One Nation Under God

We’ve been hearing more and more lately about a certain group of people that shall remain nameless(atheists) making  their usual fuss about Christmas trees, nativity scenes, and Christianity in general in public places. Their insistence has led some in public positions and offices to acquiesce to their wishes. Some due to a common belief and some just don’t want thelegal hassle of dealing with them. Nativity scenes are being removed and/or outlawed, Christmas trees are at the very least being renamed holiday trees if not removed completely. The phrase of the day is no longer “Merry Christmas” but “Happy Holidays”. All this because a small group of people are exercising their “constitutional right” to be whiners.

By the way , the word “holiday” is derived from the Old English “Holy day”, so thanks should be given to the whiners for reminding us that Christmas is a Holy Day.  

I’ve always felt and/or believed in my spirit that the concept of “the separation of church and state” was originally meant to protect the church from the state and not the state from the church, and that the state was to be guided by the word of God. Now, because of my Christian belief and faith, one would expect me to have such view on the church/state relationship.  I thought it a good thing that I should substantiate my belief.

One thing we always hear when the Supreme Court is trying to judge the constitutionality of one law or another is how to interpret the desires of the founding fathers when they framed the Constitution.  Forgive me for over simplifying this, but, wouldn’t they just look up the writings and legal documents of the leaders and politicians of the day, and their writings prior to the framing of the constitution and before they became politicians looking for reelection? I’m into quick and easy and the justices are probably trying to justify their paychecks.

  

One of the first and considered by some to be the first official legal document of the “new world” is the Mayflower Compact, and the writers of this document are considered the first official settlers of this nation.  As you look at the Mayflower Compact, you can see the desires these intrepid adventurers had for their new home.

I will, for brevity’s sake, print only the parts of documents pertaining to the point I’m trying to make. That point being, this nation was founded by “God fearing” people with Christian principals, and with a desire to propagate and or spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  If you think I’m leaving out something that might contradict this point of view, please feel free to look it up yourself. One of my major sources of information was found in The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School. Another is the book Original Intent

The Mayflower Compact was written in 1620 as an agreement between the settlers of the New Plymouth colony and goes as follows;

IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: …..

We see the document starts off with a bang; IN THE NAME OF GOD,AMEN.(so be it)

Right off the bat they brought God into the mix. It is always a good thing in any new endeavor, get good backing! In the third line we see that they were putting themselves into a world of hurt knowing the outcome would bring glory to God. What God might this be?  After bringing glory to God they were traveling to the” New World” to advance the Christian Faith. Yep, That would be for the glory of the Judeo/Christian God and the advancement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Also known as Christianity

This may be a wild shot but I’m a thinking these guys weren’t Moslems, Hindus or Buddhists. Hey, as far as I’m concerned, all are welcome here, but the guys that signed at the bottom of the Mayflower Compact were definitely Christian, and I’m thinking they had a mind to build a Christian nation.

The original 13 Colonies were, Virginia-1607, Mass.-1620, Maryland-1634, Conn.-1635, Rhode Is.-1636, Delaware-1638, New Hampshire-1638, N. Carolina-1653, S. Carolina-1663, New Jersey-1664, New York-1664, Penn.-1682, Georgia-1732.

These colonies can be considered the foundation of this nation. These people were the beginning of a nation and anybody following,  should and would have to come into agreement with them.

So what were the original 13 thinking? Check their Charters.

The First Virginia Charter April 10 1606

The charter starts with… “by the Grace of God”(get your backing), then we drop to Paragraph 3;

…by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God…

This pretty much says that these people were Christians, liked being Christian, and thought propagating the Christian faith was a good thing.

The Charter of New England : 1620(Mass.)

… by the Grace of God…  … in Hope thereby to advance the in Largement of Christian Religion, to the Glory of God Almighty,

….

It was the hope of the masses of Mass. to “advance the enlargement of Christian Religion, to the Glory of God.” What God?  The God of Abraham,  Issac, and Jacob.  Not Vishnu, Allah, or Buhdda.  Once again, all are welcome. Come on in take off your shoes, sit a spell. But excuse me, these guys were Christian!

