FAITH OF THE FOUNDERS

[Daystar]

One of the most debated issues about the birth of our nation is what it was founded upon. I suggest that it was indeed founded by godly men who would not have objected to such things as the public posting of the Ten Commandments, or the Pledge of Allegiance or prayer in a classroom. What say ye?

[ST88]

One of the most debated issues about the birth of our nation is what it was founded upon. I suggest that it was indeed founded by godly men who would not have objected to such things as the public posting of the Ten Commandments, or the Pledge of Allegiance or prayer in a classroom. What say ye?

There is no doubt that the Founders of America were religious men whose religion informed their view of the world.

However, they understood that the endorsement of one religion over another should not be a role of government. Even if they were not aware of other religions that were not Judeo-Christian at the time, they recognized that religious dogma of any religion should not be codified in law.

It's probably true that they would not have objected to posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms or any other displays of Judeo-Christianity, but isn't it curious that they did not indicate that was their wish in the Constitution? In my opinion, they recognized that government-sponsored religious objects, ideas, and/or tokens were dangerous when abused and non-beneficial when not abused. Regardless of their own personal beliefs, they sought to create a founding document that did not include references to those beliefs without accompanying logical argument.

[Jose]

I think you're right. It's important to keep this in mind.

But, I bet they would have objected strongly to posting the equivalent (if there is one) from a different religion. Of course, we have to remember that they lived at a time when alternate explanations for natural phenomena were few, and religion was more deeply ingrained in everyone's lives. Religious teachings were really the only explanation for many things. It was also a time when the nation was more homogeneous than it is now, both by being smaller and by having immigrants from fewer other countries. So, given their strong belief in religious freedom (due in no small part to the fleeing of religious repression in Europe), they might well have thought differently today. You know, agree not to display the symbols of their own personal faith in order to do the greater good of allowing all faiths equal opportunity to flourish.

[Daystar]

One of the most debated issues about the birth of our nation is what it was founded upon. I suggest that it was indeed founded by godly men who would not have objected to such things as the public posting of the Ten Commandments, or the Pledge of Allegiance or prayer in a classroom. What say ye?

There is no doubt that the Founders of America were religious men whose religion informed their view of the world.

However, they understood that the endorsement of one religion over another should not be a role of government. Even if they were not aware of other religions that were not Judeo-Christian at the time, they recognized that religious dogma of any religion should not be codified in law.

[Day] You're right on on count #1, but wrong on count #2. The founders did not oppose the INFLUENCE of religion in goverment, rather the INSTITUTION (a specific church or denomination). the following show what the founders intended by the first amendment:

JAMES MADISON (1751-1836) – Co-author of the Constitution and President:

Madison proposed the initial wording for the establishment clause: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established….”

“People feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.” Clearly, Madison had a “national” religion (denomination) in mind as noted above.

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1743-1826) - Secretary of State and President:

“The clause of the Constitution which, while it secured freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they rightly believe.” Jefferson was talking about the Establishment Clause, and over his dead body would he allow the Government to favor or establish one Christian denomination over another.

ANNALS OF CONGRESS from June 7, 1789 to Sept. 25, 1789:

The records show that, “Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that “Congress should not establish a religion….Mr. Madison thought if the word “national” was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen….He thought if the word “national” was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.”

GEORGE MASON (1725-1792) – Father of the Bill of Rights:

“All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion….and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.”

CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION, Jan. 19, 1853:

“The [First Amendment] clause speaks of “an establishment of religion.” What is meant by that expression? It referred, no doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother country….They (the Founders) intended, by this amendment, to prohibit an “establishment of religion such as the English church presented, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people.” (25)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Mar. 27, 1854:

“Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination].” (

JOSEPH STORY (1779-1845) - Supreme Court Justice:

“We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity, which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution…The real object of the [First Amendment] was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.” (27) – Emphasis added.

It's probably true that they would not have objected to posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms or any other displays of Judeo-Christianity, but isn't it curious that they did not indicate that was their wish in the Constitution? In my opinion, they recognized that government-sponsored religious objects, ideas, and/or tokens were dangerous when abused and non-beneficial when not abused.

[Day] Can you site one founder who expressed this sentiment?

Regardless of their own personal beliefs, they sought to create a founding document that did not include references to those beliefs without accompanying logical argument.

[Day] Right. The Constitution was designed as the guidelines for Republican government. Yet, the free sppech and establsihment clauses of the first amendment were put there to protect Federal involvment with the religious affairs of the states. Jefferson particularly was adamant about this.

[Jose]

Day--

You are right that their immediate intent was to prevent domination by one sect. It probably never occurred to them that a time would come when we would have vast numbers of immigrants from non-Christian countries, or that Christianity would not prevail over all.

If we were to extend your argument logically, we would conclude that we should not establish one sect of Christianity above any other. That's clear. But, if the Establishment Clause pertains only to the diversity of Christianities, and excludes the very concept of non-Christian religions, then we should be free to establish Buddhism or Islam as the national religion. I'd bet that the general populace, Christians in particular, would then rally behind the Establishment Clause as prohibiting any religion.

