AC on Jonah Golberg of National Review

Over at American Creation blog, Jonathan Rowe wrote a post of a few ideas from Jonah Golberg. Here is a taste: “Because God says so” is the greatest appeal to authority, and the appeal to authority is a classic logical fallacy, effective only for those who are pre-committed to that authority."

Before I get to Rowe's response, most secular authors, who make serious mistakes about our founding, make statements of biblical doctrine that makes sense only to themselves, and these men are less authoritative or knowledgeable on this subject than the ones Greg Bahnsen used to teach and lecture  through debate.

The bible is not a fallacy at all, given its revelation proves itself accurate through: predictive prophecy, among many other factors. Along with no inherent contradictions, Christ and His inspired revelation, cannot be compared to the flawed inconsistencies, and immorality of other religions. Christianity is Christ, and Him Crucified; giving the exact date of Christ's Crucifixion in Daniel 9; the Virgin Birth in Isaiah 7, and David's vivid description of the Lord's death in Psalm 22. The other religions cannot compare.

To disbelieve the bible has nothing to do with it's inspiration or validity.

Then, Rowe writes, "Even though the Declaration of Independence is a theistic document, it is not a biblical one. The "unalienable rights" in the DOI are anchored to God to make them non-negotiable; but such are, as the doctrine goes, discovered by reason, not revealed directly by God and recorded in a holy book. A generic monotheistic God, though, seems to exist as a necessary given part of the equation."

The DOI is proven to be a Christian document and Nature's God as the Divine Person, Christ Jesus, by two prayers. One before the DOI and one after. The first one is 47 days before Hancock signed the Declaration before anyone else. Both prayers mention God through the mediator Christ; meaning Nature's God cannot be anyone else but Christ:

"The Congress...desirous...to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely.... on His aid and direction... do earnestly recommend...a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life,...and through the Merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain His pardon and forgiveness." (bold mine)
--Journals of Congress (1905), Vol. IV, pp. 208-209, May 17, 1776.

The founding fathers used the word "Merits" quite often, having its etymology in old Anglican and Catholic sources. It definitely refers to the Lord's crucifixion for sin. The second prayer by Congress is obviously after the DOI and again, God is referenced through Christ and His atoning work on the Cross.

"[W]ith their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God.
--Continental Congress, November 1, 1777. National Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; as printed in the Journals of Congress. 


Moreover, the Ratifiers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had these prayers, and others, before them while they deliberated. The idea God changed is ridiculous and promulgated by people who know little of the founding. Rowe, again, "The "unalienable rights" in the DOI are anchored to God to make them non-negotiable; but such are, as the doctrine goes, discovered by reason, not revealed directly by God and recorded in a holy book.

However, Our unalienable rights are taken from the Bible:

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians..
These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

--Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. November 20, 1772.

It is the Christian religion that secures unalienable rights:

[T]he Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

-Noah Webster, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA” A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark, 1843), p. 291, from his “Reply to a Letter of David McClure on the Subject of the Proper Course of Study in the Girard College, Philadelphia. New Haven, October 25, 1836.”



Here is another part of the prayer, but it references the Holy Ghost, proving the founders were Trinitarians. In 1776, the Unitarians were a very small minority, did not publicize themselves and were given an undue concession. In fact, unitarians did not mention the Holy Ghost due to the conflict of their beliefs and the orthodox:


"Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received...[to offer] humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot [our sins] out of remembrance...and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth "in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
Journals of...Congress (1907), Vol. IX, 1777, pp 854-855, November 1, 1777.


This information also proves the Articles of Confederation was ratified under the name of Christ, written during the same Second Continental Congress. Moreover, I can prove Christ is the God of the Constitution due to the fact the Congress after the Second Continental Congress; the Congress of the Confederation, lasted from 1781 to 1789, which in the time frame the Congress wrote the Constitution:

The goodness of the Supreme Being to all his rational creatures, demands their acknowledgments of gratitude and love; his absolute government of this world dictates, that it is the interest of every nation and people ardently to supplicate his mercy favor and implore his protection. When the lust of dominion or lawless ambition excites arbitrary power to invade the rights, or endeavor to wrench wrest from a people their sacred and unalienable invaluable privileges, and compels them, in defence of the same, to encounter all the horrors and calamities of a bloody and vindictive war; then is that people loudly called upon to fly unto that God for protection..that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace, and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas. (bold mine)

-Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1782



Notice, the "Supreme Being" and the Redeemer, being Divine. This is the first time I know of, anyone has tied the Constitution with the Congress that drafted it. Unitarians would not have written this.

Was Benjamin Rush Arminian?

According to Jon Rowe's post on American Creation website he is. But what does Rush have to say about it? Considering the plentiful writings from the Doctors pen, which are filled with theological musings, you would think Rush would show his hand throughout, and those particular quotes would be posted for everyone to see, with Rush explaining his views on the basics of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. Or maybe those writings don't exist. Be that as it may, none of these essential truths of the Bible are given as evidence. In light of this understanding, Rowe writes "Rush was influenced by the lens of God's benevolence when he rejected Calvin's God and in turn to Rush's conversion to Arminianism terminated."


The question is, what is Arminianism and how does it differ from Calvinism? Without getting into the theology of Jonathan Edwards, which Rowe refers to in his piece, there is no connection presented between the two. The only clue the article gives about Rush's Arminianism is the biblical concept of freewill; something the bible explicitly denies man has; either in soteriology or in anything else because man is born in sin (Psalm 51), and sin is involved in every decision man makes, including the good works he thinks he does, since his motives are always toward darkness (John 3). Even our love is tainted.


On the contrary, it appears Rush was a pseudo calvinist his entire adult life. His belief in the salvation of all people is bizarre, considering Christ's very words that hell is eternal, "The worm never dies" in Mark 9:44.


In A Sense of Deity (Chicago, 1991), 84, 88, John M. Kloos Jr. emphatically claims Rush was a Calvinist. He writes that while Jonathan Edwards "professed natural ability, but moral inability," Rush "posited a natural and collective inability." Kloos Jr. goes on to explain Rush's goal to bring Christian morality to the republic, with the highest form of ethics.


Not to mention, Henry F. May's seminal work The Enlightenment in America, written in 1976, opened the eyes of scholars to just how prevalent Calvinism was in the forming of the United States. So much so that Calvinists thought Thomas Paine was a Christian. Yet, May believed Rush's Calvinism so influential, he wrote Rush "disliked even more than Hume's teaching, the compromising, watered-down Calvinism of most of the Common Sense philosophers...a believer in Original Sin and Divine Grace" and that he only modified his Calvinism "in one respect only" becoming a universalist.


May writes, "Rush could sound as determinist as Edwards." Rush believed the "Being that created our world never takes his hand, nor his eye, for a single moment, from any part of it." (D. J. d'Elia, Pennsylvania Magazine, XXXIII, 1966, 187-203).


May sources Rush's work The Influence of Physical Causes Upon the Moral Faculty, which shows Rush's reliance on second causes for all of man's problems; disease, memory loss, etc.


Moreover, In The Universalist Movement in America 1770-1880, Ann Lee Bressler also claims Rush was an evangelical Calvinist and remained a believer in original sin and divine grace (p. 19). I will admit Rush thought knowledge was progressing and would make man better and less evil and in that sense he was a child of the enlightenment. Rush probably believed in Original Sin, but I'm not convinced he believed in total depravity in the biblical sense of Romans chapter 3. It is also obvious if Rush was a Universalist, which he became from his belief in Calvinism, then he rejected unconditional election. Rush rejected every point of biblical TULIP, in exchange for a pseudo Calvinist TULIP, while even his belief in divine grace and original sin wasn't biblical.


