1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Was this country founded on Christian principles?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by youngmom4, Nov 12, 2007.

  1. youngmom4

    youngmom4 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    :applause: I feel exactly the same! We do have the right to express our religion, and while we do not have a theistic government, that does not mean that we should not expect our leaders to uphold our beliefs. This is the way it was with the founders. They did not force a particular brand of Christianity on anyone, but they did uphold Christian principles while they were in office and many spoke of how important it was to make religion an integral part of society. We're studying John Adams this week, and he is a really good example of this. I'll try to post some of the more interesting quotes when I get a chance. :thumbs:
     
  2. Allan

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,902
    Likes Received:
    5
    While this country was not built upon one particular religion but was established in such a way that no one religion would rule it's GOVENMENT (nor vise vers). It IS a fact this nations predominant religion (Christianity) DID play a large role in its creation of principles and moral code AND EVEN who sat in office.
    I have placed this a thread a few months back: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=999090&postcount=59
    What is interesting, is that the last state finally revise such wording for who gets a governmental seat was done about 50 or so years ago and it was either N or S Carolina. Did every state have such things in them? No, but that does not dismiss the fact that these were part of our Nations history and state electing process for almost 150 years.

    Now, as I said. This Nation was not created to BE A Christian Nation (as in only a christian Nation) but a Nation of the people, by the People, and for the people - and that Nation included religious beliefs since OF the people.

    Here are some other quotes from politcal people:
    Whoever is avowed enemies of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to His country. - John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

    It is of note that Mr. Witherspoon thought of our country as uniquely 'His' country. Now was he a deist or a christian, you decide:

    I shall now conclude my discourse by preaching this Saviour to all who hear me, and entreating you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for "there is no salvation in any other" [Acts 4:12....] f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish. - John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

    Again Justice Joseph Story explained that because of the First Amendment...

    ...the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the States constitutions.

    Thomas Jefferson had previously confirmed this same scope of power:

    I consider the government of the United States [the federal government] as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, disciplines, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion [the First Amendment], but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States [the Tenth Amendment]. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General [federal] Government. It must then rest with the States.
     
  3. Allan

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,902
    Likes Received:
    5
    Here are some more tidbits and quotes:
    From:
    http://www.proconstitution.com/under_god/
     
  4. youngmom4

    youngmom4 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the quotes, Allan! :wavey: I have some to post too, once I can see straight again...I just got done writing two different papers. It's off to bed I go! :sleep:
     
  5. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those clauses from state constitutions are null and void where they prescribe a religious test for public office in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

    See Torcaso v. Watkins, settled by the SCOTUS in 1961.
     
    #25 Magnetic Poles, Nov 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2007
  6. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    According to present constitutional interpretation, yes.

    In earlier years, the states had religious tests for state offices without being challenged. Only later did the constitutional regulations become binding on the states.

    I have no objection to the assertion that many states were founded as officially "Christian" states. I simply reject the thesis that the US was founded as a "Christian" nation. A union of Christian states, perhaps?
     
  7. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    The constitutional regulations were always binding on the states...the matter was just not settled case law until rulings were made. The law didn't change...application was just clarified.
     
  8. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Semantics :) They weren't "binding" in the sense of being enforced.
     
  9. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,402
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All that means is the courts can rule one way in one case, another way in another case, and can change "settled case law" for decades or a century, but still not necessarily for all time. Or, to put in another way, we do after all have a government of man, not a government of law. Abortions can be outlawed, then they can't; institutionalized segregation is legal, then it ain't; "affirmative action" is illegal in one case, but it is in almost all other similar cases; interstate commerce articles apply only to interstate transportation, then they apply also to intrastate....... it's man not law, regardless of the merits of any cases involved.
     
  10. Allan

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,902
    Likes Received:
    5
    Yep, 200 years later. But why such a long wait??

    They should have been demeamed unconstitual by those who wrote the constitution, and those same Judges who swore to uphold it. And yet it appears and in fact was not considered to be unconstitutional to them but was upheld as their right for almost 200 years :)


    Personally, I think it is summed up in this which I posted earlier:
    That which is in [ ] I added for clarity.
     
    #30 Allan, Nov 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2007
  11. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps a case was just never brought. What case "upheld" such a right in violation of the constitution. There is none. When it finally did come before the court they made the correct decision.
     
  12. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,402
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You quote and answer Allan's post and skip mine, bud. I wonder why.
     
  13. Allan

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,902
    Likes Received:
    5
    First I love you hypothosis :laugh: Purhaps a case was just never brought. The fact a case was NOT brought for that duration of time SHOULD tell you something.

    Make the correct decision did they?

    It was upheld for about 200 years and then finally in the enlightenment of the 1960's we FINALLY got the right rendering of the Constitution. Apparently, they were cluesless from the beginning of our Nation the Supreme Court Justices, nor the Founding Fathers, Congress, Senete, and Representives, knew anything about these things until 1961, or maybe that they just misinterpreted their own writings. :laugh:

    The correct decision was uphelp for almost 200 years of our Nations history.
     
