Friday, June 7, 2019

Excerpt From Seidel's "THE FOUNDING MYTH"

The following is reprinted with permission from The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American © 2019 Andrew Seidel, published by Sterling Publishing Co., Inc.





Christian nationalism has already had a massive impact on our government and its policies, including foreign policy. When Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, Christian nationalist mouthpieces on Fox News declared that he had “fulfilled . . . biblical prophecy” and related the move back to “the foundation of our own Judeo-Christian nation.” Christian nationalism affects immigration policy, as we’ve just seen. Its effects on education policy could be felt for decades, and not just because Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was a dream appointment for the Christian nationalist goal of dismantling public schools through vouchers and school choice. It has denigrated our con­cept of equality, including by meddling with the legal definition of dis­crimination and attempting to redefine religious freedom as a license to discriminate, and it has sought to restrict women’s rights and even the social safety net. And, of course, Christian nationalism features heavily in the culture wars.

Correcting the record is important. The political theology of Christian nationalism, the very identity of the Christian nationalist, depends on the myths exposed in this book. Christian nationalism’s hold on political power in America rests on the claim that America was founded as a Christian nation. Without historical support, many of their policy justifications crumble. Without their common well of myths, the Christian nationalist identity will wither and fade. Their entire political and ideological reality is incredibly weak and vulnera­ble because it is based on historical distortions and lies. In this right-wing religious culture, the lies are so commonplace, so uncritically accepted, that these vulnerabilities are not recognized. The purpose of this book is simple, if lofty: to utterly destroy the myths that underlie this un-American political ideology.
What I’m Arguing and Who I Am
This objective is particularly important because history is powerful. George Santayana’s warning that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” rings true because the past influences the present.  Unfortunately, history’s power does not depend on its accuracy. A widely believed historical lie can have as much impact as a historical truth. President John F. Kennedy explained to Yale’s graduat­ing class of 1962 that “the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. . . . We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” Powerful historical falsehoods are particularly harmful in constitutional republics such as the United States. Courts may uphold practices that would otherwise be illegal by relying on comfortable myths instead of legitimate history. Legislators might promulgate laws based on historical clichés instead of reality. Each law or court decision based on revisionist history provides a new foundation from which the myth can be expanded. The myth feeds off itself, lodging more firmly in our collective consciousness.

When James Madison protested Patrick Henry’s proposed three-penny tax to fund Christian ministers, he wrote a landmark in American history and law: the “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” (1785). Madison’s arguments overwhelmed Henry and convinced Virginians to strike down the proposed tax. Madison argued that even small, seemingly insignificant battles to uphold our rights must be fought on principle; otherwise the infringements become authority for future violations of our rights:

It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.

Because of history’s power, myths can endanger our liberty. It is our duty as citizens to guard the truth and prevent these myths from becoming tangled in legal and legislative precedents. When Christian nationalists are permitted to use the machinery of the state to impose their religion on us all, even if they do so during times when dissent is punished, these constitutional violations are remarkably tenacious. Christian nationalism operates like a ratchet or a noose, with each vio­lation tightening its hold and making it more difficult to undo. Worse, the violations are used to justify other violations, so the tightening proceeds apace.

Unfortunately, there are two Christian nationalist myths we failed to guard against. These two myths encompass all the lesser myths that Trump and Project Blitz feed into. The first is that America was founded as a Christian nation. The claim is demonstrably false as revealed by any number of documents from the time, including America’s godless Constitution, Madison’s Memorial, or the Treaty of Tripoli, which was negotiated under President George Washington and signed by Pres­ident John Adams with the unanimous consent of the US Senate in 1797, and which says that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Most people with even a modest grasp of US history, law, government, or politics can debunk this divisive fabrication.

This book does not depend on the specific language of a single treaty, however applicable it may be—“not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” is admirably clear. Nor will it focus on the first myth, that America is a Christian nation. According to Bertrand Russell, religious apologists “try to make the public forget their earlier obscurantism, in order that their present obscurantism may not be rec­ognized for what it is.” So do Christian nationalists. They abandon their earlier obscurantism, the first myth, in favor of a new one: the subtler argument that our nation is founded on Judeo-Christian prin­ciples. Christian nationalism hinges on this second myth and, unlike the first, it is broadly accepted.

This second myth is the focus of this book because it pervades all other Christian nationalist arguments. If America is not founded on Judeo-Christian principles, it is not a Christian nation. If America is not founded on Judeo-Christian principles, Christian nationalists are wrong. And although other authors have refuted the first fiction, the second remains untouched. This book seeks to change that by com­paring the principles of Judeo-Christianity and the principles upon which the United States of America was founded. By focusing on the central tenets, the core ideas, of America and Judeo-Christianity, the first myth—America as a “Christian nation”—will necessarily be tested, as will the relevance of the founding fathers’ personal religious choices. But those issues are subsumed in the second, greater question, the question the “nine commandments” judge never had to answer: did Judeo-Christian principles positively influence the founding of the United States?

No, they did not. America was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. In fact, Judeo-Christian principles, especially those central to the Christian nationalist identity, are thoroughly opposed to the principles on which the United States was built. The two systems differ and conflict to such a degree that, to put it bluntly, Christianity is un-American.

Not only is it fair to say that Judeo-Christian principles are un- American, we must. The word “un-American” might make some squea­mish because of the value judgment inherent in it. But America is in a fight for its values—its soul, if you prefer—and Christian nation­alism is warping and torturing those values, dragging this country down a dark hole. To hesitate to describe this identity with apt phrases because they may be unpleasant is to cede the American identity to an imposter. To refuse to label that which is antithetical to America is to watch Christian nationalists hijack our nation.

Previous books offered gentle corrections to the Christian nation­alist: Here’s what history tells us, here’s what the founders actually meant, here’s what the founders actually said. And they’ve left it at that. But correction is not enough—otherwise we wouldn’t have a President Trump. 

No, pointing out errors is insufficient. This book does so, but then it takes the next step. It goes on the offensive. This book is an assault on the Christian nationalist identity. Not only are Christian nationalists wrong, but their beliefs and identity run counter to the ideals on which this nation was founded.