[ST88]

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Mar. 27, 1854:

“Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination].” (

JOSEPH STORY (1779-1845) - Supreme Court Justice:

“We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity, which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution…The real object of the [First Amendment] was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.” (27) – Emphasis added.

These opinions only show what seemed evident to people at the time. Clearly, the Constitution has validity in any religious context, including that of no religion. And, in all truthfulness, I fail to see what the statements of the Founders themselves have to do with the interpretation of Constitution. I have heard the argument often that we should go to some second source, like The Federalist Papers, in order to interpret our Constitution, but I don't see why we have to do that. The document should be able to speak for itself. Would the nation be able to function with just the document, without the back story to the Constitution? Only for staunch conservatives who think that the Constitution is a black box whose designer we need to interview in order to find out what's going on inside -- in lieu of taking off the case to see what's inside for ourselves. We may refer to them for context, but in my opinion, we shouldn't defer to them for interpretation.

The simple fact is that we live in vastly different times. The Founders (or Framers as they are often called) wrote the document, they didn't attempt to codify their diaries, their letters, their speeches, or any additional writings as addendums to the Constitution. To anyone who wants to know what the country means, or how it runs, or what makes it exist, I say RTFM.

It's probably true that they would not have objected to posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms or any other displays of Judeo-Christianity, but isn't it curious that they did not indicate that was their wish in the Constitution? In my opinion, they recognized that government-sponsored religious objects, ideas, and/or tokens were dangerous when abused and non-beneficial when not abused.

Can you site one founder who expressed this sentiment?

No, I can't. Nor do I need to. Why would I quote one founder to substatiate something like this when the document was written by a multitude of them? RTFM. It's just my opinion as to the interpretation of the document.

The establishment clause is there so as to not promote religion.

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

No discussion of sects or of any specific religion. The word is just religion. Different people may interpret this in different ways, and that's why we vote.

[Daystar]

Day--

You are right that their immediate intent was to prevent domination by one sect. It probably never occurred to them that a time would come when we would have vast numbers of immigrants from non-Christian countries, or that Christianity would not prevail over all.

If we were to extend your argument logically, we would conclude that we should not establish one sect of Christianity above any other. That's clear. But, if the Establishment Clause pertains only to the diversity of Christianities, and excludes the very concept of non-Christian religions, then we should be free to establish Buddhism or Islam as the national religion.

[Day] While Christianity was predominant, I'm sure the founders would have had even greater resistance to any non-Christian religion as an establishment. Recall what Joseph Stroy said: "The real object of the [First Amendment] was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

[Daystar]

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Mar. 27, 1854:

“Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination].” (

JOSEPH STORY (1779-1845) - Supreme Court Justice:

“We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity, which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution…The real object of the [First Amendment] was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.” (27) – Emphasis added.

These opinions only show what seemed evident to people at the time. Clearly, the Constitution has validity in any religious context, including that of no religion. And, in all truthfulness, I fail to see what the statements of the Founders themselves have to do with the interpretation of Constitution.

[Day] I would say that the founder's ideology (and theology) should be consulted in clarifying the intent of the first amendment because they understood the importance, even necessity, for a religious and moral foundation as the only structure that would prosper a nation. That was not up for debate in their minds. Take away that foundation and societies, communities and nations ultimately collapse.

I have heard the argument often that we should go to some second source, like The Federalist Papers, in order to interpret our Constitution, but I don't see why we have to do that.

[Day] The only think pertinent here is the interpretation of the first amendment which there is very little of in the Federalists papers. But there is enough writings, such as those listed here, that clearly outline the intent of the first amendment and its role in matters of religion. Anything beyond that is taking it where it doesn't belong. It has been the secular courts and such groups as the ACLU that thave turned the first amendment upside down.

The document should be able to speak for itself. Would the nation be able to function with just the document, without the back story to the Constitution? Only for staunch conservatives who think that the Constitution is a black box whose designer we need to interview in order to find out what's going on inside -- in lieu of taking off the case to see what's inside for ourselves. We may refer to them for context, but in my opinion, we shouldn't defer to them for interpretation.

[Day] Again, I'm only concerned with the first amendment in this particular thread and why I believe its intent should remain what the founders intended which was to keep the government out of the religious affairs of the states and preclude the establishment of a national denomination.

The simple fact is that we live in vastly different times. The Founders (or Framers as they are often called) wrote the document, they didn't attempt to codify their diaries, their letters, their speeches, or any additional writings as addendums to the Constitution. To anyone who wants to know what the country means, or how it runs, or what makes it exist, I say RTFM.

[Day] Times may change, but there are some things set in constitutional concrete. And that is the federal government must not invovle itself in the religious affairs of the states or establish a national religion. The facts are that the government has indeed stepped in and told the states what they can and cannot do concerning such affairs.

It's probably true that they would not have objected to posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms or any other displays of Judeo-Christianity, but isn't it curious that they did not indicate that was their wish in the Constitution? In my opinion, they recognized that government-sponsored religious objects, ideas, and/or tokens were dangerous when abused and non-beneficial when not abused.

Can you site one founder who expressed this sentiment?

No, I can't. Nor do I need to.

