The Founders on Religion

[Cecilie1200]

You have no idea what you are talking about.....their words on the matter have already been posted.....especially Franklin's.....but keep lying...then go to confession...

Okay, so what is your perception of what the founders wanted in regard to religion and the government ? What, today, does not gel with your perception of what they foresaw?

The Founders wanted no state religion,that is a religion created by the government with the power to tax in order to support it....as happened in England, ....they also wanted the government to stay out of the business of the various religions. Forcing religious people to bake cakes against their religious beliefs is exactly what they were trying to prevent.....

Also.....churches should be free to exercise their political opinions without losing their tax exempt status......government was to stay out of religion.....not religion out of government.

So why did laws requiring religious people to go against their religious beliefs pass Constitutional scrutiny?

Same reason laws that have since been repealed and judicial decisions that have since been overturned passed: because politicians are a bunch of sleazy, weaseling lawyers.

So they were " mistaken" when they said Public Accommodation did not violate the Constitution? They ruled on it in the 60s.

Yes, they were mistaken - no quotation marks needed - and I have no idea what you think the significance of the timing of the ruling is.

 

[boilermaker55]

Prove your religion is the right religion!

Correction yet another left-wing false narrative. This time it is the lie that the founders wanted to build a "secular nation" in which the government was "free from religion".

"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

— George Washington Farewell Address (September 19, 1796)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, yeah. Dred Scott blah, blah. So why no challenges since the first "I shouldn't have to serve blacks because my religion tells me to" challenge to the FEDERAL public accommodation laws? Seriously, if y'all really do want separate lunch counters, why go after state law?

Translation: I refuse to respect your presentation of facts in this discussion and seek to keep it strictly in the realm of emotional argument.

No worries. Most partisans, especially LWers, are highly emotional so you're "normal".

As for forcing shop owners to serve certain people but not others, I see that as overreach by the Federal government for the same reasons Rand Paul made a few years ago. While I think it's stupid for a businessperson to base their customer base on racist or any other reasons, I respect their right to do so. I also respect the right of others to boycott or protest their business.

Rather than force them to comply with the total weight of the Federal government, I'd rather persuade them to do the right thing. One way to do this is to allow them to serve whomever they want, but not give them Federally-backed small business loans or tax-breaks unless they comply with Federal guidelines.

BTW, is this referencing Hillary's and the DNC's leaked emails?
"The Empire reminds Alderaan survivors that the leaked Death Star plans was the real war crime here. ~ John Fugelsang"

Or, you know, just let the marketplace full of people who find bigotry repugnant deal with them.

And hey, if they actually find enough like-minded dumbasses to keep them in business, then God bless 'em, at least they're all in one place instead of running around loose.

That's a great concept. Now, make it a reality. Challenge Title II of the CRA. Nobody is doing that...how come?

Afraid to say you're willing to go back to separate lunch counters?

You obviously have mistaken yourself for someone whose opinion of me matters in the slightest. You have also obviously mistaken your worldview as some sort of moral standard which people strive to achieve.

I realize that this statement is going to make no sense to you whatsoever, being all full of ideals and principles and such, but see if you can get someone to explain it to you: I respect and defend the right of people to be ignorant assholes, and even act upon their ignorant assholery, while at the same time retaining my right to disagree with them and think they're ignorant assholes.

Or, to dumb it down for the leftists in the audience, I have zero interest in eating in any restaurant whose owners would refuse service based on race, but I would like very much for those owners to have the ability to make that position completely clear to everyone, so that I can avoid them. I do not like unknowingly giving my money to people who are repugnant, simply because you daft leftist tyrants force them to hide their beliefs so that you can all pretend the world is a liberal utopia.

That's not what I asked. Why doesn't anyone have the balls to challenge the Federal law?

You DO realize you asked TWO questions, not one. Right? My post is the response to the second one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, yeah. Dred Scott blah, blah. So why no challenges since the first "I shouldn't have to serve blacks because my religion tells me to" challenge to the FEDERAL public accommodation laws? Seriously, if y'all really do want separate lunch counters, why go after state law?

Translation: I refuse to respect your presentation of facts in this discussion and seek to keep it strictly in the realm of emotional argument.

No worries. Most partisans, especially LWers, are highly emotional so you're "normal".

What facts did you provide that were given an "emotional" response?

As for forcing shop owners to serve certain people but not others, I see that as overreach by the Federal government for the same reasons Rand Paul made a few years ago. While I think it's stupid for a businessperson to base their customer base on racist or any other reasons, I respect their right to do so. I also respect the right of others to boycott or protest their business.

