Just returned from another business trip.

Intrigued by your continued focus on the term “secular,” I did a little homework. Your challenge, I think, turns out to be a trick question, though you presumably did not intend it as such. Language changes over time, and the meaning and usage of the word “secular” fits that pattern. While the word has been around for centuries, its meaning and usage have varied. Its common usage with respect to government developed in the mid-1800s–well after the founding. See http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/Excerpts/secularizaton.html and http://wapedia.mobi/en/Secularism I’m not sure I’ll ever find some digital data base of founders’ writings on which I can readily perform an electronic word search to nail down whether and how they used the term “secular.” Given the history of the term’s usage, though, it appears likely that whatever thoughts the founders expressed that we would today characterize as secular, they generally did so without using that term.

With respect to the rest of your last comment, I think my responses would largely consist of repetition of points and evidence already presented in previous comments. Not seeing much to be gained from starting another round, I want instead simply to thank you for an enjoyable and enlightening discussion and wish you the best.

Thanks for helping me with my message.
God Bless

Thanks. My trip to DC went well–for me as well as the various taxi drivers and waiters I did my best to support.

With respect to the Treaty of Tripoli, your comment gives the impression of straining hard to avoid the obvious. First and foremost, the treaty plainly says what it says, and it was approved by the President and unanimously ratified by the Senate, all with no apparent public dissent or controversy.

Second, the treaty is the most solemn representation of the government of the United States; it is not some informal, unofficial comment by an individual founder. Treaties, you will recall, are the highest law of the land, after the Constitution.

Third, the reasons you offer to, I gather, somehow discount the treaty as evidence of the founders’ intent simply do not wash. Your suggestion that the treaty may be invalid is entirely beside the point. Ours is a factual question, not a legal one. We’re looking for evidence of the founders’ intent, not trying to determine the treaty’s validity. Assuming for the sake of argument that the treaty was legally defective (which, to be sure, is not my view), the fact remains that by signing and ratifying it, President Adams and the other founders in the Senate plainly confirmed their understanding that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Your further observation that Article 11 was included in the 1797 treaty when the United States was in a weak position and omitted in a later treaty after the United States had bested the Barbary nations in battle does not support the notion that the President was playing word games with our adversaries. Are you suggesting that Adams and the others indulged in a lie to somehow dupe the Barbary nations into the treaty? And no one in the United States caught it and voiced questions or objections? Implausible as that is on its face, it bears noting that there is absolutely no evidence of that. Indeed, the fact that the Arabic version of the treaty does not contain this clause largely undercuts the idea. Moreover, I know of no evidence that the foregoing phrase was the subject of negotiation either in 1797 or later. The straightforward explanation is that the phrase appeared in the 1797 treaty as part of the explanation why the United States had no reason to go to war with the Barbary nations, and it was omitted from the later treaty not because of some negotiation over it, but rather because it no longer had any purpose since, by that time, the United States had actually gone to war with the Barbary nations, so it would hardly have made any sense to include provisions purporting to explain why we had no reason to go to war with them.

The Treaty of Tripoli, thus, offers an official, definitive declaration of the United States and many of its founders of their understanding that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”–a declaration that cannot be disregarded or discounted.

You call attention to one aspect of the treaty with which I heartily agree–the distinction between the government and the nation. As I noted in an earlier comment, I readily agree that the United States is a Christian nation in the sense that Christianity is the dominant religious influence in our society. At the same time, the United States is secular in the sense that the government was founded by the people predicated on their power and was established to operate independent of religion. The United States is a Christian nation with a secular government.

With respect to your earlier challenge, you asked for “a document from the founding fathers declaring they wanted or designed a ’secular’ nation.” I offered the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli. You now suggest they don’t qualify because the word “secular” does not appear in their texts. That seems a rather petty, pointless concern. The term “secular,” particularly as applied to government, generally refers the concept of being separate from, not connected with, or neutral toward religion. The Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli are two official documents that perhaps most authoritatively reveal and establish that the United States government is separate from, not connected with, and neutral toward religion. It hardly matters that neither uses the term “secular.” If I invite a woman out on Saturday night for food and drinks, she may reasonably understand she’s been invited for a dinner date, even though I did not utter the term “dinner” or “date.” Similarly, those who read the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli can readily see they speak of a secular government, even though they do not use the term “secular.”

Socialists have given themselves the power through the living constitution courts to ban religious free speech and to design and order the social beliefs of the nation where they can harm and punish people with “incorrect” social and moral or religious beliefs. They have selected the religion of humanism for the country which is against the constitution.

John Adams, The president which signed the treaty also stated a year later Oct 11 1798 “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” To what was John Adams referring? Well he answered that in a letter to Thomas Jefferson 28 June 1813 “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. … And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united.” One more from John Adams before 3 months and 3 days before he signed the treaty Which was signed by him on Jun 7, 1797 ) Mar 4, 1797 Inaugural address ” I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.”

