Christian Nation ? Third Criteria

The third criteria for a nation to be considered Christian, as stated in a prior article, would be that the constitution and resulting government contain a built in assumption that the citizenry is Christian. There is a subtle difference between this criteria and the first. The first criteria required that there be accepted laws that are by definition Christian in nature. To determine the validity of the third criteria we would need to establish that the constitution in general will not work unless the United States was a Christian nation. For example in Iran the laws and government are so intertwined with the Muslim religious establishment, that the government could only function where the population is Muslim. That is not to say that accommodations are not made for other religions. But these accommodations are exceptions to the general precepts of the nation of Iran.

So, does our constitution have a built in assumption of a Christian citizenry? It would probably be safe to say that the founding fathers acknowledged the difficulties that would arise in a nation of free people without religious convictions.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."   John Adams to Massachusetts militia 1798

There is no doubt that our nation has gone through cycles of prosperity and peace, as well as cycles of economic depression and civil war. It would seem that much of the tragedy  that is part of our history can be traced back to “Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry”.  In general, a religion that censures these undesirable qualities would better suit a nation that desires freedom and prosperity. Are these censures unique to Christianity? No, there are many religions that have a good strong moral code within their teachings. Is it likely that the colonial citizenry  would have ever adopted one or more of these religions to where it became the predominant religion of the country. No, in fact the only two non-Christian religions that ever gained the slightest foothold in colonial America were witchcraft and voodoo. There were, of course Jews scattered throughout the colonies, mostly in the south. But given their small numbers, it was unlikely that Judaism would ever become the predominant religion of the United States.

Are there examples of other countries with a similar form of government, that are not Christian that have a long history of freedom and prosperity? No, throughout the world, the only nations that have formed a constitutional democratic form of government that has lasted more than 30 years have been Christian nations.

Does being a Christian nation guarantee democracy will hold?  No, Germany and Italy are examples of democracies that within their constitutions fell to fascism.

Our nation and its political structure do require the people to be moral people. We see where it unravels when that morality is violated. That morality does not have to be labeled as Christian morality. However, Christianity and the moral teaching of its founder, have the best chance of guiding people in this country to make choices and live lives that nourish freedom and prosperity.

Christian Nation? Second Criteria

The second criteria for a nation to be considered Christian, as stated in a previous article, would be that the vast majority of the citizens of that country be Christian. Today in 2011 we have polls and census data that can tell us fairly accurately the religious affiliation of the citizenry. Given the multicultural makeup of the United states, it would seem to be inaccurate to say that the vast majority of citizens of the country are Christians. However, according to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) sponsored by Trinity College, the majority of Americans (76%) identify themselves as Christians, mostly within Protestant and Catholic denominations, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively. With our sophisticated polling methods and statistical models this would seem to be an accurate assessment. A recent (2010) survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 78% of the population considered themselves to be Christian.  

Unfortunately we do not have the same statistical evidence of the religious affiliations of the colonial era citizens. The first census was actually mandated in the constitution. However, this census did not ask any questions about religious affiliation. It was not until 1850 that the census contained questions about church affiliation.  Extrapolation of the statistical data may not yield an accurate picture of US religious affiliation either. For example, survey results from a prior 1990 study by Trinity college showed that 80% of the population was identified as Christian. Extrapolating these results would give the impression that colonial America was 100% Christian. However, we know that there have been ebbs and flows in Christian identification throughout our short history. Evangelical movements saw periods of large increases in Christian resurgence. The first Great Awakening in the US in the mid 18^th century was a result of the preaching of such men as Jonathan Edwards,  George Whitefield and John Wesley. The first Great Awakening weakened the Anglican church and subsequently ties with Great Britain. However it is not clear what effect this movement had on Christian growth. The second Great Awakening occurred in the  1830s and was lead by evangelists such as Charles Finney.  It is unclear to what extent these revival periods increased the number of Christians in the U.S., however these movements definitely had the effect of moving the population towards a reformed theology. That theology being a movement away from close denominational ties towards a more personal Christian identification.