This book is an assault, but it’s also a defense, a defense of that quintessentially American invention, the “wall of separation between church and state.” I am a watcher on that wall. As a constitutional attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I defend the First Amendment to the US Constitution by ensuring that govern­ment officials do not use the power of a public office to promote their personal religion. It is my duty to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We handle thousands of state/church complaints every year. Without fail, recalcitrant violators and their vocal supporters argue that they can impose prayer on kindergartners or pass out bibles in public schools or display the Ten Commandments on public prop­erty because this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. In short, I rebut this claim for a living, and I’ve dedicated my career to this fight because it is so important.

68 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

"When James Madison protested Patrick Henry’s proposed three-penny tax to fund Christian ministers, he wrote a landmark in American history and law: the “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” (1785). Madison’s arguments overwhelmed Henry and convinced Virginians to strike down the proposed tax. "

Not so. What an amateurish bore, easily as bad as David Barton or any of the right-wingers he despises.

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/09/scholarly-malpractice-and-founding.html

"Madison's Memorial circulated as a petition during the summer and fall of 1785 and was eventually signed by over 1500 Virginians, an impressive figure but less than one-fifth of all signatories of anti-assessment petitions. The most popular petitions came from the pens of Baptists, who agreed with Madison's position on the total separation of church and state but argued for it from different premises, from their traditional scriptural view that Christ's kingdom was not of this world rather than from a Lockean theory of the social compact."

Our Founding Truth said...

This guy is clueless.

The Baptists theory isn't scriptural either. The bible knows nothing about separation of church and state.

This is another instance where the founding fathers made a huge mistake.




Tom Van Dyke said...

Actually, the secularist left loves to argue the fundamentalists like our friend OFT here as standing against the Founding principles, in order to feed their narrative of a rising right wing "theocracy."

FTR, the authors of this blog [usually] oppose both extremes. In the current crisis, the leftists are much slicker about their story, even if it is no less flawed.

A look through our archives shows no dearth of "exposes" of right-wingers such as David Barton and his ilk. But the secularist narrative is far less loud and clumsy and thus tends to slip under the radar unopposed---indeed often uncritically propagated by its ideological allies in the media.

_________________

As for Mr. Founding Truth's statement above, it is [usually] the position of this blog not to argue what the Bible "truly" says or means. That is the province of theologians. This is a history blog.

Our Founding Truth said...

Maybe in any other case pertaining to history would something be affected by what you say, but not this one, given the fact no one need be a theologian to discover truth.

The founding fathers prayed in Christ's name, making His word "superauthentik" and supreme in all matters. It's too bad the ff's didn't follow directions and learn from history.

The baptists were clearly wrong and their error has helped cause and will cause in the future great destruction upon this country.

Baptists distorted "my kingdom is not of this world" and ignored all the scriptures that say "the kingdom has come upon you" etc., etc.

All because they thought the feds would interfere with them



Bill Fortenberry said...

would like to see Seidel's list of principles which are "central to the Christian nationalist identity." For some reason, I smelled a strong hint of straw as I was reading the excerpt.

And of course, he is foolishly devoted to the FFRF's idol of the Treaty of Tripoli. As I pointed out in the link below, John Adams would have greatly benefited from a treaty that actually proclaimed that America was not founded on the Christian religion. The fact that Adams never once attempted to use the Treaty of Tripoli to defend himself from the charges of establishing a national religion speaks volumes against the FFRF's view.

http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.com/2017/04/5-little-known-facts-about-article-11.html

Tom Van Dyke said...

Bill Fortenberry said...
And of course, he is foolishly devoted to the FFRF's idol of the Treaty of Tripoli.


"I won't mention it to further my case, except that I will." LOL

This book does not depend on the specific language of a single treaty, however applicable it may be—“not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” is admirably clear.
________________

The fact that Adams never once attempted to use the Treaty of Tripoli to defend himself from the charges of establishing a national religion speaks volumes against the FFRF's view.


Your rebuttal is apt, Bill. Adams attributed his loss in the 1800 election to being seen as a tool of the Presbyterians in declaring a very religious-sounding Day of "Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer" in 1798.

We are already into false premises dealing with any "freedom from religion" organization, as freedom from religion is not remotely a Founding principle. Adams' thanksgiving proclamation was only controversial because it was seen as too sectarian, not because it mentions God. [And Jesus and the Holy Spirit too!]

This conflation is also what's wrong with Mr. Seidel's claim that secularism won the day in the assessments controversy. It was the Baptists' view of religion in public life, not secularism, that won the day. The battle was fought on religious grounds, not antireligious ones.

jimmiraybob said...

"The bible knows nothing about separation of church and state."

And yet the founders and framers and ratifiers gave us a blueprint document completely devoid of Christian obligation, mentions of Jesus the Christ or the Ten (or so) Commandments, and, in fact, guards against religious preferentilism.

In affect, we're given a document for secular governance, based on the consent of the people and not a grant from God, of a diverse and pluralistic society by incorporating universal liberal Enlightenment principles such as the unalienable rights of conscience and expression (including in matters of religion). They failed to explicitly create a Christian nation or a required Christian identity and failed to explicitly hail Judeo and/or Christian principles much less require a submission to God as a first obligation (a fact not overlooked by a minority dissent at the time).

As you say, in your opinion they made a mistake, and we got a secular, liberal,and open democratic republic in which the Christian (even Catholics, Dissenters and Mormons for goodness sake), the Muhammadan (Islamist), the Hindu, the Jew, the horse Protestant, the atheist and agnostic, etc., all have equal and non-preferential standing in the law and equal voice in our system of self governance.

Our Founding Truth said...

That's beautiful, Bill. God bless brother. Our buddie David Barton nailed the correct interpretation of the treaty of tripoli years ago.

JA blaming a religious fast for his defeat in 1800 is typical. As I've mentioned before, Georgia followed S. Carolina in that vote, and E. Rutledge was the leader of the majority. When he died,JA lost both states, not to mention the effect of GW's death and hamilton and Adams spitting the party with their childish antics.

As to the baptists, they had nothing to fear from the Federalists anyway and history proves that assertion. They weren't combating modern separation doctrine anyway. The baptists fought a straw man. Had they not gone along with the democrats, neither would have the Presbyterians; the assessment bill would have passed despite Madison's flawed reasoning and history changed for the better.





