of Independence gave birth to the Constitution, and the Declaration shows how that generation viewed nations, such as the United States, that God is responsible for bringing America into the world, and that we are fully dependent upon Him to continue as a nation. The Constitution then builds on that so that government would never squelched Christianity, thus, the First Amendment.
Those involved in giving us the Constitution thought long and hard, debating with one another about every single word in the Constitution. Therefore, when they declared that they had finished it on such and such a date, “In the Year of Our Lord,” they knew exactly what they meant, and did not momentarily drift into a thoughtless reference to time.
They spoke that way in their everyday affairs, because they believed it.
Don
The reason I am hounding you on this matter, Mr. Ruhl, is that you are reading the Constitution ideologically, through the filters of your own belief commitments, rather than as a document that is situated in a historical context and then following inferences to the soundest interpretations. Your reply to me evinces my claim. Rather than responding to what I actually said, you just said what you wanted, repeating the position that my arguments (based on well-supported historical facts and valid logical inferences) have been undermining. I acknowledged that the founders were religion-friendly, and smart, visionaries that they were, thought that best way to make the Constitution a viable document for governing the society they envisioned was to keep churches and the gov’t out of each other’s affairs (obviously they were well-acquainted with the horrors of the wars of religion in post-Reformation Europe…caused by the overlap of matters of religion with matters of state). The ban on religious tests for holding public office and the 1st Amendment could not make this any plainer. With regard to the notion of Christian-friendliness, keep in mind that Deism was attractive to many of the founders and the God of Deism is quite different from the God of Christianity, especially in its Trinitarian forms (and keep in mind that Harvard University, central to the intellectual culture of their time and place, was the seat of Unitarianism). It would be obscurantist to the utmost to deny that the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are documents rife with Enlightenment sensibilities. The tone of the interpretation you are forcing onto the US Constitution would be more fitting if the topic of discussion were the Mayflower Compact.
Nate,
Actually, if you go back and just scan over my article, you will discover that the point I was making is that the Constitution mentions or references religion more often than the average person realizes.
You say that I need to respond to what you actually said, but you need to respond to what I said, especially remembering the main point of the article.
Much of what you wrote in your last comment, you and I see eye to eye on, such as the Framers not wanting to establish a national or state church, and not wanting anyone to be forced to join that church. I am all for that, and all churches of whatever stripe in America, and all preachers of whom I am familiar, believe that same way!
I often hear of the Deism of the Founding Fathers, and people often cite Jefferson as one of them, but then I read what He wrote, in particular the Declaration and that does not sound like a deist to me. He believed that God was very active in our world.
The point of my article is that the Constitution references religion in these ways:
1. The First Amendment 2. The prohibition against religious tests 3. The date reference 4. The Sunday exception, which I believe implies that they knew people would want to worship on that day; in other words, they were simply being considerate
What is it exactly that you think I am promoting and with which you disagree?
Don
Your post has provided some fresh insights, thank you. I would only add that the gentleman you are addressing – “Nate” – has presented an erroneous proposition. Voltaire was not an atheist by any means. He was an extraordinary agitator of the clergy of his day, but he was no atheist. Volume VI of the eminent F. Copleston’s, “A History of Philosophy,” gives an outstanding exposition concerning Voltaire’s beliefs.
Voltaire actually believed he could prove the existence of God in his work, “A Treatise on Metaphysics,” where he lays out two argument proofs for the existence of God. Voltaire’s alleged ‘atheism’ is a common misconception by those who have never actually read his works. I graduated BA in philosophy; I didn’t have a choice.
Thanks, LDMack, for your insights on Voltaire!
Don Ruhl
The US Constitution is a Christian-friendly document only in so far as it is a religion-friendly document. It is a religion-friendly document in that it states that gov’t should stay out of church business and vice versa. Thus it follows that Christianity has no more of a privileged place place in the public square than atheism (or Satanism, for that matter). On the idea of no religious tests for holding public office, though true de jure, not so much de facto. Can you imagine an avowed atheist being a plausible candidate for a high public office?!? Though the US public would never stand for it, the Constitution allows for it, mandates the possibility in fact. I recommend Kramnick and Moore’s “The Godless Constitution” to you and your readers. It’s a must read for anyone who cares to be a civically informed US citizen.
I concede that I am not responding precisely to what you wrote. What I write is by way of summary, which is what I took to be the spirit of your request. Peace, Nate
Yes, the church and the government should stay out of one another’s business, but even as the church encourages subjection to the government, paying taxes, rendering respect, and giving honor to the government, according to the teaching of the Scriptures (Hebrews 13.1-7), so we expect government to act honorably toward us.
