Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Jon Rowe has a post at Positive Liberty about the often-heard claim that the Constitution was based upon Biblical or Christian principles. He reproduces a comment left by Dr. Gregg Frazer, a Christian historian, at Evangelical Outpost more than a year ago. That comment really blasts a hole in that argument, which has several key problems:
1. None of the men who were at the Constitutional Convention noted any discussion at all of Biblical sources. They mention many historical sources for their ideas, from ancient Greece and Rome to Enlightenment philosophers, but there is no mention of any Biblical principle anywhere in those discussions.
2. In the Federalist papers, which were written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay for the purpose of explaining and justifying the provisions of the Constitution, nowhere mention any Biblical source for any of those provisions. Remember, they were writing for a predominately Christian audience and trying to convince them to vote for the Constitution. If they could have pointed to Biblical justifications for the various provisions of that document, that would have been a powerful and persuasive argument that would have served their purposes. That they did not - indeed, could not - make such an argument speaks volumes.
3. There are no Biblical analogs for the provisions of the Constitution. There is no support to be found in the Bible for the notion of political liberty, much less for religious liberty. Indeed, Romans 13 makes it quite clear that all governments, including tyrannical ones, are instituted by God and are to be obeyed. The very idea of revolution is antithetical to this idea.
4. At no point in history prior to the Enlightenment is there a single example of a Christian government that established anything even remotely like a free and democratic society. Christian theology prior to that time supported the divine right of kings and imposed punishments for things like blasphemy that are entirely contrary to the notion of freedom of conscience. The Constitution, by eliminating religious tests for office and forbidding religious establishments, is completely opposed to that entire history.
Gregg Frazer makes and supports many of these arguments in the passage I will reproduce below:
Correlation does not demonstrate causation. Leaves do not turn brown because squirrels gather nuts (or vice versa).The fact that some parts of the Declaration and/or Constitution are not in conflict with verses in the Bible does not mean that the Bible was the source. This is especially important when -- as in the case of the Declaration and the Constitution -- the authors claim other sources, but do not claim the Bible as a source!
In a May 8, 1825 letter to Henry Lee, Jefferson identifies his sources for the Declaration's principles. He names as sources: Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and (Algernon) Sidney -- he does not mention the Bible. Then again, the terminology in the Declaration is not specifically Christian -- or even biblical, with the exception of "Creator." The term "providence" is never used of God in the Bible, nor are "nature's God" or "Supreme Judge of the world" ever used in the Bible.
In the hundreds of pages comprising Madison's notes on the constitutional convention (and those of the others who kept notes), there is no mention of biblical passages/verses in the debates/discussions on the various parts and principles of the Constitution. They mention Rome, Sparta, German confederacies, Montesquieu, and a number of other sources -- but no Scripture verses.
In The Federalist Papers, there is no mention of biblical sources for any of the Constitution's principles, either -- one would think they could squeeze them in among the 85 essays if they were, indeed, the sources; especially since the audience was common men who were familiar with, and had respect for, the Bible. The word "God" is used twice -- and one of those is a reference to the pagan gods of ancient Greece. "Almighty" is used twice and "providence" three times -- but neither is ever used in connection with any constitutional principle or influence. The Bible is not mentioned.
As for freedom and liberty in the Bible, it is always SPIRITUAL freedom/liberty -- as a look at the verses you've listed IN CONTEXT shows. That is NOT to say that political liberty is an anti-biblical concept -- it's just not a biblical one. Arguing that it is a "Calvinist" concept does not make it a biblical one, either. The "disciples" of Calvin did not write inspired revelation.
The key Founders (J. Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, & G. Morris) -- those most responsible for the founding documents -- were religious, but not Christians. They believed that religion was essential to produce the morality that a free society required, but that any religion would suffice. Their religious belief was a mixture of Protestantism, natural religion, and rationalism -- with rationalism as the trump card and decisive factor. They retained elements of Christianity, but rejected the elements of Christianity (and of natural religion) that they considered irrational. However: of the ten CORE beliefs of Christianity (those shared by all of the major Protestant denominations of the day (and by the Catholics), they held to only one (or two, in some cases). Their belief system was, as I have termed it, theistic rationalism.
If the view of Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin that any/all religions were valid paths to God and that any/all religions would suffice to produce the morality needed was a "minority opinion" among the Founders, why were they chosen to write the philosophical (you say religious) document (Declaration)?
Comments
Great post for the beginning of a new year. Thanks.