Rush claimed his universalism was from the bible, not from reason or human knowledge, or rather Rush was influenced by heretical writers and twisted the scriptures to fit the human reason he had read. This is why the founding clergy spoke out against heretical authors. It leads to heresy, as well as corrupting of the church. In the end Rowe is incorrect in his conclusion given it wasn't Arminianism that led Rush to universalism; it was his perusal of the five points, especially limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the Saints. In fact, earlier colonial Calvinists had become universalists before him. Rush mistakenly took John 3:16 out of context as well as some other verses, to neglect the larger revelation. Then he twisted grace to apply to everyone and he already adhered to perseverance and combined it all together. Such was the path of Benjamin Rush who wrote in The Road to Fulfillment, The Law of Truth:

And truth indeed is infinite, for there is a truth about everything. But if in our search for truth we fater and fear to go forward because we fear to go astray, here are a few directions to help us. First, we must state clearly to ourselves the problem that puzzles us. If this does not bring the answer, search the Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to see if we can find the answer. But we must be sure that the answer is in accord with the whole body of our Saviour's teaching. If we are still in doubt, pray for guidance by the Holy Spirit, quieting the mind in readiness to receive the answer..The ultimate truth is embodied in Jesus Christ, in His life, His example, and His Teachings.

Throckmorton Contradicts Himself

I found a contradiction among Warren Throckmorton's posts over at his blog. The below post contradicts most of his other posts and one which I responded to about his claim for modern separation of church and state. He claimed Jefferson did not subvert separation doctrine by meddling with religious affairs of the Indians, but he does here:

I presume the views of the society are confined to our own country, for with the religion of other countries, my own forbids intermedling. I had not supposed there was a family in this state not possessing a bible and without having the means to procure one. when, in earlier life I was intimate with every class, I think I never was in a house where that was the case. however, circumstances may have changed, and the society I presume have evidence of the fact. I therefore inclose you chearfully an order on Messrs Gibson and Jefferson for 50.D.

--TJ to Samuel Greenhow, January 31, 1814

The Greatest Influence to Thomas Jefferson

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson claimed Francis Bacon was the greatest man that ever lived. It is ironic TJ put Bacon at the top of a circled Trinity with Locke and Newton beneath him, in view of the fact TJ was a unitarian and Bacon a Trinitarian. Bacon was a devout Anglican, who, it would appear, believed in all the fundamentals of Christianity. His rejection of Aristotle's philosophy for empiricism, and Locke's blank slate theory, for the more correct Original Sin doctrine, by man's erroneous understanding of initial information is refreshing, given Bacon had such an effect on the primary draughtsman of the Declaration of Independence.

The most influential man the world has ever known according to the rationalist Thomas Jefferson, was an Orthodox Christian. How poetic.

Alexander Hamilton; The Calvinist, Part II

Continuing my post on Alexander Hamilton leaves no doubt his belief in Calvinism. As with James Madison et al. AH remained a partial Calvinist his entire life. Contrary evidence from their writings has yet to be found, apart from, in Madison's case, irrelevant 19th Century religious inclinations. In Hamilton's case, there is no evidence he departed from belief in the Total Depravity of John Calvin. From my previous posts on James Madison, belief in human depravity demands belief in man bearing God's image, hence they are both founded on the principle of imputation; imputed from Adam. Also, from a letter by Stanley Stanhope Smith, it appears JM believed in pre-destination, not the freewill of hyper-arminianism. I cannot make that claim for AH; pre-destination is not derived from imputation.

Furthermore, JM cannot be considered a Unitarian; 18th Century unitarians, including the "Old Lights," rejected God's Grace; JM affirmed Grace in his Memorial and Remonstrance. Many bloggers confuse 18th, with 19th Century Unitarianism. They are not the same. William Ellery Channing's 19th Century unitarianism allowed for Grace that the Old Lights did not.

Much has been said about Hamilton never joining a church; this claim, made with other various heterodox christian labels, is un-factual.

Hamilton rented Pew 92 at Trinity Church as early as 1790. Further detail into Hamilton's church attendance, and if he communed, needs to be done. His wife Elizabeth is listed as a communicant in Rev. Moore's record book. Interesting to note, Hamilton provided legal counsel regarding the independent incorporation of St. Mark’s Church-in-the-Bowery, a complex issue that arose in the late 1790s.

Is there a doubt Hamilton went to church after his son died, mandating his son go to church every sunday?

"On Sunday he will attend the morning church."

-Rules for Philip Hamilton, 1804. Works of Hamilton.

Knowing Hamilton's character, would he allow his children to do what he did not approve of? Hamilton's notion of human depravity resonate through his writings:

"But I reverence humanity, and would not wish to pour a blush upon the cheeks of its advocates. Were I inclined to make a satire upon the species I would attempt a faithful description of your heart. It is hard to conceive, in theory, one of more finished depravity."

-Publius, November 16, 1778. New York Journal, and the General Advertiser

Regarding the Caesar Letters of 1787, we do not know for sure if Hamilton wrote them. However, if they are attributed to him, Hamilton used a Biblical description for God while forming the Constitution, refuting many skeptics who claim God is absent. Hamilton stopped short of claiming the Constitution is inspired:

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [The Constitution] a system, which, without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interested I will not presume to say that a more perfect system might not have been fabricated; but who expects perfection at once?" [bold face mine]

-Caesar II, October 17, 1787. For the Daily Advertiser.

Political Liberty IS in the Bible:

Jon Rowe wrote a piece on his interpretation of Romans 13, to which Jim Bakka responded on Positive Liberty. Mr. Bakka clearly follows the interpretation ascribed to John Calvin, Martin Luther, and others. I do not have a problem with different interpretations of an unessential to the faith, like Romans 13; my issue is with some of the men who claim to be authorities, who lack basic common sense, such as: Dr. Greg Frazer, who teaches political science at The Masters College, and Dr. Robert Kraynak of Colgate. In fact, both, write ideas supposedly found in the Bible, that aren't there, not even implied. Here, is an example:

"First, as Kraynak pointed out, “the biblical covenant is undemocratic: God is not bound by the covenant and keeps His promises solely out of His own divine self-limitation.” Second, “(t)he element of voluntary consent is missing from the covenant with Israel….There is nothing voluntary or consensual about the biblical covenant; and the most severe punishments are threatened by God for disobedience.” http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6564473&postID=7023634957184753884&isPopup=true

Maybe those men are reading a different bible. Does Kraynak, Frazer, or even Rowe, whose blog it appears, believe God forced Abraham's seed into servitude? There is not a single doubt as to a covenant/compact God made with Abraham and his descendents; undemocratic? The covenant is throughout the Torah:

Deuteronomy 4:31(For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Deuteronomy 5:2 "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb."

The Compact between God and Israel in the Book of Joshua:

Joshua 24:22 "And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses."

As a matter of fact, the covenant started with Abraham as early as Genesis 15;18:
"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."

Here is the basis of the covenant with Abraham agreeing to it by circumcision:

Genesis 17:13:
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Genesis 17:23:
And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

The rest of Frazer's post in Rowe's blog is equally incorrect, and not worth a rebuttal. Jon Rowe also shows his lack of biblical knowledge, and history, as he writes:

"Rather, the Biblical record in no uncertain terms shows that God unilaterally burdened His people with the law of Moses without their consent or approval. And the notion that people must "consent" to the laws which will rule them is entirely a Whig or 18th Century republican ideal, not a biblical idea." http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2008/04/whoring-christian-religion-for-politics.html

These statements are all too common with secular intellectuals; in the Reformation writings, "Consent" is on every page; Republicanism(Biblical Law enforced by representatives of the people)starts in Exodus 18, and is thoroughly, and completely elucidated in "Vindici"(A Defense Against Tyranny) and Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex(Law is King).

John Quincy Adams identified it (Vindici) one of the most influential writings on the eve of our war for independence, and be assured, all the founding fathers, including First Chief Justice John Jay, understood it was the correct interpretation. Here, Adams sums up that our Constitution(Law) is based on Christianity:

"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."

-- John Quincy Adams, (Thornton's accurate summary of Adams' quote) An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5.

