The Founders Believed that it was Required

We have been conditioned today into believing that in the United States of America there is a wall between the church and the government — “The Separation of Church and State” — as it is now called.  Further we are told that this comes from our founding documents so it must be true — but is it? In searching those documents we find that those words or any derivation of them do not appear in any of the founding documents. But we also know that the use of the words God or the Creator (used inter-changeably here) and a fundamental belief in God was very important to the founders and that they reference God a lot in their writing and God was very prominent in all the public buildings; Federal, State and Local until after World War II. So how did we get from a nation founded on the belief in God to a secular state that can’t even acknowledging the existence of God?

Much, but not all, of this change can be traced to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its influence on the legal system up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court.  The ACLU was founded by Crystal Eastman, Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles (an interesting fact is that Nelles has ties to what becomes the infamous ‘Students for a Democratic Society’  from the 60’s) who were all avid socialists and in all probability, communists at heart, if not in practice.  It could be said that they used their beliefs in what is called social justice today, to destroy the influence of religion since religion was deemed to be bad by Karl Marx, the founder of the principles of communism and the precursor of modern socialism.  Since the communist movement was very strong when these three were growing up this is a likely connection. Why else would so many of the court cases promoted by the ACLU be used to drive a wedge between the religious people of this country and their government; especially in the public schools of the country? The result is that ever since shortly after the end of WW II, we have been moving away from God.  God is no longer “fashionable”.

By what logic could this transformation be done? There must have been something that those wishing to change the American System found to give them an opportunity to make the change they desired. And there was; in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a Baptist Association he wrote: “… 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 & State.” Jefferson reflected his frequently as a speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.

Jefferson in his misused reference was of course referring to the national or federal government which was proscribed in the First Amendment to not interfere with religion and specifically not establish a “state” religion.  This Amendment, part of the ‘Bill-of Rights,’ was written to keep the federal government out of the states and local communities where they, the local government could do as they pleased.  Meaning the people there could have their local government participate in religious activities without being dictated to, one way or the other, by the federal government.  Since for almost 200 years this principle held and the federal government used religion itself although non denominational it is hard to see how this has been turned around to what we have today.  We are constantly hearing how some religious item such as the Ten Commandments are being removed from public buildings as being offensive to the citizens. How did they get there then and be there for so long? Further if the founding fathers didn’t agree with how this issue was handled in the first few decades of the republic they would have changed something; since they did not this is prima fascia evidence that the ‘new’ interpretation is false.

However, with the ACLU now in full get religion out of the government mode they used Jefferson’s comments, out of context, to argue a case at United States Supreme Court and they were successful in 1947 by a 5 to 4 ruling in the Everson vs Board of Education case in stopping a state from using public funds for transporting student to a faith based school. The result of this ruling is directly responsibly for all that followed.

This view is absurd on face — since we know that in political theory the belief in a Supreme Being was a major requirement to have a viable Democratic Republic. This view is in all the political writing of the eighteenth century and very clearly stated by those writers for example Adam Smith and John Lock since only a moral (religious) people could vote for representatives to their legislative bodies and end up having representatives that were moral. In most societies dating back to earliest recorded history, people got their sense of morality from religion.  Therefore, if we did not have morality in public life, the representatives we elect would become corrupt and the government would become oppressive.  We see this corruption happening now in our country and it is my opinion that this is a direct result of removing God from the public conscious and in fact making belief in any God a target for ridicule and cheap humor by politicians and certainly those in the media and entertainment industry.

So, that gives us the basis for the rest of this discussion on God and Government and why the two cannot be separated in the sense that it now is; that is if we are to continue to remain a free people.

At the core, there are only two kinds of governments.  The first is based on the existence of a “creator”, or prime mover.    The second is purely secular and proposes a “random spontaneous life” argument. Monarchies, democracies, republics and dictatorships, free markets, communism and fascism all have their roots in one of these systems.  But first we need to understand the basis for where the law used to govern us originates.

After reading many books and other material on government: John Lock, Adman Smith, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Pain, Thomas Hobbes, Charles-Louis Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to name a few, we find that some basic principles as to God and Government can be developed.  I have drawn my conclusions and beliefs from these writings and present my interpretation below. However, any mistakes in interpreting their views are entirely of my own invention.  Due to time and space restrictions, I have regrettably omitted many others philosophers and scholars that have contributed over centuries to the principle views held during the eighteenth century when our country was founded.  I mean them no disrespect and it’s only my late coming to this subject that prevents me from a more complete listing.

