Lets vote for the Bible to be our form of government- #vote for God

Thomas White said:

But the persecution part of my comment doesn't give you pause?

Click to expand...

at first it made me hesitate then I realized that most of america which started under God and for Christ's name, was blessed as a result of God wanting it to grow. Not for any other reason. The pilgrims realized the favor from God so in the original schools they had primers based on the Bible itself. In fact up until I think the 1800, the Bible was used in public schools to teach english. So we would go back to that sort of thing, the thing that initially blessed america originally, we would return to. I am reminded in revelation it says to one of the seven churches "Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent." Revelation 2:5

so we as americans are to repent, do the first works, return to our first love.....God

a theocracy would be returning to our first love as americans.

A day when conservatives loved Jesus more than capitalism.

Jamdoc said:

Romans 4
it has always been grace through faith.

Click to expand...

abraham was prior to levitical laws. So the covenant of God at that time was yet even different than the new covenant by Christ, and the covenants of moses law and levitical law. Abraham was saved by faith. See simply doing a burnt offering but not believing in the God of Jacob was vanity. They too must believe God was real and that God was good. But anyway, some believe Abraham had a revelation given to him of the future Christ, and that is possible. There is evidence the mazzaroth which was the hebrew version of the greek zodiac, had ancient christian symbology depicting Christ (david) dying for the sin of the world. But we cannot really prove that. But even if He didn't have the gospel in the stars, he had theism, and he believed in the God of the Bible. And at that point, pre law that was enough for salvation. The covenant changed, if you remember right after they build a golden calf and started worshipping false God's, then the rules changed into sacrifice and the ten commandments (if I am not mistaken) but I could have my chronology backward.

Quartermaine said:

would you want the government to force schools to teach the geocentric model of the universe? I mean as long as you are fostering ignorance among children why stop at fake science like creationism?

I'm also curious about where you are going to find teachers willing to present false information like creationism to children? I know quite a few teachers and none of them would be willing to abandon their morals to indoctrinate children. So where are you going to get millions of new but poorly educated teachers with no sense of ethics? Or will you figure out a way try to coerce the teachers we already have?

and yes i would like you to honestly respond to this post and answer the questions posed....not that i think for a moment you will.

Click to expand...

well science is always evolving, to say only theologians were historically wrong, and somehow science had it right is simply mistaken. Take geocentrism for example, the scientists of the day also believed in geocentrism. So both theologians and scientists were corrected when they realized the earth was not the center of the universe. But on the other hand if you have not seen the outer edges of the universe, how would you know? If I was God and my son died for the sins of one special planet in space, why not make the universe revolve around it? after all my own son died on that planet. I would not be suprised at all if we realize in glory one day that that was the exact situation. Not only that but God then opened the books up and showed us the scientific laws that He created to make it happen and how very wrong we were. Now that does not mean it is the case and that I should teach it that way, but ultimately I don't think we know where the center of the universe is, we would have to know how far the edge is first, to calculate the center.

Quartermaine said:

I asked a clear question. I would not submit to your government and neither will hundreds of millions of others. So what happens to people like me who won't submit?

and yes i would like you to honestly respond to this post. Even though i know you won't

Click to expand...

It is hard to answer because you are not saying which law you would violate. Just so say to a police officer, "hey what would happen if I violated every known law?" Well that is incoherent, he would not even begin to know how to answer that question, and neither can I.

Quartermaine said:

Yes, you wound't want people to hope for freedom or justice or even to hope to keep their families safe. i can't think of a single dictator or tyrant who didn't respond to protests with swift and bloody suppression. It's a tradition.

Click to expand...

if you keep referring to God as a dictator, I will not be able to help you anymore. I really am simply legislating His word, His kingdom. We are His vessels. And we do His will, not our own will. So whenever you say dictator, It's offensive because God is not a dictator at all. He is a loving father.

