A history of religion in the USA's culture in no way implies that the government was meant to have religion involved in the activities of the government. The government was set up such that the whole of government power was to be based on the people being governed.

The authority of the government's power is completely derived through the people being governed. This is the most important aspect of the system. Because the power comes from the people, and not from God or a religion, the people will always be in a position to challenge the power of the government. If the powers of the government were derived through a religion or God, no person would then be in capable of challenging the ...

A history of religion in the USA's culture in no way implies that the government was meant to have religion involved in the activities of the government. The government was set up such that the whole of government power was to be based on the people being governed.

The authority of the government's power is completely derived through the people being governed. This is the most important aspect of the system. Because the power comes from the people, and not from God or a religion, the people will always be in a position to challenge the power of the government. If the powers of the government were derived through a religion or God, no person would then be in capable of challenging the actions of the government for to do so would mean challenging the authority of God.

This is the reason for keeping the separation of the Government from any influence of religion and God. This is what the founding fathers understood so well and why they took great steps to insure that the government would be kept free of religious influence and/or control.
It makes no sense to conclude that they intended for religion to be involved in the activities of the government after they took such great pains to set up the government such that the whole base of power for the government was derived through the people being governed and not via a God or religion. If you fail to grasp this, then you fail to understand the significance of the creation of the USA.

Once you try to introduce God or religion into the government, how do you decide who's version of God and religion to follow. You can not answer this question without discrimination against the rest of the people pushing different religions. This very issue was key in the creation of the USA. Anyone trying to justify pushing their agenda for their version of religion into the government in anyway is truly being Un-American.

The only thing that the FFs attributed to God, rightly so or not, was that every human is born with rights that need not be granted by any man. The whole reason they stated that these rights were given to man by god was to set up these rights in such a way that no man will have the authority to take them away. This is a clear example of the FF's understanding the need to make distinctions between an authority derive through God and authority derived through man.

After they declared which rights each man are born with they then turned right around set up the government specifically to exclude God and religion from this government to insure that the power of this government will always be...

The only thing that the FFs attributed to God, rightly so or not, was that every human is born with rights that need not be granted by any man. The whole reason they stated that these rights were given to man by god was to set up these rights in such a way that no man will have the authority to take them away. This is a clear example of the FF's understanding the need to make distinctions between an authority derive through God and authority derived through man.

After they declared which rights each man are born with they then turned right around set up the government specifically to exclude God and religion from this government to insure that the power of this government will always be derived through man and not through a god or religion. This way the government's activities will always be challengeable by any man. How people can not see this is beyond me...especially a lawyer.

This is the reason I will aggressively challenge anyone who attempts to interject their view of God and religion into the government such as the right wing Christian coalition and everyone in the republican party that ties themselves to them. I will work against any religious group and any politician or party who attempts to interject religion into this US government.

I will also aggressively challenge anyone professing they know who or what the "correct god" is or that they know the "correct words of god". I do this to force those who think that by claiming they know the "Correct God" or "Correct Words of God", they can claim the authority to tell the rest of the world what is right or...

This is the reason I will aggressively challenge anyone who attempts to interject their view of God and religion into the government such as the right wing Christian coalition and everyone in the republican party that ties themselves to them. I will work against any religious group and any politician or party who attempts to interject religion into this US government.

I will also aggressively challenge anyone professing they know who or what the "correct god" is or that they know the "correct words of god". I do this to force those who think that by claiming they know the "Correct God" or "Correct Words of God", they can claim the authority to tell the rest of the world what is right or wrong, what is sin or not sin, or anything concerning God.

No person or religion has as of yet proved that what they profess to be from god is from god, As long as this is the situation, non of these religions or people from these religions can claim authority to tell the world what God says or worse attempt to control anyone based on their assumption of authority.

Because it is these religions and people of these religions making these claims about God, if fall to them to prove they come from god. As long as they can not prove these things with objective proof, they must stop trying to claim authority through god to justify doing things... especially when these things are suppressive in nature or negative to other people no mater how big or small these things may be.

ezsparky--

You wrote a lot. First, I am grateful for your tone. I expect us to disagree sharply, but I appreciate your civility. It is not common on here, unfortunately.