The first form of government is that which is based on natural law and natural law is that which man can see in nature, though the use of reason, because the Creator, God, put it there when he created the universe.  Man in the state of nature (meaning there is no government) is sovereign in himself; in that he has made no oath to serve another man nor entered into any compact to share that power so he alone can control what he does or does not do.  This is what gives the meaning to the sovereign which is simply put that there is no law above the person that has the sovereign. Therefore this man in nature has the sovereign power and it must come directly from God.  He is his own master free to do as he pleases within the framework of what the creator made available to him.

In this state of nature with no government all men are therefore equal and they control their own lives, what they do or don’t do. They do everything they do in the belief that it is in their self interest to provide for their existence (food, water, shelter etc).  But men soon found that two could do more than one and three more than two and so they would share the fruits of their combined labor in some agreed upon manner.  This might work for one or two or even three men but in a larger group of men, who would decide on the division of labor and division of the fruits of their labors?  In all probability the strongest and/or the smartest would get the others to cede power and authority.

At that point what is called a ‘social contract’ was formed, and since protection would be one of the primary goals of this contract, that was typically the reason that this person was given the right of leadership.  In so doing, individuals had effectively transferred their sovereign to that leader and he now held ‘only’ what they had given him by consent.  By the early eighteenth century it was thought that once the sovereign was given to a leader, it stayed with that leader or his heirs permanently.  However starting with the Magna Carta and solidifying in the mid 18^th century other ideas became prominent and they were very different.  The new belief was that if those that made the laws (called the magistrates) did not serve the people, then the people had the right to take back the sovereign power and form a new government. The historical logic and writing of this is a bit more complex than what I present here but in general that is the core principle. The US War of Independence and French Revolution, although very different, are prime examples.

From this line of thought comes our Declaration of Independence and the first two paragraphs are shown next.  I have added bold to the key provisions.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

What follows next in the Declaration is a listing of the grievances which aren’t necessary for this discussion, and so we skip to the last paragraph.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

From this we can state the following, in the Creator based form of governance:

ONE. There is a Creator — a God that created the universe and all that is in it.

TWO. The Creator gives us our rights through natural law, such as: the right to life, liberty and property. These rights being God given cannot be taken away.

THREE. We cede the administration of those rights by our government in return for the government’s agreement to protect us and insure equal justice.

FOUR. The agreement between the People and the government is the social contract and in our case is embodied in the Constitution.

FIVE. The proof of the above is in the oath of office of elected office holders and military personnel, especially the officer corps.  They swear an oath to defend the Constitution, not the government.

SIX. Therefore the sovereign that the people possess resides not in the government but in the Constitution itself.

SEVEN. The People cannot give the government what they did not have and so a government based on the sovereign given by the people cannot do anything that the people did not specifically give the government or that they had in their power to give.

EIGHT. The Constitution can only be changed by the process defined within it and so since a procedure for change is contained in the document there can be no justification for interpreting in anyway other than the way it was originally written.  It is a living document.  However, only the people can change it, not the legislators the executives or the judges. A Constitutional change can be made by a 2/3’s vote of approval of the various States so the people can change their government any time if they desire.

NINE. If a politician does not follow his oath to defend the Constitution and in fact states that he believes that it is no longer valid, he has broken his oath and must be removed from office.  The procedure for doing this is impeachment.

TEN. If the government does not follow the guidelines of the Constitution it is the duty of the citizens either to elect new representatives or to form a new government.

This then is the basis of our form of government which is called a Federal Republic or sometimes a Constitutional Republic.  We are a federation of states with elected representatives and they govern based on the limits of power we have given them as defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  It was assumed that those elected would be believers in God, primarily Christians of any of the various denominations.  Since the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles for a Judeo-Christian people, The Constitution as written would only work for a society with those values.  If the People’s beliefs have changed then the form of the government would have to change as well — this would be a fundamental change.

The other form of government is very different. This form is not based on a belief in God but is purely secular in nature. This is not to say that the people don’t have religion, only that it plays no part in their government.  In this form the sovereign resides in the government and how it got there matters not.  There may be elections and there may not be, but one thing is common and that is that there is a “ruling class” and a “class that is ruled”.  Those in power come from the historical vestiges of wars, revolutions, dynasties, feudal societies or wealth.  The common man may or may not live reasonably well but he is the common man and a change in class status is uncommon and unlikely.