[Day] Oh but I think you do. Today's church/state separatists argue what the founders believed concerning religion. If we accept the philosophies of the founders then why shouldn't we apply them to our Republic as they did back then?

Why would I quote one founder to substatiate something like this when the document was written by a multitude of them?

[Day] Right and it was the multitude of them that were in general agreement over such things as keeping the federal government out of religion in the states. Thomas Jefferson, in particular, expressed strong sentiments about this, esp. in the Kentucky Resolution.

RTFM. It's just my opinion as to the interpretation of the document.

The establishment clause is there so as to not promote religion.

[Day] Not to promote a "denomination," yes, but they had no reservations about encouraging and promoting the influence of Biblical principles.
There is a huge difference in promoting the INSTITUTION vs. the INFLUENCE.

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

No discussion of sects or of any specific religion. The word is just religion. Different people may interpret this in different ways, and that's why we vote.

[Day] Quite true, but in the founding era, religion had particular reference to sect or denomination. Madison wanted this specifically mentioned in the establishment clause. But the final wording exlcuded it. Nevertheless, it is clear from their writings that the founders had sect or denomination in mind when they framed the amendment as noted in my first message.

[nikolayevich]

[Day] Quite true, but in the founding era, religion had particular reference to sect or denomination. Madison wanted this specifically mentioned in the establishment clause. But the final wording exlcuded it. Nevertheless, it is clear from their writings that the founders had sect or denomination in mind when they framed the amendment as noted in my first message.

Daystar, please quote simply the parts to which you respond and not the entire text of the previous post. It makes the thread more redundant than necessary.

[ST88]

[Day] I would say that the founder's ideology (and theology) should be consulted in clarifying the intent of the first amendment because they understood the importance, even necessity, for a religious and moral foundation as the only structure that would prosper a nation. That was not up for debate in their minds. Take away that foundation and societies, communities and nations ultimately collapse.

I don't think the nation would collapse if any reference to religion -- specifically to religion -- was wiped clean from all areas of government. Religion is not the binding force of society that you seem to think it is. I would argue the opposite, that it serves to divide people and societies based on unprovable assumptions about human nature. The binding force it uses is fear of these others who do not believe these same things they do. Fear is not a great foundation to build a society upon.

[Day]The only think pertinent here is the interpretation of the first amendment which there is very little of in the Federalists papers. But there is enough writings, such as those listed here, that clearly outline the intent of the first amendment and its role in matters of religion. Anything beyond that is taking it where it doesn't belong. It has been the secular courts and such groups as the ACLU that thave turned the first amendment upside down.

In my opinion, there is no "upside down" when it comes to the First Amendement. Either you interpret the words or you interpret the comments of those who wrote them.

[Day] Times may change, but there are some things set in constitutional concrete.

I believe this is wrong. The Constitution may be changed by the amendment process. This tells me that it was created with the intent of allowing it to change. I would even doubt their certainty as to how well the system they set up would work, which is another reason for the amendment process.

Can you site one founder who expressed this sentiment?

No, I can't. Nor do I need to.

[Day] Oh but I think you do. Today's church/state separatists argue what the founders believed concerning religion. If we accept the philosophies of the founders then why shouldn't we apply them to our Republic as they did back then?

Just because there are people who believe we should consult the Founders' opinions now doesn't mean that this is the correct way of interpreting the Constitution. The only way we should accept the Founders' philosophies -- as per the Constitution -- is via the Constitution. The current interpretation need not be the same interpretation as that of earlier times, such as the "three-fifths" voting rule. These archaic ideas either no longer apply or appear different to us in the clear light of the 21st century.

[Day] Not to promote a "denomination," yes, but they had no reservations about encouraging and promoting the influence of Biblical principles.
There is a huge difference in promoting the INSTITUTION vs. the INFLUENCE.

This is a matter for political debate, not Constitutional debate. The words mean what they mean, despite any ulterior motive or original intent. You can't infer "denomination" from "religion" unless you go back and find out the back story, which I argue is unnecessary. If religion was to be a part of the Republic, why aren't there lines like "Glory be to God," or even a simple "Amen"?


The Declaration of Independence references a "Creator" so clearly they had no problem writing about it, why didn't they include it in the official charter for the country? I gather you would argue that we have to view what they really meant by this from their various writings, believing that Constitution is a translucent window which we must look beyond in order to get at the truth. That's fine for your purposes, but I think you're missing the pattern in the glass, the actual artifact that was created specifically for that purpose.

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

[Day]in the founding era, religion had particular reference to sect or denomination. Madison wanted this specifically mentioned in the establishment clause. But the final wording exlcuded it. Nevertheless, it is clear from their writings that the founders had sect or denomination in mind when they framed the amendment as noted in my first message.

Standing on your side of the issue for the moment, why was that part of the clause excluded? Not that it makes any difference to my argument, but I'm curious.

And even if we take this original definition of "religion" at the Founder's level of knowledge, do we necessarily have to follow that in our present condition? The Constitution is malleable. It is what we say it is -- not in some dadaist sense that we can say that anything is anything, but in a populist sense as a document whose meaning is something that observers can agree upon.