Recently, I signed up for the free Constitutional Course (Constitution 101) offered online through Hillsdale College. It is a 10 week course that has lectures and a lot of great readings from the Founding Fathers with the Constitution as the beacon.
This week’s course (week 6) was entitled “Religion, Morality, and Property“.
I found the lecture very interesting and also very informative. I jotted down some notes from the lecture that stood out to me. Here are my notes:
Free people = virtuous people
“firm reliance on “Divine Providence”
Moral duties=universal.
God created human mind free. All can choose between good and evil.
All men are fallen and fallible. With careful cultivation of soul through family, church, paying attention to God’s laws men will have the gift of liberty through self government.
Reason and revelation counsel religious liberty
God’s role: God is referred to in the Declaration of Independence as “Laws of Nature” “Creator”, “Supreme Judge”, and “Divine Providence”….God is chief law giver, chief exectutive and chiefe judge…only God is the one who has the duties of this…not government.
Government is not the creator or giver of rights, but protector of these rights.
Before humans have governments, they have rights. Government cannot legitimately take the rights away.
“No Free Government or the blessings of liberty can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent reoccurance to fundamental principles” George Mason “Virginia Declaration of Rights”
Virtue was key to freedom and when we stray from Virtue we must repent
Prayer and fasting were essential in Divine guidance including and especially during times of war.
Patrick Henry believed that in order for virtue to flourish, religious support was necessary and proposed a bill to give churches power to enforce these Christian traits. People like George Washington supported this.
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others opposed this proposed bill so that religion wasn’t “shackled to the state”.
Religion is something we owe to our Creator. Religion’s integrity must not be hampered by politics.
Therefore, there needs to be a separation of church and state. This doesn’t mean that church can’t influence the state through its members, but it meant that church can’t force people to obey laws proposed from the state.
Property and people’s rights should be protected by the government. A just government will secure to man what is rightfully theirs.
I’m not claiming by any stretch to be an expert on the Founding Fathers or the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I am positive there are many books out there that discuss the topic of religion and the nation’s founders. For the purpose of this post, I am only referring to the 30 minute speech given and the notes I took from the Hillsdale College professor.
With that in mind, it is apparent to me that all of the Founding Fathers had deep convictions when it came to reliance on God especially when founding and running a nation. Also, it appears to me that their views aligned with Christian principles found in the Bible. The only question was how to create an environment where people could have the opportunity to flourish and not be persecuted by the government.
Some would argue that because the U.S. decided not to have a separation of church and state that it means the nation wasn’t a Christian nation. Others would argue that although the majority of citezens sided with Jefferson on the issue of church and state, that the values and beliefs were derived from the Bible, or Christian principles, and therefore the nation was a Christian nation. Yet, others would still argue that these Christian values are the same values that are found in other religions, and therefore the U.S. shouldn’t claim to be a Christian nation.
What are your thoughts?
Grace for Grace 
36 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 6, 2012 at 12:25 am
neojoneswd
The designers hoped that by following the moral teachings at home, we would
bring those morals into our everyday life, business and community. We were
once ‘more’ of a Christian nation than we are today. ‘Love of money…’ is the root of ‘all’ evil. Our nation has fell in love with ‘things’ of money and walked
away from God and religion.
Some would say that America will fall without God. I say it will. People in science have been studying a link, looking for a genetic biological link, to our
evolution. Out maturing into a new human entity. They aren’t calling it anything
but as I thought about it, I realized it was a spiritual link and the word scientists
are using to define our evolutionary nature is based on altruism. They say it is
happening, it is changing, we are changing. But not fast enough I believe. I have hope, my faith in God tells me this is the answer. The next step for all of
us, Americans especially if this nation is to survive. Christ showed us the way because He was the next evolution. We can be a Christian nation again. We
can change the world. We have to re-define the constitution back to what it was originally meant for. To keep us close to God and on the path.