Typically in these governments the documents that form the government are not fixed nor are they based on natural law.  This means that those that rule can change anything they desire for any reason they desire.  They can do this because there are no real limits placed on them as might exist in a true Constitutional government.  Their usual oaths of office are to swear allegiance to the primary ruler; be it a King, Queen, Emperor or Party Leader.  You can see that if an oath is given to the ruler then there is no recourse available if that leader turns bad.  An oath is an oath and must be honored.

In this form of government the people have no real power, the rulers are hand picked from among those in the ruling class and the government appoints a much higher percentage of the workers in the legislative branches and local administrators in the various functions of government.  This is not to say that these people are oppressed or without any benefits, for that is not the case in most governments today.  But the amount of true freedom they have depends on the exact form of their government which can be a social democracy an aristocratic democracy and or one of the other forms such as would be found in a communist state or even a monarchy or a dictatorship.  Outside the United States this is the form most other people live under.

In any event, they have no God given rights of any kind, only those rights that the state and its ruler allows them to have; today meaning ‘Positive Rights’ as exposed by our current president. These forms of government are not stable.  They may last for a hundred years but few last much longer without some form of revolution or civil war that changes the form of that government. Some would say that we had a civil war so why are we different?

The difference is that the issue of slavery was put aside initially to gain freedom from the British Crown.  Because slavery, which was common in the world, (in fact the word Slave comes from Slav, due to the fact that in the Middle Ages a vast number of Europeans were regularly taken into slavery by raiding Ottomans’ and Arabs and carted off to Africa and the Middle East) was an anathema to a system based on freedom, there was considerable opposition to it that needed to be resolved before the new country could move forward. This was largely resolved by the Civil War, although cultural artifacts remained for years afterward.  Further, the essential form of our government did not change.

From this we can state the following in the Secular form of governance:

ONE. There may or may not be a Creator, but whether there is or not is not material to the governance of man.

TWO. Once a government is formed by a people, that government has ‘all’ the sovereign power and can make any laws that it choices to.

THREE. Therefore there is no ‘real’ limit to the power of this form of government.

Four. Whether there is a founding document or not is not relevant in this form of government since the government has the absolute sovereign which can not be taken back other than by a revolution.

Five. All the rights of the people come from the government and are only what it allows them to have.

SIX. In most if not all cases the public servants swear an oath to the head of the government not to their founding documents.

SEVEN. Further, since there is no direct link to a creator there are no natural laws and without natural laws there are no fixed morals.  This is called moral relativism.

EIGHT. Without a moral base there is no way to measure good or evil and without a way to measure good and evil a leader or ruler can justify any action they desire in that it is only his opinion as to what is good for the country that counts.

NINE. The lack of a frame of reference for the morals of the people in this form of government mean that at some point the government will become oppressive.

TEN. In these kinds of governments there is strong trend to a state of minimum personal freedom.

So in summary, we have the first model of governance which allocates power in this order: God, the individual, then government. We have a second model, Secular Governance, which allocates power first to the government then to the individual.  In the first form God is the primary source of power and in the second form the government is the primary source of power.  Since we know from thousands of years of history that men can be corrupted, and they often are, why would anyone want a government based solely on the wishes of what a man would want?

Some would say today that we are an enlightened people now and the old ways of the founders and the restraints of our constitution are no loner needed.  To them I say they are wrong.  History has repeated itself many times with great republics formed and then lost to the corruption of men and their government.  There can be no rational basis for this belief other than one of our ignorance of history.

We can either believe in the ways of Christ, which were non violent in the New Testament and can be summed up in the statement, “Do onto others as you would have them do unto you” or you can have a belief that men can make better rules of living and behavior then those of nature’s Creator.  You can either believe in God or believe in man as the source of understanding, but not both.

The Founders believed in a Christian God as found in our Bible.  The government they established was one that had those beliefs at its core.  Being men we are not perfect and so neither was our conduct neither in the formation of the country nor in the application of our government.  However, despite our faults and misdirection in our Constitution we formed the best system yet devised by man.  And, during the debate on the form of that document, a major impasse came to be with arguments back and forth and hard positions being taken.   With no compromises possible Benjamin Franklin proposed that they all pray to God for guidance.  They all went to a nearby church and did as he suggested.  Coming back the mood was completely changed and compromises to the things that separated them were found.  In short order thereafter we had the Constitution; so was this the work of God or do we want to believe that it was pure chance?  Given the results of what that divinely inspired document produced, at least until now, it is clear that we were destined to be a force of good in the world — the Beacon of Freedom that all looked to for guidance.  We do not need to be fundamentally changed.

Ronald Reagan, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”