Adams' quote is easy to affirm from Common Law in general. Reformers and Pre-Reformers: John Rutherford, Thomas Aquinas, Bullinger(who was before Calvin), Beza(who advocated non-violent resistence), Martin Bucer, John Knox, his pastor Christopher Goodman, George Buchanan, Francois Hotman, John Ponet, Althusius, etc. all agreed only good government was ordained by God in Romans 13. Luther, Calvin, and Melanchton were wrong.

The Bible, and subsequently (A Defense Against Tyranny), is the work the Founding Fathers relied on for justified rebellion against unlawful government, "Vindici" as it was known, said the people collectively, are above the King, yet, individually, each man is under the King in a compact between the King, God, and the people(church), whereby, if the King violated God's Law, he forfeited his Kingdom. That God is to be obeyed over man is all over the document, in fact, only good government is to be obeyed; common sense dictates if man was never to resist an evil king, Israel would have been under the same principle, but it was not; countless times, God destroyed, or had other rulers destroy evil Israelite rulers, such as: Saul, Manasseh, Ahab, Jehoram, Jeroboam, etc.

That the people choose the King, implies consent of the governed; the people's superiority is in Proverbs 14:28:

"In the multitude of people is the king's honour: but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince."

The want of people is obviously their consent, since the people have the power to remove a King.

Steven M. Dworetz's summary of Romans 13 quotes Calvin and Luther for authority; why quote one man whose theories are easily refuted, and another, who was a racist, advocating burning Jew's houses, searing their tongues with hot irons? Maybe, Mr. Dworetz had heard of the alternate viewpoint, that of the founding fathers, and Reformation. Just because Calvin, Luther, and some early church fathers had a certain interpretation, does not mean they were correct. It is debatable whether Calvin was a Christian at all; he believed his infant baptism secured his salvation. Here is what Dworetz says:

"Basing a revolutionary teaching on the scriptural authority of chapter 13 of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans must rank as one of the greatest ironies in the history of political thought. This passage...served as the touchstone for passive obedience and unconditional submission from Augustine and Gregory to Luther and Calvin....The medieval church fathers as well as the reformers and counter-reformers of the sixteenth century all invoked this doctrine in denouncing disobedience and resistance to civil authorities."
-- Dworetz, The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution, p. 155, quoted in Frazer, The Political Theology of the American Founding, p. 358.

Claiming "all" Christian reformers believed his interpretation is a flat-out falsehood. Has Dworetz heard of "Vindici" (A Defense Against Tyranny) by Hubert Lanquet and Philippe du Plessis-Mornay, published in 1579?

The New Testament relates the same principle as the Old Covenant, explains the Vindici:

"Now...the form...the church and the Jewish kingdom be changed...the same things may be said of Christian kings, the gospel having succeeded the law, and Christian princes being in the place of those Jewry...the same covenant...same conditions...same punishments...the same God Almighty."

And again, the Vindici:

"Kings are ordained by God, and established by the people to procure and provide for the good...in the order of Justice, and in managing of armies for the repelling their enemies."

In Romans 13, we also see the concept "verbal for verbal, and force with force" and "render to all their dues" and "whatever a man sows, he also reaps." Examples in Israel would be Jehoida defending Israel against Athaliah, and Deborah and Gideon defending Israel in like kind.

Christian Kings, as well as ancient Israel needed approval from the people, even kings ascending the throne by heredity needed approval by representatives of the people such as: counts, barons, dukes, and earls. King Louis was choosen instead of the rightful Robert, Earl of Evereux(Annales Gillii). Unitarian Patriot, Jonathan Mayhew in 1750, claimed:

"It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God's ministers."

It is a fact of history, the Founding Fathers attributed our theory of government and liberty from the Reformation, not the enlightenment:

A Short Treatise on Political Power, John Ponet, D.D. (1556) President John Adams credited this Calvinist document as being at the root of the theory of government adopted by the Americans. According to Adams, Ponet's work contained "all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke" including the idea of a three-branched government. (Adams, Works, vol. 6, pg. 4). Published in Strassbourg in 1556, it is one of the first works out of the Reformation to advocate active resistance to tyrannical magistrates, with the exception of the Magdeburg Bekkentis (the Magdeburg Confession)."

John Locke learned some of his theories from Samuel Rutherford, who was a colleague of Locke's parents. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) In addition to being the decree of Parliament as the standard for Christian doctrine in the British Kingdom, it was adopted as the official statement of belief for the colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Although slightly altered and called by different names, it was the creed of Congregationalist, Baptist, and Presbyterian Churches throughout the English speaking world. Assent to the Westminster Confession was officially required at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Princeton scholar, Benjamin Warfield wrote: "It was impossible for any body of Christians in the [English] Kingdoms to avoid attending to it." [Link goes to chap.23, "On the Civil Magistrate."]

This is an interesting quote for anyone who claims James Madison was heterodox as he helped form the nation. Warfield makes perfect sense, the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, adhered to that confession, another evidence of Madison not rejecting orthodoxy until well in the 19th century.

Protestant Reformer George Buchanan started the limited government theory stating, ""it was much safer to trust liberties to laws than to kings . . . confine them to narrow bounds, and thrust them, as it were, into cells of law . . . circumscribe [them] within a close prison." Buchanan believed a Constitution was superior to any ruler: "Kings being accordingly left, in other respects free, found their power confined to prescribed limits only by the necessity of squaring their words and actions by directions of law."

There is no doubt whatsoever, political liberty is in the bible, brought out with the Protestant Reformation, and perfected by the American experiment; called limited governmental power under Biblical Law, and Jesus Christ. Our Tenth Amendment has it's roots in Johannes Althusius's 1603 Politica:

"Besides, whatever power the people did not have it could not transfer to its administrators. Therefore, whatever power and right the administrators did not receive from the people, they do not have, they cannot exercise over the people, nor ought they to be able to do so."

His main point was what arose out of the Reformation was Republicanism; rule by law: Rulers are to be objectively subordinate to "God, the law of nature and of nations, and the ephors."

Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, further emphasized "Vindici" on Romans 13. Rutherford asserted that the parliament had greater power than the king, a notion disputed at the time. The king did not have unlimited power. To the contrary, any tyranny which opposed justice, peace, and the good of the people, was "unreasonable and forbidden by the law of God and the civil law . . . [it] cannot be lawful power, and cannot constitute a lawful judge . . . How can the judge be the minister of God for good to the people (Rom. 13:4) if he has such a power as a king, given him of God, to destroy and waste the people?" Moreover, Rutherford argued: "God, in making a king to preserve his people, should give liberty without all political restraint, for one man to destroy many is contrary to God's end in the fifth commandment, if one has absolute power to destroy souls and bodies of many thousands."
http://www.phillysoc.org/reformat.htm

Like I've said before, on my blog, the American Revolution, and the Founding Fathers' formation of our country had absolutely nothing to do with enlightenment philosophy, which excluded God from the equation, in fact, the fateous, scholastic elites continue to purport these lies. Separation of Powers(Isa 33:22), property rights(Ex 22), Life(Deut 30:19, Hos 9:13-14), Liberty(Eccl 3:13), Happiness(Eccl 3:13),4th Amendment(Deut 24:10), The Law of Nations(Sovereignty, Deut 19:14), Jury System(Deut 17:6), inalienable rights, freedom of conscience(Entire New Testament), political rights(Torah), etc. all come out of the Bible, and Reformation, espoused by men like: The Prophets, David, Solomon, Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter, James, John Wycliffe(Univ of Oxford), Zwingli, Luther(Univ of Wittenberg), Hus(Univ of Prague), Rutherford, Knox, Lanquet, Mornay, Beza, Aquinas, Hooker(who espoused unalienable rights), Pufendorf, Grotius, and many others.

Eighteenth Century Americans were regulated by the Bible, sure there were a few infidels such as: Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and John Adams, but, since the law is supreme, what is important, is the beliefs of the ratifiers(people) of law, rather than the subjective views of three people; this is something the scholastic elites cannot admit or allow, thereby, holding to their agenda.

