There are people who deny the role that the Judea/Christian faith played in the founding of this nation.  No matter how often you present them with the evidence, they deny it.  If you show them what the founders said about it; what the people in the next generation of our government said about it; even if you show them what the Courts had to say about it, they will reject the evidence and insist that this nation is secular, was founded secular and was always intended to be secular.  Sadly, these people are lost: they do not understand and have even renounced the use of reason.  Still, their assertions must be refuted, and so it is – once again – I find myself doing my part to make the Truth of history known.

I do not want to do more of the talking than necessary.  The founders have already covered this.  So, in this post, I will merely try to serve as a narrator/moderator so that the founders can do the speaking.

We start with the assumption that our founders believed our rights come from God:

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

–Thomas Jefferson, [Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.]

Then we go to the founders’ assertion that our rights can only be preserved by maintaining a moral society:

“(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; …the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained…” 

–George Washington

The founders also asserted that the only way to secure morality is through religion, and that the Christian religion presents the best, purest moral law known and even likely to be known to man – and that the Revolution was affected because the people embraced the Christian religion:

“Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted.”

–P. H. Wendover

“There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.”

— John Quincy Adams

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)

“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations … This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

–John Adams

“Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.”

— James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution

” Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”

— Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Indepedence [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]

“As to Jesus of Nazareth … I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see;…”

–Benjamin Franklin

“I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.”

–Thomas Jefferson, (Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

The founders did not believe that religion should be divorced from government.  Instead, they believed good government was dependent upon sound and active religion.  They even said it was in the best interest of government to have this sound and healthy connection to religion, and for the very reason(s) already cited:

“Indeed, the right of a society or government to [participate] in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state and indispensable to the administrations of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion—the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them.”

–Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice

(Source: Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), p. 260, §442.)

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

–James Madison, [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

The founders believed God actively worked through them to help the American Revolution succeed:

“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs in the affairs of men.’ And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

–Benjamin Franklin

“It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”

–James Madison

In fact, the founders saw this nation as being intimately connected to God and the Christian faith:

“From the day of the Declaration…they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct.”

–John Quincy Adams

“Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity”?

–John Quincy Adams, [–1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.]

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

–John Adams

(Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.)

Finally, you have to ask yourself: “Would the men who wrote these words ever conceive of a government that was intentionally divorced from all religious influences?”  If you say yes, then you need to explain this:

“We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.”

— Samuel Adams

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

— John Quincy Adams from July 4, 1821

[NOTE: Before any of you who wish to re-write history start to accuse me of ‘cherry-picking’ my quotes, STOP!  It is you who do that, because you have to.  I have restrained myself in the citations I used.  I could write a book filled with words much to the effect as those I used here – because they exist in abundance!  But those few words that you have twisted to support your assertions that the founders wanted a secular government are just that – few.  You have to look far and wide to find them, and even then, you often have to twist them to make them suit your purpose.  Jefferson’s use of the term ‘separation of Church and State’ is a perfect example.  He was making the same argument I make here, not the one you have bastardized his words to make.  The point is this: posts like this are easy to write – because they are the truth.  It is why there are so many citations I or others can use, all asserting the same sentiments.  The Truth will not be destroyed…but those who seek to twist, change and abolish it will be.]

There are many people who reject the assertion that Natural Law I a real thing and that it is the universal law which governs this universe, but both are true. What’s more, both rest of the necessity of a Creator, for, without Him, lawlessness reigns.  And when lawlessness reigns, there can be no such things as morality, justice, security, rights or liberty.  There is only “might-makes-right,” and this is what the headlines tell us this nation and our society have devolved into: a lawless mob where the powerful make the rules, the guilty are excused and the innocent are held responsible for the actions of others.

The first story:

Teen Who Killed 4 in Drunken Crash Avoids Jail — But It’s the Defense Used That Has Stunned the Internet

A judge on Tuesday decided to give a Texas teenager who killed four in a drunken driving accident a 10 year probation sentence rather than jail time after defense attorneys argued the teen’s parents spoiled him and never taught him right from wrong.

There is so much wrong with this story.  First, ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating the law.  This is a well-established principle of our legal system.  Thus, this young man should have been convicted and sentenced.  The fact that he was not then means the judge should be immediately removed from the bench.  Finally, the very idea that a “professional” would argue that a competent adult should be held blameless simply because he or she was spoiled as a child should be viewed as a mental defect in the person making that argument.  This is a simple issue.  We are all born with an innate sense of right and wrong, so we have no excuse for claiming we didn’t know better:

“Questions of natural right are triable by their conformity with the moral sense and reason of man.”

–Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson got this from John Locke, who in turn got it from the book of Romans:

Romans 2:14

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

The second story:

Three Teenagers Arrested, Charged for Not Preventing Friend From Driving Drunk

If you can be arrested and charged for not forcing your will onto another person, then you live under a condition of total anarchy.  There is no Natural Law that compels a person to prevent another from doing something they know they should not do unless there is absolute certainty the second person will cause harm to another party.  In this case, even though the second party was intoxicated, there is no proof that the young lady who was arrested could have known with absolute certainty that her friend would cause physical harm of damage to property.  So how can she be charged with a crime?  By this reasoning, everyone who had any contact with a drunk who then got behind a wheel is guilty of a crime, as is anyone who has ever known a mentally unstable person who later harms another; or even a person who owns and uses a baseball bat or hammer to kill.

