Under God

That Perfect Creator gave the atheist and the Hindu the same right of individual choice in matters of religion that he gave you and me. God is Lord of the conscience of the atheist and the Hindu; and the government has no authority over their religions.

 

I don't think anyone is disputing that. Noone has or is talking about restricting the right to worship or hunting people down and persecuting them. Well, I shouldn't say noone as there will always be someone.

This is the underlying question though that you're avoiding: does a nation have the right to say that it built itself on Christian principles? In other words, can a nation state that its moral, legistlative and judicial compass will swing around a biblical and divine center?

I say 'yes', but I think you are saying 'no'.

Of course, I say that it is impossible not to have a moral compass. You can't have morals that please everyone, so you must pick a foundation. Our country originally chose the Bible and Christianity as its backbone and most people were proud of it.

Of course, that has all changed now and now we have chosen (in most cases) a humanistic course...

 

Again, noone is disputing that. You're preaching to the choir.

Remember that the converse is not always true.

The question is this: <u>can religion influence government</u>?

The answer of the founding fathers is yes, yes, yes and yes.

 

Freedom of Religion is not just freedom from persection. It is freedom from any government influence on one's duties to his Creator.

Not if "Christian principles" include the duty which we owe to our Creator. What are the Christian principles you are talking about?

The Separation of Church and State is Biblical and divine. What Biblical and divine center are you talking about?

The Christianity they chose was the version that included the total and absolute exclusion of the duty which we owe to our Creator from the cognizance of government.

Too bad. However, that does not repeal God's divine law of Separation and Church and State. Maybe the solution is less government rather than more civil meddling in the duty which we owe to our Creator.

Congress began opening its daily sessions with prayer in 1852. In less than ten years we had a Civil War.

 

No, because there is no government authority over religion or civil laws regarding relgion to be influenced.

 

In 1792, Congress defeated an attempt to pass a prayer recommendation resolution. The House passed it. But the Senate refused.

The Second U. S. Congress was apparently having second thoughts on wheter it was proper for the national government to be issuing reliigous recommendations to the American people.

On a motion made and seconded, Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait on the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the People of the United States a day of public humiliation and prayer to be observed, by supplicating Almighty God for the safety, peace, and welfare, of these States.

Ordered, That Mr. Boudinot, Mr. Page, and Mr. Silvester, be appointed of the said joint committee, on the part of this House.

Ordered, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said resolution to the Senate, and desire their concurrence.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...law:2:./temp/~ammem_MaqL::#0010588&linkText=1

 

This kills me: I have so much to say andno time. Well, here’s a few thoughts:

Yes, I agree with you that in general they did not want a monarchy or top heavy government. This was strongly discouraged a la Saul. Furthermore, the Old Testsment supported the idea of functional divisions within the Government. For example Moses handled he disputes. Furthermore, there was a division between Ezra and Henemiah’s duties. Even the idea of representatives being chosen from among the people comes from Moeses and the 50’s, 100’s, etc. Same with choosing qualified representatives. Or perhaps a better wording would be that they were comfortable with these ways of thinking because there is a Biblical pattern there.

Now that’s what I’m getting is this: these men in this time period were often generally trying to model themselves after the Bible and its principles. You can argue whether their interpretation was correct, but that’s not the point. The point is they weredeliberately trying to establish a “Biblical/christian Nation” in that sense.

 

Prayer is a great example of how they were struggling with how to handle putting religion in government. In some case, they encouraged it and in others they denied it.

 

The Constitutions are another great example. The Delaware Constitution’s oath of office until 1792 required “”I do profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ His only Son…”

The Maryland Constitution (until 1851 said “That, as it is the duty of very man to worship God in such a manner as he things most acceptable to him, all persons professing the Christian religion…” And it later directly required the support of religion…

 

The evidence suggests that the idea of separation of powers came from Montesquieu.

Mr. MADISON. If it be essential to the preservation of liberty that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers be separate, it is essential to a maintenance of the separation, that they should be independent of each other. The executive could not be independent of the legislature, if dependent on the pleasure of that branch for a reappointment. Why was it determined that the judges should not hold their places by such a tenure? Because they might be tempted to cultivate the legislature by an undue complaisance, and thus render the legislature the virtual expositor, as well as the maker, of the laws. In like manner, a dependence of the executive on the legislature would render it the executor as well as the maker of laws; and then, according to the observation of Montesquieu , tyrannical laws may be made that they may be executed in a tyrannical manner. There was an analogy between the executive and judiciary departments in several respects. The latter executed the laws in certain cases, as the former did in others. The former expounded and applied them for certain purposes, as the latter did for others. The difference between them seemed to consist chiefly in two circumstances;--first, the collective interest and security were much more in the power belonging to the executive, than to the judiciary, department; secondly, in the administration of the former, much greater latitude is left to opinion and discretion than in the administration of the latter. But, if the second consideration proves that it will be more difficult to establish a rule sufficiently precise for trying the executive than the judges, and forms an objection to the same tenure of office, both considerations prove that it might be more dangerous to suffer a union between the executive and legislative powers than between the judiciary and legislative powers. He conceived it to be absolutely necessary to a well-constituted republic, that the two first should be kept distinct and independent of each other. Whether the plan proposed by the motion was a proper one, was another question; as it depended on the practicability of instituting a tribunal for impeachments as certain and as adequate in the one case as in the other. On the other hand, respect for the mover entitled his proposition to a fair hearing and discussion, until a less objectionable expedient should be applied for guarding against a dangerous union of the legislative and executive departments.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...law:6:./temp/~ammem_moYX::#0050348&linkText=1