There are far many more orthodox than heterodox preachers who affirmed the correct, biblical, reformation, view of Romans 13, as I've described above; some of these include: Samuel Davies(Distinguished successor to Jonathan Edwards at Princeton), John Witherspoon, Jacob Duche, Isaac Backus, Samuel Sherwood, George Whitefield, Elhanan Winchester, Ezra Stiles, Samuel Langdon(President of Harvard 1774-1780), Elizur Goodrich, Nathaniel Emmons, Samuel Wales, William Smith, and many others. The unitarian preachers comprised a fraction of the pro-rebellion preachers.

Here, the use of philosophical language to evidence a lack of orthodoxy is debunked, note, this is how preacher's of the 18th century spoke:

“Religion cannot subsist without right notions of God and divine things; and entire ignorance or mistakes in its fundamental articles must be destructive of its nature; and therefore a divine revelation must be a collection of rays of light, a system of divine knowledge; and such we find the Christian revelation to be, as contained in the sacred writings.”
Samuel Davies
[Quote from his sermon “The Divine Authority ... of the Christian Religion.”]

Davies(The Apostle of Virginia) left his mark as scholar and patriot on his students, particularly the eleven members of the Class of 1760 whom he taught as seniors. ``Whatever be your Place,'' he told them in his baccalaureate address, ``imbibe and cherish a public spirit. Serve your generation.'' This they did. Among the eleven were a member of the Continental Congress, chaplains in the Continental Army, judges in Maine and Pennsylvania, the founder of a college in North Carolina, a member of the United States House of Representatives, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. http://etcweb.princeton.edu/CampusWWW/Companion/davies_samuel.html
Davies was a primary founder of the Presbyterian Church in Virginia and North Carolina, the advocate and defender of the South's civil rights and religious liberties.

Maybe I should speak in philosophical language; let the secularists call me an infidel! This is, in fact, how Christians used to speak about God. The South's fervor for independence in the coming conflict with Britain was established with Davies' ministry; the presbyterian church, not the unitarian church, was the pulpit of independence. As Patrick Henry, a congregant in one of the churches established by Davies, later said, “Were it not for him, America freedom would have been still-born. In the Gospel he preached, the energy he displayed, and the courage he lived day by day, he modeled the true American temper.” http://www.kingsmeadow.com/2006/09/samuel-davies.html

Henry's oratory, which Jefferson and Madison could not match, employed Davies' speaking ability; the variety of (pitches) "sounds" in his sermon delivery, as well as alternating back and forth from religious to philosophical(classical) terminology. Davies' second wife, Jane Holt, was the daughter of a Williamsburg mayor and printer, and provided Davies with direct access to the Virginia Gazette, which he used as a platform for defending his own and other dissenting clergy's rights to preach. At the time of his death, in 1761, Davies' sermons were well known and influential as models for other clergy; by the time of the Revolution, they were among the most widely circulating collections of sermons in the colonies, particularly in the Middle Colonies, Virginia, and North Carolina...The rhetorical education of Scottish Presbyterians carried a legacy of beliefs about human reason, human rights, congregational polity, and the educability of moral sensibility through the written and the spoken word. Like I said earlier, this is reformation doctrine, not enlightenment. http://www.historicpolegreen.org/swearingenlecture.html

Incidently, no one helped educate the blacks more than Davies, who aggravated most southerners believing blacks were equal with whites. I agree with Dr. Swearingin about Davie's impact(and Presbyterianism) on Patrick Henry, and of the growing fervor of independence in the Southern Colonies in general, but her quoting the Scottish Englightenment as it's foundation is incorrect; consent, human rights, reason, religious tolerance, inalienable rights, etc are not products of the enlightenment, they are products of the Bible, illuminated to the world by men of the Reformation. The enlightenment brought about humanism, rationalism, and reason as the ultimate authority, neglecting the supernatural and biblical revelation. Hutcheson, Paine, Voltaire, Hume, Rousseau, Leibniz, and Kant, all neglected the Bible as the Supreme Authority.

Jon Rowe, along with most of the academic elites, miss the boat; here, Rowe believes an Orthodox Christian's use of philosophical language is from the enlightenment, but as this blog shows, we know for a fact, these terms were used by preachers at that time and by Christians three hundred-fifty years before, perfected in political rhetoric during the Reformation (1500-1678):

"John Witherspoon was one of those evangelicals who contributed to the spread of secularism in American life. His Lectures on Moral Philosophy, what he primarily taught his Princeton students like James Madison, did not teach Christian or Calvinist principles, but rather Scottish Enlightenment principles." http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2008/04/christian-blog-on-search-for-christian.html

This blog has already proven John Witherspoon did not deny one word of the bible in favor of rationalism. http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-witherspoon-james-madison-and.html

A good example of the intolerance of Liberalism...again:

Ed Brayton at his blog, and other secular progressives(positive liberty) make their living attacking anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their views, calling them ignorant, nutball, etc. But they aren't the only ones, there are many liberal blogs that hate. The hatred for George Bush is an example. Most hard core liberals do not just disagree with Bush's policies, they despise everything about him. This is liberalism to the core, intolerance for any viewpoint contrary to their own, but yet they love to label conservatives bigotted, intolerant, etc., when they are the true bigots! I do not agree with the Presidents policies, nor do I hate him like liberals do, or believe he is a true Christian. There are some people on their websites that do wish evil upon George Bush, I don't ever recall conservatives acting like this to Bill Clinton.

An example on Ed Brayton's blog:

I'm afraid I've tired of Mr. Goswick's ignorant ravings already. We banned him from Positive Liberty (the only one ever banned from there, I might add) and his performance will be no less irritating here. He has his own blog, which I've linked to; let him rant there.
Posted by: Ed Brayton August 13, 2007 08:36 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/the_irony_of_david_barton.php#commentsArea

Mr. Brayton, obviously thinks the Founding Fathers ignorant as well, since it is their quotes that bring out his anger, rejecting the obvious will of the Framers to promote his revisionist agenda. There are hundreds of the framers' quotes affiming religion, and morality the foundation of Republican Government, with the religion being Christianity is beyond dispute. Only dishonest liberals reject the United States WAS formed a nation of Christian states, for the state constitutions, besides Virginia, and Pennsylvania mandated Christianity as the religion of their states. It's a wonder I was the only person banned at positive liberty, with the Gospel the most irritating to them.

More hate from Brayton and his blog, this seems a daily occurance:

I hate Carman. Hate him, hate him, hate him. He makes my skin crawl. You simply can't get more fake and ridiculous. He makes Jan Crouch look credible by comparison.
Posted by: Ed Brayton August 11, 2007 07:23 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/robert_obrien_trophy_winner_al_1.php

It sounds like Brayton has an issue with a guy named Carman. I doubt Carman hates him. Mr. Brayton should know, hate is a strong word. Jesus said to hate your brother is committing murder in your heart.

The Postive Liberty blog is no exception to intolerance:

# Jason Kuznicki on 18 Jun 2007 at 5:23 pm
James Goswick wrote,
really and truly believe that people should be put to death for loving another person of the same sex?>>
I’m only affirming what the Creator has ordained.
To which I reply,
If someone appeared at my doorstep pushing this line, I’d tell him to get lost. If he didn’t leave, I’d close the door in his face. If he still didn’t leave, I’d call the cops. A blog is just the same, and you are no longer welcome here, Mr. Goswick. You can’t say I didn’t warn you, either. Further posts by you will be deleted.
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/06/let-maryland-be-next.html#comments

Notice this, not only did he ban me, but he is actually banning EVERY Founding Father that gave him the right to ban someone. Consider why he would ban the Founding Fathers from his website. Most likely he would persecute, our Framers for executing justice of biblical law, of which he would be a victim:

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT
The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, p. 295.

[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA
Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute Laws of South-Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), Vol. I, p. 99.

That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT
Statutes of the State of Vermont (Bennington, 1791), p. 74.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101

These statutes, one, declare matters of religion, and morality for the most part, are reserved to the states, and two, their morality was based on the bible, enforcing the belief our Republican government is based on biblical natural law, not the law of reason, or any other law. The conscience inside man does not repeat word for word Lev 20:13, for the prohibition and penalty of homosexuality. This is another proof reason does not refer to the Divine Law.