Posted by: waldteufel | January 1, 2008 10:29 AM
None of the men who were at the Constitutional Convention noted any discussion at all of Biblical sources.
Very simple: they were actively engaged in a conspiracy to suppress their discussion of Biblical sources among themselves, because they didn't want themselves to know that they wanted the Constitution to be based upon Biblical or Christian principles. Easy! I don't see what teh problem is.
Posted by: 386sx | January 1, 2008 11:04 AM
Romans 13 is one of WorldNetDaily's most amusing attempts at Biblical interpretation.
Posted by: Bad | January 1, 2008 12:17 PM
I've noticed a common subtext underlying some of the "Christian Nation" rhetoric coming from populist sources: a sort of presuppositionalist argument. If freedom, equality, and all the values in the Constitution were created by the Biblical God in the first place, then failing to recognize the source means you have no right to use the product. You lost the justification for everything! When people use His gifts and fail to acknowledge where they came from, that's cheating. It's a self-contradiction. Smart guys like the Founders knew this, of course, because they were smart.
I suspect that, for many people, the historical arguments may really only be an additional prop.
Posted by: Sastra | January 1, 2008 4:51 PM
Yep. The key to the whole thing was "self-evident."
Jefferson and others saw those rights as obvious: not because God created them, but because they believed that one could observe the state of nature and derive principles from it using reason. That they thought a God created those rights was simply an afterthought based on the fact that they assumed that everything was Created. But the "self-evident" part works utterly regardless of how those things got there in the first place.
Posted by: Bad | January 1, 2008 6:02 PM
the only time God is mentioned in the Convention is when Franklyn asked that the convention should open its daily business with prayer. A move supported by some and rejected by the rest. As for the use of the bible in justifying the principles of government, why can't christian nation people spend a few bucks and take the time to read Baylin's debates on the constitution? Even pastors didn't use the bible to justify the Constitution in 1788.
Posted by: David | January 2, 2008 4:39 AM
Thanks Ed,really enjoyed that. Answered quite a few queries I had from previous threads.
Posted by: Wobert | January 2, 2008 4:52 AM
When Religion and Politics are mixed, the Founders knew it would lead to disaster.
They wanted both Religion and Poltics to be honored and respected and they knew the ONLY way to do this, is to keep them seperate.
You do not need Religion to make a law or bring a bill to congress that is "right" or "moral".
Just as you do not need a state or nation to force people to go to a certain church, pay taxes for a certain church or celebrate another religion's holidays.
Theocracy = what we see in the Middle East.
Separation of Church and State
Helpful quotes
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."
~ Thomas Jefferson
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion".
~ Thomas Paine
"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total seperation of the Church and the State."
~ James Madison
a.k.a. 'The Father of the Constituition of the United States of America'
"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."
~ George Washington
DVD/Book suggestion
Theologians Under Hitler
https://ssl17.chi.us.securedata.net/vitalvisuals.com/merchantmanager/product_info.php?products_id=1
Books
Robert Blair Kaiser, A Church in Search of Itself: Benedict XVI and the Battle for the Future who covered Vatican II for Time, has written extensively on reform in the Church. With Rob Miller, he is a co-founder of TakeBackOurChurch.org See his new book, 'A Church in Search of Itself: Benedict XVI and the Battle for the Future' (Knopf, March 15, 2006)
'The Godless Constitution ~ A Moral Defense of the Secular State' Authors; Isaac Kramnick (teaches and writes about political thought at Cornell University ) and R. Laurence Moore ( a professor of history at Cornell University. )
Best First Amendment books ~ Compiled by First Amendment Center staff;
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=best_1a_books
Separation of Church and State Links;
http://www.coreymondello.com/LINKSseparationofchurchandstate.html
More;
http://www.coreymondello.com/separationofchurchandstate.html
Corey Mondello
Boston, Massachusetts
cpmondello@yahoo.com
www.CoreyMondello.com
1-1-08
Posted by: Corey Mondello | January 2, 2008 7:59 AM
4. At no point in history prior to the Enlightenment is there a single example of a Christian government that established anything even remotely like a free and democratic society.
Actually, the Union of Utrecht of 15 January 1979, the document conventionally quoted as the foundation paper of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, established freedom of personal religion. There was no state church, just a most important church.
Posted by: Heleen | January 2, 2008 9:18 AM
Bad:
I'd dispute that they even went so far as to think God created those rights, particularly since so much of founding American philosophy was based on John Locke's work, and Locke patently rejected the idea that natural rights derive from God.