We know that most of the settlers in America came seeking religious freedom. The Massachusetts Bay colony was established by English Puritans. Pennsylvania was settled by Quakers. Maryland was settled by English Catholics. Virginia was settled by Anglicans. Many of these states had laws that forced church attendance. So personal religious beliefs could be masked by church records. Generally speaking, based on historical evidence, the best estimate we have is that about 75 to 80 percent of the colonists attended church regularly. If that can be taken as what today would show up in a survey as being identifed as a Christian then we would have a fairly accurate statistical picture of religious colonial America.

Given these statistics it is safe to say that the vast majority of citizens of the United States were and are Christians. 

Christian Nation? First Criteria

Using the first of three criteria laid out in the previous article let us consider if there are Articles in the constitution that are specifically Christian.

There are two sections of the constitution where religion is mentioned;

Article 6

….but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. 

And the first amendment ;

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

Obviously these sections do not promote Christianity or reference it as a guiding principle.

The 7^th amendment is interesting in that there has been much debate as to weather it refers to laws based in Christianity. The 7^th amendment states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Common Law was understood to be a body of laws which were common to many states and were laws that governed interpersonal issues as apposed to issues between the state and its citizens. In these cases a body of precedence would be built over time by making the decision of one court, under the same case circumstances, become the de facto law for future cases.  

Common Law has become synonymous with that body of  precedent. However, in the context of the constitution, Common Law referred to the historical or inherited concepts of English Common Law. By the nineteenth century English Common Law had come to mean any laws that were not statutory or regulatory laws. Basically laws that did not interest the king or parliament. 

Some have contended that English Common law had its origins in English Church law, and therefore in Christianity.   

In a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper in 1814,  Jefferson refutes the idea that the origins and or progressions of common law had their basis in Christianity.  

“For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced
by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time
by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta,
which terminates the period of the common law…But none of these adopt
Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement
of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of
religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians,”

Later in 1824 Jefferson wrote his famous “wall of separation” letter to major John Cartwright. Again Jefferson claimed that English common law had no roots in ecclesiastical law.

In response to Jefferson’s 1824 letter, Joseph Story a Harvard professor, and devout Unitarian, wrote a rebuttal. In this rebuttal, Story cited 22 statutes enacted in parliamentary law that specifically enforced Christian rites or doctrines. For example it fixed the death penalty for heresy.

One can find many quotes from the founding fathers that uphold the notion that the foundation of our laws are ecclesiastical. One can also find many quotes even by the same author that state that our laws are completely secular.

Some light can be shed on the subject by looking at case law history (using the spirit of the 7^th amendment).

In the case of Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth (the case Jefferson wrote Cartwright about) where the rights of free speech were brought to trial in the supreme court of Virginia the defendant did;

…with contriving and intending to scandalize and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian Religion, and the Scriptures of Truth; and that he, in the presence and hearing of several persons,.

In rendering its judgment the court ruled:

No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country… No society can tolerate a willful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down its laws… Christianity is a part of the common law … not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

In People v. Ruggles 1811, Kent speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order.

There are many cases that were brought to state supreme courts and even to the U.S. supreme court such as Vidal v. Grard’s executors. Where the decisions included a pronouncement that “Christian religion is a part of the common law”

Laws from particular states were given passive acceptance within the framework of the constitution unless specifically overridden.  

In many cases the laws of individual states may have reflected specific Christian principles. For example; many state’s had laws which prohibited certain activities on Sunday. These were specifically based on a reverence for the Christian Sabbath. These laws have become known as “blue laws”. These laws were originally enacted in the states to allow for church attendance, or just a general reverence for Sunday. In North Carolina it is still against the law to hunt on Sunday. In Michigan it is against the law for pawn shops to be open on Sunday. These laws have stood up to many assaults claiming they violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. In 1961 the Supreme Court tackled 4 cases regarding blue laws and upheld the state’s laws in each case.  In those rulings the majority report noted that the Sunday laws were originally based on the Christian Sabbath, but are now based on a universal day of rest not necessarily tied to any religion. However the minority report emphatically stated that these laws were specific to Christianity and violated the establishment clause. So these laws were considered by some justices to be specifically Christian. And these laws have remained on the books of many states through the years. So in the early days of the United States these state laws where understood to be Christian and were not seen as being in conflict with the constitution.

While the founding fathers did not want to specifically establish the “Religion” of Christianity as the religion of the United States. It is apparent that the majority of the founders did not see contradictions between specific Christian based laws and the constitution.

Is the United States a Christian nation ?

