Notion of our Founding Fathers and Religion

[freeservant]

"Over a ten-year period, political science professors at the University of Houston analyzed over 15,000 writings and speeches by the Founding Fathers to determine the primary source of ideas behind the Constitution. The three most quoted sources were the French philosopher Charles Montesquieu, English jurist William Blackstone and English philosopher John Locke. But the Bible was quoted more than any of these: four times more than Montesquieu, six times more than Locke and twelve times more than Blackstone. Ninety-four percent of the Founding Father's quotes were quoted, either directly or indirectly, from the Bible". Source: Lillback, Peter; Wall of Misconception, pgs. 30-31, (2007), Providence Forum Press.

http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2010/ ... erson.html

I think it is clear that this nation was founded on Biblical principals as well as the enlightenment.  The Bible had a large role in influencing Laws and Principles of this nation but given the horrors of religious oppression in Europe that caused many to immigrate to this nation it was wise to separate Church and State.  Even Jesus talks of this when saying “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...

also mentioned in the above link:

Separation of church and state

Jesus responds to Pontius Pilate about the nature of his kingdom: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36); i.e., his religious teachings were separate from earthly political activity. This reflects a traditional division in Christian thought by which state and church have separate spheres of influence.

In summation it is important to remember how the enlightenment was certainly an influence but the Bible supported the need to insure a secular state so we have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

[deekayfry]

deekayfry, I´m from Argentina.  Here, it is written in our constitution, and it hasn´t changed since 1863 despite several reformes and ammendments, that "the federal government supports (or sustains) the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church".

Thank you, Argie. I did not know this.  I do know Argentina has a very rich history.

[deekayfry]

"

In summation it is important to remember how the enlightenment was certainly an influence but the Bible supported the need to insure a secular state so we have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

There is case history that clearly states that we indeed do have freedom OF religion.  We also have freedom FROM religion.

This is most specifically and recently affirmed in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994)

government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." "There is more than a fine line between the voluntary association that leads to a political community comprising people who share a common religious faith, and the forced separation that occurs when the government draws explicit political boundaries on the basis of peoples' faith. In creating the district in question, New York crossed that line

- Justice David Souter writing in the majority opinion

[Tanker]

In summation it is important to remember how the enlightenment was certainly an influence but the Bible supported the need to insure a secular state so we have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

Then you support our apparently god given right to have freedom of religion? You understand that gives people the right to choose who and how they worship right? That Atheist's "choice" is since no god exists worshiping one would be useless?

So since we "choose" no one and worship in no way you support that right?.

[Whitney]

I think it is clear that this nation was founded on Biblical principals

Clear as mud if you ask me.

[Recusant]

"Over a ten-year period, political science professors at the University of Houston analyzed over 15,000 writings and speeches by the Founding Fathers to determine the primary source of ideas behind the Constitution. The three most quoted sources were the French philosopher Charles Montesquieu, English jurist William Blackstone and English philosopher John Locke. But the Bible was quoted more than any of these: four times more than Montesquieu, six times more than Locke and twelve times more than Blackstone. Ninety-four percent of the Founding Father's quotes were quoted, either directly or indirectly, from the Bible". Source: Lillback, Peter; Wall of Misconception, pgs. 30-31, (2007), Providence Forum Press.

I think it is clear that this nation was founded on Biblical principals as well as the enlightenment. The Bible had a large role in influencing Laws and Principles of this nation but given the horrors of religious oppression in Europe that caused many to immigrate to this nation it was wise to separate Church and State. Even Jesus talks of this when saying “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Oh my.  Please elucidate which biblical principals were used in setting up the government of the US?  There is indeed little doubt that most of those who were present at the Constitutional Convention were Christian, but to what extent their Christianity informed the Constitution is highly debatable. Separation of powers?  Montesquieu.  Consent of the governed being the basis for legitimate government? Ancient democratic principle, but during this period most clearly expounded by Locke. Neither have any precedent in the Bible.  In fact, as one of the pieces I linked to in my  previous post makes clear, the Bible, and in particular the New Testament, is anything but a revolutionary document.  The 'divine right of kings' can be said to have a biblical base:

I Peter 2:13-17:
 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Romans 13:1-7:
 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

If the founding fathers of the US had been following the Bible, instead of Enlightenment philosophers, they would never have rebelled against the government of George III. I'd be interested in a breakdown of the Bible quotations by individual.  I would imagine that the more influential founding fathers of the US, the ones who actually came up with the Constitution, rather than merely voting yea or nay on it as it was framed, were more likely to be quoting philosophers of government than the Bible in their writings.  Reading from your own source (treesforbreakfast blog, perhaps in the comments section), it's clearly stated that out of the Ten Commandments, only three are incorporated into the laws of the US.

Jesus, as you pointed out, says that his kingdom is not of this world.  How you get from that to a secular state, in view of the biblical support of the divine right of kings, is something you'll have to explain a little better.  In the Bible, Jesus is king in heaven, and temporal kings rule, by the will of god, here on earth.  Where are principles of republican government such as that instituted by the Constitution to be found in the Bible?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not sure that their beliefs are relevant in any way.  It is a gussied-up argument from authority, a thinly disguised hagiography, and as such ought to be rejected.

[Gawen]

This is a topic that I have found interesting and often repeated.  I first heard of this in Presbyterian Church that our Founding Fathers were Christians and believed the US was to become a nation based on Christian principles.

Well, the operational word is "based". Based on 'values' is not quite the same as adhering to same values.

[deekayfry]

Separation of church and state

Jesus responds to Pontius Pilate about the nature of his kingdom: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36); i.e., his religious teachings were separate from earthly political activity. This reflects a traditional division in Christian thought by which state and church have separate spheres of influence.