Posted by: Patrick | January 2, 2008 3:23 PM
I wouldn't go that far, at least without knowing more in specific, since the founders generally had such a diversity of views on how active or interested "Providence" was in human affairs.
Posted by: Bad | January 13, 2008 9:45 AM
Quoting founders does little good when the dominionists can reply with quotes from them saying how great Christianity is and how they based the country upon it.
True, their quotes are largely complete fabrications, and the person to whome they attribute each one said no such thing. But it is far easier for them to make up a lie than it is for us to find someone who can spend months pouring over the historical documents to prove that it doesn't appear anywhere.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | January 14, 2008 4:25 AM
Ed said:
"At no point in history prior to the Enlightenment is there a single example of a Christian government that established anything even remotely like a free and democratic society"
While I agree with much of what you said in this post I think this statement is incorrect on two fronts. First is the governments that became Protestant after the Protestant Reformation. The second would not be a "Christian Example" but would be a "Biblical" one. That is the Government set up under Moses in the Old Testament.
The former were obviously not perfect Governments but while maintaining the King and nobility these Governments did begin to Promote the idea of Individual Liberty. In my opinion much of this thought came from Luther and his followers at first. His whole stance against the state run Churches was that it violated the individual choice to exercise faith. John Calvin had more of an influence though in the thought of applying God and the Bible to all aspects of sociey. His writings(of which I have not read many directly but have heard quoted numerous times) talked a lot about government and forms it should take.
It is a fact that many of the men who studied under him in Geneva came back to England and Scotland and begin to teach people these ideas. Two groups that were influenced by this were the Pilgrims and the Puritians both of whom had a tremendous impact in the origins of this country. Not all of which was good in my view. But impact nonetheless that is undeniable.
I think this broad debate that Bible believing Christians and the more secular crowd seem to be having is good but the lines drawn are confusing to me. The "Christian Right" (Which I do not include myself apart of even though I am a born-again Christian) seem to want to say that American was founded as a Christian Nation and we need to get back to those foundations for things to get better. The secular people seem to be saying that the Constitution was a product of the Enlightenment age of thinking and we need to continue to these principles to ensure liberty from tryrants many of whom in history quoted God as they killed and oppressed people.
Oddly enough I agree with both groups. Actually more in some ways with the secular types in that this was not a Christian Nation. The whole point Madison made in the Federalist Papers for a Republic was so no one faction could control the others. This would include denominations and religous interests. But to say that Christianity and the Bible had no influence on the history of freedom in this nation is not an argument I agree with either. The Constitution decided the form of Government. The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of the spirit behind that government.
It is clear that the "inalienable rights" we all have need to be protected. Who did they state gave us these rights? God gave them to us.
It is a little known fact that the Pilgrims were two groups: One Christian and the other heathen for lack of a better term. I am a decendent and often times wonder from which group. I did not grow up in church and was an athiest most of my life until I became a born-again Christian. My point is that both groups hated tyranny so much that they wanted to leave it and go somewhere and live as free people. They had to do it together.
My view after reading much of the Fedralist Papers was that the Constitution was a compromise among the Enlightenment thinkers who believed in the ability of science, discovery, and reason to progress society and bring prosperity and happiness the most amount of people possible and the Christians who wanted who I believe wanted the same and but believed that connection with God was the key to this. Then I am sure there were those who wanted a Pastor in chief and there denomination calling all the shots.
When I watch "Jesus Camp" on I think it was A@E and here people say that George Bush was elected to make this a Christian nation and spread this all over the world through governments I cringe. I think some do think that way in the Christian circles but they are wrong to me. I believe in my inalienable rights as God gave them to me and enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Some of you believe in your rights as the Constitution gave them to you. I think we can all live together. (By the way I see Bush eroding our rights more than anyone)
My view is that many of us love that document and what it stands for and assures us. I guess the disagreement is in two parts. One is where the rights come from? Some say God others say through the document. The other is that it seems that some Christians want to use these freedoms to tell others how to live and legislate morality. I think we have all missed the point and are about to lose our freedoms.
Why? The whole argument was about how to increase the efficiency of the National government without harming the Liberty of the people. This was their chief aim. The Bill of Rights was added to do just that. The National government was never to have this much power. They knew when it did that tyranny would soon follow. The two main fears that the authors of the Federlist Papers had to quiet to get the Constitution ratified was what would happen if the National government had the power to tax to excess and if it had a huge standing army in times of peace.
