Great posts btw. But here's some more to think about: I already discussed the Maryland Constitution I believe. But here's a few others below. New Jersey. The delegates in 1777 issued these instructions from the legistlature: "We hope you will habitually bear in mind that the success of this great cause in which the United States are engaged depends upon the favor and blessing of Almight God..." Delaware The 1776 Constitution Article 22 states: "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust...shall...also make and subscribe the following declaration to wit: 'I do profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ His Only Son and in the Holy Ghost, one God...and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures..." Maryland (1776) Article XXXIV ordered "that no other test or qualification ought to be required...than such oath of support and fidelity to this State...and declaration of a belief in the Christian religion." Massachussetts (1780) "No person shall be eligible to this office [of Governor] unless...he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion."
And I could type in more. Why is it that so many states <u>required</u> profession of the Christian faith if they were so concerned about keeping everything separated as you claim? And that is not all the states btw. I can keep going...I'm hoping you'll concede the point so I don't have to keep typing...
If you want to decide the issue of Separation of Church and State by whether or not the American people, at the time our system of government was established, wanted their governments to impose a religious test on civil officers, I have no objection. I believe the evidence will show that a slight majority (not an overwhelming majority) of the American people did not favor religious tests. One item of evidence is the fact that the U. S. Constitution prohibits a religious test, and was still adopted by the nation that you imply was in favor with the idea. If religous tests were good for the State governments, why would they have thought it was bad for the national government? Let's do this. You find all of the states where you believe you believe its people wanted a religious test at the state level in 1788 when the new government was established. I will find all of the states that I believe were not all that attached to the idea. I know that several states had religious test in 1788, but abolished them during the years from 1788 to 1793, to bring the state law of religious liberty into line with those of the national goverment. As of 1793, I believe the score in the religious test contest was about nine to four or eight to five in favor of no religious test, which proves that most Americans, in 1789, probably did not favor a religious test. **** Rhode Island never had a religious test. Connecticut from 1776 forward, had no religious test. New York and Virginia abolished their religious tests in 1776-77. Delaware abolished its religious test in 1792. South Carolina had no religious test for office holders in 1788. It was not prohibited but the oath of office did not include any religion. Pennsylvania abolished its religious test in 1790 North Carolina had a relious test on paper but it was never enforced. Therefore, I claim it as a no religious test state. I believe I have eight states already and you have five (New Jersey, Mass., N. H., Georgia and Maryland). You have one "large population" state, but I have two. Thus, the population of my states probably excedes the population of yours.
I do agree with you that probably their biggest concern was to make sure that the federal government was small and stayed out of any federal religion. I don't think there's hardly any American in the last 200+ years that wants anything different. The last thing even I would want is Pat R or Jerry F telling me how to worship. But again I think you're missing the bird's eye view: a huge chunk of the colonies were NOT afraid of putting religion into government. Whether it is 40% or 70% or whatever percent doesn't really change what I'm saying. It was a vastly different world then. I still think that the majority of Americans at the time would have considered America a Christian nation. Now there was wide differences on what that was and how to handle it. And by 1850 a lot of it had evaporated. But what else would they think?
I don't mind Part R or Jerry F telling me how to worship as long as their don't have control of the levers of government and use the authority of the government for religious purposes. I have not missed the point. I know there was a huge chunk of the colonies that were not afraid of putting religion into government. But that all changed when the colonies became independent commonweaths and states in 1776; and it continued to change until 1833 when every state instituted a separation of church and state. "Christian Nation" is a vague term. As the term was used by the Presbyterians and others during the Sunday Mail Controversy which raged from about 1800 to the 1850's, most American probably rejected the notion.
Agreed. But I think that the significant majority of Americans prior to 1833 would have said that America was founded by Christians on Christian principles and was a Christian Nation at heart. Of course, a humanist would say, "So what? We outgrew that..." But to a Christian this is a very significant spritual point which is why I keep coming back to it...
The memorials and petitions of the people presented to Congress from 1812 to 1830 regarding the Sunday Mail Dispute provide excellent insight into the views of the American people on the issue of religious liberty and the meaning of the Constitution. Some of them are online at the LOC website in the collection titled "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation" in the "American State Papers" relating to the "Post Office." The most famous paper is the 1830 report of Col. Johnson. However, there is also a minority report and a number of petitions and memorials from citizens on both sides of the issue. I find them extremely interesting. But I am a bit of a history nut. Starts here and goes for 14 pages http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=027/llsp027.db&Page=229
When someone cites an excerpt from a letter or other document, I read the entire letter or other document or at least enough paragraphs in a long document to understand the context of the statement. I prefer to read what the founders wrote, not what others said they wrote.