Our Founding Truth said...

And yet the founders and framers and ratifiers gave us a blueprint document completely devoid of Christian obligation, mentions of Jesus the Christ or the Ten (or so) Commandments, and, in fact, guards against religious preferentilism

You are absolutely correct and pastors spoke out about this very point. They were immature Christians, who failed miserably to follow the excellence of Calvin's Geneva and doomed this country to what it is today and it's ultimate destruction. Your last point is also true because of their omission of Christianity in the establishment clause.

I'm still thinking through the Christian states under a secular federal government dynamic. What a crazy dichotomy they created with so much confusion.


Our Founding Truth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Our Founding Truth said...

..

In affect, we're given a document for secular governance, based on the consent of the people and not a grant from God, of a diverse and pluralistic society by incorporating universal liberal Enlightenment principles such as the unalienable rights of 
conscience and expression (including in matters of religion). They failed to explicitly create a Christian nation.

There's more to the problem than what you say. They confused things so bad, it's like a maze they created with contradictions at every turn. They created Christian states with a secular federal charter with unalienable rights from the God of the Christian states, lol. All of their intelligence together didn't match the greatness of Calvin. 

Unalienable rights are from the enlightenment because they aren't in the bible. The ff's couldn't even be specific as to what person unalienable rights were granted from.

Tom Van Dyke said...

They failed to explicitly create a Christian nation or a required Christian identity and failed to explicitly hail Judeo and/or Christian principles much less require a submission to God as a first obligation (a fact not overlooked by a minority dissent at the time).


Religion was left to the states, to be as religious or irreligious as they chose.

And FTR, God appears in EVERY state constitution. The secularist myth of Enlightenment triumphalism does not hold.


https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865687272/Heres-how-many-times-God-is-mentioned-in-every-states-constitution.html

There appears to be little separation between God and every state.

The Pew Research Center unveiled a new report that looked at how many times God or the divine are mentioned in state constitutions.

The map with the report shows that each state’s constitution includes at least one reference to God or the divine.

Massachusetts and North Carolina Carolina lead the way with 12 and 10 references, respectively.

Only four states — Colorado, Iowa, Hawaii and Washington — don’t reference God specifically.

Colorado, Iowa and Washington, for example, use words like “Supreme Being” and “Supreme Ruler of the Universe.”

Hawaii, meanwhile, references “Divine Guidance.”

In Utah, the word “God” and “Lord” are used once, according to the state constitution.

So what other words are used by states besides God? Mentions include “creator,” “providence,” “divine” and “almighty.”

The word “Lord” is also used 32 times nationwide.

Our Founding Truth said...

Leaving religion to the states nullifies the federal charter and magna carta of the nation, together as one, with a common foundation. I've realized it's a flawed copout. Another massive mistake that sowed the seeds of confusion, separation and alienation from Christ and among each other.

Had Christ been highly exalted in the DOI and constitution, democrats could not replace them like they will do, without a direct and visable assault on Christ.

Even the AOC left out Christ when they were forming Christian states. It's mind boggling what they did. What did they expect future generations to believe when Christ is not the foundation of the national identity, and left to the whims of sinners in the various states pagan idolatry, evolution, atheism, pantheism and everything else?

The ff's blew it! I'm amazed Roger Sherman and his friends didn't think about this. They probably did and ignored it.



Jonathan Rowe said...

OFT, it's clear you want some kind of theocratic state and it's clear such is not what America's founders gave us.

On the other hand, it's not clear from the perspective orthodox Christianity of the evangelical and/or fundamentalist variety or any OTHER variety that such a state is a wise idea.

Late 18th Cen. Baptists didn't think so.

I think it was the Calvinistic covenanters who desired what you desire.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jon, don't just "think." Do the research. Cromwell, Geneva and Holland formed what you falsely call a theocracy. They formed republics.

Jonathan Rowe said...

When you executive Servetus for denying the Trinity, you may well have a "republic," but you also have a "theocracy." Perhaps you need to do research for the right term. You might find a mentor in one Kevin Craig.

Our Founding Truth said...

Servetus was executed by the consistory, not Calvin. It doesn't follow that having a law against blasphemy means you have a theocracy.

Our Founding Truth said...

Your comment about theocracy betrays fact and history. Holland was a virtual calvinist republic for 100 years. No one would ever dare to call 16th-17th century Holland a theocracy and they lasted longer than Geneva. Holland would have executed Servetus as well because they had the same laws. In fact, Holland actually executed a Christian leader who started a civil war after the synod of dort. It's all a smokescreen; catholics burned thousands, maybe millions of people.






Tom Van Dyke said...

It's all a smokescreen; catholics burned thousands, maybe millions of people.

You really need to get your facts straight, Jim. "Protestantism" was the problem. "Protestantism" was why the Founding era couldn't agree on what Christianity even is, let alone "establish" it. Forget the Catholics, who were a non-factor in colonial America--the Baptists did not want to be ruled by Presbyterians!!

Theologically, 'heresy' is the rule among Protestants; politically, except for being united against the Catholic Church, each sect is a rival of the others.

The rule of Oliver Cromwell in the 1600s was an absolute horror, which is why they dug up his body and scattered the pieces so that he could not be honored.

The rule of Oliver Cromwell--far more oppressive than any "Catholic" regime--was exactly why the Americans became so "secular."


At least you're not claiming that America WAS a Christian nation of the Cromwellian sort. THAT should be our starting point. Your vision of the best regime has no claim on the Founding.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Jonathan Rowe said...
When you executive Servetus for denying the Trinity, you may well have a "republic," but you also have a "theocracy." Perhaps you need to do research for the right term. You might find a mentor in one Kevin Craig.

June 10, 2019 at 11:35 AM
Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
Servetus was executed by the consistory, not Calvin. It doesn't follow that having a law against blasphemy means you have a theocracy.


I'm rather with Jim on this--strictly speaking. Heresy was always seen as a threat to the public order. Under Thomas Hobbes' view of government, suppressing heresy to preserve peace and unity would be entirely acceptable.