Jamdoc said:

The law has always existed. Man was ignorant of it but it always existed. Why did God destroy the world in flood? Because of sins violating the law. Ignorance was not a defense.
God has always been consistent on the law, and on faith. Dispensationalism makes an assumption that God changes over time.
Malachi 3:6

Click to expand...

well moses law did not always exist, nor levitical law. But a general moral law did exist. You are correct, CS lewis calls it the law of nature. And that is programmed into every human being to sacrifice for others and not be self centered toward others. But to say God saves us by performing the law of nature is a works mentality. Abraham believed in God, but there is no evidence (other than a hypothetical gospel in the stars theory), that abraham knew who Christ would be. Again He could have had a vision. But faith in God is always required. But faith alone has never saved us. The only thing that changes is the act of faith. Faith is consistent in every dispensation, but the act of faith changes in every dispensation. Abraham believed God and "walked with God." You know, He obeyed God. If abraham didn't believe God He would live an unrighteous life. But abraham as we read his story believed God and lived a holy life. That is different than the act of faith in moses day, or the levitical order. The act of faith changed to sacrifice there. They were still required to believe in God and obey His commands, but now they must also sacrifice. Due to the fact they started following paganism. Later as Christ came, we are still required to repent of sin and have faith in Christ, but the act of faith changed from sacrificing bulls and sheeps to making Him Lord of our life. Picking up our cross and following Him daily. But not to believe in all the above, that faith is required first and foremost...is to have dogma but no true theology, or to have religion but no relationship. Religion does not save, only the transforming power of the gospel. Jesus didn't come to make good people better people, He came to make dead people alive.

Thomas White said:

So you accept that you will be persecuting other religions in favor of returning to something the United States has not done for two and a quarter centuries? You advocate returning us to a time of war, political strife, disunity, slavery, and economic emptiness. That is illogical. This nation was not founded as a Christian nation. It was founded as a nation where anyone could pursue the faith they chose. Since that founding, it has evolved into a safe place in which multiple religions can flourish. Destroying that would destroy the fabric of this country, not help it. You would create a state similar to Iran, a theocracy in which no other opinion matters besides the state sanctioned opinion.

Click to expand...

sounds like revisionist history to me.

Here is the american history I know of:

THE CHRISTIAN/BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE FOUNDATION OF OUR COUNTRY

Were our Founding Fathers Christian with a fervent love for the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Or were they primarily Deists, who only acknowledged the existence of a distant, impersonal god?

Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here."

George Washington: His personal prayer book, written in his own handwriting, declares continual fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ: "O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt, in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day."

John Marshall: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court described Washington: "Without making ostentatious professions of religion, he was a sincere believer in the Christian faith, and a truly devout man."

The Continental Congress, on September 11, 1777, recommended and approved that the Committee of Commerce "import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere," because of the great need of the American people and the great shortage caused by the interruption of trade with England by the Revolutionary War.

John Adams: On March 6, 1789, President Adams called for a national day of fasting and prayer so that the nation might "call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgression, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience. . ."

John Quincy Adams: "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." (July 4, 1821)

John Jay: First Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court: "Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved Son."

Patrick Henry: In a letter to his sister Anne: "My heart is full. Perhaps I may never see you in this world. O may we meet in heaven, to which the merits of Jesus will carry those who love and serve Him."

George Mason: "Father" of the Bill of Rights; "My soul I resign into the hands of my Almighty Creator, whose tender mercies are all over His works, who hateth nothing that He hath made, and to the justice and wisdom of whose dispensations I willingly and cheerfully submit, humbly hoping from His unbounded mercy and benevolence, through the merits of my blessed Savior, a remission of my sins".

James Madison: "Chief Architect" of the U. S. Constitution, wrote in the margin of his Bible, "Christ's Divinity appears by St. John chapter XX, 2; 'And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God!' Resurrection testified to and witnessed by the Apostles, Acts IV, 33."

The First Act of Congress following their agreement of the precise wording of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...) was to ask President Washington to declare a national day of fasting and prayer!

Constitution of the State of Delaware: Art. XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust... shall...make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I, do profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

United States Supreme Court: Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892, 143 US 457, "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." (p.471) [This U. S. Supreme Court opinion includes a lengthy and detailed record of the historic evidences of America's Christian heritage.]