Time for another government documented fact that does not establish a national religion, but does help reinforce the Christianity of our founding fathers and principals. The national seal was commissioned on July 4 1776 and completed on June 20 1782 by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. On the reverse side, the side considered the spiral side you will find the “Providential Eye”, all seeing eye of God. There is also the quote “Annuit Coeptis” which means “He favor our undertaking”. You can pull a one dollar bill out of your pocket (well if the government is still allowing us to hold our own money) and look on the reverse side of the dollar and you will find both sides of the national seal. The reverse side of the seal will be on the left side of the dollar. One can defiantly say that by itself it only reflects the belief in a God but when added to the rest of the story (history) the case for a Christian nation is once again reinforced. Note not a denomination just the strong belief our founding fathers had in Christianity.

The Constitution is a contract where “We the People” do give power to the government as you suggest. However again I’ll point to the other founding document, which is critical to the power “We the People” have and defines where that power came from. In the Declaration of Independence power is noted as given to the people by God (Creator) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” This establishes the power given by God (Creator) and the Constitution then has the people giving some of that God given power to government. So yes the Constitution does not mention God because it is not necessary to mention God in defining the powers we allow the government to receive from “We the People”. God is not mention in the Constitution for this was already “established” in the Declaration of Independence. As we loop back to the original subject “Separation of Church and State” is no where to be found in the Constitution. What is in the Constitution is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. There is no doubt in my mind that you do not see the difference between the establishing a national denomination as the intent of these Christian men (Founding Fathers) and the fact that this nation was and is a Christian nation. This we will just not agree on. Readers of the blog and of history will have to make up their own minds on the intent of our founding fathers. Thus one of my purposes of the blog and writing on these things is to get people to dig and make up their own minds.

I noticed that both your examples evade the challenge, so I shall keep that challenge open “Show me a document from the founding fathers declaring they wanted or designed a “secular” nation please.” Your examples were the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli both of which do not use the word “Secular” and I dare say or the intent of the word secular.

Lastly, I’ll still contend the actions as you are clearly see in the acts and official documentation show that the founding fathers knew what they were doing (yep they designed the system so whom could know better) and also knew it did not establish a national denomination hence “may well” is but a distraction from the facts. Meaning speculation on your part but not reflective of actual actions. Considering you have actually acknowledge many of the actual actions of the founding fathers how is it you can contend their intent was different from their actions?

Hope your trip went well and was productive because our government is growing by the day and needs its feeding (Money).

God Bless

Just returned from a business trip.

I’m not sure what actions you think I’m too quickly dismissing. In assessing the intent of the founders, I’ll gladly consider any relevant evidence–actions as well as words. Moreover, I readily acknowledge that the available evidence does not all point in the same direction. For instance, as noted earlier, Congress appointed chaplains for the two houses of the legislature and for the army and navy, and the Executive issued religious proclamations, such as the one you quoted by Washington. This evidence can be seen in at least two ways. On one hand, it can be seen, as you urge, as evidence that the founders considered those actions to conform to the Constitution, thus indicating they did not intend the Constitution to prevent the government from taking actions of that sort with respect to religion. On the other hand, it can be seen, as Madison says and I agree, as simply examples of early mistakes by Congress and the Executive, where they failed to conform to the Constitution. Mistakes of that sort are hardly unexpected or unusual. Recall that Congress made two other similar mistakes during Madison’s presidency, resulting in two vetoes of bills. The government has made many such mistakes during our history, and continues to make them to this day.

While I think the vast preponderance of evidence reveals the founders intended some measure of separation of religion and government, I recognize that some evidence points the other way. In light of the available evidence, at the very least, it is ridiculous to say things like the principle of separation of church and state is a myth or that the Supreme Court made it up in 1947. Those voicing such ideas either delude themselves or insult the intelligence of their listeners and in any event do a disservice to all.

The very fact that evidence can be found on both sides of this issue is one of the reasons we established courts–we call on them to resolve such issues. In this instance, the Supreme Court did just that, and did so unanimously.

With respect to your challenge calling for a document showing the founders designed a secular government, I will offer two. First and foremost, the Constitution. As noted earlier, in that document, “we the people” founded a government based on the power of the people and we said nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office.

Second, shortly after the founding, President John Adams (a founder) signed, with the unanimous consent of the Senate (comprised in large measure of founders), the Treaty of Tripoli declaring, in pertinent part, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” That’s pretty darn clear. Why, you might ask, would the United States include such a statement in a treaty? In the Treaty of Tripoli, the United States represented that it had no reason for war with the several Islamic nations along the southern coast of the Mediterranean Sea and offered this statement as one of several explanations.

As you might imagine, if you research this treaty, you’ll find lots of discussion. Some, seeking to dismiss it, note that the Arabic version of the treaty does not include language corresponding to this statement. That hardly matters, though, since our interest in the treaty is what it reveals of the founders’ understanding of the Constitution. President Adams signed and the Senate ratified the English version of the treaty. It was published in the newspapers of the time, along with a statement by Adams that, with the advice and consent of the Senate, he had considered and ratified the treaty and “every clause and article thereof.” As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that publication of the treaty prompted any public dissent.