This would be completely different than an "Inquisition" that examined, prosecutes and persecuted everyone's private beliefs.

What is known by few even these days--and I doubt our pal Jim knows this--the Spanish Inquisition was begun by King Ferdinand for the quite secular purpose of stealing the land and estates of the "conversos"--Jews who had lived under the Islamic regime only recently overthrown by the Spanish Catholics. The Spanish Jews were given the choice of converting to Christianity or fleeing Spain, leaving EVERYTHING behind.


As for the unfortunate case of Michael Servetus, his persecution and execution were of the pretty rare sort, and I think it's a historical mistake to make too much of it. Shit happened.

Innocent people were never dragged wholesale before religious tribunals over belief in the Trinity and executed if found wanting in their belief. Not by Calvin, not by the Catholic Church.

Our Founding Truth said...

"Protestantism" was the problem"

Lol.












Jonathan Rowe said...

Nothing laughable about Tom's claim Jim. Catholics persecuted Protestants, Protestants persecuted Catholics and Protestants persecuted one another. That's history.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Good book review and recommendation. Though I disagree with the "not Enlightenment" part of the title. It was during the Enlightenment that such became normalized.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/thank-christianity-not-secularism-for-religious-liberty/?fbclid=IwAR2hfegz15BxQNMdDk8wo2Jw7LfM3lLYzSmBMgA9qj7ilU0oYJTHBj34sSk

"This tension reached a climax during the Reformation and post-Reformation era. Wilken includes chapters on Lutheran Germany, Calvinist and Zwinglian Switzerland, and on Catholic-Protestant battles in France, the Netherlands, and England. Readers may be surprised to learn how often it was not just Protestants but also Catholics who turned to liberty in defense of their religious beliefs. Nuns in Germany, clergyman in Switzerland, Benedictine abbots in France, and papist lawyers in England all appealed to their consciences in the face of Protestant persecution. Indeed, while Reformation history is full of Catholic oppression of Protestants, it is equally full of Protestants oppressing, persecuting, and even forbidding Catholic worship."

Tom Van Dyke said...

And despite all the blather about the Inquisition, witch hunts were mostly a Protestant thing, and killed more people.



This explains why Germany, ground zero for the Reformation, laid claim to nearly 40% of all witchcraft prosecutions in Europe. Scotland, where different strains of Protestantism were in competition, saw the second highest level of witch-hunts, with a total of 3,563 people tried.

“In contrast, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland – each of which remained a Catholic stronghold after the Reformation and never saw serious competition from Protestantism – collectively accounted for just 6% of Europeans tried for witchcraft,” Russ observes.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/07/witchcraft-economics-reformation-catholic-protestant-market-share

____________________

Regardless, to return to topic, the Catholic Church was a nonfactor in Founding era America--it was Protestantism's multiplicity of sects that made forming a "Christian America" impossible at the federal level.

Our Founding Truth said...

That protestantism was/is the problem is so dishonest, it's a disgrace to give it time; and I won't.

Before you guys got sidetracked, the ff's doomed the nation at the beginning, even the AOC wasn't Christian, and compromised the very foundation of our national identity in the DOI. SA can say rights come from the N.T. in Rights of the Colonists, but it means jack if he doesn't demand it in the AOC as a national public proclamation exalting Christ, as Geneva, Holland, and Cromwell's England and Scotland did.

Jews and muslims fled to those countries to flee catholic persecution.










Tom Van Dyke said...

Regardless, Jim, contra Mr. Seidel's war on religion, I'm actually happy to see you disassociating your brand of fundamentalist Christianity from the Founding principles.

Those of us who argue against "strict separationism" [read: Freedom From Religion]


https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-mythical-wall-separation-how-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law


argue a historical accomodation with religion, not any establishment of it of the sort you describe here.

Our Founding Truth said...

Well, I never said they were all fundamentalists. Probably a majority was. The issue is why weren't they explicit as they were in the states, especially as they called themselves a Christian nation. The list includes: john jay, mason, JA, SA, Hancock and most of the others.

I think they just spaced it.









Tom Van Dyke said...

Our Founding Truth said...
I think they just spaced it.



Oh, I don't think you believe that, Jim. It's certainly at odds with everything you just wrote in this thread. You condemned them for not making America explicitly Christian enough. A lack of will, a lack of guts. Not forgetfulness.

I think the explanation is more practical: There was no way you could get it done. Under Protestantism, with its huge disparities in doctrine, there was no way to put together a consensus of what Christianity even is.

Add in Virginia with its Baptists and secularists, and it held a veto on religion in the federal government even while the other 12 states were pretty Christian [yes, even New York].

_____________________

Mostly what I'm establishing here is that you are just the sort of Protestant Christian off whom Mr. Seidel and his ilk make their money, by convincing secularists and liberal Jews and Christians that you fundies are poised to impose some sort of theocracy on America.


I don't think you are, either as a practical matter or even as a theo-political matter. YOU are the ones to say that the Founding era blew it, by not making America Christian enough. [The Gary North thing.]


And you are NOT calling for a re-Founding of America, or at least I don't think you are. You surely realize that if they didn't do it back then, the American people are surely not going to vote in a more Christian America here in the 21st century.



So I just want to sort all this out and stay on track, since the topic is Mr. Seidel, his "freedom from religion" advocacy, and the actual historical record which I think is at odds with it.

YOU are his bogeyman. His cash cow. The Christianist fundamentalist Republican theocrat. I find it offensive.


And even if he believes all this sincerely, I don't think you think what he thinks you think.

You are not insisting that the Founders created a theocracy that we need to return to. You quite plainly say they didn't create a theocratic state at all--and that was the big mistake.

It's not that radical an idea, Jim, unless Calvin and Hobbes [the REAL John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes] were radicals!


Jonathan Rowe said...

The 1/2 a Quaker William Livingston rejected the kind of politics that Jim desires. This is a point that is stressed by the authors of "The Godless Constitution." If you can get over the polemical nature of the book and title, the authors had a few good points.

There were folks out there who wanted what Jim wanted. And they lost.