These are the first two colonies chronologically speaking. 1606 & 1620. The next will be the last two, chronologically. 1682 & 1732

Charter for the Province of Pennsylvania-1681

Paragraph 2;

… by the Grace of God… and promote such usefull comodities as may bee of Benefit to us and Our Dominions, as also to reduce the savage Natives by gentle and just mamlers to the Love of Civil Societie and Christian Religion…

 If that’s a little too vague, then try;

Frame of Government of Pennsylvania
May 5, 1682

The Preface

When the great and wise God had made the world, of all his creatures, it pleased him to chuse man his Deputy to rule it: and to fit him for so great a charge and trust, he did not only qualify him with skill and power, but with integrity to use them justly. This native goodness was equally his honour and his happiness, and whilst he stood here, all went well; there was no need of coercive or compulsive means; the precept of divine love and truth, in his bosom, was the guide and keeper of his innocency. But lust prevailing against duty, made a lamentable breach upon it; and the law, that before had no power over him, took place upon him, and his disobedient posterity, that such as would not live comformable to the holy law within, should fall under the reproof and correction of the just law without, in a Judicial administration.

This the Apostle teaches in divers of his epistles: " The law (says he) was added because of transgression: " In another place, " Knowing that the law was not made for the righteous man; but for the disobedient and ungodly, for sinners, for unholy and prophane, for murderers, for wlloremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, and for man-stealers, for lyers, for perjured persons," &c., but this is not all, he opens and carries the matter of government a little further: " Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God: whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil: wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." " He is the minister of God to thee for good." " Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake."

This settles the divine right of government beyond exception, and that for two ends: first, to terrify evil doers: secondly, to cherish those that do well; which gives government a life beyond corruption, and makes it as durable in the world, as good men shall be. So that government seems to me a part of religion itself, a filing sacred in its institution and end. For, if it does not directly remove the cause, it crushes the effects of evil, and is as such, (though a lower, yet) an emanation of the same Divine Power, that is both author and object of pure religion; the difference lying here, that the one is more free and mental, the other more corporal and compulsive in its operations: but that is only to evil doers; government itself being otherwise as capable of kindness, goodness and charity, as a more private society. They weakly err, that think there is no other use of government, than correction, which is the coarsest part of it: daily experience tells us, that the care and regulation of many other affairs, more soft, and daily necessary, make up much of the greatest part of government; and which must have followed the peopling of the world, had Adam never fell, and will continue among men, on earth, under the highest attainments they may arrive at, by the coming of the blessed Second Adam, the Lord from heaven. Thus much of government in general, as to its rise and end.

Sorry for the lengthy text but Mr. Penn thought it important enough to preface the Frame of Government of his state with it and more. I can’t help but wonder if William Penn, the author of the above text, was a Christian and believed in a Bible guided government.

Charter of Georgia : 1732

Paragraph 6; And for the greater ease and encouragement of our loving subjects and such others as shall come to inhabit in our said colony, we do by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, grant, establish and ordain, that forever hereafter, there shall be a liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God, to all persons inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within our said provinces and that all such persons, except papists, shall have a free exercise of their religion …..

Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777

ART. VI. The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county…  and they shall be of the Protestent religion …

.

Okay, so there’s the first two and last two colonies chronologically speaking of the first 13 and they all thought the Christian faith important enough to include it in on their charters, government frameworks, and or constitutions. I did briefly scan the middle nine colonial charters and found much the same words and thoughts. The truth be told they all had a tendency to be long winded. It’s to be expected when you have life without Cable TV. Feel free to check for yourselves.

Bottom line is, this country was founded on and relied upon Christian faith and Christian values. The evidence is there if you want to look.