Others seek to discount the foregoing provision of the treaty by pointing out that later treaties negotiated with the Barbary nations do not contain it, suggesting that it was somehow repudiated. The reason it does not appear in later treaties, though, is that the entire article about the United States not having reason for war with the Barbary nations was omitted from those treaties because, by then, the United States had already gone to war with those nations.

Finally, my use of the words “may well” in a previous comment was not intended as a lawyer’s trick. I used the words not when discussing evidence showing the founders intended to separate religion and government, but rather when discussing evidence that they were religious men. I was merely pointing out a logical fallacy: If a founder says he is religious, it simply does not follow that he intends religion and government to be merged. That is a non sequitur. A religious founder can, might, “may well” intend to keep government and religion separate; whether he actually does so intend, of course, can only be ascertained by examining other available evidence.

______________________________________________________________
Thanksgiving Proclamation
By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor–and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be–That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in thecourse and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions–to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington

______________________________________________________________
I thought this document poetic for the time of year…

Tell me Doug is this an official action of the government? Does it establish a religion? There are tons of examples of this throughout Untied States history. You can deny these actions and disagree with the intent, but the saying “those with eyes will not see” comes to mind to describe those thoughts. Doug you insinuate so much the intent of the founding fathers was for a secular nation, so I have a challenge to you. Show me a document from the founding fathers declaring they wanted or designed a “secular” nation please. If you can do this it will give me a chance to do more digging and learning for so far I have yet to come across this.

One last thing and example of my comment above on your lawyer like wording. You commented “The fact that many of the founders were “strong Christians,” as you put it, tell us nothing about whether they intended the government to operate separately from religion because, as I noted before, thoroughly religious people may well intend to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion thinking that is the best way for religion to flourish.” I noticed you used the words “may well” which tries to lead the reader into the direction you wish to go, but in reality it means your personal wants and has nothing to do with the founding fathers actions or words IE facts. Hence it is a diversionary tactic from the point/s you do not wish to recognize.

Take care my friend for you are strong in you beliefs, but in error in your heart.

God Bless

The fact that many of the founders were “strong Christians,” as you put it, tell us nothing about whether they intended the government to operate separately from religion because, as I noted before, thoroughly religious people may well intend to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion thinking that is the best way for religion to flourish. So, we can read professions of religiosity by various founders until our eyes cross–and not learn one bit about the intended meaning of the Constitution. While I enjoy learning about the beliefs of various founders to get a better sense of them as individuals, I do not confuse any of their expressions of religiosity with a desire to fuse religion and government together.

The evidence–in the text of the Constitution and in statements and actions of the founders and others of their time–that government was to operate independently of religion is, I think, overwhelming, but I see that the selections I offered in earlier comments leave you unconvinced. I’ll not beat that horse further.

With respect to the United States being a secular government founded on the power of the people and not on a deity, the Constitution is abundantly clear. It plainly says “we the people” found the government and says nothing whatever of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause. That pretty much nails it. Indeed, that very aspect of the Constitution was noticed and discussed in the debates about its ratification, since some were disappointed the Constitution did not acknowledge a deity.

While some yet try to draw meaning from the reference to “Nature’s God” and “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence and then infuse that meaning into the Constitution, the effort is baseless. Certainly, there is no “legal” connection or effect between the two documents. I suppose one might argue there is an intellectual or philosophical relationship, but that is a far cry from supposing the Declaration has even the slightest legal effect on the Constitution.

Important as the Declaration is in our history, it should be noted that it did not operate to bring about independence, nor did it found a government. The colonists did not issue the Declaration to effect their independence, but rather to explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Recall that several of the former colonies adopted constitutions establishing themselves as states independent of Great Britain before July 4, 1776. The independence of the former colonies was not dependent on the Declaration. The import of the Declaration is political, not legal.

Indeed, recall that the people of the former colonies actually formed two types of government–one after the other. They initially formed a government founded on the Articles of Confederation. That government, predicated on the authority of the several states, was essentially secular, though the Articles did allude to “the Great Governor of the world.” Dissatisfied with that experiment, the people of the by-then independent states gave it another try in the Constitution–establishing a plainly secular government without any substantive reference to god(s).

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that depends on anything said in the Declaration of Independence. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies; nor could it even if it purported to do so. Certainly, the Declaration’s passing reference to “Nature’s God” and “Creator” has no bearing whatsoever on the nature of the government the people actually formed in the Constitution.

In any event, the fact that independence first needed to be achieved and that the Declaration was an important step in that process does not lead to a conclusion that the government ultimately founded by the free people of the former colonies somehow draws its authority or its nature from the Declaration. Once independent, the people of the former colonies could choose whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not somehow limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take it as inspiration and guidance if they chose–or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished–or, as they ultimately chose, a secular government.

Jerry Camp