"And to have made the 'law of the eternal God, as contained in the sacred Scriptures, of the Old and New Testament, the supreme law of the United States,' would, I conceive, have laid the foundation of endless altercation and dispute, as the very first question that would have arisen upon that article would be, whether we were bound by the ceremonial as well as the moral law, delivered by Moses to the people of Israel. Should we confine ourselves to the law of God, as contained in the Scriptures of the New Testament (which is undoubtedly obligatory upon all Christians), there would still have been endless disputes about the construction of the of these laws. Shall the meaning be ascertained by every individual for himself, or by public authority? If the first, all human laws respecting the subject are merely nugatory; if the latter, government must assume the detestable power of Henry the Eighth, and enforce their own interpretations with pains and penalties.

[...]

[A]nd the inseparable connexion between the morals of the people and the good of society will compel them to pay due attention to external regularity and decorum; but true piety again has never been agreed upon by mankind, and I should not be willing that any human tribunal should settle its definition for me."

Jonathan Rowe said...

And btw I'll express my personal sympathies here. It's not "rationalism" in religion. You can't reason your way to the "one true" understanding of the Christian religion or any religion or God's truth or what have you.

Rather it's the individualistic nature of Protestantism expressed by Livingston above. I don't have to defer to Pope's understanding of Christianity, or Luther's, or Calvin's, or Billy Graham or Jim Goswick. I will decide for myself, thank you very much.

Bill Fortenberry said...

Just interrupting to point out something that should be obvious:

The statement "You can't reason your way to the 'one true' understanding of the Christian religion or any religion or God's truth or what have you" is itself a rationalist claim about God's truth. Thus, the statement is self-contradictory and cannot be true.

Jonathan Rowe said...

And I thank God that I don't have to defer to Bill Fortenberry's understanding either.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Re Tom's 12/13 VA point, I wouldn't Rhode Island either; it, as a state, was founded by Roger Williams in repudiation of the notion of a "Christian state." But there is this.

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/08/thanks-to-prof-paul-horwitz.html

Tom Van Dyke said...

required officeholders to be Protestants

Rhode Island's constitution required officeholders be Protestants. Catholics were specifically banned from office in 1719.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/927/religious-oaths

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/religious-tests-officeholding

Tom Van Dyke said...

Blogger Bill Fortenberry said...
Just interrupting to point out something that should be obvious:

The statement "You can't reason your way to the 'one true' understanding of the Christian religion or any religion or God's truth or what have you" is itself a rationalist claim about God's truth. Thus, the statement is self-contradictory and cannot be true.



For historical purposes, the almost countless multiplicity of Protestant sects and doctrines puts the lie to that, Bill.

Our Founding Truth said...

You condemned them for not making America explicitly Christian enough. A lack of will, a lack of guts. Not forgetfulness.

There has to be more to it than that. There has to be a reason why they formed Christian states under a secular charter (AOC) and call themselves a Christian nation, not Christian states. Even JM said we were a Christian nation.







Our Founding Truth said...

more practical: There was no way you could get it done

No way. Calvin, Holland and Cromwell did it, so that's not it either.

Jon, WL was completely wrong and Geneva proves it.










Our Founding Truth said...

but true piety again has never been agreed upon by mankind, and I should not be willing that any human tribunal should settle its definition for me

The Westminster confession and standards is that tribunal. WL and the others failed to establish it. It worked, bur the English like to be ruled by monarchs.

The multiplicity is for the most part worship, not doctrine. Historic Christianity has been established since the beginning.


Jonathan Rowe said...

"Jon, WL was completely wrong and Geneva proves it."

And then our friend Bill Fortenberry can tell you how, actually, Calvin got it wrong, and how he can "demonstrate" which letters of TULIP are not in accord with "the Bible."

Our Founding Truth said...

And then our friend Bill Fortenberry can tell you how, actually, Calvin got it wrong, and how he can "demonstrate" which letters of TULIP are not in accord with "the Bible."


I doubt it, but we never had that debate. You say "Calvin got it wrong" then u say "and"

Anyway, you keep getting off track, bringing in theology. The fact is, it worked in all three of those nations and it would have worked here; so Livingston was wrong..






Tom Van Dyke said...

Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
"You condemned them for not making America explicitly Christian enough. A lack of will, a lack of guts. Not forgetfulness."

There has to be more to it than that. There has to be a reason why they formed Christian states under a secular charter (AOC) and call themselves a Christian nation, not Christian states. Even JM said we were a Christian nation.



I'm not familiar with James Madison calling us a Christian nation. Can you help me with the source?


As for the Articles of Confederation, the AOC government freely used the name of Jesus Christ. But it must be acknowledged that the 1987 constitutional government pointedly does not.

Still, we have even Roger Williams' Rhode Island demanding that its state officeholders be Protestants! There is some wiggle room here, and I continue to maintain the Founding principles allowed the states to be as religious or irreligious as they chose. "The Godless Constitution" by Kramnick and Moore is forced to concede this fact, although then they do their best to gloss over it.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
And then our friend Bill Fortenberry can tell you how, actually, Calvin got it wrong, and how he can "demonstrate" which letters of TULIP are not in accord with "the Bible."


I doubt it, but we never had that debate. You say "Calvin got it wrong" then u say "and"

Anyway, you keep getting off track, bringing in theology. The fact is, it worked in all three of those nations and it would have worked here; so Livingston was wrong..


Calvin's Geneva worked because they were all Calvinists. Holland became liberal*, with no sect holding primacy, much like America became. And Cromwell's England was a tyranny they were overjoyed to be rid of.

_________________
*Holland was the home of Arminianism! As you can see, Calvin's Calvinists had the upper hand at first but eventually the Arminians wormed their way back:

"Remonstrant, any of the Dutch Protestants who, following the views of Jacobus Arminius, presented to the States-General in 1610 a “remonstrance” setting forth their points of divergence from stricter Calvinism. The Remonstrants, assailed on all sides, were expelled from the Netherlands by the Protestant Synod of Dort (1618–19), which declared Remonstrant theology contrary to Scripture. Allowed back in the Netherlands by 1630, they were officially recognized in 1798. The movement is still strong, and its liberal school of theology has reacted powerfully on the Dutch state church and on other Christian denominations."


This also shows the impossibility of establishing any sort of "normative" Calvinism, let alone a normative Christianity.