I'm not going to respond point for point, because you just wrote too much, but here are some problems I see with what you wrote.

Historically--The idea that the FFs intended to exclude God from government is historically indefensible. Read some primary source material. I can recommend some, if you want.

Even Jefferson, often wrongly hailed as not a Christian, used federal money to support Christian missionaries. How do you square that with your view? I'm not going to start down the road of providing more concret...

ezsparky--

You wrote a lot. First, I am grateful for your tone. I expect us to disagree sharply, but I appreciate your civility. It is not common on here, unfortunately.

I'm not going to respond point for point, because you just wrote too much, but here are some problems I see with what you wrote.

Historically--The idea that the FFs intended to exclude God from government is historically indefensible. Read some primary source material. I can recommend some, if you want.

Even Jefferson, often wrongly hailed as not a Christian, used federal money to support Christian missionaries. How do you square that with your view? I'm not going to start down the road of providing more concrete examples, because the sheer volume...I encourage you to do this yourself, and I am happy to provide sources. Email if you'd like.

You may think we should exclude God from government now, and we can debate that. But neither the FF's nor the rest of the nation's history will rally to your side on that belief. I don't doubt that you love your country, but your notion is contrary to the well-documented position of the FFs.

The intent not to create a state church is not at all the same thing as excluding God from government...in fact, the best-documented reason for this constitutional provision was that they believed that the individual states should sponsor their own churches.

A history of religion in the USA's culture in no way implies that the
government was meant to have religion involved in the activities of the
government.

The clip couldn't show much, so I encourage you to follow the link, which will go further in showing that our government has recognized God's (the Christian God's--there is no other) ultimate authority and sovereignty in all human affairs, including national government.

Your post shows some of the problem with failing to distinguish between religions. They are not all the same. Only Christianity is true. I know that probably enrages you that I dare reject the dogma du jour that all religion is basically the same and that none can be true.

But, you see, that is your own religious belief, and you are trying to interject into our government. The problem is, your religion is false.

I will gladly submit Christianity's truth claims to the same scrutiny to which you are willing to submit your own religion's truth claims. I have every confidence in the truthfulness of Christianity's propositions. I also have confidence that your religion's propositions are fal...

Your post shows some of the problem with failing to distinguish between religions. They are not all the same. Only Christianity is true. I know that probably enrages you that I dare reject the dogma du jour that all religion is basically the same and that none can be true.

But, you see, that is your own religious belief, and you are trying to interject into our government. The problem is, your religion is false.

I will gladly submit Christianity's truth claims to the same scrutiny to which you are willing to submit your own religion's truth claims. I have every confidence in the truthfulness of Christianity's propositions. I also have confidence that your religion's propositions are false.

Let me begin with one of your religion's propositions:

"Once you try to introduce God or religion into the government, how do you decide who's version of God and religion to follow."

The positive statement of the proposition would be "all versions of God are equally legitimate."

This cannot be true, however, because the Christian God denies the existence of any God but Himself, and therefore the Christian God and the Atheist god cannot both be equally legitimate. A light bulb cannot be on and off at the same time.

Another of your religion's propositions found in your query is that we can simply select a deity as we select items to include on our salads. But, again, the Christian God has said that every knee will bow to Him in due time.

At a minimum, then, your religion cannot include the Christian God in its proposition about the legitimacy of religions or the role of humans in "selecting" gods.

Here is another snippet of your religion's dogmas:

"You can not answer this question without discrimination against...different religions."

One of the dogmas here is that discrimination among competing truth claims is wrong. But this is self-contradictory, because that dogma is itself a truth claim that demands absolute acceptance, and discriminates against all others.

"The authority of the government's power is completely derived through the people being governed."

This is not accurate. There are competing authorities in a republic. The people have the authority of their consent, but the government has its own separate authority, that is equally legimitate. All authority is delegated by God. This is the point of Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, one of the most influential books of the time, where argued against divine right of kings.

Our republic incorporates a distinctively Christian understanding of human nature...namely that it is depraved. It therefore is federal (little "f" sense), in that the people do not rule directly. It is democratic in that those...

"The authority of the government's power is completely derived through the people being governed."