The Constitution And Separation Of Church And State

Organizations like the A.C.L.U., Americans United For Separation Of Church And State, and our modern Supreme Court, have so distorted our Constitution's First Amendment, that it is time to simply tell the truth! This is the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

FIRST, notice the very first word, CONGRESS. The First Amendment places the restrictions on the Congress, not individual citizens. It says that Government cannot restrict the free exercise of its citizens religious beliefs! The words "separation of church and state" are not found in the First Amendment, and yet modern judges have made radical decisions against the religious rights of its citizens, stating the "Separation" clause as its defense. In other words, our Government has purposely lied to its people about their Constitution! Since this principle is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, let's investigate. The First Amendment was debated in the first Congressional session of 1789, at which time Thomas Jefferson was out of the country in France as a U.S. Minister. Thirteen years later, on January 1, 1802, he wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, calming their fears that Congress was NOT in the process of choosing any single Christian denomination as the national religion. Thus his written statement, "Building a wall of separation between Church and State", reassured the Baptists that the Government's hands were tied from interfering with, or in any way controlling, the affairs or decisions of the churches in America! To prove that Thomas Jefferson was not in favor of removing religion from Government, let us consider some of his official mandates: (1) as the Governor of Virginia, he decreed a day of "Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God", (2) in 1798 he wrote at the occasion of the Kentucky Resolution; "No power over the freedom of religion...[is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution", (3) while President, he chaired the school board for the District of Columbia, where he used the Bible and Isaac Watts' Hymnal as the books to teach reading to students, (4) as President, he not only signed bills which appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and in the armed services, but he also signed the Articles of War in which he "Earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, diligently to attend divine services", (5) there are countless other examples of his intermingling religion and government, but he was also aware of how his statement to the Danbury Baptists was already being twisted from his true intent. Several months after the Danbury letter, on April 21, 1802, he wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush; "My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be; sincerely attatched to His doctrines in preference to all others."

SECONDLY, another way of proving that the First Amendment was written with the intent of preventing the United States from "establishing" a national religion, is to study the three months of Congressional debate. Consider these few examples: (1) the initial draft, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established...", (2) another proposal, "No religion shall be established by law", (3) another draft, "That Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal worship of it by law", (4) and, "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another."

So clearly, the First Amendment was written to give American citizens total religious freedom without the fear of being forced to show devotion to any particular national religion! The First Amendment's "free exercise", means that Americans can profess their beliefs in any way, any place, and any time, without the prohibition of such, by laws from the government and the courts!

Thomas White said:

God is not the dictator. The people in charge of the state will be the dictators.

Click to expand...

But again, the use of derogatory terms and name calling are inflammatory. If history has NEVER SEEN a theocracy according to the New testament, how can you know it will result in said dictatorship? That is an argument from silence and thus because of such I won't reply to any more posts that mention inflammatory language.

Jamdoc said:

again, there are no dispensations. That is unbiblical.

Click to expand...

I am willing to address any proof you have of this statement. I already made my supporting statements regarding it, and I have lots more to say. But those have to be refuted first.

Thomas White said:

What you just tried to put together is definitely revisionist history.

Click to expand...

well wait on a minute the bill of rights came quite a bit later. The christianity involved with government was earlier. Yes at the time of the bill of rights (the constitution), it nullified all laws before it, but there was quite a bit of legislating of scriptures before the constitution. So I for one am not a fan of the constitution, my first act as president would be to remove the first ammendment, and if that didn't work, remove the entire constitution and start with a more biblical example of previous american government. Here is some more stuff (no it's not revisionist history, but it's a history long forgotten thats for sure).

the following book that is public domain
(The United States a Christian Nation by Supreme Court Justice David Brewer)

Christian Origin of American Law Defended
Perhaps nowhere in American jurisprudence has Christianity's influence upon American law been more succinctly stated than in the case of the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, argued before the Supreme Court in January, 1892. In 1885, Congress had passed the Alien Contract Labor Law, which prohibited "the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia." The Church of the Holy Trinity, New York had hired an English (Anglican) priest and had brought him to America to serve their congregation. When charges were brought against the church for breaking the Alien Contract Labor Law, a lower court ruled against the church. But upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the justices ruled in favor of the church, arguing the Congress had not intended to regulate this form of service.