There was approximately 150 years between the first Virginia charter and the writing of  the Constitution of Virginia. 1607-1776 Okay 169 yrs. to be exact. So had anything changed in that time? No.  Sec.16 of their constitution is dedicated to “the duty we owe the creator” & “the free exercise of religion”. You really ought to read Article 38 (XXXVIII) of the Constitution of South Carolina 1778. Quite an eye opener if I do say so.

Constitution of Maryland - November 11, 1776

ArticleXXXIII. That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, or no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession for his religious practice;

Constitution of Delaware; 1776

ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the oath, or following affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:

" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."

And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Constitution of New Jersey; 1776

XVIII. That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner, agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor, under any presence whatever, be compelled to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; …

XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

I’m going cross-eyed reading through all these Constitutions. Suffice it to say that all the ones I’ve read made many references to Christian Faith and values and the need to follow the same.

 This country was established as one nation under God!

The phrase or mention of “the separation of church and state” is not to be seen anywhere in the Constitution of the United States. The only mention of religion being Art.6 para.3 stating that no religious test is required as qualification to hold office. But that is not saying that Christianity does not have its place in government, just that no religious test would be taken.

Then comes the first amendment in the Bill Of Rights

I - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

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

The first amendment is very clear, plain, and straightforward. I looked each word up in the dictionary and could derive no hidden meanings or secret codes

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

It seems to me that the only way for the Ten Commandments and Pledge of Allegiance in public places can be unconstitutional, is if there are laws stating that they must be posted. Or that all people, children included, must recite the pledge or else be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 So tell me; is there a federal law stating that the Ten Commandments shall be posted in Federal Courthouses? None that I can find. Is there a Federal law stating that little Johnny and Suzy have to say the pledge of allegiance with its dreaded “one nation under God” line.  None that I can find! So how can these normal everyday functions of American life be unconstitutional? There are no federal laws forcing people to do these dastardly deeds. So why does an organization like the ACLU try to have the Supreme Court rule whether or not the posting of the Ten commandments in a public place is constitutional? Why do they want to change the Pledge of Allegiance or have it thrown out of schools when there are no federal laws forcing little Johnny or Suzy to say it? Who can say? What can you say about an organization that supposedly fights for the “rights” of a group of people; by denying the “rights” of another group of people? Sounds hypocritical to me. By asking the Supreme Court to rule on a law, respecting an establishment of religion that doesn’t exist, but they are definitely trying to prohibit the free exercise thereof!  In essence, what they are asking the Supreme Court to do is create a law from the bench, which is not their place and is unconstitutional. The task of making laws, as we all should know belongs to the Legislature. But hey, I’m no lawyer. They aren’t asking for a law establishing a religion, but they are asking for a law respecting the establishment of religion. There is a difference, small, but a difference. And the ACLU has filed suits with less to stand on.

As you look at the charters of the original 13 colonies and the eventual Constitutions of their states, you can surmise that it was the intention of our founding fathers to establish this nation on Christian principals. And, it was the desire of our founding fathers to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. This being the case, it becomes obvious that the First Amendment to the Constitution was meant to protect the church in general and the Christian Church specifically, from the government and not the Government from the Church.

Some in the government fear the church. But the church, (the first church anyway), respected and honored the government as being ordained of God. Refer to Romans 13:1-7

¹Let 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. ²Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. ³For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. ⁴For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. ⁵Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. ⁶For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. ⁷Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Please refer back to William Penn’s preface to the frame of government of Pennsylvania. Wonder where he got his inspiration for that?

I realize it’s hard to imagine the Government being appointed by God, especially the Government we have now, but if the Holy Spirit inspired word of God says it’s so, then it’s so. If the Christian Bible says that we’re to respect and honor our Government, then what does our Government have to fear from the Christian Church? Absolutely nothing! Well why do they? May I introduce you to the “human factor” and its selfish, sinful nature. Rather than seeing the freedom we have or can have with a life in Christ, they can only see rules and restrictions that could keep them from doing what they want to do and force them to do the right thing which is not always convenient, comfortable, fun, or immediately profitable.