Some quotes from the Framers on religion and morality mandatory for government:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, dated October 11, 1798.

Adams similarly explained:

Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
Ibid, Vol. IX, p. 401, dated June 21, 1776.

Of all the dispositions and habits which leads to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, "Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert . . . ?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
George Washington
Address of George Washington . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: Christopher Jackson, 1796), pp. 22-24.

It is sad to think what these people would do to George Washington, yet alone Jesus Christ.

Deceit of the "key founders" doctine...again:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Jon Rowe continues to believe the distortion of five people whose beliefs are to be the only beliefs the two hundred-fifty Founding Fathers of the United States had, as well as being the only relevant view. Initially, this sounds incredible, but people actually believe this doctrine, neglecting the will of the most important framers, the men who ratified the founding documents. The views of James Madison:

He believed, as he repeatedly affirmed, that the meaning of a statute must be sought in the intentions of those who ratified it, not of those who drafted it--in the case of the First Amendment in the minds of the members of the state legislatures, not of the members of the First Federal Congress.James Hutson-Library of Congresshttp://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.htm

Doesn't common sense say the "key founders" should be the people who ratify a doctrine, the Constitution, etc? Is James Madison correct or no?

the chief architect of the Constitution (Madison)>>
http://www.positiveliberty.com/index.php

Explain how is Madison the chief architect? He isn't.

the author of the Declaration (Jefferson)>>
Jefferson wrote the rough draft, the principles of which were already known by Congress according to John Adams. Explain how and why Jefferson is the author? He isn't.

and the majority of the drafting board of the Declaration (Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson).>>

Jefferson called himself a Christian, where is the evidence he believed God was every religions god? Adams was a Christian while forming the nation:

But still I dread the Consequences...of my Honour, my Conscience, my Friends, my Country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than Hell Fire, eternal Torment. And this is so unequal a Price to pay for the Honours and Emoluments in the Power of a Minister or Governor, that I cannot prevail upon myself to think of it. The Duration of future Punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think Eternity a Moment only, I could comply, and be promoted.
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D16

Gregg Frazer adds Hamilton, Wilson, and G. Morris as theistic rationalists.>>

It seems the poster agrees with Frazer but what do these people have to say about the label? Alexander Hamilton was not a theistic rationalist! (emphasis added)

Alexander Hamilton wrote most likely in 1790-94 after the French Revolution: Opinions, for along time, have been gradually gaining ground, which threatens the foundations of religion, morality and society. An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation; for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture; but the being and attributes of a GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments were to be retained and cherished.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1385&chapter=92676&layout=html

I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.
http://books.google.com/books?id=y1_R-rjdcb0C&pg=PA660&lpg=PA660&dq=have+carefully+examined+the+evidences+of+the+by+hamilton&source=web&ots=TsmAYliko9&sig=tOOp2kl0c5OnO_ONpNNnSOSgNrg
http://www.faithofourfathers.net/hamilton.html

He posts no references regarding Wilson and Morris.

But what does it then say that when Washington, Madison, G. Morris, Hamilton, and Wilson talked about God, they purposefully did so in such a vague and generic way that you couldn’t distinguish their creed from either the orthodox Christians’ or the theistic rationalists’ like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin?>>

The Born Again Christian framers spoke in those terms, all of them did.

and when it was widely known that many in elite Whig circles secretly trafficked in “infidel principles.”]>>

References please, for all the states.

Their systematic generic way of speaking about God certainly does nothing to forward the “Christian Nation” thesis as posited by Barton, Federer, and Kennedy.>>

It does if the born again Christians used the same terms. It shows that is the way they referred to God, no matter how they believed. The evidence is some of the terms are definitely biblical.

Regarding what the 200 and some odd Founding Fathers believed in as a whole, whether orthodox Christians or theistic rationalists constituted a statistical majority of the Founders is unknown>>

An absolute marvel! Consider what the ratifiers of the first amendment believed about religion:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority 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. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated: The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion. Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.” Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), stated: Frame of Government, Section 9. And each member [of the Legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “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 Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian] religion. And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.” [p.623]

The Constitution of the State of Connecticut (until 1818), contained the wording: The People of this State… by the Providence of God… hath the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State… and forasmuch as 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… hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of Churches and Commonwealth; and the denial thereof, the disturbances, if not the ruin of both. [p.179]

The ratifiers make it clear, the First Amendment granted freedom of conscience but the establishment clause only referred to Christianity.

Rowe's incorrect view of The State of Nature...Again:

Positive Liberty's Jon Rowe, as well as the secular progressive movement continue to distort our Founding Father's view of the Law of Nature(State of Nature), by violating the Framers and Christian Philosophers' application of words. Rowe's latest post is incorrect because he attributes philosophical wordage, an abandonment of a biblical view.
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/08/the-state-of-nature.html#more-2623

ADDED UPDATE ON JOHN LOCKE, AUG 10, 2007.

John Locke was NOT an adherent of the enlightenment. He fought against it with his many treatises. The true enlightenment thinkers: Hume, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc. were the ones Locke, Blackstone, Grotius, Puffendorf, and Montesquieu rivaled with. The enlightenment thinkers were ones who denied the essentials of the faith, the supernatural, etc. Locke and the other Christian Philosophers did not deny essentials of the salvation of Christianity.

Until Rowe and the secular progressives understand this error, they will continue to misunderstand the Christian beliefs of the Founding Fathers. The framers used philosophical wordage, as well as the Born Again Christian founders:
And let us play the man for our God, and for the cities of our God; while we are using the means in our power, let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe, who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity... let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of him who raiseth up and pulleth down the empires and kingdoms of the world as he pleases; and with cheerful submission to his sovereign will, devoutly say: "Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the field shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls; yet we will rejoice in the Lord, we will joy in the God of our salvation."
John Hancock-Boston Massacre Oration. March 5th, 1774.

Rowe and secular progressives who deny John Locke's Christianity is a betrayal of truth and the promotion of revisionist history. Rowe and secular progressives do not understand Christianity, that's why they doubt John Locke's Christianity. The man was a Theologian, who studied the bible all day long! It's unbelievable how the secular progressive movement perverts the views of the Christian Philosophers. I dare one secular progressive to post the writings of John Locke clearly denying the the Trinity, and Deity of Jesus Christ! Denying original sin, and eternal damnation is not mandatory to be a Christian, as well as claiming someone is of the enlightenment or theistic rationalist leanings. As long as the essentials of Christianity are not violated, it is not heresy. If you read Locke's Second Vindication, you will see his reason for rejecting original sin is that he couldn't believe God would condemn babies who had prematurely died, and humans not attaining the age of accountability. Locke wrongfully assumed God will judge all humans based on original sin. God only judges people that are at the age of accountability. That is why King David believed he would again see his new born son that died, on account of his sin with Bathsheba.

Rowe wrongfully describes the Law of Nature and who the Founders attributed it to:

The idea of the state of nature traces to Hobbes. Though the form that our Founders embraced was Locke’s. This is important: Locke’s state of nature differed from Hobbes’ and provided the model our Founders followed when they declared independence; but the concept of the state of nature itself was nonetheless formulated by Hobbes.>>

The state of nature, which actually is encompassed in the Law of Nations, is derived from the Law of Nature-our Founding Fathers believed it was from God. The concept was understood from the scriptures through Christian Theologians. A Republican form of Government(ruled by law) is straight from the Bible, for it is God's Law that rules from elected representatives, rather than the perverted form of democracy, where Biblical law can be changed by the will of the majority. Under a Republic, murder will always be murder because the Bible says so. The United States is founded on the Religion and morality of the Bible, rather than the perverted liberal enlightenment principles, which attack, and pervert the Bible. A Republican form of Government is based on Deut 1:15-17,
"...made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes..."
This government can only last if the people are moral and virtuous, as the framer's claimed. and the majority rules doctrine, beyond the rule of law is consistent with the Law of Nature. Locke did not form any theories that were not already laid down in the Bible, the jury system of Common Law, and separation of powers is also in the Bible.