Rather than force them to comply with the total weight of the Federal government, I'd rather persuade them to do the right thing. One way to do this is to allow them to serve whomever they want, but not give them Federally-backed small business loans or tax-breaks unless they comply with Federal guidelines.

That's cute...You start out blathering about an "emotional response" and then proceed to make an argument about how you feel about the law rather than the law itself.

No one, I say again, no one is making the slightest attempt to challenge Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level. You mention Rand Paul and how he brought up the CRA. How did that go for him?

Rand Paul rewrites his own history

Nope, the only attacks are at the state level with very particular local laws that protect gays.

BTW, is this referencing Hillary's and the DNC's leaked emails?
"The Empire reminds Alderaan survivors that the leaked Death Star plans was the real war crime here. ~ John Fugelsang"

No.

Yes, it is my opinion that the law is wrong.

Goody gumdrops. Your feelings don't change the law.

No, that's reserved for YOUR feelings, isn't it?

 

[Seawytch]

Okay, so what is your perception of what the founders wanted in regard to religion and the government ? What, today, does not gel with your perception of what they foresaw?

The Founders wanted no state religion,that is a religion created by the government with the power to tax in order to support it....as happened in England, ....they also wanted the government to stay out of the business of the various religions. Forcing religious people to bake cakes against their religious beliefs is exactly what they were trying to prevent.....

Also.....churches should be free to exercise their political opinions without losing their tax exempt status......government was to stay out of religion.....not religion out of government.

So why did laws requiring religious people to go against their religious beliefs pass Constitutional scrutiny?

Same reason laws that have since been repealed and judicial decisions that have since been overturned passed: because politicians are a bunch of sleazy, weaseling lawyers.

So they were " mistaken" when they said Public Accommodation did not violate the Constitution? They ruled on it in the 60s.

Yes, they were mistaken - no quotation marks needed - and I have no idea what you think the significance of the timing of the ruling is.

There have been no challenges since. Pussies.

 

[Seawytch]

Translation: I refuse to respect your presentation of facts in this discussion and seek to keep it strictly in the realm of emotional argument.

No worries. Most partisans, especially LWers, are highly emotional so you're "normal".

As for forcing shop owners to serve certain people but not others, I see that as overreach by the Federal government for the same reasons Rand Paul made a few years ago. While I think it's stupid for a businessperson to base their customer base on racist or any other reasons, I respect their right to do so. I also respect the right of others to boycott or protest their business.

Rather than force them to comply with the total weight of the Federal government, I'd rather persuade them to do the right thing. One way to do this is to allow them to serve whomever they want, but not give them Federally-backed small business loans or tax-breaks unless they comply with Federal guidelines.

BTW, is this referencing Hillary's and the DNC's leaked emails?
"The Empire reminds Alderaan survivors that the leaked Death Star plans was the real war crime here. ~ John Fugelsang"

Or, you know, just let the marketplace full of people who find bigotry repugnant deal with them.

And hey, if they actually find enough like-minded dumbasses to keep them in business, then God bless 'em, at least they're all in one place instead of running around loose.

That's a great concept. Now, make it a reality. Challenge Title II of the CRA. Nobody is doing that...how come?

Afraid to say you're willing to go back to separate lunch counters?

You obviously have mistaken yourself for someone whose opinion of me matters in the slightest. You have also obviously mistaken your worldview as some sort of moral standard which people strive to achieve.

I realize that this statement is going to make no sense to you whatsoever, being all full of ideals and principles and such, but see if you can get someone to explain it to you: I respect and defend the right of people to be ignorant assholes, and even act upon their ignorant assholery, while at the same time retaining my right to disagree with them and think they're ignorant assholes.

Or, to dumb it down for the leftists in the audience, I have zero interest in eating in any restaurant whose owners would refuse service based on race, but I would like very much for those owners to have the ability to make that position completely clear to everyone, so that I can avoid them. I do not like unknowingly giving my money to people who are repugnant, simply because you daft leftist tyrants force them to hide their beliefs so that you can all pretend the world is a liberal utopia.

That's not what I asked. Why doesn't anyone have the balls to challenge the Federal law?

You DO realize you asked TWO questions, not one. Right? My post is the response to the second one.

You didn't really answer that one. You danced around the simple "yes, you're willing to go back to separate lunch counters" answer. Afraid to say it out loud?

 

[Divine Wind]

That's a great concept. Now, make it a reality. Challenge Title II of the CRA. Nobody is doing that...how come?...

Because, although they have different agendas, both the RNC and DNC are increasingly authoritarian. Both seek to make the Feds stronger in order to favor their individual agendas.

Lame cop out. Bigots aren't having a problem arguing their "religious freedom" with local laws. Pussies.