I am having trouble understanding how the context of John 18:36 leads to a specific conclusion as to it "reflects a tradition division in Christian thought by which state and church have separate spheres of influence."  The bible passage has no relationship to the idea, doctrine, or whatever you want to call "Separation of Church and State," either.

To say Jesus recognized and supported such a notion is laughable.  The society at that time was strongly Theocratic.  Jesus was anything but against separating religion from government.

BTW, the context of "render unto Ceaser" does not support the separation of church and state, either.

I am sorry  I am scratching my head over both statements.  Can you enlighten me as to how both relates to what we discuss?

[JD Curtis]

I would like to mention that the information cited by Lillback in his book Wall of Misconception, is a direct quote from another book.  The source cited by Dr Lillback is Moore, David T. ; Five Lives of the Century, pgs. 9-10, (1995), Tyndale House Publishing.  A cursory search utilizing a common search engine would reveal that this study has been out there for awhile and this information is available online at a few different sites.

Insofar as the influence of Christianity upon the formation of the early government o the United States, in my blog entry I mention early church covenants and how they afffected our model of government and I invite anyone to check it out and post your replies.  Here's a relevant link : http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24202

Thanks for the mention on this forum

JD Curtis

http://www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com

[GAYtheist]

Freeservant, have you ever heard of the Treaty of Tripoli?

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli says, and I quote,

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

Thomas Jefferson himself said:
"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, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

This country was founded in order to get away from the tyrannical King George of Brittain, and his way Chruch of England. The fact that the First Amendment gives of freedom to believe, or not believe, as we choose, goes along way to showing that we are a secular country, not founded on Christian beliefs, but common sense. It is when people decide that religion was the motorvator that I become truly afraid for where our country is heading.

Sources:
http://www.free2pray.info/1separationchurchstate.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

[Thumpalumpacus]

The circumstances of our founding are irrelevant. I don't really care what George Washington, or Tom Jefferson, or whomever, believed.

[JD Curtis]

"Freeservant, have you ever heard of the Treaty of Tripoli?"

Gaytheist, have you ever heard of the Treaty Of Paris?  It is a much more important historical document and I know you won't mind quoting the beginning of it for us here.

Insofar as the Treaty of Tripoi is concerned...

1) Was this treaty ratified when the US was a fledgling nation and thus negotiating from a position of weakness?


2) In 1805 when Commander William Eaton was ready to overthrow the pasha of Tripli with a force he had raised and the treaty was renegotiated, was there language included in the reworked treaty about the US not being in any way Christian?

[deekayfry]

Thank you JD for your invitation to read the article.  Are you the author of the article?

I have a few questions.

the biblical concept of covenant became the foundation for America’s Constitution. While this history is now an almost unknown, sub rosa embarrassment to modern eyes

By what consensus?  I am not embarrassed if this were the case, but trying to relate compacts, charters, and covenants that precedes the Constitution by 150 years is a stretch.  Second, the Constitution has no references to God or any supreme being and it specifically forbids any requirements for any public agent to be religious to hold an office,

 

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I do not need to quote the First Amendment again, actually I will quote it again...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

All the "Covenants" cited in the article run completely counter to this,

For example,  I highlight clauses that clearly show establishment

The Covenant of the Charles-Boston Church (1630)

In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in Obedience to his holy Will and Divine Ordinance, We whose Names are here under written, being by his most wise and good providence brought together into this part of America in the Bay of Massachusetts, and desirous to unite ourselves into one Congregation or Church under the Lord Jesus Christ our Head, in such sort as becometh all those whom he hath redeemed, and sanctified to himself, DO hereby solemnly and religiously (as in his most holy Presence) promise and bind ourselves, to walk in all our ways according to the Rule of the Gospel, and in all sincere Conformity to his holy Ordinances, and in mutual Love and Respect each to other, so near as God shall give us Grace.

Where is the relationship between the Charles Boston Church's covenant to the Constitution, and how does the CBCC overtly religious establishment transform into a clearly religious neutral document?  Finally, more relevant to the topic discussion, where is the connection between the CBCC to the Founding Father's intent of creating a Christian Nation?

Again as stated in the article,

The shrill demand for a wholly secular government in America has never been stronger.

By what consensus?  Actually, as much as I can tell it is quite the polar opposite.  I sense there is a ground swell of opinion that push for the vastly misleading objective that our Founding Fathers, wholeheartedly wanted a Christian Nation.

Here is where I agree.  Yes, the VERY, VERY early 17th Century colonial America was undoubtedly Christian focused, as in super, hyper Christian focused.  It is without question that "Pilgrims" (the word is a very bad misnomer but that is a topic for another discussion), it is without question that they were running from persecution, which ironically when they got here they simply practiced the very same thing they ran from. The MORE things CHANGE, the MORE they STAY THE SAME.

I have no doubt that Christian and religious philosophy's, attitudes, understandings, etc. shaped thoughts that our Founding Father's had.  I will say that there are very weak relationships between the covenants and the Constitution, but the relationship is structural and procedural, as in they are related as legal contracts, but not in in substance.

[JD Curtis]

I would only like to add that one can make a distinct difference between the founding of the "government" of the United States and the actual founding of the nation.

Given that the first permanent English settlers of this country actually did wade ashore (after three days of repentence and self examination) in Virginia in the year 1607, plant a large wooden cross and paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew 15:13, stated "Every plantation, which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” then it becomes clear that this nation was founded by Christians and dedicated to God.

To argue otherwise, one would have to take the matter up with the US National Park Service. Link: http://www.nps.gov/came/index.htm