Our Founding Truth said...

Calvin's Geneva worked because they were all Calvinists. Holland became liberal*, with no sect holding primacy, much like America became. And Cromwell's England was a tyranny they were overjoyed to be rid of.

All three are wrong. Calvin had several enemies. I can't remember their group name. Holland was not liberal. Both Maurice and his son controlled the army and they only allowed catholicism at the end of the 80 yrs war. America would have worked fine under Calvinism.

In fact, it was the arminian's that started the civil war and the synod was correct in what they did, showing their errors using the scriptures. Cromwell was not a tyranny.




Tom Van Dyke said...

Again, the best thing about your assertions is that they have no claim to the Founding principles, thus taking a lot of the thrust out of "Freedom From Religion's" jets. You admit there is no theocracy to return to.


As for Cromwell, the irony is that he was in on killing King Charles I, a direct violation of the fundamentalist reading of Romans 13. Some Calvinist, LOL.

As for his tyranny, by American standards he certainly was. He dissolved parliament and ruled everyday life with an iron fist. No way America was going to repeat that route!


Over the next seven years Parliamentarian Roundheads and Royalist Cavaliers tore the country apart. Cromwell, a committed Puritan, saw the battle against Charles not simply as a political struggle but as a necessary path to establish ‘godly’ government and religious freedom, and he threw himself into the mêlée.

...

Cromwell’s attitudes hardened. Although not the initiator of the idea to prosecute the King for going to war against Parliament and half of the country, once he decided “Providence and necessity” required such action, he became a relentless supporter. Charles I’s death warrant was signed by 59 of his judges, with Cromwell the third to inscribe his name. On 30 January 1649 the King stepped from a window of London’s Banqueting House onto the scaffold and was beheaded before an incredulous crowd.

Monarchy was abolished along with the House of Lords, and a Commonwealth was established. But unfortunately the so-called Rump Parliament dithered, failing to press ahead with radical social and constitutional reform, all the while locked in mutual hatred with the Army.

Cromwell, the only man strong enough to hold power and keep both sides in check, lost patience over lack of progress and forcibly dissolved Parliament in 1653. Later that year he proposed and received the office of Lord Protector – King in all but name. He agreed to rule with and through a Council of State and meet regularly with Parliament.

The first Protectorate Parliament (1654) was elected on a wider franchise than ever before and included MPs from Scotland and Ireland for the first time. However, amid continuing factional unrest, Cromwell began to act more like a dictator, ruling by decree. His dictum, “Necessity hath no law”, seemed to justify his actions.

In religious matters Cromwell believed in ‘liberty of conscience’ and sought to create a broadly based national church while tolerating radical Protestant groups who remained outside but kept the peace. Jews were formally readmitted into the country for the first time since 1290.

Following Royalist insurrections in 1655, the Lord Protector appointed Major-Generals to oversee security across the regions and also to enforce the Protectorate’s ‘reformation of manners’: clamping down on everything from drunkenness to sexual immorality, and attempting to banish the more boisterous aspects of life, including theatres, horse-racing and excessive celebrations at Christmas. The strategy was deeply unpopular.


Parliament, increasingly worried by Cromwell’s arbitrary use of power, decided to – irony of ironies – offer him the kingship in 1657: a role that was known and circumscribed, unlike that of Lord Protector. Cromwell declined, saying, “I will not build Jericho again.” A year later, following illness, he died at the age of 59.


The Protectorate, dependent on Cromwell’s authority and on force not consent, now quickly unravelled as his nominated successor, his son Richard, proved unequal to the task. Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and the backlash against the republican hero began.

Cromwell was declared a traitor, his body hauled from Westminster Abbey and subjected to posthumous execution. Even today mystery surrounds the whereabouts of his remains, although his head was bequeathed in 1960 to his old Cambridge college where it is immured in the anti-chapel.

Our Founding Truth said...

As for the Articles of Confederation, the AOC government freely used the name of Jesus Christ""

Not in the document, which is what matters.


As for Cromwell, the irony is that he was in on killing King Charles I, a direct violation of the fundamentalist reading of Romans 13. Some Calvinist,

He dissolved parliament at the end because they didn't rule according to the principles of the republic they founded, and that's not tyranny. What they did to his body is proof they didn't deserve a Christian republic. Your accusation against him doesn't hold water. Good Calvinists like Cromwell and Sidney, and Calvin, and many others had their friends butchered, so I sympathize with them somewhat even though they were wrong.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
As for the Articles of Confederation, the AOC government freely used the name of Jesus Christ""

Not in the document, which is what matters.


Which document[s]? I was actually helping your case--whatever it is at this point. The AOC government used "Jesus Christ" freely. The American Revolution at least was fought with Jesus Christ in attendance.

"Custom and practice" is a legal principle. How the Constitution was carried out in the days after it was ratified tells us how it was understood by those who ratified it.

To my own point, it's clear that there was no strict "separation of church and state," or at least a separation between belief in God and the American government--although I'll stipulate Jesus Christ was relegated to the sidelines, that is, to the state governments.

Even Rhode Island--founded by the great libeal Roger Williams--had, by the time of the Founding instituted Protestantism [and thus a belief in Jesus Christ] as a requirement for state office.


It's actually a pity Mr. Seidel didn't join our debate, although his reasons for not wanting to actually defend his essay are pretty obvious--he can't.

But Andrew, I hope you're reading at least. If you are, you will have learned something. Our friend Mr. Our Founding Truth has a more accurate and defensible take on religion and the Founding than you do. And he's a fundie. You have no idea what the other side of your argument even is.

Any time you want to try your luck defending your arguments as history, you know where we are, bro. But it would compromise how you make your living, so that discussion is never gonna happen.

Never gonna happen. Because none of this was ever about the truth.

Our Founding Truth said...

Custom and practice" is a legal principle. How the Constitution was carried out in the days after it was ratified tells us how it was understood by those who ratified it.

It's even worse because Christ is everywhere else like you say, but not in the national charter for future generations and the world to see what kind of nation we are. Praying in Christ's name means little. It's the corporate charter, which binds our people into a compact that matters.

