A few months back, I participated in a discussion with a few other people at another site regarding whether or not the Constitution is a Christian document. To my surprise, the one person in the discussion who I thought would object to the idea actually affirmed that he agreed, although when asked for an example, he demurred. Things happened, as they always do, and the duties of meatspace soon drew me away from this discussion in the electronic ether.
Yesterday, we went to my in-laws house for dinner. After dinner, I went for a walk, and upon my return, retired to the living room. I thumbed through my copy of ‘The 5000 Year Leap’, which I received as a birthday present. When I went to set it down, I saw a copy of this on the side table:
I have always enjoyed reading David Barton’s work. He does a better job than most in documenting his sources, and this booklet was no different, with 13 of its 51 pages being citations, in 8 point text where the rest of the book is published in 12 point.
One of the discussion in it that caught my eye was his contention that our Constitution has been the most successful one ever drafted. And that political scientists had conducted a ten-year project to determine where the Founders had obtained their specific ideas for the Constitution. A study of over 15,000 separate writings from about that same time period were reviewed, with a focus on the political sources quoted at about the same time as the founding of the American government. 3,154 quotations were isolated and when the researchers traced the original sources of these quotes, they discovered that the single most cited authority was the Bible, over 34% of the time, and four times as much as the next cited source.
Barton then went on to point out that the idea of separation of powers had been acknowledged by Washington and Hamilton to have been inspired by Jeremiah 17:9, which records also show had been a primary sermon topic in this ‘Founding Era’.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? KJV'[All citations below will be to the King James Version.]
Other examples included:
Article I, Section 8 “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” and Leviticus 19:34 “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”
Article II, Section 1 “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;” and Deuteronomy 17:15 “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.”
Article III, Section 3 ” No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” and Deuteronomy 17:5 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.”
Article III, Section 3 ” The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.” and Ezekiel 18:20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”
The concept of republicanism as set forth in Article IV, Section 4 “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” , and Exodus 18:21 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:”, which was cited by Noah Webster, the founder responsible for that Article of the Constitution, and affirmed by George Washington and John Jay.
The concept of three branches of government, mirrors that presented in Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.”
While there are certainly those who will want to argue that this is all apropos of nothing, it helps to understand that this country has Christian roots, something that modern-day dissenters love to deny as a means to hide their thinly veiled contempt for Christianity, or their attempts to argue that it is no different from other religions, and certainly not a legitimate basis to continue upholding laws they wish to rebel against.
I have long maintained that the world is like a raging sea, and our society a small open boat upon its surface; storms frequently rage across the face of these waters, giving new meaning to the term “tempest-tossed”. Christianity has been the anchor, helping us to hold our position in a sheltered harbor, and the line attached to it is the law.
For quite sometime now, Christians have allowed themselves to be chased from the public square, from the legislature floor, out of fear that they will be labeled “intolerant” by the new high priests of society, the politically correct. The politically correct believe that the only sin is to offend, and that one can be offended by being confronted for having sinned. The faithful followers of this new religion, a creature of Religious Humanism, spawned in the 1930s, keep gleefully hacking away at these anchor lines, and the farther the boat drifts from its anchorage, the more people listen as these “bringers of the new” (who actually bring the old and reject the new ) and their claims like “See! There is absolutely no reason for that law at all!” and these same people bob their heads in agreement, and then wonder why society is disintegrating, and why we as a nation do so many things that no simply make no sense. And in a world where so many lack the grounding in the real TRUTH in the Bible, that used to be, quite literally elementary [Pay particular attention to the entries under 1787, 1802, and 1844, the last especially for those who want to declare the issue settled by Stare Decisis.], this really is a mystery to too many of the masses, who know, instinctively, that something is wrong, but can never quite identify it. When you deliberately cut away your anchor lines, and set yourself adrift, then it is easy to first divorce the reason for the law from the law, and then to reject the law itself.
Taxes, Stupidity, and Death 
You might be interested in M. Stanton Evans’s book The Theme Is Freedom, in which he argues that Christianity is responsible for freedom, capitalism, and a number of other “secular goodies” most of us have severed from their origins.
BiW, i haven’t read any of Barton’s work but I’m afraid that the only analysis that would convince me is letters written by the founding fathers themselves that say such things as, “gathering my inspiration from Leviticus, I think we should say such-and-such about naturalization”.
Anything short of a definitive connection voiced by the framers themselves is conjecture.
Now, am I denying some of the framers were influenced by their Christian background? Of course not. That would be absurd. But to take sections of the Constitution and match them up thematically with verses in the Bible seems to me a very manipulative exercise.
But to take sections of the Constitution and match them up thematically with verses in the Bible seems to me a very manipulative exercise.
Ya think????
Now, am I denying some of the framers were influenced by their Christian background? Of course not. That would be absurd. But to take sections of the Constitution and match them up thematically with verses in the Bible seems to me a very manipulative exercise.
Of course, of course. And the fact that the very exercise that lead the scholars performing the study is not reported to have been undertaken for that purpose, is, I suppose, meaningless in it’s entirety.