It has been stated many times, especially during elections, that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Statements like these are usually followed by an admonishment to the voters to vote for people that will represent those Christian values.  Having representatives that live by Christian values would be preferred to having representatives that live by some other moral code. For example, it would be preferable to have honest, compassionate, self sacrificing representatives (these being the admired general tenets of Christianity). It would not be desirable to have representatives that are dishonest and self serving. And it would also not be desirable to have representatives that live by a philosophy that is antithetical to Christianity, such as Nazism. Given the choice of Billy Graham or Al Capone as president, almost everyone would pick the former. However, the reasons for making such a choice are not because one person would better represent the original intent of the founding fathers. The reason for picking the candidate that represents a higher moral standard is because we feel his decisions would better represent the best interest of the country. We think that all citizens would be better served by representatives with high moral standards. However, consider for a moment if the United States was a nation completely and totally dedicated to capitalism over everything else. If, as a people, all we cared about was getting a piece of the action no matter what the costs to the general welfare of our people, and to our environment. Who would be the candidate of choice then?  Fortunately, most U.S. citizens do care about a broad range of issues, and are not completely absorbed with capitalism or some other overriding philosophy. We find that during campaigns the evangelical Christian electorate express a desire for  getting back to our roots as a nation, those roots being centered in Christianity. So, is the nation really rooted in Christianity?

How would one define a “Christian Nation”?

This question is at the heart of the issue of whether or not the founders intended the United States to be a Christian nation. How would one define a Muslim nation, or a Jewish nation? We see examples of these today. Iran is a Muslim nation. In Iran ’s  constitution it states that Shi'a Islam is the official religion of Iran . The nation is called the Islamic Republic of Iran. The structure of the government is such that all candidates for office must be approved by the Assembly of Experts who are Islamic Scholars. All laws in Iran must follow Islamic law as stated in the Koran. It is pretty obvious that Iran is a Muslim nation. In Israel , the structure of the government is parliamentarian. The legislative body, called the Knesset, is elected in free elections. The “Basic Laws of Israel” define Israel to be a Jewish state. Five other religions are also officially recognized, but each of these are within the “Abrahamic family of religions”. The primary consideration that makes Israel a Jewish nation is that 75 percent of the population is Jewish. At the time of its inception that number was more like 98 percent. One other consideration that would define a nation as a nation of a particular religion is that if, within a nation’s constitution, a law existed which was specific to a particular religion. Or if the laws of that country implicitly assume the people are of a particular religion. For example; within the Basic Laws of Israel it is stated that certain parts of Jerusalem are considered holy sites. This would imply that the government assumes that the population is made up of people that, because of their Judaism, consider these sites holy. So, to define a nation as a nation of a particular religion requires one of the following:

1. That a nation explicitly state its religion in its constitution.

2. That a nation be comprised of a vast majority from a particular religion.

3. That within a nations laws, a particular religion is assumed

Using this standard, can it be stated that the United States was founded as a Christian nation?

The Constitution

To understand the “original intent” of the U.S. Constitution, one must understand the context of its forming, and to some extent, get inside the minds of the men who formed it. As to the context;

The first attempt at adopting a constitution that would unite the thirteen colonies started immediately after the declaration of independence was sent to England. The Articles of Confederation were started in 1777, and were finally ratified in 1781. These articles dealt with forming a representative government with representatives from each state in the “United States of America”. This confederation was primarily concerned with how to deal with the war with the British, interaction with foreign countries, and with resolving state’s claims on land in the western territories. Each state in the union was viewed as a sovereign entity, who would send representatives to the congress of the confederation whenever that body met.  For several years after the war with England was over, the articles of confederation were amended and modified. Eventually, a new constitution was written in 1787 and finally ratified by the final state in 1790.

“We the people in order to form a more perfect union”. A union had been established, but a more perfect one was possible. This more perfect union would establish, a contract between the states that secured a nation built upon individual rights and representative government. This more perfect union was also “more perfect” than the government of England. In England the executive and half of the legislative body (Parliament),  held office for life. In our new form of government only a small judicial body would hold office for life. This new constitution built the foundation of a government that contained the checks and balances necessary to have a nation that would live in perpetuity.

As to the minds of the founders.