 Okay; the colonial charters and subsequent constitutions establish the fact that our founding fathers were just a little bit Christian and, wanted to create a Christian nation and had a desire to spread the Gospel of Jesus to the indigenous masses. So where did the phrase “separation of church and state” come from? It’s not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congregationalist establishment in that state. The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to then President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801.

On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good 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, and 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 and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and 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 and 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 man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

Sources: Robert S. Alley, Professor of Humanites, Emeritus, University of Richmond, from his article, "Public Education and the Public Good," published in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995.
And Lipscomb, Andrew and Bergh, Albert, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 16, pp. 281-282.

The phrase came about because then President Thomas Jefferson rightly believed the federal government should not decide the doctrinal disputes of the Danbury Baptists Association. Put another way; protecting the Church from the State. His letter did not, however, disclose his belief in a Bible guided Government, or State protected from the Church. But please take note of how he closes the letter.

“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man…”.   Thomas Jefferson was either a Christian or a modern politician. So the "separation of church and state" was not and is not a constitutional law but an opinion of a former president.

Just to make this, hopefully a little clearer, consider this; Christianity is a philosophy based on the life and teachings of Jesus. The religions are the Baptist, the Catholic, the Lutheran , the Mormon, the Methodist and on and on. The individual denominations are the “church”or religions and according to the 1^st Ammendment, the government has no business telling us which denomination is best or which one we should, as Americans, be following. And they don't.

As an interesting side note, the fact that my main source of information was from a project done at Yale Law School, raises the question of early institutes of higher education.

Schools like Yale, Harvard, Columbia, etc. always seem to “crank out” candidates for jobs with the ACLU and their ongoing fight to stop the spread of the “evil” that is Christianity. Most people would be surprised to know that this country’s first schools, were created by Christians for Christians, and to educate people about Christianity in order to better spread the Gospel of Jesus to the world.

Higher education in the United States before 1870 was provided very largely in the tuitional colleges of the different religious denominations, rather than by the State. Of the 246 colleges founded by the close of the year 1860 . . . 17 were State institutions and but 2 or 3 others had any State connections.

The 1636 rules of Harvard declared:

“Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of Him. Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiencytherein.”

Harvard was so dedicated to Christianity  that its two mottos were “ For the Glory of Christ” and “For Christ and the Church”

In 1692, the College of William and Mary was founded so that :

The youth may be piously enacted in good letters and manners and that the Christian faith may be propagated . . . to the Glory of Almighty God

In 1699, Yale was founded by 10 ministers in order:

“To plant, and under devine blessing, to propagate in this wilderness the blessed reformed Protestant religion”.

In 1746, Princeton was founded by the Presbyterians and required its students to attend public worship on the Sabbath… “and no student belonging to any class shall ignore them”.

Columbia (1787), originaly Kings College (1754) required its candidates to “be able to render into English … the Gospels from the Greek”

The list continues, Dartmouth college 1754, Rutgers University 1766, and on and on.

 (source: Original Intent, David Barton)

Originally founded on Christian principals, teaching Christian truths, with at least one of their main goals being  to spread the Gospel of Jesus to the world. What are they teaching now?

  Read the papers, watch the news. This state of the nation is full of examples of their new curriculum of “higher education”.

Am I saying teach nothing but Judeo/Christian ethics and principals? No, not hardly. There is a big beautiful world out there that my God gave to us to learn about experience and enjoy, and a good  education enables us to just that more fully.

 But never lose sight of the basic foundation of education or the “original intent” of the first educators in this country.

This Nation was started and established by Christians so the Gospel of Jesus could be spread further throughout the world. Once again; all people and religions are welcome to come and enjoy the benefits of a Christian country and lifestyle and hopefully one day come to see the truth.  But make no mistake; this is a Christian country!

Imagine where we would be now as a nation if we had stayed the course for the last 382 years, or if we had just not taken such a large LEFT turn in 1961.

Imagine where we can go if we would return to the covenant that we, as a Nation, made with God back in 1620!

AMEN!