It's still difficult to understand calling yourself a Christian nation, forming Christian states, then leaving Christ out of the national charter. It doesn't seem logical all the orthodox left Him out of the DOI and AOC. Here's JM:

"The Memorial is filled with declarations for the truth of Christianity, that is, the orthodox beliefs held by the majority of Christians for hundreds of years.

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us."
--Memorial and Remonstrance, [ca. 20 June 1785] 



"If the public homage of a people can ever be worthy the favorable regard of the Holy and Omniscient Being to whom it is addressed, it must be that in which those who join in it are guided only by their free choice, by the impulse of their hearts and the dictates of their consciences; and such a spectacle must be interesting to all Christian nations as proving that religion, that gift of Heaven for the good of man, freed from all coercive edicts, from that unhallowed connection with the powers of this world which corrupts religion into an instrument or an usurper of the policy of the state...Upon these principles and with these views the good people of the United States are invited, in conformity with the resolution aforesaid, to dedicate the day above named to the religious solemnities therein recommended."
Given at Washington, this 23d day of July, A. D. 1813.[seal.] JAMES MADISON





Jonathan Rowe said...

"The Memorial is filled with declarations for the truth of Christianity, that is, the orthodox beliefs held by the majority of Christians for hundreds of years."

I don't think Madison said this.

jimmiraybob said...

"Do the research. Cromwell, Geneva and Holland formed what you falsely call a theocracy. They formed republics.

Semantics.

Law and order were based on OT law as interpreted by the prevailing religious authority that was working with the ostensibly separate civil magistrates. They were systems of forced/coerced obedience to Biblical interpretation and employed war, arrest, torture, forced confession, and execution. There was no room for public dissent which nullifies the American founding principles of right of conscience and expression.

And, it is somewhat ironic that Calvin (Calvin's Geneva) would justify these brutal measures against blasphemy and heresy while he himself was a blasphemer and heretic. Blasphemy and heresy is in the eye of the zealot and power regime.

The effect was to enforce a brutal rule of God and God's Law according to the independent interpretation of one or a few. And what has already been gotten to in the comments is that there was not (in these system) and never has been and never will be concordance in what it means to be Christian and what the will of God is.

And, as has been pointed out, they "worked" for short periods of time and involved limited territories with small populations.

What the founders, framers, ratifiers and accepting citizens of the new nation actually did was to deliberately set up and ovearching secular governmental framework because the states were a hodgepodge of sects and cultures that would gladly have seized the power of the national government to oppress their political and religious enemies. The aforementioned participants in the founding of the nation were not confused. By their time, the atrocities and failures of all three of the systems that you point to were well known and completely antithetical to the founding principles....what Seidel calls un-American.

OFT, the reason that you are dazed and confused is that you are now at the interpretation of the myth(s) that you want to believe and the reality of the events and evidence. It's called cognitive dissonance.

We have had 240 or so years to iron out these issues and there are no Christian states and, certainly, there is no state, local or national compulsion to believe in one god or 20 or none at all. And there is no compulsion to abide by any religious law, doctrine or dogma. That is religious freedom.



Our Founding Truth said...

My bad. That part got lumped in with the other quote. JM was clearly not an evangelical.

Our Founding Truth said...

OFT, the reason that you are dazed and confused

Lol. You think I've been listening to led zeppelin? The ff's calling themselves a Christian nation is already a geven. When they pray as a corporate body in Christ's name a month before the DOI, it doesn't
take a genius to know who is nature's God.








jimmiraybob said...

As to “all” of the states having mentions of God, Almighty God, Supreme Architect, Jesus, Christ, the Messiah or etc., in their constitutions, I looked into Missouri and there are several relevant points to be made.

1) In the US Constitution there is no requirement for territories applying for statehood to be Christian, practice Christianity, or promote or defend Christianity. There is no mention of God, Almighty God, Supreme Architect, Jesus, Christ, the Messiah or etc., regarding statehood.

2) In Missouri’s petitions for statehood (ca. 1819) there is no pledge or commitment whatsoever that Missouri would be a Christian state, that its citizens would practice Christianity, or that the state would promote or defend Christianity. There is no mention of God, Almighty God, Supreme Architect, Jesus, Christ, the Messiah or etc., regarding statehood.


3) In the Congressional Act (March 6, 1820) regarding Missouri statehood there is no requirement for the state to be Christian, practice Christianity, or promote or defend Christianity. There is no mention of God, Almighty God, Supreme Architect, Jesus, Christ, the Messiah or etc., regarding statehood.

4) In Missouri’s new Constitution of 1820, there is mention of “Almighty God” in the following context:

Article XIII. Declaration of Rights

4. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can be compelled to erect, support, or attend any place of worship, or to maintain any minister of the gospel, or teacher of religion; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person can ever be hurt, molested, or restrained in his religious profession or sentiments, if he do not disturb others in their religious worship.

5. That no person, on account of his religious opinions, can be rendered ineligible to any office of trust or profit under this state; that no preference can ever be given by law to any sect or mode of worship; and that no religious corporation can ever be established in this state.

This states that people have the right to (not the obligation to) worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience but there is no pledge or commitment whatsoever that Missouri would be a Christian state, that its citizens would or must practice Christianity, or that the state would promote or defend Christianity. It goes on to guarantee that no citizen can be discriminated against based on their religious opinion.

Essentially, this is in line with the US Constitution’s guarantee that all persons have a right to freedom of conscience and expression. As is should since, the US Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.

It would be interesting to do a survey of all the state constitutions to evaluate the context of any mention of God, Almighty God, Supreme Architect, Jesus, Christ, the Messiah or etc.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Well it took awhile for the United States to get to 50. In the meantime, all of the states disestablished their churches, many of them further separated church and state by passing Blaine Amendments. And then we have Utah which the fundamentalists say "isn't Christian."

So we have at least one not Christian state. And the "Christianity" of the blue states (Obama's "Christianity") probably isn't "Christian" enough either.

jimmiraybob said...

The problem with Christian nationalists, whether hard-core evangelicals of the myth or just lay enthusiasts, is that their arguments and apologia always conflate the political/legal entity known as the state or nation with the personal identities of the citizens. As Seidel notes (p. 18):

”Our country’s government and laws are distinct from its society and culture. It is the difference between our constitutional (or legal) identity and our popular (or social, or cultural) identity.”