This is not accurate. There are competing authorities in a republic. The people have the authority of their consent, but the government has its own separate authority, that is equally legimitate. All authority is delegated by God. This is the point of Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, one of the most influential books of the time, where argued against divine right of kings.

Our republic incorporates a distinctively Christian understanding of human nature...namely that it is depraved. It therefore is federal (little "f" sense), in that the people do not rule directly. It is democratic in that those who do the ruling must be consented to by the governed. But once consent is given, the people do not govern directly, the representatives do.

"Vox populi, vox dei" was not part of America's founding. By contrast, America's government recognizes that both "the people" and their individual representatives are depraved, and therefore neither has an absolute authority over the other, but each holds the other in check.

This was more evident prior to the erosion of the constitutional provisions for electors and state's electing senators, etc. At the founding (which is what you were discussing), the direct link to "the people" was not as it is today (it is still not truly direct).

Those changes came later, by those who realized they could 1) easily manipulate "the people" 2) avoid responsibility by saying "the people" approved them and their actions and 3) claim to speak "for the people" by doing whatever necessary to get in office, and making their will somehow "the people's" will.

"If the powers of the government were derived through a religion or God, no person would then be in capable of challenging the actions of the government for to do so would mean challenging the authority of God."

Again, you're mistake comes by failing to distinguish religions. Christianity expressly teaches that rulers are themselves ministers of God. That is, they are ministers of justice. Ministers do not come up with their own stuff...they minister.

A minister of grace in a pulpit is not free to violate his ordination vows and tell everyone to worship Allah. If he were to do so, he would be justly resisted and removed from office.

The same principle applies.Civil authorities are bound ...

"If the powers of the government were derived through a religion or God, no person would then be in capable of challenging the actions of the government for to do so would mean challenging the authority of God."

Again, you're mistake comes by failing to distinguish religions. Christianity expressly teaches that rulers are themselves ministers of God. That is, they are ministers of justice. Ministers do not come up with their own stuff...they minister.

A minister of grace in a pulpit is not free to violate his ordination vows and tell everyone to worship Allah. If he were to do so, he would be justly resisted and removed from office.

The same principle applies.Civil authorities are bound by the revealed will of God. God does not give them an absolute authority, and that seems to be where your misunderstanding lies.

A delegated authority is a necessarily limited authority.There is authority for a particular purpose, and beyond that purpose, there is no authority.

An example--I may tell my oldest daughter that it is her responsibility to keep my younger daughter from going in the street.

By doing so, I have not given my older daughter absolute unfettered authority over my younger daughter, but she does have authority to command her to stay away from the street and even to physically restrain her from doing so. But she may not kill her to prevent her from going in the street, because that would upset the whole purpose of my delegation of authority to her.

Same principle applies. If the government tells me "Don't pray," it has exceeded its God-given authority. The government says, "we own your labor," it has exceeded its authority.

Christianity teaches that God has ordained multiple authorities (or "governments") and that each is to respect the other, but that resisting usurpations is permissible (though perhaps not always practical).

On Christian principle, then, the states resisted a usurpatious king, who acted beyond the authority granted him by God.

The point of all that is to say that challenging a civil authority based on his exceeding his authority is NOT challenging God's authority, by recognizing and enforcing it.

If I tell my wife to steal something, she does not challenge God by disobeying me, though I am her God-given authority (that probably sends you out the roof, too). In fact, she has a duty to God and to His law(s) that is higher and more fundamental than any duty owed to any merely earthly authority.

The founders recognized this principle, which is why they said that a democratic republic is fit only for a moral and religious people.

Why? Because proper self-governance is a necessary precondition to being able to hav...

The point of all that is to say that challenging a civil authority based on his exceeding his authority is NOT challenging God's authority, by recognizing and enforcing it.

If I tell my wife to steal something, she does not challenge God by disobeying me, though I am her God-given authority (that probably sends you out the roof, too). In fact, she has a duty to God and to His law(s) that is higher and more fundamental than any duty owed to any merely earthly authority.

The founders recognized this principle, which is why they said that a democratic republic is fit only for a moral and religious people.

Why? Because proper self-governance is a necessary precondition to being able to have any governing authority over anyone else (which is why private morality is a legitimate campaign issue).