LikeLike
April 6, 2012 at 9:56 pm
graceforgrace
Hi Neojoneswd,
Nice thoughts. How do you think we can go about getting the constitution back to what it was originally meant for?
One way I see is by electing the right people. I’ve become much more politically active ever since Obama came in…he scares me along with all his cronies.
LikeLike
April 6, 2012 at 7:30 am
Doug
What a great topic! Jefferson is often quoted by atheist like Michael Newdow (who filed a lawsuit against Franklin Graham for praying “In Jesus Name” at President Bush’s inauguration) yet his comments are twisted beyond recognition! Jefferson was a strong supporter of the 1st amendment. His famous “separation of church and state” statement was in response to a Danbury CT baptist church’s fear of persecution if a state church was established-he was reassuring them that was not the case (talk about his words being twisted!) While Jefferson was hardly a moral man-he did respect the Christian faith and believed in faith being expressed in the public sector-consider the following:
In 1774 Jefferson introduced a resolution in the Virginia Assembly calling for a day of fasting.
As Governor of Virginia in 1779 he decreed a day of “Public thanksgiving to Almighty God.”
As President he signed a bill appropriating funds for chaplains in congress and the armed services-hardly the poster boy for atheism!
Almost all of our founding fathers considered themselves Christian-and they clearly used the Bible as a compass in the creation of the laws and institutions that govern us. By the way-a blessed Easter to everyone at graceforgrace-He is Risen!
LikeLike
April 6, 2012 at 9:59 pm
graceforgrace
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the comment and references as well. I wasn’t aware of those things Jefferson had done.
Happy Easter to you too!
LikeLike
April 6, 2012 at 9:00 am
Casey
I didn’t listen to the lecture, but based on your notes and a lot of the other lectures and pages on the site they’re using a very dishonest approach to present complicated issues. There seems to be little attempt to explore the intricacies and contradictions in the founders’ approaches to religion, regional religious differences, or the beliefs of average citizens. Instead the intent appears to be to “prove” an explicitly religious basis for the US government and founding thought. That means the motive is ideology rather than history.
Not that I’m denying the role of religion in the US founding – it was tremendous, especially as a means of disseminating revolutionary values and messages among regular people during the war, and religious language was pervasive in contemporary discourse. But an honest approach would discuss the tension between religion and Enlightenment thought, Deism and other unorthodox beliefs, differences between 18th century and modern Christianity, and the role of religion in culture vs in the structure of the government itself (for example, the Constitution is areligious and ignores the precedent set by many state constitutions designed specifically to include religion). The course could even branch out into other paradigms of the origin of rights instead of accepting the simplistic “rights are given by God/government” dichotomy. Maybe I’m wrong and the lecture is more nuanced, but the approach here seems to be to steamroll the complications with political propaganda disguised as history. I’m not such a fan of that.
LikeLike
April 6, 2012 at 10:05 pm
graceforgrace
Hi Casey,
Sign up for the class. It’s free. Listen to the lecture for 1/2 hour and then leave a comment on what you think.
LikeLike
April 6, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Cal
Yes, a great topic. I wouldn’t mind taking Constitution 101.
Are you a Christian, Casey? You made points worthy of consideration.
Doug, I copied your bit about “separation of church & state” and put it on my computer’s desktop because it’s so enlightening (not meaning to make any allusion to Enlightenment thought!).
Yes, Jesus is alive!
LikeLike
April 6, 2012 at 10:08 pm
graceforgrace
Hi Cal,
Take the course. It’s free. All you need to do is put your email account in there and they email you the lecture for free.
My favorite quote was the one that God is the giver of rights…not government.
LikeLike
April 7, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Cal
I think I will take the course. Thanks!
To your second paragraph, a hearty AMEN!
LikeLike
April 6, 2012 at 8:25 pm
R. Gary
The Book of Mormon warns us relative to our living in this free land: “Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever” (2 Ne. 1:7).
“And now,” warned Moroni, “we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity” (Ether 2:9).
Two great American Christian civilizations—the Jaredites and the Nephites—were swept off this land because they did not “serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12). What will become of our civilization?