Justice David Brewer wrote the majority (and unanimous) decision for the court. While the first part of the ruling describes how the decision was determined, the latter portion deals with the historical proofs that demonstrate that America is a Christian nation. After providing more than eighty pieces of evidence concerning America's Christian origin, Justice Brewer concluded his decision:

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name of God, amen;” the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.[5]

Books Historical Context
Thirteen years after Justice Brewer penned the majority opinion for Holy Trinity v. United States, the John C. Winston Company of Philadelpia published a book containing a series of three lectures delivered by Justice Brewer at the Haverford Library Lectures, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania—near Philadelphia. Haverford College was founded in 1833 by the Orthodox Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) as a college to train young men within the Quaker tradition. In September 1905, the John C. Winston Company published Justice Brewer's three lectures delivered at Haverford, providing Brewer with the opportunity to further explain his understanding of the influence that Christianity had sustained and should sustain upon America.[6] Taking its name from the first lecture, the book was entitled, The United States a Christian Nation. The three lectures that composed the 1905 book have been entirely reprinted in the following pages with the hope that readers will garner a deeper conviction of the fact that America was conceived, not as a secular, but as a "Christian nation."

Lecture One:
The United States a Christian Nation
...
This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U. S. 471, that court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, "these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation — in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. This popular use of the term certainly has significance. It is not a mere creation of the imagination. It is not a term of derision but has a substantial basis — one which justifies its use. Let us analyze a little and see what is the basis.

Its use has had from the early settlements on our shores and still has an official foundation. It is only about three centuries since the beginnings of civilized life within the limits of these United States. And those beginnings were in a marked and marvelous degree identified with Christianity. The commission from Ferdinand and Isabella to Columbus recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered." The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh, in 1584, authorized him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony, provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith now professed in the Church of England." The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I, in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: "We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their desires for the furtherance of so noble a work, which may, by the providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God." And language of similar import is found in subsequent charters of the same colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611. The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims on the Mayflower, in 1620, recites: "Having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith and the honor of our king and country a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia."

The charter of New England, granted by James I, in 1620, after referring to a petition, declares: "We, according to our princely inclination, favoring much their worthy disposition, in hope thereby to advance the enlargement of Christian religion, to the glory of God Almighty."

The charter of Massachusetts Bay, granted in 1629 by Charles I, after several provisions, recites: "Whereby our said people, inhabitants there, may be so religiously, peaceably and civilly governed as their good life and orderly conversation may win and incite the natives of the country to their knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith, which in our royal intention and the adventurers free profession, is the principal end of this plantation," which declaration was substantially repeated in the charter of Massachusetts Bay granted by William and Mary, in 1691.

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-1639, provided: "Forasmuch as it has pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of His divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we, the inhabitants and residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, are now cohabitating and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the lands thereto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one public state or commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter enter into combination and confederation together to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the churches, which, according to the truth of the said gospel, is now practiced amongst us." In the preamble of the Constitution of 1776 it was declared, "the free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion, without impeachment and infringement, hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of churches and commonwealths; and the denial thereof, the disturbance, if not the ruin of both."

In 1638 the first settlers in Rhode Island organized a local government by signing the following agreement:

"We whose names are underwritten do here solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as He shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of his given us in his holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby. Exod. 24:3, 4; II Chron. 11:3; II Kings 11:17."

The charter granted to Rhode Island, in 1663, naming the petitioners, speaks of them as "pursuing, with peaceable and loyal minds, their sober, serious and religious intentions, of godly edifying themselves and one another in the holy Christian faith and worship as they were persuaded; together with the gaining over and conversion of the poor, ignorant Indian natives, in these parts of America, to the sincere profession and obedience of the same faith and worship."

The charter of Carolina, granted in 1663 by Charles II, recites that the petitioners, "being excited with a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith."