If people do not submit personally to God and His law, they will trample on their neighbor's rights, which is the situation we find ourselves in today.

Okay...I'm starting to write more than you...not the plan.

"Anyone trying to justify pushing their agenda for their version of religion into the government in anyway is truly being Un-American."

But you are doing exactly that. You are pushing your agenda for your version of religion into the government.

I have actually argued elsewhere that we are not a Christian nation, but that is on entirely different grounds. I don't think we are. Another discussion for another time.

BUT, that does not mean that your statement that the FFs tried to exclude God from government holds any water, because it is diametrically opposed to the great weight of the historical and textual evidence.

Furthermore, the great weight of the evidence also establishes that the ...

"Anyone trying to justify pushing their agenda for their version of religion into the government in anyway is truly being Un-American."

But you are doing exactly that. You are pushing your agenda for your version of religion into the government.

I have actually argued elsewhere that we are not a Christian nation, but that is on entirely different grounds. I don't think we are. Another discussion for another time.

BUT, that does not mean that your statement that the FFs tried to exclude God from government holds any water, because it is diametrically opposed to the great weight of the historical and textual evidence.

Furthermore, the great weight of the evidence also establishes that the Christian God and the Christian religion is the only God/religion endorsed, relied on, protected by the FFs. All of that can be demonstrated pretty substantially. Sources provided upon request, due to sheer volume.

Now, you may want to argue that they got that part wrong, and then we can discuss how, whether there needs to be change. But it has been widely acknowledged that the two most influential books were the Holy Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

King George even called the American Revolution a "Presbyterian Parson's Rebellion," because the American system so closely mimics the biblical form of church government expressed in presbyterianism, and because their theology undergirded the most fundamental decisions and forumulations--not flawlessly, but consciously.

A couple of last thoughts and I'll stop, I guess..

"This way the government's activities will always be challengeable by any man. How people can not see this is beyond me...especially a lawyer."

I certainly do not argue a new unheard-of position, ezsparky. And I am by no means alone in my profession now or historically in acknowledging the supremacy of God's law and His sovereignty over the affairs of men.

I caution you against making those sorts of statements without learning more about your own position and that held by others.

You may despise it and disagree with it, but mine has a very long history of building nations and civilizations and refreshing lands with justice and truth.

No human endeavor is without flaws, but that is ...

"This way the government's activities will always be challengeable by any man. How people can not see this is beyond me...especially a lawyer."

I certainly do not argue a new unheard-of position, ezsparky. And I am by no means alone in my profession now or historically in acknowledging the supremacy of God's law and His sovereignty over the affairs of men.

I caution you against making those sorts of statements without learning more about your own position and that held by others.

You may despise it and disagree with it, but mine has a very long history of building nations and civilizations and refreshing lands with justice and truth.

No human endeavor is without flaws, but that is not the fault of the principle, but of the depraved sinful men who seek its implementation.

I think I have made an adequate start in one of my previous comments about Christian justification for lawfully resisting usurpatious authorities.

You cannot honestly look at history and say that Christians have not challenged lawless tyrannical authorities, whether in civil government, church government, family government, commercial life or anywhere else they have been found.

The reason is simple--any usurpation or exceeding of the delegated limits of authority is an affront to the authority of God, and therefore challenging the usurper is not only permissible, but proper and morally right in certain circumstances.

Without the principle of God-given authority, you have no lawful ground on which to challenge the government.

All you have is "I don't like it that way." But so what? If everyone else does like it that way, who are you to try and contradict what most people want, if you have no morally justified ground for doing so?

If you have no way to establish the relative lawfulness of an authority's actions, you have no rightful, lawful ground on which to challenge that authority; so in fact, YOUR religion removes the ability of any man to challenge the government, not mine.

"With the power of the government based on man, this government can not justify taking away the rights that men..."

This doesn't follow: If man (human government) gave these rights, then man (human government) can amend or abridge or abolish them. Only if they actually came from God must man (human government) defend them. You exclude God from these rights, and you have only current consensus protecting your rights.

I will take a bullet in defense of your right to aggressively challenge, because I believe my God gave you that right and therefore my duty to my God requires me to defend it.

