Revisionists trying to distort Founders' view of religion

Published: Sunday, Nov. 1, 2009 12:05 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 

Last week's column on the Founders' view on the indispensability of religion provoked a large number of comments and e-mails. Some were thoughtful and some under cloak of anonymity were quite mean-spirited. A theme touched on by a number of these comments related to the purported "secular" nature of the Constitution and the Founders.

For example, Bob Ritter, founder and president of the Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty, notes that "the Constitution is a wholly secular charter ... (and) religion is not essential at all for the Constitution's efficaciousness." Indeed, Ritter's Web site takes issue with "those who claim the United States is a Christian Nation or based on Christian principles." Another commenter states that "the First Amendment effectively says 'religion is irrelevant to government.' " Yet another comment says "the secular founding guys — James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams — won out over the religious founding guys — Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and others. Our government was founded on secular (nonreligious) principles through and through."

All of us are inclined to view historical events and personalities through the prism of our own philosophy and ideology. This includes me. I have tried very carefully to understand why there is such a wide divergence of views over the principles on which our government was founded and, in particular, the views of the Founders on religion.

Story continues below

It strikes me that, in part, some of the confusion and hostility derives from trying to put the Founders squarely on ones' own team. For example, many Christians believe and find various quotations to support their view that the Founders were Christian and intended for this to be a Christian nation. On the other hand, those who believe this is a secular country and founded on secular principles find various quotes among the Founders to support that position. Indeed, it is possible, to read various comments of the Founders to support either of these propositions.

Recent comments

Nice article Joe. You are far too diplomatic to have remarked on...

Bob Pomeroy | Nov. 6, 2009 at 1:43 a.m.

Mr. Cannon: Let me add one more thing from my last post. You mention...

To Joe Cannon | Nov. 3, 2009 at 3:23 p.m.

Mr. Cannon: I have five points to make.
1. Just because someone...

To Joe Cannon | Nov. 3, 2009 at 3:09 p.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

Climate talks deadlocked

RE: To "Imagine a Utah... | 8:45 a.m | 10:50 a.m. Dec. 16, 2009 "WOW......

Sounds like a real good decision to reduce this punks crimes so he doesn't...

Letters: Divorce hurts children

Your inane comments never bring much to the discussion, do they?

This is so interesting (and sad) reading these comments and the responses to...

@2:10 p.m. So if I don't do business with a foreign nation, or a different...

The hearing was Tuesday the 15th. This story is what happened at the hearing,...

Could this family be any more selfish? Ever heard of adoption?

2010 U.S. Soccer Schedule

Very excited for the USA vs. England match. Would be great for us to upset...

The BLM obviously did review the leases before they were put up for...

Vote ON, on ALL judges, thats what I do!

Advertisements