In the preface of the frame of government prepared in 1682 by William Penn, for Pennsylvania, it is said: "They weakly err, that think there is no other use of government than correction, which is the coarsest part of it; daily experience tells us that the care and regulation of many other affairs, more soft, and daily necessary, make up much of the greatest part of government; and which must have followed the peopling of the world, had Adam never fell, and will continue among men, on earth, under the highest attainments they may arrive at, by the coming of the blessed second Adam, the Lord from heaven." And with the laws prepared to go with the frame of government, it was further provided "that according to the good example of the primitive Christians, and the ease of the creation, every first day of the week, called the Lord's Day, people shall abstain from their common daily labor that they may the better dispose themselves to worship God according to their understandings."

In the charter of privileges granted, in 1701, by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania and territories thereunto belonging (such territories afterwards constituting the State of Delaware), it is recited: "Because no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of the freedom of their consciences as to their religious profession and worship; and Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the author as well as object of all divine knowledge, faith and worship, who only doth enlighten the minds and persuade and convince the understandings of the people, I do hereby grant and declare.

The Constitution of Vermont, of 1777, granting the free exercise of religious worship, added, "Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord's Day, and keep up and support some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God." And this was repeated in the Constitution of 1786.

In the Constitution of South Carolina, of 1778, it was declared that "the Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed and is hereby constituted and declared to be the established religion of this State." And further, that no agreement or union of men upon pretense of religion should be entitled to become incorporated and regarded as a church of the established religion of the State, without agreeing and subscribing to a book of five articles, the third and fourth of which were "that the Christian religion is the true religion; that the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice."

Passing beyond these declarations which are found in the organic instruments of the colonies, the following are well known historical facts: Lord Baltimore secured the charter for a Maryland colony in order that he and his associates might continue their Catholic worship free from Protestant persecution. Roger Williams, exiled from Massachusetts because of his religious views, established an independent colony in Rhode Island. The Huguenots, driven from France by the Edict of Nantes, sought in the more southern colonies a place where they could live in the enjoyment of their Huguenot faith. It is not exaggeration to say that Christianity in some of its creeds was the principal cause of the settlement of many of the colonies, and cooperated with business hopes and purposes in the settlement of the others. Beginning in this way and under these influences it is not strange that the colonial life had an emphatic Christian tone.

From the very first efforts were made, largely it must be conceded by Catholics, to bring the Indians under the influence of Christianity. Who can read without emotion the story of Marquette, and others like him, enduring all perils and dangers and toiling through the forests of the west in their efforts to tell the story of Jesus to the savages of North America?

Within less than one hundred years from the landing at Jamestown three colleges were established in the colonies; Harvard in Massachusetts, William and Mary in Virginia and Yale in Connecticut. The first seal used by Harvard College had as a motto, "In Christi Gloriam," and the charter granted by Massachuetts Bay contained this recital: "Whereas, through the good hand of God many well devoted persons have been and daily are moved and stirred up to give and bestow sundry gifts . . . that may conduce to the education of the English and Indian youth of this country, in knowledge and godliness." The charter of William and Mary, reciting that the proposal was "to the end that the Church of Virginia may be furnished with a seminary of ministers of the gospel, and that the youth may be piously educated in good letters and manners, and that the Christian faith may be propagated amongst the western Indians, to the glory of Almighty God" made the grant "for propagating the pure gospel of Christ, our only Mediator, to the praise and honor of Almighty God." The charter of Yale declared as its purpose to fit "young men for public employment both in church and civil state," and it provided that the trustees should be Congregational ministers living in the colony.

Thomas White said:

What you just tried to put together is definitely revisionist history.

Click to expand...

