Before the U.S. Constitution was written, what was the government in the United States? It was the Articles of Confederation, ratified by the States this day, March 1st, 1781. Signed by such statesmen as Ben Franklin and Roger Sherman, it was an attempt to loosely knit the thirteen States together.
The Articles of Confederation declared:
Whereas the delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of Our Lord 1777, and in the second year of the independence of America agree on certain Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between the States…
The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense…
And whereas it has pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the Legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation.”
Yes, our founding fathers were Christians. Yes, they believed in God. But they were also all too familiar with the unfortunate consequences of religious intolerance and persecution.
They wrote the Constitution to protect the right of individuals to practice their religion and express their religious beliefs, but also to protect them from having the religious beliefs of others imposed upon them by their government.
If a Federal Judge wants to hang a copy of the ten commandments in his chambers, this is a constitutionally protected form of religious expression. If that same judge wants to hang that same copy of the ten commandments in a public venue where he acts as a representative of the government than this represents an uncontitutional imposition of religious beliefs by the government.
We will see if the Supreme Court agrees with me in a few hours.
Please explain: How does the posting of the Ten Commandments impose a specific religious belief system on someone? And what specific religious belief system is being imposed?
Dan – Lets turn it around. How would YOU feel about standing in a US Courtroom looking at a prominent display of passages from the Koran hung on the wall by a judge who is strongly influenced by Islamic beliefs?
Not speaking for Dan, but I would think (not “feel”) that a Koran on the wall indicates that my judgement would be based on laws drawing from an Islamic moral foundation. With the Ten Commandments on the wall I would think (again, not “feel”) that my judgment would be drawn from a Judeo-Christian moral foundation.
Which one would you prefer?
Dean, values don’t arise in a vacuum. The reason we think murder is wrong for example, is because of the Seventh Commandment. In cultures where the prohibition doesn’t exist, some murders are tolerated (Islamic honor killings for example), and others not. These values are drawn from religion before they are codified in law.
In Western culure, religion is not law (as in Islamic theocracies), but the moral foundation of law. Displaying the Ten Commandments is not the “imposition” of religion, but the explanation from where the moral values that delineate right from wrong, and hopefully adjudicated justly in the courts, are drawn.
Religion is much more than a private affair. It’s the shaper of cultures, societies, even civilizations.
I just read the Justices questions to the arguing attorneys and it seems they are going in the direction that Dan alluded to:
At what point do references to God, as well as displays or symbols inspired by religion, rise to the level of state-imposition of religion. Do we need to eradicate all references to God from our civil proceedings? Or can those references be so mild that no threat of state-imposition of religion results?
My concern was that we are not trying to protect people from Judeo-Christian values, but protect minorities from having to accept the religious beliefs of majorities, regardless of who they are, because we recognize that over time minorities may become majorities and visa-versa.
Western culture is Judeo/Christian. Religious minorities will have to accept that, just as Jews and Christians must accept it in Moslem countries.
Trying to strip the public square of any religious reference merely replaces the received precepts with different ones, often under the guise of “neutrality.” Yet there is no such thing as religious neutrality. Even secularism has its moral precepts. Like Pope John Paul II said recently, using democracy to strip the rights of others (in such actions as abortion and euthanasia) is actually a betrayal of democracy. Democracy, IOW, depends on the Judeo/Christian moral tradition in order that the freedom it offers is indeed free. Once the culture drifts from these moral moorings, freedom is redefined and tyranny can arise in the name of freedom.
It really makes me angry when a simple question is asked and the Left changes the subject. Dean, ANSWER MY QUESTION! Don’t divert the discussion. Let me repeat it for you since you seemed to miss it: What specific religious belief system is being imposed?
Suppose the following list was put up in solid granite within the walls of a federal institution:
1. There is no God except one God
2. There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him
3. Make not God’s name an excuse to your oaths
4. Be kind to your parents if one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not a word of contempt nor
repel them but address them in terms of honor.
5. As for the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands, but those who repent After a crime and reform shall be
forgiven by God for God is forgiving and kind.
6. They invoke a curse of God if they lie.
7. If anyone has killed one person it is as if he had killed the whole mankind
8. Do not come near adultery. It is an indecent deed and a way for other evils.
9. Do good to your parents, relatives and neighbors.
10. When the call for Prayer is made, hasten to the remembrance of God and leave off your business.
Okay, with the exception of the cutting off of the hands thing (which is substituted with stoning in the Old Testament which is fatal), I’d say that these are generic laws of morality grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics.