Another emotional response from a bigot. I disagree with imposing the values of one over another. You, OTOH, have no problem imposing your views on everyone else. You have no problem with "Might makes right" and the tyranny of the majority. Just another reason why so many Americans don't trust the Democratic party agenda.

 

[Divine Wind]

There have been no challenges since. Pussies.

You hatred spreads to misogyny. Small wonder. Let's see what the next four years bring regarding "challenges" to the far Left views on individual liberty.

 

[P@triot]

Prove your religion is the right religion!

Correction yet another left-wing false narrative. This time it is the lie that the founders wanted to build a "secular nation" in which the government was "free from religion".

"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

— George Washington Farewell Address (September 19, 1796)

It's an irrelevant statement (most of yours are). The issue is - it's the faith that this nation was founded on. If you want another faith - go live in another country.

 

[Divine Wind]

Correction yet another left-wing false narrative. This time it is the lie that the founders wanted to build a "secular nation" in which the government was "free from religion".

"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

— George Washington Farewell Address (September 19, 1796)

It's an irrelevant statement (most of yours are). The issue is - it's the faith that this nation was founded on. If you want another faith - go live in another country.

It's a bit of a leap to go from Washington's comment that national morality needs religious principle to "the faith that this nation was founded upon".

The Founders wanted government to avoid favoring any religion because they also recognized the dangers with "Tyranny of the Majority". While it's true most of our Founders were religious and it's also true most were Christian, giving government the power to control, dictate or otherwise empower a specific religion was recognized as a dangerous path.

Example, how comfortable would you be if every time you went to court, attended a townhall or PTA meeting that it began with five Hail Mary's or everyone pulling out a prayer rug, kneeling and praying towards Mecca simply because the majority of the town were of that faith? The Founder's guiding principle was that the individual should be protected from the power of government and the tyranny of the majority. This is why we actually have a republic instead of a pure democracy.

 

[boilermaker55]

It isnt irrelevant but yo make it that way because you have not viable answer. Only your half-baked opinion.

Prove your religion is the right religion!

Correction yet another left-wing false narrative. This time it is the lie that the founders wanted to build a "secular nation" in which the government was "free from religion".

"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

— George Washington Farewell Address (September 19, 1796)

It's an irrelevant statement (most of yours are). The issue is - it's the faith that this nation was founded on. If you want another faith - go live in another country.

 

[bendog]

You have no idea what you are talking about.....their words on the matter have already been posted.....especially Franklin's.....but keep lying...then go to confession...

Okay, so what is your perception of what the founders wanted in regard to religion and the government ? What, today, does not gel with your perception of what they foresaw?

The Founders wanted no state religion,that is a religion created by the government with the power to tax in order to support it....as happened in England, ....they also wanted the government to stay out of the business of the various religions. Forcing religious people to bake cakes against their religious beliefs is exactly what they were trying to prevent.....

Also.....churches should be free to exercise their political opinions without losing their tax exempt status......government was to stay out of religion.....not religion out of government.

So why did laws requiring religious people to go against their religious beliefs pass Constitutional scrutiny?

Did those laws exist prior to the Civil Rights movement? I honestly don't know. I know conscientious objector status dates back to the Revolution. And imo Ali got unfair treatment too.

No, but that doesn't change the question. Laws requiring religious people to serve those (blacks) they didn't feel their religion wanted them to, lost at the Supreme Court level. Seems like the system is working just as the founders intended.

I didn't mean it really that way. I was aiming more at how law, society and religion function, and the changes.

The founders viewed American religion as Locke and the Presbyterian's elect as standing for frugality, hard work and community. Matters of indvidua conscience were more that ... individual. Gays and abortion were not unknown so much as not addressed. Jews were thrify. Catholics tolerated so long as they were not drunken Irishmen who didn't support their frightfully large families. Blacks stayed quiet if they knew what was good for them. We were a homogenous country. And while we had sodomy laws by WWII ... everybody had a peculiar aunt or uncle.

Post WWII we had more world wide immigration. As Boilermaker is saying, the problem with the OP's view is that someone's religion has to be right. Who picks the prayer: the jew hindu muslm espiscopalian catholic muslim JehovasWitness? The Sup Ct did change the foucus from prohibiting a state religion to prohibiting it all together, e.g. better no school prayer the a court having to decide which prayer.

Reform Jews and liberal Christians have no problem with gays being married. And as G5000 points out Jesus said no remarriage after divorce, but he never mentioned gays ... in any context. And Paul was addressing a culture where men married chaste women for reproduction, but recreational sex was more in the bi fashion. Refusing to bake a cake is not based on religion, it's based on ONE interpretation of religion. So, to the extent that the OP is heading towards a view that "we've abandoned religion" it's just false. Immigrants still assimilate just as they did in the early 1800s and later. Poll after poll shows that we still consider God, but we don't trust those who claim to speak for God.