Here is another instance of Rowe perverting Christianity, and the views of John Locke:

Now, because Locke 1) has God take a central role in this theory, and 2) called himself a Christian and defended the Christian religion as “reasonable,” otherwise uninformed folks could easy confuse Locke’s teachings from his second treatise with authentically Christian principles. However, they are not...Just because Locke had God play a central role in his liberal democratic theory does not mean there is anything authentically biblical or Christian about Locke’s teachings.>>
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/08/the-state-of-nature.html#more-2623

It doesn't get anymore whacky than this. Because Locke didn't believe in original sin, Rowe uses this to twist Locke's views on Christianity. Denying original sin, or eternal damnation is not a product of the enlightenment or rationalism, it is what Locke wrongly thought the Bible taught. Rowe and the secular progressives need to study the scriptures more and understand original sin is not mandatory to be a Christian, but I doubt they will. There is no clear evidence, I repeat, there is no clear evidence that John Locke denied the Deity of Jesus Christ!

Again Rowe mistakenly assumes:

Just because Locke had God play a central role in his liberal democratic theory does not mean there is anything authentically biblical or Christian about Locke’s teachings.>>

It doesn't get anymore perverted than that statement! John Locke was a Christian Theologian, Yet so heavily did Locke draw from the Bible in developing his political theories that in his first treatise on government, he invoked the Bible in one thousand three hundred and forty nine references; in his second treatise, he cited it one hundred and fifty seven times.
How can so many references to the Bible in Locke's most famous political work be reconciled with the charge that his political philosophies were totally secular? or theistic.
In 1669, John Locke assisted in the drafting of the Carolina constitution under which no man could be a citizen unless he acknowledged God, was a member of a church, and used no “reproachful, reviling, or abusive language” against any religion.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106
John Locke, A Collection of Several Pieces of Mr. John Locke Never Before Printed or Not Extant in His Works (London: J. Bettenham for R. Francklin, 1720), pp. 3, 41, 45, 46.

Locke went to seminary! How does this refer to secular philosophy?

It only gets worse folks, Rowe again:

And in doing so, arguably they invoked a different God — a benevolent unitarian deity — the God of the theistic rationalists, not the biblical God.>>

Locke's belief in miracles takes care of the theistic rationalist rant:

God only rarely uses miracles. "Though it be easy for omnipotent power to do all things by an immediate overruling will, and to make any instruments work even contrary to their nature, in subserviency to his ends, yet his wisdom is not usually at the expense of miracles . . . but only in cases that require them for the evidencing of some revelation or mission to be from him...If it were not so, the course and evidence of things would be confounded; miracles would lose their force and name; and there could be no distinction between natural and supernatural."
The Reasonableness of Christianity

The reason why Rowe and the secular progressives are so wrong on all the issues is because they do not understand Christianity and the Bible. This proves my point:

Orthodox Christians needed to rely on such an a-biblical Enlightenment system of thought because the Bible simply doesn’t speak to issues with which the Whig republicans were concerned (like a right to revolt).>>

It is in the Bible! Just find where it is and reconcile it. God affirms revolt over an unrighteous kingdom at the beginning of human history in Gen 14:14-20. A Theophany of Jesus Christ(Melchizidek) Priest of the Most High God affirms what Abram did. Righteous revolt over government is in the Bible countless times.

Even orthodox Christians like John Witherspoon, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and John Jay were influenced by an a-biblical Enlightenment worldview, especially when they argued for republicanism.>>

None of those men denied the Deity of Jesus Christ, and believed the Bible was superior in all matters.

Jesus didn’t overturn one social institution. Not slavery, not any of the illiberal forms of government.>>

Was He supposed to? What was His mission? Is do unto others as you would have them do to you not anti-slavery?

And indeed, Paul instructs Christians, in Romans 13, in no uncertain terms, to obey an illiberal, undemocratic, unelected tyrant who never sought consent to rule over believers.>>

Another incorrect quote. It's amazing so many errors on one post. The context is to be a minster of God to thee for good. Only a just and righteous government has God's approval.

Overall, Rowe and the secular progressive movement are completely wrong about the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, John Locke, The Law of Nature, and practically everything they propose because they lack the true understanding of this universe through the Law of Nature's revelation, the Bible.

Jon Rowe from Positive Liberty, and secular progressives continue to Distort the Will of the Founding Fathers

by James J. Goswick

The Founding Fathers formed our government with the provision that free speech is obscene according to the standard of the Bible. Common Law then, is subservient to church law based on the Bible. Despite what Thomas Jefferson believed, Common Law is based on Christianity and the Bible-ecclesiastical law was superior to statute law, as Sabbath, desecration of the Lord’s Day, apostasy from Christianity, heresy, and Blasphemy laws support. Jefferson's error was his assumption that Christianity was not introduced to Britain until the seventh century, and that Christianity wasn't introduced until the Saxons came from Germany.

Jefferson wrote in 1814,

"If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians."
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl227.htm

Evidence shows the Christians were underground in the Roman Empire, including Britain,

" The discovery of the Darenth Bowl (a glass communion chalice c.450 A.D.) discovered by the Dartford District Archaeological Group in a Saxon grave in the grounds of the old Darenth Park Hospital has raised all sorts of questions about the possible survival of Christian belief in and around Dartford."
http://www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/early_history/religion_s.shtml

The fact is Christianity existed throughout Britain from the beginning, as well as where the Saxons lived. Jefferson's claim that Christianity was not legislatively implemented by the Saxons is irrelevant to Christianity and Common Law. Common Law may have been formerly legislated to the entire people of Britain in the seventh century, but most of the people knew Christianity, and lived by it from the time of the Apostles. Foxes Book of Martyrs claims Simon the Zealot preached in Britain where many converts were made.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/martyrs/index.htm

Statute law was not the foundation of human laws-according to ecclesiastical law, the Law and the Gospel are the basis of Common Law. There's no evidence of falsifing Prisot's words as Jefferson claims. Ancien[t] scripture has to be the complete Bible, or church law based on the Bible-that ancient scripture includes the New Testament is clear from the instruction to the Clergy by the Apostle Paul. At the beginning of Common Law in the sixth century under Christian King Ethelbert, or in the ninth century under Christian King Alfred the Great , Biblical law did not need to be established by legislative action, the Bible was common to the people. The proof of Common Law is the Church's inclusion of Biblical law into civil law.

Jon Rowe, Ed Brayton, Lenni Brenner, Forrest Church, Mark Wheldon Whitten, Tom Van Dyke, Radio host Tom Hartmann, Dr. Gregg Frazer, or any other revisionist that denies the Biblical foundations the United States was built on, this information is for you. What is the actual beliefs of our framers regarding the Law of Nature, The First Amendment, Separation of Church and State, and the Constitution? Let's examine the framers' actual words, along with the Christian Theologians who first espoused some of these principles from the bible, showing Rowe's promotion of his "key founders" term is the basis of the liberal, progressive secularist agenda to neglect the other important framers who helped draft the Constitution, along with the First Amendment. This is a very important deception limiting the authority of the Founding Fathers to a select few like Jefferson, Adams, and Madison. But of course they know what they're doing, this evidence exposes their schemes.

Let's first refute the claim that Thomas Jefferson is a "key founder" as Rowe claims. He had nothing to do with the organic laws of our nation, the formation of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Northwest Ordinance, or Articles of Confederation, and contrary to popular belief, he was a smaller player as his credit due in the formation of the Declaration of Independence. Despite Jefferson's hand in establishing the executive department during the first three Presidencies, along with his rough draft of the DOI, he should not be considered a "key founder."