In fact, these are from the Koran. Now, suppose we pasted this list in a federal building with the Koran’s chapter and verse. Even though it’s pretty much just a paraphrasing of the Decalogue, would it feel like an imposition now? Why or why not?
***
Yes, democracy owes a debt to men who, for the most part, had some faith in a Supreme Being. I don’t find the concepts of free enterprise, the freedoms of speech, the press, the right to bear arms, etc as being particularly Christian, and they’re certainly not Scriptural as far as I can tell, since while Scripture mandates that a government be “just”, it’s pretty mute regarding the degree to which it should govern men’s lives. The idea of the popular vote predates Christ, as well (back to Athens and the early Greek city-states).
Note 9
The Koran is a plagiarism of Christianity and Judaism. The Koran appropriates and distorts much of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. There is growing archeological research which suggests that the earliest extant manuscripts of Koran were in fact derivate works by heretical Christian authors, rather than a unified manuscript created at roughly one point in history. The linguistic scholar from Germany who is preparing a major new book on the subject has been subjected to death threats from Muslims, of course.
James K, Brush Up On Your Legal History
Our Founding Fathers believed that the sources of human rights was God, not man. Their entire worldview was formed by the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures and the Western intellectual tradition. Communists, do not believe that human rights are granted by God.
If you look at the criminal codes of the various states you will find many phrases taken directly from the Old Testament. One definition of pre-meditated murder uses the phrase “lying in wait.” You will find similar language in the Old Testament. The various categories of theft used today in the United States parallel the classifications of theft found in the old Testament.
The English colonies were governed under English Common law before the revolution. After the revolution the Founding Fathers kept most of the English Common law in place and added the Constitution as the governing superstructure. The English Common law was developed in a theocracy, England, which still has an established Church. The worldview of the creators of the English Common law was Christian. It was based on a Universe ultimately governed by God. The world was people with fallible human beings.
Missourian,
Some of the founders may have had at least a nominal Christian worldview, but the Constitution itself is basically an expression of Enlightenment views. Take the first line, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,”
Who is the source of power? The people. The consent of the governed is required, thus establishing the people as the ultimate power. This is an elightenment principle, not a Christian one.
Now, contrast this with the opening of the second written Constitution in history, that of Poland in 1791: “In the name of God, One in the Holy Trinity. Stanislaw August, by the grace of God and the will of the people King of Poland”
Which is the more Orthodox Christian document? Which one established God as the ultimate source of all power and authority?
It is true that the vast majority of Americans at the time of our founding were practicing Trinitarian Christians. It is also true that the majority of the men gathered in Philadelpia to frame our Constitution were not. Unlike the Declaration in which God is mentioned twice, the Constitution explicitly fails to mention God at all. This is not by accident.
At the time, of course, most Americans probably read into the Constitution an affirmation of their own Christianity, and simply concluded that their own state practices were safe from tampering. However, it is my belief, that from the very beginning the whole U.S. Constitutional experiment was bound to end in disaster. By having no religion as a measuring stick for normality, I believe that it was only a question of time before the federal government came to explicitly endorse no religion – which leads us to officially sanctioned Atheism.
Unlike most conservatives, I consider our current predicament to be the logical outcome of a flawed approach. The U.S. Constitution, unlike the Articles of Confederation, was a truly revolutionary, Enlightenment document. The primary drivers behind it were men who had no Orthodox Christian sentiments.
In that I agree with the secularists. However, I part company with them on whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing. In my opinion, the lack of explicit references to God in our Constitution is a very, very bad thing. Under the Polish Constitution, there was no question as to the foundation of the laws of the state. In the U.S., we are involved in such controversies precisely because of the weakness (from a Christian point of view) of the Constitution we live by.
I would like to see an explicit affirmation of Trinitarian Christianity as the foundation of our society. That would at least give us a starting point for creating a common culture. Without it, we are going to continue drifting along this path.
Glen is operating from the premise that our government is, in fact, not based on an explicit affirmation of Christianity but instead on ideals arising from the Age of Enlightenment (which I agree with) but goes on to propose that such an affirmation of our faith would be more desireable.