Yes, the Constitution forbids religious tests, but the Constitution cannot forbid what I think. Therefore, I believe that prohibition keep us from creating something such as a document that candidates have to pass before being elected.
Would the American public stand for an atheist running for office? That is a hard question to answer, because there are a lot of people here! Some Muslims have been elected to office. Some Mormons have been elected. Some openly homosexual people have been elected. Granted, those are not atheists, but I think it demonstrates that anyone can make it to some elected office in America.
The Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and his followers managed to take over a whole town here in Oregon back in the 1980s.
And thanks for your closing desire of Peace, because although we disagree on matters, I am glad that we can do so in peace.
Actually, the person running for any office must believe in the existence of Almighty God but the person is not to be tested by any Christian religion or denomination or sect. If you read some state constitutions, you will see what I mean.
The Constitution of Virginia
June 29, 1776
SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Virginia signed its first constitution, drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Since that time, there have been frequent amendments and six major revisions to the constitution: 1830, 1851, 1864, 1870, 1902, and 1971. Our current constitution is an amended version of the 1971 constitution. These revisions to the Virginia constitution are representative of the political, social, regional, and racial climate of the times. Thomas Jefferson died July 4th 1826. The Constitution was changed after he drafted and signed the first one but section 16 still states “Creator” and “Christian”.
Arkansas
Article 19, section 1: “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.”
Maryland
Article 37: “That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”
Mississippi
Article 14, section 265: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this State.”
North Carolina
Article VI, section 8: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”
Pennsylvania
Article 1, section 4: “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.”
South Carolina
Article XVII, section 4: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”
Tennessee
Article IX, section 2: “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishment, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.”
Texas
Article 1, section 4: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”
LOL. Then why must a person swear into office using the Holy Bible??!! Thomas Jefferson did, btw. It is illegal for an atheist to hold a political office. Also, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Constitution of Virginia 1776 and in section 16 stated “our Creator” and “Christian”. So, obviously it is not just illegal for atheists to swear into office on U.S. constitution but also for Muslims to swear into office on the unholy Qur’an.
The article and most of the posts here are delusional. There is a single reference in the original text in our Constitution. You can find out in Article VI, paragraph three. That paragraph provides that no religious oath shall be required of our officials or anyone holding a position of public trust. That’s it. Are you claiming that this one provision means that we are a Christian nation? Seriously?
John,
Actually what Article VI says is that there shall be no religious Test required as a qualification. We cannot make a law in the United States that someone has to have a certain belief or cannot have a belief when it comes to running for public office.
The point of this my article is that the Constitution simply refers to religion more than most people realize. The average citizen thinks that only the First Amendment mentions religion, but the Constitution refers to religion in Article VI, to which you tried to make reference, and the Constitution references religion when it prefaces the year with “in the Year of our Lord.” I ask you, to whom does that make reference?
The Constitution also makes place for religion when 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.” Why that “Sunday,” exception? Was it so they could watch football? Was it because everyone was shopping at the mall? Why did they make that exception?
Christianity and the Bible helped form the United States and her early laws, such as the Constitution. The Constitution is not anti-religion, but makes place for it, such as in the writing of the First Amendment.
John and do you know why no Christian religion is to have a religious test?? The 1st Amendment forbids the State from establishing one Christian religion as the State religion as it was in England!! That is what Thomas Jefferson meant by separation of Church and State; he was talking about separating the Church of England from the State and allowing religious freedom for all Christian religions. Though there to be no religious test, the person still has to believe in Almighty God and not just any Almighty God but of Christianity.
The Constitution of Virginia
June 29, 1776
SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Virginia signed its first constitution, drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Since that time, there have been frequent amendments and six major revisions to the constitution: 1830, 1851, 1864, 1870, 1902, and 1971. Our current constitution is an amended version of the 1971 constitution. These revisions to the Virginia constitution are representative of the political, social, regional, and racial climate of the times. Thomas Jefferson died July 4th 1826. The Constitution was changed after he drafted and signed the first one but section 16 still states “Creator” and “Christian”.
Maryland
Article 37: “That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”
Read it & weep fella’s… Heck read it & distort, debate or deny it all you want. Just like everything else including everyone’s “interpretation” of the Bible & any other “documents” whether true or falsified! There’s only one FACT here….. God was, is, is to come & ever shall be! He’s THEE only Foundation, Proclamation, Declaration …. which ALL of us WILL PROCLAIM… The Treasure of Real Truth, is to Choose Him NOW!!!
Amen.
