Peter Heck Corrects Local Dem over "Establishment Clause" Issues

Local radio phenom Peter Heck visited the county's Democrat Blog site to correct the mistakes that a local Dem had posted there. Mr Heck writes:

First, your statement that “all 85 of the Federalist Papers only mention God twice” (and that not seriously)…and both of those are attributable to Madison is wrong. Among other indirect references, Federalist #2, written by John Jay states, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs. This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence.” This is not an impersonal, “heaven only knows” reference. This is a God who has actively given a people, common in their religious practice (one can clearly assume this is Christianity) a nation out of a grand design. Gore Vidal has misled you.

Secondly, your statement that “there is quite a bit of evidence that our Founding Fathers were not Christians” also fails the test of historical accuracy. Of the 55 men who signed the Constitution, virtually ALL were PROFESSING followers of Christianity (29 Episcopalians, 9 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 Quaker/Anglican, and 1 possible Deist—Ben Franklin, who as the least religious of all the Founders called for daily prayer and contributed to all denominations!). Further, the Founders made their personal faith very evident in their writings. Besides founding the new nation, these men founded other organizations of note: the American Tract Society, the American Bible Society, the Philadelphia Bible Society, and the Christian Constitutional Society. And even more remarkable are their words…upon request I would be happy to supply you with quotes of our Founders like: John Jay “Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His merciful and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by his beloved Son.” Or Alexander Hamilton “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.” Or John Adams “The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion.” Or George Washington “My most glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father…direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, the Life.” And we could keep going, but I think the point is made. Your statement that the Founders were not Christians is built upon misrepresentations of the Founders…not what they themselves professed.

Third, your pronouncement that the Constitution is a “godless” document merely because the word “God” does not appear in it reveals an elementary logic. Interesting that the words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in any of the founding documents and yet you believe that the PRINCIPLE of separation was inherent in the document. Seems like a bit of a double standard. I could write for hours on this topic of a "godless constitution" and show you studies which demonstrate the remarkable percentages of direct Biblical references of our Founders in forming Constitutional principle, point out the intricacies of some of the systems and how they are uniquely Biblical. If you so desire, I will; but again, I want to be respectful and save space.

I found it interesting you quoted Hamilton’s biographer as saying they just forgot about God in forming the document. That's interesting since Hamilton himself said of the Constitution that, “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” And noted revolutionary war veteran, friend of the Founders, Noah Webster, whose writings and ideas contributed to the composition of Constitutional principle (specifically Article I, Section 8) said, “The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion...” In other words, Bob, though the document obviously does not mention God, that is an impotent reason to suggest it is not founded upon the moral principles of the Bible. To do so demonstrates a failure to grasp the purpose of the Constitution.

The Constitution is a framework for the governing system in the United States, not a charter of liberties. In many ways, the Constitution serves as the canvas upon which the early administrations and Congresses were to paint upon. In other words, the Constitution is not the embodiment of the common law, but the form in which that law is to be developed and administered. A blueprint for a house does not contain direct reference to the nails, screws, and bolts used to strengthen and support the form; yet, any architect or builder will readily acknowledge they are necessary for the security of the structure. In the same way, the “blueprint” for the country (read Constitution) may not contain direct reference to the religious truth used to preserve and perpetuate its existence. Yet, the architects and builders of the new republic were clear about the vital nature of such enduring truth. If you would like quotes to support that fact, again, merely ask.

Finally, the Declaration of Independence mentions the Creator God four times, not twice. “…to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them” , “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” , “…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions” , and “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”

Bob, you flippantly discount the most significant and crucial element of this Declaration. And I point this out, because doing so is dangerous to all of us. I know you are concerned about civil liberties and rights…but your disregard for the significance of what the Founders are doing in the Declaration threatens those very liberties you hold so dear. The Founding Fathers, unlike nations founded upon the principles of humanism (that the modern left touts), rooted our most basic, fundamental, and precious rights in a transcendent moral authority that exists above and beyond man. Yes, government is a political institution. But it is not the final authority and arbiter of rights and liberties. The Founders said there is something beyond man and his institutions…a transcendent moral authority (Creator God) who gives man his most basic rights. That is why their revolution was justified…because the King was taking away rights and freedoms that he had no right to take away. Why didn’t he? Because they are a gift not of man, but of God. In other words, the whole idea, the whole root of liberties and freedoms in America is based in the foundation of a just and holy God that exists beyond man, and that man individually, corporately, and in government is to be held accountable to. Bob, that’s why America is the greatest defender of human rights in the world, because we understand…and have for 200 years that those rights are the gift of the Creator to the people…and no man has the right to take them away. If that isn’t resting an entire civilization and culture in absolute moral truths of the Bible, I don’t know what is.

Obviously, this post only scratches the surface of these issues. Thank you for the opportunity to post here. Please understand that while the founders were not desirous of a government run religion, they did recognize the importance of founding a republic firmly rooted in lasting moral principles. As John Quincy Adams stated so perfectly, “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.” Not in the sense that everyone had to be Christians…but in the sense that the absolute truths of the Bible were to be the foundation of our civilizations. We would be wise to follow in their footsteps and not be so arrogant as to assume we know better than they.

Another blogger, one Tom Smith, added this information to the discussion that he found in the Library of Congress:

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.... Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist 'a wall of separation between church and state.' In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a 'national' religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government."
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html

Then Mr Smith "nails it" in his own words:

Evidence such as this demonstrates that if our Founders had intended the strict separation that Bob advocates, they were by far the worst violators of the document and principles that they themselves drafted.

With Peter Heck and Tom Smith on the job the Founder's intentions may be safe from those who wish to re-write history to suit their preferences.