— Ezra Taft Benson
LikeLike
April 6, 2012 at 10:08 pm
graceforgrace
R. Gary,
Very nice references! Thank you for sharing.
LikeLike
April 7, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Cal
R. Gary, you gave me more stuff for my desktop!
LikeLike
April 7, 2012 at 7:23 am
Aaron
I too think the Hillsdale approach to this issue is one we should be wary of. It’s an oversimplification of history, leaves out much that is valuable, and its thesis could be construed to say the U.S. is a place where non-Christians are not welcome or should not have a voice, because, in the end, when a particular religion thinks it is sanctioned by government it fails to see any distinction between the two. The other unfortunate eventuality, as evidenced by many European countries, is that religion, seen as not separate from government, withers and dies. One of the greatest blessings of our constitution is that it did not say this is a Christian nation. There is room for the Jew, the Muslim, the Buddhist, even the non-believer. This should be far more appealing to members of our church, which is a world not a national religion, than the narrow view espoused by the zealots at Hillsdale.
LikeLike
April 7, 2012 at 9:09 am
graceforgrace
Hi Aaron,
You bring up some very good points to consider. To be blunt, as a Mormon, many if not most Christians don’t consider us to be Christian and we wouldn’t be able to practice our faith if it was made to be a certain way under the law.
However, don’t you think most of the Founding Fathers were Christian-based believers and when they were saying “Divine Providence” they were referring to the God of the Bible?
I’m not the expert, and it is a sincere question, so anyone is welcome to answer this question.
LikeLike
April 7, 2012 at 11:09 am
dougindeap
In discussing this “Christian nation” issue, it is important to define terms and, in particular, to distinguish between “society” and “government.” To the extent one equates “nation” with “society,” whether it is legitimate and appropriate to label our nation “Christian” may be debated on various grounds, e.g., the demographic makeup of the population, then, now, and in the future. To the extent one equates “nation” with “government,” it is an entirely different matter that calls for analyzing the legal nature of our government.
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
While the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.
While some also draw meaning from the references to “Nature’s God” and “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence (references that could mean any number of things, some at odds with the Christian idea of God) and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is largely baseless. Important as the Declaration is in our history, it did not operate to bring about independence (that required winning a war), nor did it found a government, nor did it even create any law, and it certainly did not say or do anything that somehow dictated the meaning of a Constitution adopted twelve years later. The colonists issued the Declaration not to do any of that, but rather to politically explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Nothing in the Constitution depends on anything said in the Declaration. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies. Nor could it even if it purported to do so. Once independent, the people of the former colonies were free to choose whether to form a collective government at all and, if so, whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not somehow limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take its words as inspiration and guidance if, and to the extent, they chose–or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished–or, as they ultimately chose, a government founded on the power of the people (not a deity) and separated from religion.
LikeLike
April 7, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Cal
Excellent points from Aaron.
graceforgrace said, “To be blunt, as a Mormon, many if not most Christians don’t consider us to be Christian and we wouldn’t be able to practice our faith if it was made to be a certain way under the law.”
I’ve thought of that myself. The church of Jesus Christ at large hasn’t wisdom enough to qualify for ruling the government with absolute authority. If we Christians were as perfect as God, then I would say let the state and church combine. God himself—ruling through perfect instruments—would be the ultimate president.
graceforgrace: “Don’t you think most of the Founding Fathers were Christian-based believers and when they were saying “Divine Providence” they were referring to the God of the Bible?”
That’s what I’ve been taught.
LikeLike
April 8, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Stan Beale
You are getting into an area frought with danger. First, the U.S. is a Christian country concept is pushed by people like David Barton (good buddy of Glenn Beck) who use bad history to try to prove that point.