Part of the difficulty with understanding the “intent” of the men who debated for months on the content of the new constitution, is that the deliberations were intentionally kept secret. Secret deliberations would be honest deliberations was the idea. So much of what we know about the thoughts that went into this magnificent framework will never be known except through the careful study of the diaries and correspondences of the drafters. There are constitutional scholars that have spent decades trying to discern what the drafters intended for each article. These experts have written many books and articles on the subject. These experts have advised the supreme court, who is to determine exactly how the constitution is to be interpreted in every case that is brought before it. The decisions of the justices are supposed to represent the original intent of the law.  The concepts that gave birth to the constitution are also represented in the writings of the men that influenced the founders. Writers such as John Locke, Charles de Montesquieu and Thomas Paine had a great influence on the concepts of the constitution.

It is not the purpose of this blog to debate each article and its original intent. The ability to get at exactly what the founders intended is probably not the issue. The issues we are faced with today as a nation are issues that result from a more general breakdown of the intent of the constitution. We know that many things are working very well. We also know that many things are not working. For example; Did the founders conceive of a federal government that is the number one employer in the nation? Did the founders conceive of a nation that taxes its citizens to such a degree that the average person pays 20 percent of their income to the government? Did the founders conceive of a government that is comprised primarily of two political parties, where affiliation with the party is the driving force behind most legislative decisions, and even many judicial decisions? Did the founders conceive of a nation made up of such a large and culturally diverse population? Many of the issues we are faced with as a nation result from general trends in legislation, and general trends in the population that have changed the political and social landscape. This new landscape is a huge impressionist’s painting of what the founders envisioned.

The question is; Is the constitution obsolete? Have we as a nation moved so far from the assumptions built into that sacred document, that it is no longer relevant. Have the thousands of laws, and the thousands of judicial decisions regarding those laws, made the bill of rights just something to teach in grade school.  Has our society reached a point where “rights” not even conceived of in the constitution, such as privacy and diversity, have  become more sacred than rights explicitly stated in it, such as not allowing government  seizure of property. Has our society reached a point where we have allowed ourselves to not just to be entangled, but to be completely constrained by our foreign affairs just so we can by a cheap television.  The fundamental questions must be answered.

First, Can our constitution still work? Second, What must change about our government to make it work. And finally, how must we as a people change to make it work?

What is truth?

The truth is very basic.

The truth is this:

We were created in the image of God.

Our original state and our original purpose was to be like God.

We were to be creative, compassionate, obedient and resolute because God is.

Man, unlike other creatures, was given a free will to choose his operation.

Mankind chose to abandon the Godlike attributes he possessed and pursue those operations that would satisfy his earthly nature.

Since the beginning of time, however successful or unsuccessful, God has been trying to restore mankind  from his earthly qualities, back to his original qualities.   

Those earthly qualities of mankind; insecurity, destructiveness, hatred and

selfishness have lead mankind to immense devastation throughout history.

They are also at the heart of the founding father’s expectations of the people

incorporated by the constitution of the United States . Our forefathers knew the nature of man. They new the nature of tyrannical leaders, as well as the nature of the mob. The Constitution is a blueprint for a society where man’s nature is kept in check for both the governed as well as the governors.  There will never be a perfect society, because we are not perfect people. However, the United States constitution represents the closest thing to a perfect society that we will ever know.

When we see that society start to crumble around us, we begin to look for the enemies that must be behind its demise. Throughout  the 20^th century that perceived enemy took on many forms. Alcohol, Greed, Communism,  Humanism, and Secularism. All of these institutions have been blamed for the ills of the country at one time of another. In reality, all of these social practices or institutions are merely a reflection of the nature of man. Communism (State totalitarianism), for example, is merely another method by which the few want to control the many.  Greed is the gratification of personal desires regardless of its effects on the community. Each of these institutions are merely man acting out his unchecked passions to their fullest extent. The constitution represents a treaty by which the signing parties agree not to allow each other to overstep the understood boundaries which lead to the destruction of the society.

It is obvious that both the governed and those that govern have slipped into a quagmire of destructive behavior. We need to pull ourselves out, with God’s help. We need to rebuild the nation that was our forefather’s dream.

This blog will attempt to do three things.

1. Present current political debate in the light of biblical relevence.

2. Present current social trends in the light of biblical relevance.

3. Suggest practices which will contribute to realigning society and government with the original intent of the founding fathers for the United Sates.