Did Thomas Jefferson write the Declaration of Independence or did he borrow principles already laid down by previous Constitutions, and Christian Theologians? The evidence says the latter, so why is Jefferson considered a "key founder?" John Adams said the principles of the Declaration were already laid down [mistakenly] by James Otis, the actual author was born again Christian Samuel Adams:

"As you justly observe, there is not an idea in it [the Declaration of Independence] but what had been hackneyed in Congress two years before. The substance of it is contained in the Declaration of Rights, and the Violations of those Rights, in the journals of Congress in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet voted and printed by the town of Boston before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and polished by Samuel Adams." (John Adams's Works, II. 514).
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/right_col.htm

Quoting Adams biographer William V. Wells, "There certainly is a similarity between the "Rights of the Colonists" in 1772 and the "Declaration of Rights" in 1774, and between them both and the Declaration of Independence; but, as all are founded on the time-honored principles of Locke, Hooker, Sydney, and Harrington, some of whom are duly quoted by Samuel Adams in his treatise, the disputes as to the originality are needless.

Finally, Wells says, "Here [in the paper of 1772] is embodied the whole philosophy of human rights, condensed from the doctrines of all time, and applied to the immediate circumstances of America. Upon this paper was based all that was written or spoken on human liberty in the Congress which declared independence; and the immortal instrument itself is, in many features, but a repetition of the principles here enunciated, and of Joseph Warren's list of 5grievances, which followed the Rights of the Colonists in the report."

Wells, William V. The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams: Being a Narrative of His Acts and Opinions, and of His Agency in Producing and Forwarding the American Revolution, with Extracts From His Correspondence, State Papers, and Political Essays. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1865.

A committee of five persons, four considered themselves Christians, put the Declaration together, Jefferson wrote the rough draft borrowing from what was already known. There are other men considered more honestly "key founders" than Thomas Jefferson, of which the liberals disect his writings to promote their agenda at the exclusion of other more important framers like: Alexander Hamilton, Roger Sherman, John Marshall, Rufus King, Father of the Bill of Rights George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, and The Father of the Revolution Samuel Adams. All of these men are far more important to our founding than Thomas Jefferson. General Hamilton was the first man over the wall at Yorktown defeating the British, as well as his economic ideas are implemented to this day. A Father of American Jurispurdence James Kent claimed there was no greater lawyer than Alexander Hamilton. Many things are said about Hamilton's supposed fornication with women, besides an affair he had by which he was framed, they should not be noted without proper proof. Based on Hamilton's economic policies, he is the greatest genius, and founder this country has ever had. Roger Sherman is the only man to sign all four documents of our government, proposed the two chamber format of the legislature, and was on the House committee forming the Bill of Rights. Marshall was a Revolutionary General, one of the minutemen; fought in the Battles of Great Bridge (1775), Brandywine (1777), Germantown (1777), and Monmouth (1778), helped ratify the Constitution, author of Judicial Review, Secretary of State, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Jefferson's work in the executive department is noted, but overall, other men did more at the founding legislatively, militarily, and executively.

The identity of the Law of Nature is the key to understanding the will of the Founding Fathers. That the law of nature is Jesus Christ is indisputable, both from the Founding Fathers and the Christian Theologians who first started to use the term taken from the Torah and emphasized by Paul in Romans 2:14-15. The Law of Nature is from the Creator, the conscience inside of every human being convicting us of what is right and wrong (that lieing and stealing is wrong, etc,.) according to the Ten Commandments, and the Gospel. This internal conscience can be seared by the will, limiting the path to the true God. This searing of the conscience is found in Deut 12:6, "every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes." For the pagan without revelation in the Old Covenant, this is what kept them from a relationship with God, Job being an example of the exception.

All the Christian Theologians: Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Hugo Grotius, Richard Hooker, Samuel de Puffendorf, John Locke, Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, William Blackstone, etc. all believed the Law of Nature was from the God of the bible, with the bible always supreme over reason.

"divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors...in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and surely, it was necessary they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation, It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason there should be a sacred science learned by revelation." Aquinas, Summa, First Part, Q.1, Art.1

If Aquinas incorrectly attributed his belief on the Law of Nature to Aristotle, it doesn't change who its identity is

John Calvin:

...we ought to seek our conviction in a higher place than human reasons...the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. Institutes, 1.7.

Hooker refers to reason including the Holy Spirit as "right reason." Hooker was the main influence for the chief expert on the Law of Nature among the Founding Fathers James Wilson.

"Scripture indeed teacheth things above nature, things which our reason by iselfe could not reach unto. Yet those things we also believe, knowing by reason the scripture is the Word of God." Hooker, Lawes, III.8.11: I.229.33–230.10

“Right Reason” Reason thus informed by the Holy Spirit becomes right reason in the thinking of Hooker because it results in faith, by which humans may enjoy both the understanding and assurance of salvation proclaimed by the Gospel.

"For even if 'the forceof naturall reason is great. The force whereof unto those effects is nothing without Grace." Hooker, Lawes, III.8.11: I.229.15f

Locke affirmed Hooker, and believed scripture was superior to reason:

[L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made. John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (London: J. Whiston, etc., 1772), Book II, p. 285, Chapter XI, §135, n., quoting Hooker's Eccl. Pol. 1. iii, sect. 9.

Liberals attack Locke for being an Arian, which is a total falsity. So Locke did not believe in original sin or eternal damnation, both are non essentials of salvation. As for Locke not believing in Jesus' deity, the evidence is that he believed Jesus divine, which is all that is relevant. He may have believed as Justin Martyr that Jesus was created from the Father, but as long as Jesus is believed as God, there is no heresy. Locke's last work shows evidence of his believing Jesus divine:

“...believe that Christ is a good man, and not above the nature of a man, and sent of God to give instruction to the world: and my faith,” he says, “is of the very same scantling.” This I shall desire him to prove; or, which in other words he insinuates in this and the neighbouring pages, viz. John Locke A SECOND VINDICATION OF THE REASONABLENESSOF CHRISTIANITY, 1697.

A man that is above the nature of a man is divine. The point is not that Locke believed Jesus was less than God, anyone that is above the nature of man is divine, regardless of a persons personal belief.

Our Founding Fathers affirmed the beliefs of the Christian philosophers, and employed these beliefs in the Declaration of Independence. The Law of Nature is therefore Jesus Christ, for He is the express image of God, co-equal to The Father and Holy Spirit. According to "key founder" James Wilson, the Bible is Supreme:

"Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick." THE WORKS OF James Wilson. http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson1.doc

I repeat, the Law of Nature is not subservient to reason. The framers believed this, and to think the Creator of human reason is not above reason is the epitome of ignorance. John Rowe likes to quote Jefferson and Adams as speaking for the framer's as only their views were important- that they believed only parts of the bible does not change the Law of Nature, only their personal view of it. Rowe and the rest of the secular progressives will not quote the other framers because they know it contradicts their own views. Consider "key founder" one of the writer's of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution Roger Sherman:

I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer. Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1896), pp. 272-273.

Liberals and secularists would never quote Sherman, or the other more important framer's like Hamilton, Samuel Adams, James Wilson, or John Jay to show their belief who the Law of Nature is. Born Again Christian Samuel Adams on the Law of Nature:

In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator. The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1908), Vol. IV. p. 356, to the Legislature of Massachusetts on January 17, 1794.

Original Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay:

[T]he...natural law was given by the Sovereign of the Universe to all mankind. The Life of John Jay, William Jay, editor (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 385, to John Murray on April 15, 1818.

To say that John Locke, the Christian theologians, or the framer's, besides Jefferson, Adams, Washington, and Franklin did not believe the bible superior to reason is a disgrace to knowledge. How could the maker of reason not be superior to it? James Wilson, regarding the Law of Nature was not Lockean at all, but a disciple of Richard Hooker. Locke himself learned this doctrine from Hooker because he uses Hooker's quote.