How would such a government rule, and in practical terms, what determines its foundation for what laws would be created and enforced? For example: would our currently understood concept of “sin” be the foundation for civil law and if so, which ones? In a truly “Christian” society, would we outlaw not only obvious wrongs such as murder and assault but lesser “venial” sins such as drunkenness, sloth, avarice and greed? Smoking, because it harms the body, is seen as sinful (although more so by our Protestant friends), so would/should this be outlawed? What about gambling or drinking in excess, swearing in public (or even within properly restricted films), fornication, or lying to one’s mother? Would failure to attend a worship service on Sunday or not tithing be punishable offenses? Issues of practicality (and enforceability) aside, what would be the litmus test for determining the degree of gov’t involvement in the lives of its citizens?
This only underlines my earlier statements: we believe in a concept of freedom that says that the government does not and should not really care what you do so long as what you do does not infringe upon the same freedoms of others. A more decidedly Christian government would seem to care not only about our public lives but what we do, say and think in private as well, regardless of the effect on others.
James,
The heavy lifting on these topics has already been done. Below are quotes from the document: The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church
“The law contains a certain minimum of moral standards compulsory for all members of society. The secular law has as its task not to turn the world lying in evil into the Kingdom of God, but to prevent it from turning into hell.
in the cases where the human law completely rejects the absolute divine norm, replacing it by an opposite one, it ceases to be law and becomes lawlessness, in whatever legal garments it may dress itself. For instance, the Decalogue clearly states: “Honour thy father and thy mother”(Ex. 20:12). Any secular norm that contradicts this commandment indicts not its offender but the legislator himself. In other words, the human law has never contained the divine law in its fullness, but in order to remain law it is obliged to conform to the God-established principles, rather then to erode them.
The Christian socio-public ethics demanded that a certain autonomous sphere should be reserved for man, in which his conscience might remain the “autocratic” master, for it is the free will that determines ultimately the salvation or death, the way to Christ or the way away from Christ. The right to believe, to live, to have family is what protects the inherent foundations of human freedom from the arbitrary rule of outer forces. These internal rights are complimented with and ensured by other, external ones, such as the right to free movement, information, property, to its possession and disposition.
God keeps man free, never forcing his will. Contrary to it, Satan seeks to possess the human will, to enslave it. If the law conforms to the divine truth revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ, then it also stands guard over human freedom: “Where the Spirit is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17). Therefore, it guards the inalienable rights of the personality. Those traditions, however, which do not know of the principle of the freedom of Christ, often seek to subject the human consciousness to the external will of a ruler or a collective.
The law and order of a particular country is a special version of the common worldview law characteristic of a given nation. The national law expresses the fundamental principles of relations between persons, between power and society and between institutions in accordance with the peculiarities of a given nation moving in history. The national law is imperfect, for imperfect and sinful is any nation. However, it establishes a framework for the people’s life if it translates God’s absolute truths into and adjusts them to the concrete historical and national existence.”
In short, the aim of secular law must be limited. It is to prevent a descent in to Hell, but should not be considered a method towards saving souls. Man should be free to fall into sin and error, but the law should not contradict established divine law by requiring that which a Christian can not provide. Notice the last sentence I copied above. To have a proper understanding of law requires a common worldview. Christianity can provide that. Lacking a coherent worldview, a society’s laws begin to simply disintegrate into a morass.
For example, abortion is a fundamental right, but smoking is increasingly banned. There are laws to protect cows from painful slaughter, but Terri Schiavo is going to be starved to death. The 10 Commandments are wrong to display here, but not there. “In God we Trust” is okay on money, but not a prayer at a football game. It is all piecemeal, all simply just made up. There is no coherence, no underpinning.
Sin and law are not synonyms. Many things that are sinful (prostitution, drug abuse) are legal in Orthodox countries, and should be legal everywhere. Man should be free to sin if that sin is not harmful to others.
The impulse in our current society is known as ‘Millenialism.’ It is the old heretical belief that human beings can be improved and perfected through the application of secular laws. The Pilgrims gave it a shot, and the impulse has been with us ever since. A proper, Christian understanding of secular law would lead to a more humble, less crusading approach.
Without a Christian underpinning to our legal structure, we will continue to thrash about as judges simply dictate law willy-nilly based on the prevailing whims of the moment.
Note 14: Very interesting analysis, and I agree with several aspects of it. However, this is an Orthodox perspective and our fundamentalist friends would never allow it: consider Pound, Virginia where they attempted to outlaw dancing. Every Christian sect would interpret this “Christian underpinning” differently and I’m uncertain how, short of a breakup of the Union, this would work.
In her book, “The Battle for God”, theologian Karen Armstrong discusses the historical tension between religious and secular values using the terms “mythos” and “logos”.