The PA laws arguably violate the freedom to contract. But even if they do, that is NOT a religious concept. Making segregationists serve blacks wasn't a religious issue. The segregationists claimed they protected God's order, but the people who enacted the PA laws saw through that. If the baker says he can't bake because it violates his view of God only allowing Adam and Eve to marry, that's different from a person who cannot kill and is a conceintous objector. The baker isn't committing any sin. To give him more credit that he deserves he is refusing to condone a sin. The concientous objector doesn't deny any other person service, he/she actually serves to further a war effort, but not by killing.

 

[P@triot]

 

[P@triot]

 

[P@triot]

 

[Seawytch]

View attachment 168997

Poor Puppy...duped again.

Religious quotes that never were

 

[Cecilie1200]

View attachment 168997

Poor Puppy...duped again.

Religious quotes that never were

Religioustolerance.org? What, you couldn't find a nice article from Mother Jones?

 

[Seawytch]

View attachment 168997

Poor Puppy...duped again.

Religious quotes that never were

Religioustolerance.org? What, you couldn't find a nice article from Mother Jones?

Can't dispute it so you attack the source? That's typical for a Trumptard, but weak for you.

Spurious Quotations

The quote is frequently misattributed to Washington, particularly in regards to his farewell address of 1796. The origin of the misquote is, perhaps, a mention of a similar statement in a biography of Washington first published in 1835. However, the quote that appeared in the biography has never been proven to have come from Washington.

 

[Cecilie1200]

View attachment 168997

Poor Puppy...duped again.

Religious quotes that never were

Religioustolerance.org? What, you couldn't find a nice article from Mother Jones?

Can't dispute it so you attack the source? That's typical for a Trumptard, but weak for you.

Spurious Quotations

The quote is frequently misattributed to Washington, particularly in regards to his farewell address of 1796. The origin of the misquote is, perhaps, a mention of a similar statement in a biography of Washington first published in 1835. However, the quote that appeared in the biography has never been proven to have come from Washington.

Sorry, Charlie, but you have to EARN the right to be refuted by citing credible sources. The fact that you're blowing wind doesn't automatically mean it deserves to be taken seriously. If you want to waste time believing everything on the Internet (as long as it agrees with your worldview), that's your business, but it doesn't obligate ME to waste time on it. I also find it uproariously funny that you have your knickers in a knot about misquotes and faulty sourcing, and you argue your side by citing religioustolerance.org. The irony is too delicious.

And trying to associate me with Trump supporters, even in passing, just makes you look even more illiterate.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The quote in the OP can be multiplied dozens of times; there are dozens of similar statements by the founders. But, liberals will ignore them and focus on a small handful of quotes that say something different. They ignore the vast majority of relevant statements and choose to accept only the small minority that say what they want to hear.

The Supreme Court spent years reviewing the evidence on this issue for their Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. decision. They concluded that America was founded as a religious nation but not as a nation that favored one denomination over others. Here's a long excerpt:

But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the

Page 143 U. S. 466

ocean will be discovered," etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce and Ireland, Queene, defender of the faith," etc., and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England." The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words:

"We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well intended Desires."

Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611, and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites:

"Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration:

"Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence

Page 143 U. S. 467

so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike state or Comonwelth, and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus weh we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, weh according to the truth of the said gospell is now practiced amongst vs."

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited:

"Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare,"

etc.

Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thet are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . . . We therefore the Representatives of the united states of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare," etc.;

"And for the

Page 143 U. S. 468

support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the Constitution of Illinois, 1870:

"We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc.

It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God." It may be in clauses like that of the Constitution of Indiana, 1816, Art. XI, section 4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God." Or in provisions such as are found in Articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the Constitution of Maryland, 1867:

"That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief, provided he

Page 143 U. S. 469

believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution."

Or like that in Articles 2 and 3 of part 1st of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780:

"It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. . . . As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality, therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of Article 7 of the Constitution of Mississippi, 1832:

"No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. . . . Religion morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state."

Or by Article 22 of the Constitution of Delaware, (1776), which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration:

"I, A. B., do profess

Page 143 U. S. 470

faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore, and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., and also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that

"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294-295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, 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 these doctrines is 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. . . . The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious

Page 143 U. S. 471

subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892))​

There is plenty more of such evidence, but you will never get most liberals to admit the truth about this matter because most liberals, being agnostic or atheistic, simply don't care about truth. I might add that Holy Trinity v. U.S. was a unanimous decision.