Our nation is a Judeo-Christian nation at it’s core. Every nation is founded on some form of religion. Even nations that reject God completely and rely on themselves, engage in the religion of humanism. James Madison once said that our success as a nation would depend upon our people’s ability to govern themselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. That is in addition to George Washington stating that it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. These were not hintings at just any religion, these comments were distinctly Judeo-Christian.

As far as the statements made by Gingrich and Huckabee, they are absolutely right. Our rights and liberties come from our Creator, the Supreme Judge of the World. Our founding fathers understood that man could not be left to make his own liberty; we saw that happen in the French Revolution. When man creates his own liberty, things quickly dissolve into anarchy. That is why our liberties are found within the framework of natural and divine law. That is why it is unsubstantiated when the homosexual lobby states that they have a “right” to marry. Natural law for at least 5,000 years, shows us that marriage is between one man and one woman. We also have laws against murder, because natural law states that no one has the right to take someone elses life.

If America is to truly be a nation of liberty, then the liberty that we advocate must line up with the principles of the natural and divine law that our founding fathers recognized as an overarching law that would shape our own.

It was all for Puritans, and other denominations didn’t like being left out.

Of course, there is this from the Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Actually, I would not mean to imply religion was the sole base for our founding of American government, but to deny that it was A base for it simply denies reality.

They actually did not simply use religious principles to guide their writings and that’s all. State governments were heavily intertwined with very formal churches.

What the founders abhorred were foreign entanglements, and the thought that the President would take his cues from a church outside America.

The British system held that the Monarch got his power from God, not the people. Our system holds that power comes from God to the people, who only then by their consent lend power to government.

That’s a far cry from “creating a gulf” between religion and government, which any simple study of the late 1700s would show simply not only didn’t exist, but was the intent of almost no one.

This slow but steady diminishing of the religious base for our system of government has troubled me over the years

Semantics perhaps, but I would argue ‘religious base” isn’t quite accurate. That to me implies that our system of government is based on religion, with which i don’t agree. While many of of founding fathers beliefs and principles were greatly shaped and inspired by their religious beliefs and education, principles now enshrined in our “founding documents”, they obviously took great pains to exclude formalized religion from government, and to construct a gulf between the two.

Perhaps a more accurate description would be the “spiritual base” of our government, focused as it is more on the relationship between man and the Creator (as you said, the source of all man’s rights), and less on the practices, rituals, and other trappings of religion.

Kinda scary, i pop back in to BD for a minute and the first thread that grabs my mind I find myself agreeing with BK more than not. Maybe that’s a bad omen or something.

Of course, your brevity in making the same stament is more powerful. I do tend to be long winded.

Amit, amendment IX points to an important truth that should be considered here:

“Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ”

That is tantamount to saying that one, we have a set of natural rights to start with and two, even the most wise and knowledgable of men are not likely equipped to be able to enumerate clearly each and every natural right endowed to us by our creator. However, our flawed yet brilliant founding fathers did their best to create a “moral code” to help recognize the basic concepts of natural rights and enforce them. Just because it was given an amendable form does not mean tyranny of the majority can do as it pleases to unjustly revoke natural rights. It allows for further enlightenment, change in language, and recognizes that, try as they might, our founding fathers knew themselves to be flawed beings, incapable of a perfect document. It is beautiful to me in that it allows for continual improvement towards an impossible ideal. Perfection. As individuals we will never be perfect, but endeavoring to try is a noble thing. If you will, a willful attempt to come closer to God. If you are an atheist, think of it as self-actualizing. Making the best showing of what you’re given in either case. A Bill of Rights amendable towards a perfect government.

If it is indeed “self-evident” that we are created as equals(meaning deserving of the same rights), what then is the function of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and government in general? The answer should be self-evident. It is to protect our natural rights that we own simply because we exist. Natural rights endowed by our creator yet, continually violated by flawed human beings plagued with temptation and greed.

Put any group of people together and naturally they will desire a fair shake. Preventing others from violating those natural rights is the entire reason to have a government. Additionally, to have commerce is to have contracts. Contracts that need to be enforced and not of a fraudulent nature. Contracts that help secure our right to private property. That’s why you’ll hear some of us say the function of government is to protect the INDIVIDUAL from force and fraud. If that function is performed then we can live as free people cooperating in free will to pursue prosperity and happiness without treading on the rights of others. The crafting those two magnificent documents was an honest attempt to find a means to that end.

Great post!

You’re correct that the Constitution is our highest law, but to separate how we came by it is rather insulting to our history and welcomes tearing at the fabric of its greatness.

BTW, I was aware as to why the Bill of Rights was added. Thanks for the history lesson.

btw, the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was a prerequisite for several states to ratify the Constitution so it was hardly an afterthought.

As for your other point, the Constitution, while it can be amended, is supposed to preserve those Natural rights we all share, as delineated in the Declaration of Independence. I think it’s a real stretch to separate the one from the other…as the one sets the conditions for the other to exist.

And, to take it a step further, to be specific, the rights we see as being protected were an afterthought in the Bill of Rights. The Founders thought that the Natural rights in the Declaration spoke for themselves, initially.