Again it's not revisionist history but it's a history long forgotten.... here is part two of my reply:

(part 2): from the following book that is public domain
(The United States a Christian Nation by Supreme Court Justice David Brewer)

In some of the colonies, particularly in New England, the support of the church was a matter of public charge, even as the common schools are today. Thus, the Constitution of Massachusetts, of 1780, Part I, Article 3, provided that "the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Article 6 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of New Hampshire, of 1784, repeated in the Constitution of 1792, empowered "the legislature to authorize from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this State, to make adequate provision at their own expense for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality." In the fundamental Constitutions of 1769, prepared for the Carolinas, by the celebrated John Locke, Article 96 reads: "As the country comes to be sufficiently planted and distributed into fit divisions, it shall belong to the parliament to take care for the building of churches, and the public maintenance of divines to be employed in the exercise of religion according to the Church of England, which being the only true and orthodox and the national religion of all the king's dominions, is so also of Carolina, and, therefore, it alone shall be allowed to receive public maintenance by grant of parliament."

In Maryland, by the Constitution of 1776, it was provided that "the legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for 'the support of the Christian religion."

In several colonies and states a profession of the Christian faith was made an indispensable condition to holding office. In the frame of government for Pennsylvania, prepared by William Penn, in 1683, it was provided that "all treasurers, judges . . . and other officers . . . and all members elected to serve in provincial council and general assembly, and all that have right to elect such members, shall be such as profess faith in Jesus Christ." And in the charter of privileges for that colony, given in 1701 by William Penn and approved by the colonial assembly it was provided "that all persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World, shall be capable ... to serve this government in any capacity, both legislatively and executively."

In Delaware, by the Constitution of 1776, every officeholder was required to make and subscribe the following declaration: "I, A. B., do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His Only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

New Hampshire, in the Constitutions of 1784 and 1792, required that senators and representatives should be of the "Protestant, religion," and this provision remained in force until 1877.

The fundamental Constitutions of the Carolinas declared: "No man shall be permitted to be a freeman of Carolina, or to have any estate or habitation within it that doth not acknowledge a God, and that God is publicly and solemnly to be worshiped."

The Constitution of North Carolina, of 1776, provided: "That no person who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State." And, this remained in force until 1835, when it was amended by changing the word "Protestant" to "Christian," and as so amended remained in force until the Constitution of 1868. And in that Constitution among the persons disqualified for office were "all persons who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

New Jersey, by the Constitution of 1776, declared "that no Protestant inhabitant of this colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles, but that all persons professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the legislature."

The Constitution of South Carolina, of 1776, provided that no person should be eligible to the Senate or House of Representatives "unless he be of the Protestant religion."

Massachusetts, in its Constitution of 1780, required from governor, lieutenant-governor, councilor, senator and representative before proceeding to execute the duties of his place or office a declaration that "I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth."

By the fundamental orders of Connecticut, the governor was directed to take an oath to "further the execution of justice according to the rule of God's word; so help me God, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

The Vermont Constitution of 1777 required of every member of the House of Representatives that he take this oath: "I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the Protestant religion." A similar requirement was provided by the Constitution of 1786.

In Maryland, by the Constitution of 1776, every person appointed to any office of profit or trust was not only to take an official oath of allegiance to the State, but also to "subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion." In the same State, in the Constitution of 1851, it was declared that no other test or qualification for admission to any office of trust or profit shall be required than the official oath "and a declaration of belief in the Christian religion; and if the party shall profess to be a Jew the declaration shall be of his belief in a future state of rewards and punishments." As late as 1864 the same State in its Constitution had a similar provision, the change being one merely of phraseology, the provision reading, "a declaration of belief in the Christian religion, or of the existence of God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments."

Mississippi, by the Constitution of 1817, provided that "no person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the State."

Another significant matter is the recognition of Sunday. That day is the Christian Sabbath, a day peculiar to that faith, and known to no other. It would be impossible within the limits of a lecture to point out all the ways in which that day is recognized. The following illustrations must suffice: By the United States Constitution the President is required to approved all bills passed by Congress. If he disapproves he returns it with his veto. And, then specifically it is provided that if not returned by him within ten days, "Sundays excepted," after it shall have been presented to him it becomes a law. Similar provisions are found in the Constitutions of most of the States, and in thirty-six out of forty-five is the same expression, "Sundays excepted."

