Evidence that America was founded upon Judeo-Christian values is woven throughout our governing documents.
The founding fathers took the issue of natural law emanating from God so seriously that they mentioned a creator five times in the Declaration of Independence. And enshrined the right to worship free from government intrusion in the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, the founders believed so strongly in the freedoms granted by God that they hinged the right of the people to stage a revolution on the government’s attempt to “alter or abolish” them.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” is the third reference to God — and possibly the most well-known — written into the Declaration.
Numerous references by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Samuel Adams and other founders can be found addressing the importance of using God’s laws to govern society.
“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 of the Gift of 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, that His justice cannot sleep forever,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1781, 21 years before he penned the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association that would be used decades later to undermine religious liberties.
His letter dated Jan. 1, 1802, was a reply to correspondence from the Connecticut church expressing concerns about religious oppression.
Jefferson’s letter expressed the viewpoint that the First Amendment created a “wall of separation between church and state” that prohibited Congress from legislating on religious matters in any way.
The founders believed the ability of people to worship free from persecution was vital to the survival and prosperity of the American Experiment. Although they also paved the way for other religions to flourish, Judeo-Christian values were to be used as the framework for a self-governing society.
by Mark Gibson
The rights and responsibilities outlined in the founding documents of the United States of America have always been open to interpretation.
Yes, all men are created equal – provided they were in fact male, owned property and were of the dominant race.
Yes, all men had the freedom to engage in their religion – provided they were not “ignorant savages” whose religion was little understood and, like their language, officially squelched with the active help of the religious leaders of the time.
Times change.
Religion has long informed politics. That religious thought has long informed political debate is no surprise.
Political leaders don’t, indeed they shouldn’t, leave their spirituality at the chamber door.
How they incorporate their faith into the work at hand is a personal question each must answer individually.
Religion played an important role, for example, in the civil rights movement.
Martin Luther King Jr., like many who helped organize the fight against racism in America, was first and foremost a religious leader.
As such, he had every right to lead his congregation on their march to Washington D.C., agitating for the freedom of his people.
It’s when politics informs religion that I begin to worry. As a young student deeply involved in the evangelical church, I saw behind-the-scenes the ascension of the “moral majority,” watched as “Christian” merged with “Republican” on the strength of a powerful anti-abortion campaign.
“Conservative” grew to mean not fiscal conservatism or small government, but a purely moral stand against abortion rights.
By the time I entered bible college the abortion fight had escalated to violent sidewalk confrontations and clinic bombings. I argued at the time that if abortion was truly “murder” then such actions were in fact legitimate – my point being that abortion wasn’t murder.
I was snubbed, of course. I was, they seemed to agree, not part of the “moral majority” but the “immoral minority.”
The short-term political benefit for the Republican Party was great, and illustrates the power religion can have in the hands of those willing to manipulate it to their political benefit.
The church, however, has suffered.
Not so much from my personal rejection, of course, but I’m sure I’m not the only one to refuse the political brand of modern evangelicalism: To condense civic leadership to a singular “moral” issue is to short-circuit the broad and enduring role of civic leadership.
Today, the “moral majority” is struggling, thank God.
Perhaps there is hope, even for the Republican Party. We are the people, and we should consider the election of our representatives with great care, based not on their religion but on their ability to lead a divided country in crisis.
Commented