One example, Barton claims that. over 1/2 of the signers of the declaration of Independence were trained ministers–in reality only 4 had some training and only one functioned as a minister. How did he get to one half? Simple, schools like Harvard and Yale were founded in the mid 1600ds to train ministers, so he assumed they still were only doing that one hundred years later. Sort of like assuming O.J. Simpson is a trained minister since USC started as a Methodist instiution. Also in the 18th century seminary and college were almost interchangeable words. Just because you went to a seminary, it didn’t mean you received ministerial training like Barton insists
Many of the Founding Fathers were Diests, who were not trinitarian. Jefferson, for example, thought Christ a great teacher, but not divine. Unitarian beliefs like that and our concept of the Godhead do not fit the fundamentalist beliefs about a true Christian (see Rick Warren’s statement today in the Huffington Post on why they do not consider Mitt Romney a Christian).
What you have then, is individuals like Barton trying to argue, very badly, that Jefferson was really a fundamentalist at heart. He is coming out this week with another book that attempts to prove it (The Jefferson Lies: The Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson).
Why is this dangerous and not just misquided? Because people are starting to act on thse beliefs. We see it being used to attack Mitt Romney, oppose the building of Mosques, the passing anti-sharia law statutes and attempts to ban the wearing of a veil.
There is a recent movement started called Christian Reconstructionism which calls, in part, for the total restoration of the 613 mitzvot of the Old Testament (e.g. a woman who is a virgin and is engaged and does not cry out loud enough while being raped in a city is to be stoned to death by the men of the town-Deut 22:11)
Another called Seven Mountain Dominionism calls for Christians (fundamentalist variety) to take over and control business, arts and entertainment, media, family, business, education and government.
My belief is not that we will wake up tomorrow with a fundamentalis Christian dictatorship, but that many good Church members will fall victim to the attraction of the Christian Nation myth and then some of its more dangerous offshoots. If anyone wants to read what many historians consider the best study of this question, it is John Fea’s book, “Was America Founded As A Christian Nation?”
LikeLike
April 9, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Cal
dougindeap, your name and picture is so clever. When I was a teenager I used to frequenty pretend I was playing a guitar.
This is not official, but someone—it may have been Pat Robertson, David Barton, Glenn Beck or someone like that—said that the Supreme Court called the U.S. a Christian nation back in the late 1800s. Whether they would do the same today is an open question.
Speaking of Glenn Beck, James Robison is interviewing him on his show this week. James Robison is a charismatic evangelical. His show is at 7:30 p.m. ET on either AngelOne, TBN, or DayStar. I praise God for what he is doing through both of those men.
LikeLike
April 10, 2012 at 8:32 am
dougindeap
Cal,
I appreciate the kind words.
You’re right about the Supreme Court. Some, like Barton, make much of Justice Brewer’s statement in Holy Trinity v. United States that “this is a Christian nation,” some even thinking the Court “ruled” to that effect or that the opinion pertained to the Constitution. Neither is so. The Court held that a statute restricting importation of any alien under contract to perform labor or service did not preclude a church from contracting with an alien to come to this country and serve as its pastor. The Court based this holding on its finding that, notwithstanding what a literal reading of the statute suggested, Congress intended simply to stay the influx of cheap, unskilled labor and did not intend to address circumstances such as the church’s contract with an alien pastor. It supported this finding, in dictum (i.e., a statement not essential to its holding), with the further thought that as this is a Christian nation, Congress would not have intended to restrict the church in this situation.
Brewer later clarified that he meant simply to observe that the nation’s people are largely Christian and not that the nation’s government or laws are somehow Christian: “But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. […] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.” D. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (1905) 12.
LikeLike
April 11, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Cal
Thanks, Doug. It’s always essential to hear things in their context.
Brewer was right. We’re a Christian nation only in a loose sense.
However, I’m puzzled about one thing: How does the statement, “In God We Trust,” on our greenbacks, and similar places, fit in with all this?
(Of course it’s not what we say, or even what we have written on our money, that matters. What matters is, do we really trust God? Do our actions demonstrate it?)
Thanks again for your valuable info.