Louisiana is one of the nine States in whose present Constitution the expression, "Sundays excepted," is not found. Four earlier Constitutions of that State (those of 1812, 1845, 1852 and 1864) contained, while the three later ones, 1868, 1879 and 1881 omit those words. In State ex rel. vs. Secretary of State, a case arising under the last Constitution, decided by the Supreme Court of Louisiana (52 La. An. 936), the question was presented as to the effect of a governor's veto which was returned within time if a Sunday intervening between the day of presentation of the bill and the return of the veto was excluded, and too late if it was included: the burden of the contention on the one side being that the change in the phraseology of the later Constitutions in omitting the words "Sundays excepted" indicated a change in the meaning of the constitutional provision in respect to the time of a veto. The court unanimously held that the Sunday was to be excluded. In the course of its opinion it said (p. 944):
In law Sundays are generally excluded as days upon which the performance of any act demanded by the law is not required. They are held to be dies non juridici.

And in the Christian world Sunday is regarded as the "Lord's Day" and a holiday — a day of cessation from labor.

By statute, enacted as far back as 1838, this day is made in Louisiana one of 'public rest.' Rev. Stat., Sec. 522; Code of Practice, 207, 763.

This is the policy of the State of long standing and the framers of the Constitution are to be considered as intending to conform to the same.

By express command of Congress, studies are not pursued at the military or naval academies, and distilleries are prohibited from operation on Sundays, while chaplains are required to hold religious services once at least on that day.

By the English statute of 29 Charles II 28 no tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, or other person was permitted to do or exercise any worldly labor, business or work of ordinary calling upon the Lord's Day, or any part thereof, works of necessity or charity only excepted. That statute, with some variations, has been adopted by most if not all the States of the Union, in Massachusetts it was held that one injured while traveling in the cars on Sunday, except in case of necessity or charity, was guilty of contributory negligence and could recover nothing from the railroad company for the injury he sustained. And this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. A statute of the State of Georgia, making the running of freight trains on Sunday a misdemeanor, was also upheld by that court. By decisions in many States a contract made on Sunday is invalid and cannot be enforced. By the general course of decision, no judicial proceedings can be held on Sunday. All legislative bodies, whether municipal, state or national, abstain from work on that day. Indeed, the vast volume of official action, legislative and judicial, recognizes Sunday as a day separate and apart from the others, a day devoted not to the ordinary pursuits of life. It is true in many of the decisions this separation of the day is said to be authorized by the police power of the State and exercised for purposes of health. At the same time, through a large majority of them, there runs the thought of its being a religious day, consecrated by the Commandment, "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates."

While the word "God" is not infrequently used both in the singular and plural to denote any supreme being or beings, yet when used alone and in the singular number it generally refers to that Supreme Being spoken of in the Old and New Testaments and worshiped by Jew and Christian. In that sense, the word is used in constitution, statute and instrument. In many State Constitutions, we find in the preamble a declaration like this: "Grateful to Almighty God." In some he who denied the being of God was disqualified from holding office. It is again and again declared in constitution and statute that official oaths shall close with an appeal, "So help me, God." When, upon inauguration, the President-elect each four years consecrates himself to the great responsibilities of Chief Executive of the republic, his vow of consecration in the presence of the vast throng filling the Capitol grounds will end with the solemn words, "So help me, God." In all our courts witnesses in like manner vouch for the truthfulness of their testimony. The common commencement of wills is "In the name of God, Amen." Every foreigner attests his renunciation of allegiance to his former sovereign and his acceptance of citizenship in this republic by an appeal to God.

These various declarations in charters, constitutions and statutes indicate the general thought and purpose. If it be said that similar declarations are not found in all the charters or in all the constitutions, it will be borne in mind that the omission oftentimes was because they were deemed unnecessary, as shown by the quotation just made from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, as well as those hereafter taken from the opinions of other courts. And further, it is of still more significance that there are no contrary declarations. In no charter or constitution is there anything to even suggest that any other than the Christian is the religion of his country. In none of them is Mohammed or Confucius or Buddha in any manner noticed. In none of them is Judaism recognized other than by way of toleration of its special creed. While the separation of church and state is often affirmed, there is nowhere a repudiation of Christianity as one of the institutions as well as benedictions of society. In short, there is no charter or constitution that is either infidel, agnostic or anti-Christian. Wherever there is a declaration in favor of any religion, it is of the Christian. In view of the multitude of expressions in its favor, the avowed separation between church and state is a most satisfactory testimonial that it is the religion of this country, for a peculiar thought of Christianity is of a personal relation between man and his Maker, uncontrolled by and independent of human government.