    #33 Allan, Nov 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2007
  14. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, nothing was upheld. So I suppose you support religious tests for public office. That is obviously counter to the Constitution of the United States.

    It amazes me that some Baptists are against one of the historic hallmarks of being Baptist...that is support the complete and total separation of church and state. Thank goodness such views are minority in this country.
     
  15. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,402
    Likes Received:
    353
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yeah, let's march around the town square absolutely condemning the idea of building inspectors going into churches and telling them the wiring needs replacing or they don't have adequate emergency exits. Churches should never, under any circumstances whatsoever, pay the fee for sanitation or have garbage bins for city pickups. And if a criminal suspect were to run and hide in a church, law enforcement have absolutely no authority to enter that church looking for him, for their government-mandated authority absolutely forbids any contact whatsoever with a church. And it's ridiculously inane for a church to withhold taxes from a staff employee's earnings to pay to the government-- who does church staff work for? the church or the state? Incredibly stupid is ANY contact or relation between a church and any branch of government. Kennedy (not to mention Maggie) was right-- an America where the separation between church and state is ABSOLUTE!!!!
     
    #35 Alcott, Nov 22, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2007
  16. Allan

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,902
    Likes Received:
    5
    Again, The fact a case was NEVER brought for such a duration of time SHOULD tell you something.

    Now just so you know, I am NOT contending all the ones I cited and the others I did not cite, did not remain unchanged at all for almost 200 years. Some were changed within 60 or so years to not be so specific but to still maintain at least a religious (deistic) view to speak for those OF religous views. (to remove those of religious views is to remove the main or greater part of our voice in our Nation) Some after 100 years or so did remove the wording to a more secular wording, but most did not suffer a change until the early 1900's and even then the last one to be changed was not until the 1960's. The problem I'm saying is that the Government did not interfere with State policy until the 1960's, and since then it has grown steadily to the controlling of our state, down to our Religious views. It (our government) is becoming that which it intended to remove us from.

    It depends on what 'test' means?


    You ignoracne on this point is ASTOUNDING!!!!

    Baptists have been against a Church run state and or a State run church, NOT that religious views MUST BE seperate from government. That is stupidity!!
     
    #36 Allan, Nov 22, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2007
  17. Bro. James

    Bro. James Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,130
    Likes Received:
    59
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "Gobbledegook" of some founding fathers:

    That G. Washington was an F&AM is readily apparent. He even makes reference to "great author of the heavens", the Masonic GAOTU. George was a deist--not necessarily a follower of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Our first president had others in high places in his fraternity.

    Where is Jesus, the Christ, found in any of this? The word: protestant is used. This excludes: Catholics, true Baptists and Mormons--all of whom consider themselves Christian.

    Someone is confused.

    The word: Christian, has become muddled in the fog of ecumenism. "The DISCIPLES were called Christian first at Antioch." Do we need to define our terms again?

    Will the real Christians please stand up.?

    Thank the Lord for the freedom of conscience to believe or not believe whatever we think, less anarchy, outside the auspices of a state religion. Curiously, the religion of presidential candidates is an issue to many of the body politic--in a not so subtle way. It seems to make a difference what kind of Christianity one professes.

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  18. Allan

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,902
    Likes Received:
    5
    That is the point. This was not created to BE a Christian Nation but it was based on many biblical principles.

    G. Washington can not be proven to be a deist. It can be speculated because he didn't bring to much of his beliefs into the forefront. But that does not make him NOT a Christian. I will not say one way or another but the quotes are to show religion was seen as important to be held in our view of Government.

    Again, No one is making the statement the Nation was created to BE a Christian Nation.
     
  19. Bro. James

    Bro. James Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,130
    Likes Received:
    59
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Government by Biblical principles?

    Jehovah did not allow many gods for Israel. He did allow the Gentiles space to repent their abominations. The flood of Noah and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are examples of His longsuffering having a limit.

    Jesus,(Jehovah in the flesh), excludes all religions save His-- John 14:6. He does allow space to repent. The majority of the religious world is not Christian.

    The point of the religious freedom issue is that the state has not the right to dictate matters of conscience in the realm called religion.

    This matter was hotly debated during the writing of the U.S. Constitution. There was not a clear majority on the matter--kind of like abortion. The issue is fairly simple: no tax supported church is allowed. This in effect limits the power of the prevailing religious view, Salt Lake City and Baltimore notwithstanding.

    The State has nothing to do with matters of religious conscience. It matters not what form of pagan idolatry Constantine foisted on his banner some 1700 years ago.

    Whether G. Washington defined himself as a Deist or not, may be debatable. The fact of his references to GAOTU certainly would certainly add credibility to the argument that he was.

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
    #39 Bro. James, Nov 22, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2007
  20. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, the ad hominem attack...the last refuge of one without an argument. Attack the person rather than defend your point. By the way, it is spelled "ignorance". :laugh:

    Also, personal attacks are against board rules. I have not attacked you, so simmer down. This is not something to get all emotional over.

    After your last comment, this one is absolutely hilarious.
     
Loading...