Why such fears? These were the two things that tyrants had used throughout History to oppress. It is happening right before our eyes while we argue about things that our important but are matter little if the erosion of this document continue. The powers that be have divided the country into "right" and "left" to distract us. Not all Christians want to legislate righteousness and not all secularists want to turn this into some barbaric nation. Hitler killed the Christians and the Homosexuals. Why? The Constitution that gave Germany the Republic was torn up.
I do not think the National Government should be telling people whether two homosexuals can get married or not. It is not their business. I also do not think the courts should be able to overthrow the will of the people through their elected representatives by making these things a judicial issue as has been done in some states to legalize gay marriage. The Religous Right is libertarian on some things and want to National government to intervene on some things. The liberals want liberty on some things and the National government to give us healtcare. In the end the government just keeps getting bigger and as it does the fears of the Founders will come true: It will become so big that the Bill of Rights will erode and tyranny will follow.
Do not believe it? Read about all the "Unions" (not Labor Unions Regional Governments) being formed. African Union is in the news and so is the European Union. We were created a sovereign nation and that is going away fast. If you want the right to burn a cross or picture of Jesus or I think more to do research and progress society through science please give me my freedom to practice what I believe. We all want our rights but want to deny others theirs for our cause. It is all playing in the hands of those who would seek to take all these rights away.
On a side note I think the chasm is over two basic issues: 1. The Reformation notion of the depravity of man and in some cases the evil of all creation 2. The Enlightment understanding of the goodness of man and what we can do with the resources. I will be the first to say that these two things look diametrically opposed. But they are not.
I think the first camp whose seeds sprouted the modern Evangelical movement, missed the fact that God said that everything He made was good. It means that what makes it evil is what we choose to do with it. If we choose to do good with it then it honors him. I think they also miss the teaching about when God said man was very good. It says we were made to carry the image of God in the earth. If someone wanted to see what God was like then they would have to look at man. All men are inherentially valuable because we are made in the image of God. Even the ones we disagree with as Christians.
I think the other camps errors by missing the obvious flaws in human nature and looking for a possible explanation in some sort of fall. I think we all account for it. I think we all know something is wrong and needs to be fixed. I guess the secularist would say that the Dark Ages and relgion took away our ability to think and reason and use the resources around us to progress humanity. I would agree more than you think but what if it does go back to something bigger and more fundementally wrong?
It all comes down to value. As a nation we value our rights. At least we did. If we do not continue, and the fact that 80% of college kids polled said they would give up their vote for a free edcuation, we will lose them.
What is the solution? I saw a guy in Gunnison, Colorado who had a shirt on that sheds some light on who would want to see American die and all our rights eroded? It talked about big corporations. This man was secular athiest evolutionist liberal or whatever. I agreed with him when he said it was gonna be over soon if we did not stop whatever is going on. I asked him if he was gonna vote? He said yes for either Ron Paul or Kuccinich.
Who did Ron Paul day he would love to see win if he could not on Leno? Kuccinich. Who did Kuccinich say he would choose as his VP? Ron Paul was it. The guy in Colorado said the only chance at keeping the Consitution was far right aligning with far left. We agree more than we think. And by far right I do not mean the Relgious Right. They have no clue and are an affront in many ways to what they think this nation was founded on and needs to survive.
I went into a church a while back and preached on the Constitution and that it is the Christians friend in that it allows us to practice what we believe in freedom. It is also the secularists friend for the same reason. I know many of you would disagree with much of what I believe about God. I hope you would fight with me for my right to believe it. I want to fight for your right to not be treated as the Scientists of the Dark Ages and told that the world is evil and we just need to live like bums and wait to get to heaven.
This is in violation of the prayer that Jesus taught about Heaven coming to earth. Science is our friend. I am sorry more Christians do not feel this way. But the belief in a healthy suspicion of human nature that helped created the Declaration of Independence and insure that no one faction would ever deny the rest of us our rights in the Constitution in important too.
It is my dream to see Christians wake up and begin to see what the religious right is doing. Many of the peope who fought the British tyrants were the Christians and Pastors. The man in "The Patriot" needed people to fight. He was a man of war. His son was living the easy life. Where did the son go? He went to church and some came. The other man went to the bar. They all came. The rest is history.
I think it starts with these upcoming elections. We need to take our country back from the corporations and those they own in our government. We also need to look at all the rhetoric and see through it with those who say they want to do it. Many are part of the same club of elites and nothing will change until their club (whether we call them Democrat or Republican) is voted out.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 14, 2008 11:09 AM