Moving to the First Amendment only referring to Christianity is clear to see, despite the absence of a Christian reference in the words. The context was clear in the general public, and ratifying debates. The basis of the establishment clause is very simple, to prohibit a National Church, that is all, nothing more. The only religion that had a chance to be a National Church is a denomination of Christianity, as the greatest judge explains:

"the First Amendment, which was written not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity. Rather, it was designed to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. The goal was not the freedom to foster religious diversity, but the avoidance of a national ecclesiastical establishment such as the Church of England.
Joseph Story-Commentaries, Vol. III, p. 728, 1871. Father of American Jurisprudence, Founder of Harvard Law School. He produced nine major treatises within the space of twelve years: Bailments (1832), Commentaries on the Constitution (3 Vols., 1833), Conflict of Laws (1834), Equity Jurisprudence (2 Vols., 1836), Equity Pleadings (1838), Agency (1839), Partnership (1841), Bills of Exchange (1843), and Promissory Notes (1845). Judge Story was also the author of valuable notes on prize, admiralty, maritime, and patent law contained in appendices to Supreme Court reports, and a frequent contributor to the North American Review, in which he published legal essays. His judicial opinions and writings laid the foundation for admiralty law, equity jurisprudence, and commercial law in the United States. Though a member of the judiciary, Story also worked diligently to clarify and improve Federal laws. He drafted legislation to extend the jurisdiction of the circuit courts and revise the bankruptcy laws. Story may justly be regarded as the real founder of the Harvard Law School; for his appointment marked an important turning point in the history of an institution that was faltering until Story took command. As a result of his leadership, enrollment increased, the quality of instruction improved, and the school's reputation for excellence grew rapidly. American Reference Library, The Ultimate Reference to American History and Political Science, World Book Encyclopedia. 1998 World Book, Inc and Western Standard Publishing Company.

Liberals and secular progressives violate a fundamental principle in interpreting statutes as the framers explained:

Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced....mistakes may be very injurious.
Noah Webster, The Holy Bible...With Amendments of the Language (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1833), p. iii,

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted....instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Thomas Jefferson to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823

The probable context is what the signers and ratifiers wrote down, not what liberals and progressives want to squeeze out of the text. Does Constitution signer Henry Abbot know the context of the First Amendment?

"Many wish to know what religion shall be established. I believe a majority of the community are Presbyterians. I am, for my part, against any exclusive establishment; but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal."
Elliot's Debates, Vol. IV, pp. 191-192, July 30, 1788.

Notice Abbot believes a denomination is a religion like the First Amendment reads. Maybe the liberals believe Abbot didn't understand what he was doing, after all he only signed the Constitution, he wasn't a "key founder." Did Constitution ratifier Governor Samuel Johnston understand the context of the First Amendment? He helped frame the Bill of Rights, did he not know the correct application of the First Amendment? Liberals have the audacity to say no:

I know but two or three States where there is the least chance of establishing any particular religion. The people of Massachusetts and Connecticut are mostly Presbyterians. In every other State, the people are divided into a great number of sects. In Rhode Island, the tenets of the Baptists, I believe prevail...I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established. July 30, 1788

James Madison believed like the other framers in the original intent of the Constitution, not to change its meaning :

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution...What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.
to Henry Lee on June 25, 1824

Madison believed the context of a statute should be in the manner of those who ratified it, not those who drafted it. And the States ratified it, so the states' context is the correct context. Even Thomas Jefferson believed the First Amendment only referred to an establishment of Christianity as Jefferson neglected the other religions, showing again, liberals and secular progressives love to change probable meanings of words-notice how Jefferson refers to the First Amendment but only speaks of Christianity:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided in me will be exerted in oppostion to their schemes. And they believe rightly.
to Benjamin Rush September 23, 1800.

Did James Madison not agree with the context of the Father of the Bill of Rights George Mason:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others. Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892, Vol. I, p.28.

James Madison agreed with the context of every other framer, as his testimony for the First Amendment shows.

MR. MADISON thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to conform. Annals of Congress 1:434-435) Saturday August 15, 1789

How could Madison believe two different religions joining together to form a National Religion in a Christian Nation? It's absurd and ridiculous, because he believed the United States was a Christian nation!

If the public homage of a people can ever be worthy the favorable regard of the Holy and Omniscient Being to whom it is addressed, it must be that in which those who join in it are guided only by their free choice, by the impulse of their hearts and the dictates of their consciences; and such a spectacle must be interesting to all Christian nations as proving that religion, that gift of Heaven for the good of man, freed from all coercive edicts, from that unhallowed connection with the powers of this world which corrupts religion into an instrument or an usurper of the policy of the state...Upon these principles and with these views the good people of the United States are invited, in conformity with the resolution aforesaid, to dedicate the day above named to the religious solemnities therein recommended.
Given at Washington, this 23d day of July, A. D. 1813.
[seal.] JAMES MADISON

Why would Madison compare us with Christian nations if he didn't believe we were a Christian nation? Of course it doesn't make sense if you take a perverted context of the First Amendment. It is clear, the First Amendment only refers to an establishment of a particular denomination of Christianity, like the church of England.

The lie of separation of church and state may be more absurd of a lie than the revisionists view of the First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson, who the revisionists get their dogma from, violated the separation dogma several times, proving they have perverted the correct meaning of separation of church and state. Showing Jefferson violated government supporting Christianity should be sufficient enough:

In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to “assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church” and to provide “annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.” He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in “promoting Christianity.”
American State Papers, Walter Lowrie and Matthew St. Claire Clarke, editors (Washington, D. C.: Gales and Seaton, 1832), Vol. IV, p. 687; see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, at 103 (1985), Rehnquist, J. (dissenting); see also, The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, Richard Peters, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1846), Vol. VII, p. 79, Article III, “A Treaty Between the United States and the Kaskaskia Tribe of Indians,” December 23, 1803; Vol. VII, p. 88, Article IV, “Treaty with the Wyandots, etc.,” 1805; Vol. VII, p. 102, Article II, “Treaty with the Cherokees,” 1806.

There are many more instances disproving separation of church and state, but this one act by Jefferson is sufficient to refute the entire dogma. Separation of church and state refers only to the Federal Government aligning itself with a church, like the Anglican church of England. The states were free to do with religion whatever they wanted, most formed Christianity as the religion of the state. Thomas Jefferson explains:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 http://www.wallbuilders.com/

This is why Constitution signers Richard Bassett and George Read could form a state constitution like this, as if these men did not understand the First Amendment:

The Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated:

Article 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 forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old
and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” [p.203]

One of the many misinterpretations and betrayals of original intent is the Treaty of Tripoli claiming the United States is not a Christian nation. It is true those words are in the Treaty, but the comment is referring to the Federal Government, remember, religion is left to the states. The Federal Government is supposed to have nothing to do with religion in general. In almost every case Jon Rowe and secular progressives corrupt the views of the framer's, here is one of their tricks:

So whereas the God of Scripture, in the very first command, forbids the worship of any false gods, the Founders’ Nature’s God grants men an unalienable right to worship no God or false gods. http://positiveliberty.com/2007/06/the-founders-and-higher-law-redux.html#more-2510

Notice how Rowe tries to reduce the superiority of the Gospel, eliminating the primary attribute of the Law of Nature. He's a master at twisting the text for his own agenda. The Old Covenant was specifically for Israel, the New Testament is for Christians, the current dispensation is superior. Adams and Jefferson are the only ones quoted, he neglects the other two hundred framers, showing how incorrect Adams and Jefferson were, believing the Old Covenant is superior to the Gospel and the correct application of the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature grants freedom of conscience to all peoples, but Rowe takes the perverted views of Adams and Jefferson and invents his scheme around it. Matters of morality, which were based on the Bible, is left to the states. The New Covenant is based on free will, not the theocracy of Israel. No matter how many times this fact is mentioned, revisionists always seem to forget it. For instance the states' stance on homosexuality, some of these are direct quotes from Lev 20:13:

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, p. 295.

That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT Statutes of the State of Vermont (Bennington, 1791), p. 74.

]T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute Laws of South-Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), Vol. I, p. 99.

The Federal Government was for the most part exempt from matters of morality and religion:

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State...The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

James Madison, Federalist #45