Are you sure you want God excluded, then? If He didn't give it to you, I have no more reason to...

"With the power of the government based on man, this government can not justify taking away the rights that men..."

This doesn't follow: If man (human government) gave these rights, then man (human government) can amend or abridge or abolish them. Only if they actually came from God must man (human government) defend them. You exclude God from these rights, and you have only current consensus protecting your rights.

I will take a bullet in defense of your right to aggressively challenge, because I believe my God gave you that right and therefore my duty to my God requires me to defend it.

Are you sure you want God excluded, then? If He didn't give it to you, I have no more reason to defend than I do not to try and amend, abridge or abolish it, because I don't like what you're saying.

You can't begin to extricate the Christian God from culture and government without utterly overthrowing it, which I can promise you I will resist with everything in me.

I guess I'm writing too much, now...

These aren't sound-byte issues, though.

'I will also aggressively challenge anyone professing they know who or what the "correct god" is or that they know the "correct words of god""

I profess to know that the Christian God is the only God and the Bible is His completely true, completely without error and completely sufficient word to all men, and which all men are bound to obey.

Challenge away. What's your challenge?

"I do this to force..."

You don't force anyone to do anything...don't think to highly of yourself here. Your petty challenges force noone.

"... those who think that by claiming...they can claim the authority to tell the rest of the wo...

I guess I'm writing too much, now...

These aren't sound-byte issues, though.

'I will also aggressively challenge anyone professing they know who or what the "correct god" is or that they know the "correct words of god""

I profess to know that the Christian God is the only God and the Bible is His completely true, completely without error and completely sufficient word to all men, and which all men are bound to obey.

Challenge away. What's your challenge?

"I do this to force..."

You don't force anyone to do anything...don't think to highly of yourself here. Your petty challenges force noone.

"... those who think that by claiming...they can claim the authority to tell the rest of the world what is right...what is sin...or anything concerning God."

Your mistake here is one of causation. Christians do not hold that "by" claiming something we have authority to say or do anything. Your religion believes that, not mine.

Where God has given a duty, I have authority to perform its requirements. I have a duty to raise my children, and therefore I have authority over my children (subject to God's law, as explained above).

God has given Christians a duty to "disciple the nations, teaching them to obey all that [He has] commanded them," and therein lies our authority to proclaim God's word to all the world and call all men to repent of their sins and turn to Christ, obeying all His commands.

I can't beat you until you repent, but I can call you to it by any means biblically permissible.

There is NOTHING you or anyone or anything on earth can do to keep me or any other Christian from fulfilling our duty to our Lord and King.

Millions of my brothers and sisters in Christ have gone and continue to go to their graves in fulfillment of that command, and I would be honored should the Lord call me to a similar end.

His kingdom is forever, and your squeaky little challenges make him laugh (Psalm 2).

Who are you to decide how God has to "prove" Himself to you?

Good idea---I second the motion of my esteemed colleague from, er, well, somewhere.

I'm sometimes guilty of speaking without adequate reflection, so call me on it if you see it...usually obvious by me getting too sarcastic (some sarcasm is good...too much is unhelpful).

We need a pub to get to the heart of these things, and smooth the somewhat thorny nature of these discussions. Most of the world's best theologians hammered out their positions over the contemporary equivalent of a Guinness and some good tobacco leaf.

(I know some of my fundy friends won't like that, but I can't help it...it's true..."God gave wine to make man's heart glad"...look it up. Read "Drinking With Calvin and Lu...

Good idea---I second the motion of my esteemed colleague from, er, well, somewhere.

I'm sometimes guilty of speaking without adequate reflection, so call me on it if you see it...usually obvious by me getting too sarcastic (some sarcasm is good...too much is unhelpful).

We need a pub to get to the heart of these things, and smooth the somewhat thorny nature of these discussions. Most of the world's best theologians hammered out their positions over the contemporary equivalent of a Guinness and some good tobacco leaf.

(I know some of my fundy friends won't like that, but I can't help it...it's true..."God gave wine to make man's heart glad"...look it up. Read "Drinking With Calvin and Luther"...good stuff...moderation, of course, is a command...water into wine, bread and wine, etc.)

Plus, having a bouncer present may not be a bad thing, either.