Of course, this has been pointed out at this pub before.

The founders, framers, ratifiers, and citizen reviewers of the US Constitution had no intention of creating a Christian nation in the sense of political establishment or it would have been spelled out in much clearer and more explicit terms and in writing (as opposed to “no law respecting an establishment of religion’). Of course it can’t be argued that many the peoples of the former colonies were, in some way or another, Christian in identity, whether by pious profession and practice or by secular cultural association.

So, politically, not a Christian nation. Demographically? Sure, in some way or another and with deep sectarian divisions leading to persecution between sects and ultimately civil instability.

Face it; it’s secularization of civil government that protects true religious freedom and civil stability.

As to the phrase “nature’s God,” this ambiguity leaves the field wide open from Plato’s God to the Hebrew God, to the Christian God, to the Hindu God, to the Mohammedan’s God, to God as nature. Just as there is no obligation for an individual to follow the religion of their father or father’s father there is no legal obligation or rightful, legal or political obligation for the citizens of America to worship the same as their forefathers, or foremothers. Even our Christian forefathers believed this because they offered conversion just as Christians do now. And Spinoza smiles.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Anonymous jimmiraybob said...
As to “all” of the states having mentions of God, Almighty God, Supreme Architect, Jesus, Christ, the Messiah or etc., in their constitutions, I looked into Missouri and there are several relevant points to be made.



No. Actually you went to great lengths to evade the point.

4. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences

That God exists is a given. No one will be coerced into believing that, but that also doesn't mean everybody else must pretend that he doesn't.


Was that God Jesus Christ? That question was tabled due to Protestantism's differences in doctrine, but that Almighty God is none other than Jehovah. There is zero evidence that "nature's God" was understood as any different God than Jehovah.

Religion was left to the states, each of which put God's existence in their constitutions. This is undeniable.

jimmiraybob said...

RE: 4. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences

TVD "That God exists is a given."

That people have a right to believe there is a God is a given. That they have a right to worship that God is a given.

This is, at best, an assertion that all people have a certain right to worship Almighty God. This is not asserting a duty or obligation or declaring a Christian state.

This is under the heading "Declaration of Rights." That is all. It is not a profession of faith. It does not direct anyone to worship. It is not a positive statement on the existence of God. It is a statement that if a person believes and worships Almighty God that they have an unalienable right to do so according to the dictates of conscience.

Again, this does not explicitly declare the "existence" of a god or define an obligation to believe or worship.

This does protect the rights of the non-sectarian deist, as well as the Baptist, as well as the Muhammadan who may revere Jesus as a non-divine, human prophet (as some FFs did), as well as the Jew that does not accept Jesus as their divine savior (as some FFs did not), as well as the Christian of whichever sect and whatever theology, as well as the Mormon, and etc.

If the intent had been to declare that no citizen has the right to believe in anything other that (the Cristian) God they would have clearly spelled this out in unambiguous language. They didn't.

If their intent was that all citizens were required to believe in (a Christian) God in order to be a full citizen of a Christian state they would have clearly spell this out in unambiguous language. They didn't.

If the intent was to declare the existence of God they would have clearly spell this out in unambiguous language.

The most likely implication is that they were trying to keep the warring sects from jailing or killing one another.

And now, some 200 years later, some people want to declare the Missouri constitution (etc.) to be some kind of Christian- or deistic-God covenant or proof or whatever. It's not.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Again, this does not explicitly declare the "existence" of a god or define an obligation to believe or worship.

Yes it does declare the existence of God. So does the mention of God in every state constitution. Now you're being obtuse.

jimmiraybob said...

"Now you're being obtuse."

Thank you for that invaluable piece of projection.

You are certainly entitled to your faith-based position, that a mere mention constitutes a proof, but that doesn't make it so. Carry on.


Tom Van Dyke said...

"No it's not" is not an argument. Of course you're being obtuse about what's written in plain English.

We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the state.

jimmiraybob said...

Since this is a history blog and since the discussion was about whether or not America was founded as a Christian nation or the states founded as Christian states, I cited the first (1820) Missouri constitution as representative of the period not long after the ink had dried on the US Constitution.

As a questionable tactic you cite the current Missouri constitution after religionists managed to get a suitable phrase inserted for your liking.

Since Christian Nationalists are always trying to make this a Christian nation it comes as no surprise that at the time that the most recent Missouri constitution was adopted in 1945, there was a concerted effort to brand America as god-fearing in reacting to the developing Cold War hysteria over godless Russia. Again, a preamble is not a declaration of proof but a faith statement. And, it does not speak for all citizens at all times and it is not binding as law or dictate of obligation.

This still does not implicitly or explicitly create a Christian or even Deistic state as a legally binding political entity. It does highlight a certain demographic quality - that some politicians wanted this phrase and some other politicians didn't think that it was worth objecting to at the time.

Incidentally, the 1820 constitution and Missouri compromise had some very interesting implications for the protection and advancement of slavery. As evidenced by a split government and split public sentiment preceding and during the American Revolution we can see directly that what is written in a secular/temporal document does not make it so.

jimmiraybob said...

Also in the 1820 Missouri constitution:

Article XIII. Declaration of Rights

1. That all political power is vested in, and derived from, the people.

The people. Not God.

Tom Van Dyke said...

tl;dr

This says God exists. No other interpretation is possible.

We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the state.

jimmiraybob said...

"dr"

Of course not.

"No other interpretation is possible."

Of course not.

ts:dr

Tom Van Dyke said...


"No other interpretation is possible."

Of course not.


All yours, smart guy. Consider your bluff called.

We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the state.

jimmiraybob said...

"Of course not"

There is no way this could be eye-rolling sarcasm.

Of course not.

No bluff. Crusty old politicians have no authority or training to prove God. As I wrote, cold-war hysteria.

Yous should read more and do less blaspheming and idolatry. This is a history blog not a theology blog. Or so I've heard.

Tom Van Dyke said...

go for it, tough guy

What's your interpretation of this?

We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the state.

The floor is yours.

jimmiraybob said...

See, you should have read.

Tom Van Dyke said...

unresponsive

bye