Notice also the matter of chaplains. These are appointed for the army and navy, named as officials of legislative assemblies, and universally they belong to one or other of the Christian denominations. Their whole range of service, whether in prayer or preaching, is an official recognition of Christianity. If it be not so, why do we have chaplains?

If we consult the decisions of the courts, although the formal question has seldom been presented because of a general recognition of its truth, yet in The People vs. Ruggles, 8 John. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said: "The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice." And in the famous case of Vidal vs. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127, 198, the Supreme Court of the United States, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

The New York Supreme Court, in Lindenmuller vs. The People, 33 Barbour, 561, held that:

Christianity is not the legal religion of the State, as established by law. If it were, it would be a civil or political institution, which it is not; but this is not inconsistent with the idea that it is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. This fact is everywhere prominent in all our civil and political history and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, as well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice.

The South Carolina Supreme Court, in State vs. Chandler, 2 Harrington, 555, citing many cases, said:

It appears to have been long perfectly settled by the common law that blasphemy against the Deity in general, or a malicious and wanton attack against the Christian religion individually, for the purpose of exposing its doctrines to contempt and ridicule, is indictable and punishable as a temporal offense.

And again, in City Council vs. Benjamin, 2 Strobhart, 521:

On that day we rest, and to us it is the Sabbath of the Lord — its decent observance in a Christian community is that which ought to be expected.

It is not perhaps necessary for the purposes of this case to rule and hold that the Christian religion is part of the common law of South Carolina. Still it may be useful to show that it lies at the foundation of even the article of the Constitution under consideration, and that upon it rest many of the principles and usages, constantly acknowledged and enforced, in the courts of justice.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth, 11 Sergeant and Rawle, 400, made this declaration:

Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; Christianity, without the spiritual artillery of European countries; for this Christianity was one of the considerations of the royal charter, and the very basis of its great founder, William Penn; not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, and tithes, and spiritual courts; but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.

Thomas White said:

What you just tried to put together is definitely revisionist history. You cherry-picked pieces of letters, not government documents, in which founders profess their Christian beliefs. I am also a Christian, I was also an elected official. That does not mean that my constituency was Christian. As such, the founding fathers being Christians does not support the idea that they founded this nation as a Christian nation. They went to great lengths to clarify that they did not. I will spare you and other readers from the many quotes. Instead, I will focus on the one federal document you did quote. Over a century after the founding of our nation, Justice Brewer writes, "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." Note the word unofficial. You left out a clarifying remark written by Brewer in 1905: "But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are in any matter compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Neither is it Christian in the sense that all of its citizens are either in fact or name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions."

You are right, the First Amendment was done, in part, to keep the United States from creating a national religion. It was also meant to protect the right every American has to believe as he or she wishes. Nothing there supports your argument. In fact, it proves that the United States did not ever adopt an official religion. As such, it was not and is not a Christian nation.

Just to add a Benjamin Rush quote since you mentioned him, I will quote his response to delegates to the Constitutional Convention being required to take an oath professing a belief in God: "no man whose morals were good by walking uprightly amongst his neighbours should be exempted."

Also, you shouldn't use the quote you attribute to Patrick Henry. It is inaccurate and was first used in 1956, 157 years after Henry died.

Click to expand...

now having quoted justice brewer, I am not agreeing 100% with his views, I am just saying that legally speaking the united states was ruled a "christian nation." And the Justice does modify that He was not talking about a christian government later, but I would disagree with that part. I believe we should in fact legislate the scripture. That is what I mean when I say that no theocracy of the whole Bible as law, has ever happened, but we would go back to earlier laws that did support more of the christian government. I wouldn't have the same doubts about legislating christianity, christianity is nothing to be ashamed of, I for one am not ashamed of my savior and His words should be law.