LikeLike
April 12, 2012 at 8:13 am
dougindeap
The government’s inscription of the phrase “In God we trust” on coins and currency, as well as its addition of the words “under God” to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and adoption of the phrase “In God we trust” as a national motto in 1956, were mistakes, which I think should be corrected. Under our Constitution, the government has no business proclaiming that “we trust” “In God.” Some of us do, and some of us don’t; each of us enjoys the freedom to make that choice; the government does not and should not purport to speak for us in this regard. Nor does the government have any business calling on its citizens to voice affirmation of a god in any circumstances, let alone in the very pledge the government prescribes for affirming allegiance to the country. The unnecessary insertion of an affirmation of a god in the pledge puts atheists and other nonbelievers in a bind: Either recite the pledge with rank hypocrisy or accept exclusion from one of the basic rituals of citizenship enjoyed by all other citizens. The government has no business forcing citizens to this choice on religious grounds, and it certainly has no business assembling citizens’ children in public schools and prescribing their recitation of the pledge–affirmation of a god and all–as a daily routine.
But that’s just me talking. The courts, on the other hand, have sometimes found ways to excuse such things, for instance with the explanation that they are more about acknowledging tradition than promoting religion per se. Draining the government’s nominally religious statements or actions of religious meaning (or at least purporting to do so) and discounting them as non-religious ritual–sometimes dubbed “ceremonial deism”–is one way the courts have sometimes found such statements and actions to conform to the First Amendment. Ordinary folks, though, commonly see things quite differently; when most read “[i]n God we trust,” they think the Government is actually declaring that “we” as a people actually “trust” the actual “God” they believe in. If they truly understood it as merely a ritualistic phrase devoid of religious meaning (as the courts suppose), they would hardly get as exercised as they do about proposals to drop it. As you can imagine, those more interested in championing their religion than the constitutional principle of separation of church and state sometimes seek to exploit and expand such “exceptions” even if it requires they fake interest only in tradition.
Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
LikeLike
April 13, 2012 at 10:01 pm
graceforgrace
dougindeep,
Government doesn’t have the right to force religion, but it does have the obligation to protect it. You can’t say that’s not constitutional can you?
LikeLike
April 13, 2012 at 11:11 pm
dougindeap
I’m not sure what you have in mind by a government obligation to protect religion. I think the government is to remain neutral in religious matters, thereby allowing religions to flourish or founder as they will.
The primary purpose of the First Amendment religion clauses is not to protect religion or government, but rather to protect individuals’ religious freedom. The free-exercise clause does this directly by constraining the government from prohibiting individuals from freely exercising their religions. The establishment clause does this indirectly by constraining government from promoting or otherwise taking steps to establish any religion, thus assuring that individuals are free to exercise their religions without fearing the government will favor the religions of others and thus disfavor theirs.
LikeLike
April 13, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Cal
Dougindeap, are you personally one who trusts in God?
If we debunk all the false impressions people have today, shouldn’t we change the commonly used phrase “separation of church and state” to “the government shall not establish a state religion”—meaning a denomination?
Am I correct in saying that the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution? It sounds like an overstatement. It sounds almost as if Christians aren’t supposed to hold leadership positions in government. If that’s the case, George Washington was illigit. Maybe we’d have to posthumously impeach him? 🙂
Have a nice weekend!
LikeLike
April 13, 2012 at 8:06 pm
dougindeap
You correctly observe that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution. That assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a key to solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
The phrase “separation of church and state,” while a handy label for an important constitutional principle, is also problematic in that it has become a political lightening rod and a source of confusion. It is important to distinguish between the constitutional principle of separation of church and state and a political doctrine that often goes by the same name. The constitutional separation of church and state does not, as is sometimes said, purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. Nor does the constitutional separation of church and state prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.
Confusion understandably arises because the political doctrine more broadly calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. The underlying reasons for that approach are many, but two primary ones are that it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and, further, it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena, so we’re not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other’s religious beliefs in order to address a political issue. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is). Rather, it is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct ourselves in political dialogue. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.