In order to be a law, a law must be applied equally under the same conditions, and this is not what is being reported.  In short, this story is about anarchy, not the law.  It must also conform to Natural Law, otherwise it is not a law but tyranny in the guise of law.  Natural Law does not allow us to force our will on another unless their is certainty of imminent harm.  It may be unfortunate, tragic even, but without certainty of imminent harm, holding a person accountable for the actions of another is a violation of Natural law.  But more than that, the laws that were used against these three kids are meant to apply to the first person.  Reckless endangerment is connected to what you do, not to what you allow others to do.  What we have in this story is a clear example of people charging stupid but otherwise innocent people simply to make themselves feel better — and it is wrong.

Both of these stories are becoming the norm, and both are about the compulsion to “punish” someone when things go wrong, but not the person who is actually at fault.  As for the person who is actually guilty, our society wants to make excuses for them – not hold them accountable for their actions.  And to compound the tragedies in both stories: what the courts are teaching people is that a spoiled child should be spoiled even more – by the government this time — by allowing him to get away with manslaughter, but three kids are charged for not forcing their will onto that of another person.

Sadly, these type of stories are starting to become the norm, and there is nothing about them in the least bit connected to the rule of law, let alone Natural Law.

When I saw this story in the news – Air Force Base Removes Nativity Display After Group Claims It’s a ‘Direct Violation of the U.S. Constitution’ – I was reminded of something Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, said about the danger posed by our courts:

“The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.”

–Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

There is nothing – nothing – in the Constitution of the United States that prohibits religion being recognized, practiced, condoned or even promoted (in general terms) by the Federal government.  You can search the document all you want and you will not find the words anywhere in the text.  In order to come up with the supposed “wall of separation,” you have to invent things that are not there – and even then, you have to turn them on their head.  In this case, the phrase “wall of separation” comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a church that means the exact opposite of what the anti-Christians claim it means.  Jefferson was not telling the church that the federal government was intended to be secular; he was telling the church that the federal government had no authority regarding matters of religion – period!

I no longer entertain the arguments of those who claim this nation was founded by men who did not fear God, or that they designed our government to be secular.  The men who framed this nation and our government said otherwise: they, by their own hands, convict the secular humanists who now push their revisionist history in their crusade against religion.  In fact, the people claiming there is a wall of separation are of the exact spirit the founders sought to protect the nation against when they wrote the 1^st Amendment.  But the rise of Progressivism in this nation changed the sentiments among that minority which seeks to control others, and the courts have been chief among these conspirators.  That is the threat Story was warning us against: that the courts would reject their true duty and follow the sentiments of their times.  Well, history has shown that this sage should now be considered legal prophet.  Story was foretelling the rise of the ‘living document:’ the false idea that the Constitution changes according to the feelings and needs of the times.  And he was right: this has made the courts the primary source of our national and social destruction.

I can quote the founders all day long, but the forces that wage war against the Judea/Christian ethic are beyond reason.  History and fact matter little to them.  To them, history is a mere thing to be re-written as the need arises.  This is why the Progressives will spend more than a year telling you that “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.”  When the truth is revealed and you discover they knew they were lying, they change the story and tell you they never said that, what they said was you could keep your doctor “if you were willing to pay more.”  The fact that we live in an age of video tape does not bother these people: they have embraced Hitler’s belief that you can make people believe anything – so long as you just keep telling the lie.  If you have not done so recently, read George Orwell’s 1984 and see if you do not already live in a form of that very world he described.

But for those who are reading who can still be reached by reason, I ask you to consider something for me, please.  If this nation were founded by secular men, and they intended for our government to be secular, do you think the first Supreme Court Chief Justice – and founding father of this nation – would have said these words?

“Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

–John Jay

Now, to those who insist on pushing the lies:

1 – John Jay was one of the founding fathers of this nation; he was there; he helped build this country and its government.  He knows the founders, this nation and the Constitution better than you or I ever will.

2 – Jay was the first Supreme Court Chief Justice.  This makes him a legal authority on the Constitution.  He is more authoritative than any alive today.

3 – He said this was a Christian nation at the time of the founding.  It was considered to be Christian – even by the Supreme Court – until the Progressives started to infiltrate the courts, reversed rulings, and started to deny and re-write history.

4 – Jay said that, as a Christian nation, it was the DUTY and in the best interest of the people to elect CHRISTIAN leaders!

In a world where logic and reason reign, this is a slam-dunk, iron-tight refutation of the claim that this nation was not Christian at its founding and that our government was intended to be secular.  These things have been forced upon us by a minority and in direct violation of the 1^st Amendment.  That makes these people enemies of the State, as they have violated the Social Contract that is the Constitution. By not going through the legal process of Amending the Constitution to make this a secular nation (because they knew they couldn’t and still couldn’t), these people have placed themselves in a state of war against those who still seek to abide by the Constitution.  Consequently, they no longer deserve nor can they legally claim any rights or protections under it.  And here is the irony of ironies: the protections they seek – even the right to be free of religion – only exist because of the Judea/Christian ethic they now seek to destroy!