Straw Poll Online Baptist Straw Poll #2

[HappyChristian]

swath - you didn't understand what I meant. The government itself is secular, it simply is (and that first amendment was written, among other reasons, to keep it that way). The people working within the government are not. There is a difference. Simply look at muslim countries and you might see better what I mean. Islam is not secular. It is a politico-religious system, as was the church/government of England at the time of the American War for Independence. That is what our founders were working to avoid.

The absence of a religious test (and I didn't put quotes around the term, because that is how it is stated in the constitution) was not designed to provide a secular government - and please note, I never said that, nor inferred it. Justice Joseph Story has some interesting things to say about that clause:

The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a" qualification to any office or public trust, under the "United States." This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off forever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own.

But, this point being once secured, all persecution for diversity of opinions, however ridiculous or absurd they may be, is contrary to every principle of sound policy and civil freedom. The names and subordination of the clergy, the posture of devotion, the materials and colour of the minister's garment, the joining in a known, or an unknown form of prayer, and other matters of the same kind, must be left to the option of every man's private judgment."

The absence of a religious test was to protect Christianity. If someone could be bumped from being in office due to being one religion, the founders knew it wouldn't be long before Christianity would suffer from it - as it already had under England...
And from one of those founders (who was not Christian; he was Unitarian):

John Adams. Writing in 1786, just before the federal Constitution was written, he took it as given that political constitutions were wholly secular enterprises free of godly involvement or inspiration. "The United States of America," he wrote, marks "the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature." The architects of American governments never "had interviews with the gods or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven." Government, Adams insisted, is "contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." Adams's view of constitution making is also caught up in the secular ideals of the Age of Reason. "Neither the people nor their conventions, committees, or subcommittees," he wrote, "considered legislation in any other light than as ordinary arts and sciences, only more important... . The people were universally too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice. . . . [G]overnments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind."

That isn't to say that God didn't guide them. Of course He did, and Ben Franklin even brought that point up at the convention and exhorted prayer (and yet, he was unsaved...)

The two exceptions among the state constitutions were those of Virginia and New York. In the former, (with Madison's help) Jefferson's "Statute for Religious Freedom," passed in 1786, specified that no religious test could be applied to the holding of public office. Even more interesting was New York's constitution, which in 1777 self-consciously repudiated tests that sought to maintain "any particular denomination of Christians." The absence of religious tests would, the New York constitution claimed, "guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind.

Read through the constitution and you will find that it is not a religious document. It is a document spelling out the limitations of the federal government (NOT state governments or citizens...federal). The bill of rights was added because there were some (and this is where the Baptists got involved) that didn't feel that the constitution was specific enough in some areas. And one of those areas included religious liberty. But note: that amendment (as all of them) tied the hands of the FEDERAL government. Congress can make no law in regards to religion constitutionally. That does not mean state congress. That means the US congress. States are bound by their own constitutions, and they can be theocratic, socialist, whatever the citizens of that state want. I have to disagree that states erroneously established religions - if a state does that, it is within its right to do so, at the will of the people. Again, the constitution is a limitation on the federal government only (or on states where specified...but the first amendment clearly ties fed hands in regards to religion anywhere). (and our founders didn't advocate for saved sinners who held true to the gospel to be the only office holders...they said no religious test, and that's what they meant - else John Adams and his son would never have been POTUS, Jefferson would never have been POTUS. That's 2 founders and a founder's son. What they - and the Baptists! - advocated was that office holders leave Christianity alone so that it could prosper and spread - they knew that morality was linked to religion (their term was often christian religion, under which many beliefs fell)

Oh, I agree that there are many, many conservatives who are not moral. Sad to say, there are many Christians who are not moral as well.

[swathdiver]

swath - you didn't understand what I meant... I have to disagree that states erroneously established religions...

I understand and agree now. As for the states establishing state religions, it was and is their right to do so, I meant that it was a moral mistake to do so. 1 Corinthians 10:23 comes to mind.

[JerryNumbers]

Our founders put into the constitution the stipulation that there was to be no religious test for elected servants. The purpose of that was to avoid exactly what happens when people start talking about Christianity. They were in no way trying to protect muslims, etc (because they knew that islam was first a political ideology before a religion, and it's adherents are loyal to sharia law first, which law is absolutely unconstitutional). The founders knew that there would be folks of various religions who would seek office (hate to tell you this, but none of them were IFB...) and they had no problem with that - not all of them were born again Christians. Most were moral (not all...Ben Franklin wasn't too moral). They did fear God, and they knew that them majority of Americans at that time did also - even those who weren't Christians. They wanted moral people (and there are moral people who are not IFB) who would follow the constitution. That is what their vision was. Because they knew that only adherence to the constitution would guarantee protection of our liberties - including our religious liberties. When they spoke about the Christian religion, they weren't specifying any one particular denomination. Because at that time, there were many denominations or belief systems that were biblical.

Our federal government is secular. And it was created thus for one major reason: to keep the federal government 100% out of religious matters, and to avoid having a church run state (they knew the inherent tyranny of that, having just fought a bloody war to be freed from the tyranny of England and it's ruler who was also head of the English church). If a person would follow the constitution as it is written and intended, and not how that person wants to interpret it, it wouldn't matter their background and the founders knew this (again, they had no intentions of satanists, muslims etc being in office - I don't think they ever thought that would even be a possibility. Regardless of what BO is trying to push down our throats, muslims were not part of the founding of this country).

It would be lovely if an IFB could win the office. But that won't happen. Because there are too many religions represented in this country. And the founders knew this - that is why there is to be no religious test. The POTUS is to represent all people. And he (or, hopefully not, she) is to do that by following the constitution.

I'd rather have someone who doesn't attend church but who goes exactly by the constitution as POTUS than a Christian who wants to turn this country into a theocracy. Theocracies don't work because men are still sinners...

I know, that probably sounds like heresy. But it's the truth. America needs someone in the White House who will obey the constitution. And then Christian people need to stand up and make sure their states do what they should do. States have the right to be whatever they want - they can be a theocratic state, a socialist state, etc. But it is the citizens of that state that allow or disallow it by voting and letting their state reps and senators know what's what. And Christians have let down on that. If we would just start at a local level and insist that state lawgivers do what is right, amazing things could happen. Of course, Christians by and large need to get right with the Lord - too many are apathetic. I think we'd be surprised at the redounding effect that would be felt and seen clear up to the White House.

That person probably would not have one problem with abortions, homosexuality & same sex marriages nor with trying to put God out of American.

[HappyChristian]

Jerry8, that's a broad brush statement that isn't necessarily true...and there have been plenty of people in office who've claimed to be Christian who would fit your statement. Our founders didn't want to keep God out of America, and they weren't all Christians. They did, however, understand the principles of liberty.

Actually, that statement wouldn't be true at all if someone actually followed the Constitution.

[John81]

Actually, that statement wouldn't be true at all if someone actually followed the Constitution.

No one who can win will do that.