According to Armstrong, there are “two ways of thinking, speaking and acquiring knowledge,” which is popularly designated as the way of religion and the way of science and which scholars have called mythos and logos.” Armstrong points out that mythos, for the people of the past, was concerned with meaning, and was “thought to be timeless and constant” in human existence.” Logos was “the rational, pragmatic, and scientific thought” that enabled people to function in the world. In the pre-modern world, she suggests, mythos was regarded as primary but logos, although secondary was regarded as essential. Mythos and logos were indispensable and complimentary to each other.
http://www.tcpc.org/resources/reviews/battle_for.htm
“The roots of fundamentalism can be traced to the eighteenth century a radical shift began to take place in the ways people thought. People began to think that logos was the primary means to truth and mythos was relegated to status of irrelevance if not superstition. Thus began the conflict between science and religion that has continued over the past two centuries. It is this conflict that gave rise to fundamentalism and fuels its continuing force. In the face of the ascendancy of science (logos) as the primary avenue of truth in the modern world, fundamentalist religion has attempted to turn mythos into logos by declaring their sacred books inerrant and to be read literally, like books of science!”
Attempts to base civil laws on religious beliefs amounts to an attempt to subtitute the former for the later. In truth, we need both mythos and logos. Mythos provides us with the timeless, unchanging truths about our existence in ways that address our deepest and even subconscious hopes and fears. Logos provides us with practical tools for dealing with the problems of the every day world. Problems result when we try and substiture one for the other.
Um… Glen, why exactly should prostitution and drug abuse be legalized? Do you really think they don’t harm anyone along the way?
This is really off-topic but I just don’t know what to make of religion in America anymore …
Perhaps someone with a past in fundamentalism (Jim H?) or Calvinism can explain this mindset to me as I have never been one (a fundie): I recently came upon a blog that in all seriousness discussed whether unbaptized infants who have died are now frying in Hell. Can anyone explain what manner of psychosis afflicts these creatures that they can a)love a Being who would willingly fry infants in a vat of fire as if they were Shrimp-Ka-Bobs or b)talk of such matters with the indifference of swatting a fly?
Now, any talk about aborting an “innocent child” will send them off the rails, but the concept of frying this same “innocent child” in a big literal Lake of Fire by a supposedly benevolent and enlightened Being (for all eternity, no less) does not scandalize them in the least.
Anyone?
James,
Fr. Hans pointed out to me in a post a while back that unbaptized infants, while not in the Church, are considered to be “in Christ”.
Although it would be accurate to say that unbaptized infants are not in the Church, the Orthodox view, which I’ve witnessed, is that they are viewed closer to God than even baptized adults. It is believed as the saying that “the worship of God is perfected in the mouths of infants and babes”.
This seems to be a different anthropology than the Latin churches hold. For example, I understand that even baptized children in Latin churches don’t receive communion until a certain age. The term “pixie”, from what I hear, refers to the unbaptized souls of deceased infants in latin mythology. Strange stuff.
James, the question about whether unbaptized infants go to hell is rooted in Augustine filtered through Calvin. In the west generally, the Fall of Adam is considered a radical fall from the peak of glory to the pit of depravity. No light remains in man, no light remains in the world. Further, the guilt of Adam’s sin is passed on (“through the loins” Augustine taught), thus all who are born are guilty of sin and thus deserving of eternal punishment. Baptism washes away this guilt, thus babies not baptized still are under judgment and thus deserve hell.
In the east the view is different. The fall of Adam is not as radical. Adam was just beginning his journey into the likeness of God, and when he fell it was not into utter and dark depravity. (Take for example the passage in Genesis that has Adam hearing God’s voice even after his sin.) Adam lost the ability to grow into the likeness of God (the Holy Spirit left him), but the image of God still remained. There was something in him that still longed for God. (Calvin denies this “longing” is natural. He argues that it appears only when God “imputes” it.)
Further, the consequence of Adam’s sin that is passed from generation to generation is not guilt, but death. Adam’s sin separated man from God, and each subsequent generation is born into this separation.
Baptism restores the Holy Spirit to man. Baptism is a new birth that promises the restoration of Eden (the Kingdom of God), to those who live in Him — a life made possible by the energy and descent of the Holy Spirit that is restored to man through Christ. Baptism is really an entry into the death of Christ, and being raised in the likeness of His resurrection (Romans 6).
Babies then, aren’t consigned to hell just because they are not baptised, just people who have never heard the Gospel are not automatically consigned to hell either. Babies are probably closer to God than many baptized adults given that they have not yet tasted corruption or seek after it.