LikeLike
April 15, 2012 at 6:08 am
Cal
Dougindeap, you surely have dougindeaply to this issue. I double-checked your profile by clicking on your clever picture and noticed that you are a lawyer. Is this your area of expertise, a part of your career in law?
LikeLike
April 15, 2012 at 9:02 am
dougindeap
I’ve always enjoyed learning about constitutional law and particularly First Amendment and related issues, and spent many hundreds of hours researching and writing on such things in law school. While my practice sometimes takes me into constitutional issues, it almost never touches on separation of church and state, so in that realm I might aptly be considered a professional amateur.
LikeLike
April 15, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Cal
I see.
Have you ever considered becoming a Christian (if you aren’t already)? We need all the help we can get. You would make a good ambassador for the Lord.
Besides, it’ll change your life in ways you never imagined!
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 7:28 am
dougindeap
I appreciate the compliment–coming from a good ambassador who knows of what he speaks.
I have considered questions of god(s) sometimes intently, sometimes idly cduring my life and have never been persuaded of their existence, so I remain an atheist, happily so, as I have from as early as I can remember.
A godless reality doesn’t need or call for diplomats to bring people around to recognizing “it.” It just is. I suppose the only need for atheist ambassadors, so to speak, is simply to help make the world safe and promising for those of like mind and thereby for all, so humankind can thrive and, one can hope, discover more and more of what is.
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Cal
I’m glad you have at times intently considered the possibility of God’s existence.
I used to be an agnostic. A girl-friend who lived close to God became a living demonstration to me that God was real. . . . Actually, there were lots of things that happened that slowly convinced me.
I used to say, “I’m not going to believe there’s a God until I see some proof.” One night this girl-friend took me to a revival meeting. We left early because she thought it would be too much for me. That was one time she was wrong.
I saw people getting hit by the power of God and falling down or shaking. I could tell it wasn’t fake. I said to myself, “If you’re looking for proof, this is probably about as much as you’re ever going to see.”
The girl demonstrated to me an ever better type of evidence—the devil can also cause people to shake or fall down. She didn’t do the things I did to have a good time—like watching R-rated movies, bar-hopping, drinking, pre-marital sex (she was still a virgin at 27!), breaking hearts, deceiving people, making mean put-down comments at times, etc.—and yet she was happier than I was, and happier than the other girls I knew who did the sorts of things I did.
Take care.
LikeLike
April 17, 2012 at 10:07 pm
graceforgrace
Cal,
I’ve never heard your conversion story. It’s amazing how when we open our hearts to God He can change our hearts. That’s the greatest proof of God I’ve seen. When I opened my heart to God I too received an overwhelming transformation that came over me and my heart was changed. I’ve seen that with others too.
The invitation is there for all who will open themselves up to it…He says ask and ye shall receive…
LikeLike
April 18, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Cal
The story is much longer than that of course. It’s amazing how much coaxing God has to do in order to get to a hard heart like mine was. Maybe it’s sort of like getting a wild animal to trust you so you can domesticate it.
Take care.
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Cal
There was something good in her that wasn’t in me.
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 7:43 pm
dougindeap
And you tell a good story. Take care.
LikeLike
April 18, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Cal
Nice to meet you. Keep digging deap!
LikeLike
May 14, 2012 at 5:02 pm
mediasloppy
Like Dougindeep, I firmly believe in how he separates Church and State even though I don’t know much about the Constitution. I was born and raised in the Church and still go every few weeks, so I’m not an atheist. I just believe every Religion deserves respect and don’t like how it has become such a divisive political tool these days.
I have seen this free option of learning the Constitution 101 via Hillsdale College, but see it’s highly recommended by far right wing people. I don’t want to invest weeks into this course only to find out it’s heading into David Barton territory. So, my question is does this Course teach God works through the Constitution or is it more along the lines of Dougindeep’s posts?
I’m glad I found this blog with dougindeep’s perspective.
Thank you
LikeLike