I wonder if you have read the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. it states clearly, “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced to, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief…”
I wonder if you have considered the fact that this statement does not only protect the religious, but also the non-religious. No religious person or group can deny equal rights and liberties to anyone regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof.
My concern in the article is the United States Constitution, and yes, you are correct, both the religious and non-religious are protected from government intrusion.
“Year of our lord” was a common phrasing at the time. As in, all official documents were signed that way. It was not in any way a tribute to god or recognition of god being real and true. It was just a statement of date.
Either your historical research is lacking, or you’re ignoring facts for the sake of your own argument. Either way your argument holds little weight.
Lynda,
Is there any other part of the United States Constitution that you think our Founding Fathers did not take seriously?
Lynda, since you have not answered my question, and since you believe that my historical research is lacking, I have to answer you, lest others think you cannot be answered.
The only point that I made in my article was that the United States Constitution references religion more than what most Americans think. There is the most obvious one, that of the First Amendment. Article VI states that the government cannot add a religious test to the qualification of any office. Article I, Section 7 provides the Sunday exception. By the way, why did they make that exception for Sundays? Did they watch football? Go golfing? Sleep all day? You know what they were doing, and I do not even have to say. I was on the Site Council on Klamath Union High School. A proposal was made for an activity on Wednesday nights. The principal, Carol Castle, advised against it, because she said many of the kids go to Bible classes on Wednesday. One teacher protested, “I thought it was separation of church and state.” Mrs. Castle did not propose forcing kids to go to Bible classes, but just said that the proposed event might have low attendance because many of the kids might be elsewhere. This illustrates a new attitude among the liberal secular left that they believe the government should intentionally do things contrary to religion. The Sunday exception shows an attitude of cooperation.
Finally, there is the signing, “…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, G°. Washington…” That is an implicit reference to Jesus of Nazareth.
Why I Know the Founding Fathers Took the Date Seriously
First, consider what they said about religion in The Constitution itself.
Second, consider what they said in The Declaration, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness… “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions… “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Consider the calls for prayer that they put out during the Revolutionary War. I went to the Library of Congress web site for the Prayer Proclamations that Congress issued during the War. I came across this page, “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic.” On that page, the government wrote something about religion and America’s founding, “The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity. “Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of ‘humiliation, fasting, and prayer’ were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by ‘covenant theology,’ a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they ‘should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears.’ Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation. “The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the ‘public prosperity’ of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a ‘spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens,’ Congress declared to the American people, would ‘make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people.’”
Third, consider Benjamin Franklin’s suggestion. During the Constitutional Convention he suggested that since they implored God to help them during the Revolution, they should ask Him for help again in putting together the Constitution. They battled furiously over it. Speaking to George Washington, Franklin said, “…how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?” He reminded all present that God heard their prayers during the Revolution. He also said, “And have we now forgotten that powerful friend?…I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of his truth—that God governs in the affairs of men.”
He proposed, “I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.”
Therefore, when the delegates signed the Constitution, “in the year of our Lord,” they knew what that meant and they meant what it said.
Don, your ideas are so terribly conceived I thought this was a satirical post. I just have one question. What about Thomas Jefferson’s bible? This man wrote the constitution and the declaration, so what do you think about this fascinating piece of history:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/how-thomas-jefferson-created-his-own-bible-5659505/
It is always nice to hear from sweet-spirited people such as yourself, Michael. Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution, but he did write the Declaration. With what parts of my article did you disagree? The fact that the Constitution mentions religion?
Mr. Ruhl:
I understand that the point of your article was to make people aware that religion is referenced more frequently than most realize.
I would like to ask what you make of the other way the writers of the Constitution reference the date of completion for their document: after citing 1787 in the year of our Lord, they note that it is the twelfth year of the existence of the United States as a free and sovereign nation. Do you think this is hubris, or further evidence of an intention for the US laws to be as impacted by Judeo-Christianity as by the ideas of the European Enlightenment?
Thanks for your article. The peace of Christ be with you.
Elizabeth,
Thank you for writing.
Why did the Founding Fathers state “and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth”?
As you mentioned it was an additional way of dating the Constitution. This also showed that the Constitution did not date from the time of the birth of the United States of America.
It would seem that they were showing that with the Constitution, they were not starting a new nation (again, as was done 12 years prior), but they merely provided a new workable form of government since under the Articles of Confederation they were not doing so well.
Therefore, to answer your question on whether that phrase was hubris (arrogance) or a way of stating how the United States of America would be impacted, I cannot say. I have never considered the options that you presented.
What is your judgment on this question?
Don Ruhl