I take your point regarding anything short of a direct quote for what I believe you mean as an honest criticism, R.
And I would at least ask you to expand on the thought you have expressed about the influence of their “Christian background”. The Consitutional Convention started its work each day with a prayer, and by all accounts that I have read, it wasn’t a little, perfunctory, nondescript prayer of the kind that you might hear in Congress today. These men put thought and effort into it. What’s more, Franklin, who some try to paint as a deist at best, and an atheist at worst, actually suggested during a particularly troublesome session that they all stop and pray. It wasn’t a short prayer either.
I am preparing for church this morning, but I believe I have an account of his remarks on that occaision. My point is that Christianity was far less a “background” than it was a foreground for all of these men, and with the scriptures of the Bible being so very ubiquitous to them, I can certainly contemplate that their incorporation of scripture into the ideas and concepts given form by the Constitution being as much unconscious as conscious.
As for Barton, many of his works are more akin to academic papers than they are tomes such as those written by Steven Ambrose or David McCollough. Many are short, and contain detailed citations.
While I am one of those who believes that Franklin was a Deist, I vehemently agree that Christianity was more than just a background component of society- church was structural pillar to society and the tenants of the Christian faith were significant elements of the economy as well as the politics of the time. I do not find it a stretch to see nearly direct correlation between our governmental structure and Constitution with the Bible.
R, I think you’re being a little disingenuous in your burden of proof for this.
“they discovered that the single most cited authority was the Bible, over 34% of the time, and four times as much as the next cited source.”
BiW, I would be very interested to know the next cited source. I would assume John Locke is on the list (unless his influence stopped at the Declaration of Independence).
I’d love to have Mr. Rasputin return to the discussion to expand a bit. Not sure whether he agrees with me or is mocking me (or both?).
G, I think BiW appreciates that direct evidence beats possibly coincidental correlation.
BiW, I would be very interested to know the next cited source. I would assume John Locke is on the list (unless his influence stopped at the Declaration of Independence).
I would too, R. The sources cited are:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1961257
and
http://www.lsu.edu/lsupress/bookPages/9780807115060.html
I couldn’t speak to Locke’s influence by the time the Constitution was written. Why are you curious?
G, I think BiW appreciates that direct evidence beats possibly coincidental correlation.
I think thirty percent and a percentage four times higher than the next identifiable source is statistically significant enough to not be dismissed as a “possibly coincidental correlation.”, especially when one considers the myriad of potential sources available, even at that point in history.
BiW, one interesting snippet in the second link you posted suggests that the judeo-christian influence on the Constitution may not have been direct but may have been derived second hand from earlier works that were influenced. Doesn’t really matter … influence is influence whether derived directly or historically.
And I suppose conceding the point of this influence does not particularly trouble me so long as it does not lead to a theocracy, which fortunately it did not. 😉
R, I’m not sure how you got that…maybe you haven’t read the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the Rhode Island Charter of 1663, the first state constitutions, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation?
However, there was no danger of a theocracy. I do, however, appreciate you bringing up the Left’s favorite shibboleth, and in true Left fashion…evoke the image and leave the room.
When you carefully study the various founders, especially when examining sources that predate the humanist contamination of academia, with the exception of Jefferson and Franklin, there is little doubt that they were of Christian extraction, of various denominations. Franklin and Jefferson, while leaving no record of christian persuasion, certainly left no doubt that they nevertheless believed in God, and believed that religion was good for society and its ability to govern itself. These people governed the country, and evoked God while in office. If they could do so without having created a theocracy (and they most certainly did not…if only because of the different sects of Christianity that these founders represented), then there likewise is no danger of it today, even if we as a society shifted the government away from policies and beliefs hostile to our religious heritage, to recognizing it, honoring, not denying the open recognition of it to protect the desire of a non-religious minority to not have to be exposed to it, and expecting a religious habit and practice of our leaders. To suggest otherwise is to deny historical fact, and is intellectually dishonest.
What the modern Left refuses to recognze is that there is a marked difference between recognizing this country’s rich religious history, and so warping interpretations of the law that if government is not hostile to religion, it is somehow failing to maintain a “separation of church and state”. The more I read even Jefferson’s words, the more I become convinced that he would be horrified at how the self-proclaimed “free-thinkers” of our time have come to regard the judeo-christian heritage and tradition as incompatible and offensive to good governance. But then, it just shows how good a job the religious humanists have done in substituting it’s lie of “truth for today” for immutable truth.
This is a very cool article, I could not have agreed more.
An old discussion, revisited.
BiW, a quick question, which probably has more to do with the Sunlight room than this, but what do you think the significance of a large portion of the founders being Freemasons means? We were discussing the premise of Deism with the founders, and considering the nature and concept of Deism in Freemasonry, I’m curious your thoughts.
Was Freemasonry simply a social gentlemen’s fraternity or did it play a larger role? I don’t ask this with some Dan Brown conspiracy in mind, rather, I think the tenets of Freemasonry were very important to the Founders, and that they- combined with the strong strictures of Christianity- formed the bulk of the pillars of this great experiment.
Just thought I’d kick this old horse and see what comes.