"Divinely inspired" US Constitution?

[Hari_Seldon]

@buddha_david

Seems strange that a Constitution divinely inspired by God would say that Congress shall make NO law establishing any religion…

No you miss the point. The constitution was divinely inspired, then we started amending it and ran off the rails. Imagine god allowing the fifth amendment, imagine allowing women to vote, income tax, all that.

[Boyo_Jim]

There are competing theories of who insprired the Constitution, but many of those theories have inspired … well, let’s call it … art.

Here’s an article about the Thomas Kincaid of Jesus/Founding Father art.

Here’s Jesus inspiring the Constitution.
Here’s the Jesus Deniers version.
Here’s Flying Reptileopus Jesus.
Here’s Eyepod Alien Jesus inspiring it.

[MEBuckner]

@UDS

Well, no. The motivation for the non-establishment clause was not to protect the state from being controlled by churches; it was to protect churches from being controlled by the state. And you could easily persuade yourself that this is What God Wants.

I think the motivations for separation of church and state were to protect churches from being controlled by the state and to protect the state from being controlled by churches–that is, to prevent one religious group from using state power to impose its views on the rest of the population.

James Madison wrote “religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together” (emphasis added). In arguing against establishments of religion, Madison certainly argued on the grounds of protecting “the purity and efficacy of Religion” but he also argued very strongly against religious establishments on the grounds that they caused social disharmony and undermined the authority of civil government, and also on the grounds of the equality of rights of all citizens and for the protection of “the conviction and conscience of every man” and of “the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate”.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@MEBuckner

I think the motivations for separation of church and state were to protect churches from being controlled by the state and to protect the state from being controlled by churches–that is, to prevent one religious group from using state power to impose its views on the rest of the population.

But you are conflating two separate provisions there. UDS referred specifically to the establishment clause, which protects the state from church control. The free exercise clause protects the church(es) from state control.

[MEBuckner]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

But you are conflating two separate provisions there. UDS referred specifically to the establishment clause, which protects the state from church control. The free exercise clause protects the church(es) from state control.

UDS said the opposite of what you just said about the establishment clause:

@UDS

The motivation for the non-establishment clause was not to protect the state from being controlled by churches; it was to protect churches from being controlled by the state.

My point is that Madison argued that non-establishment–not just free exercise–protected both church and state.

Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” wasn’t against blasphemy laws or laws against heresy. It was against a Virginia law for an establishment of religion (a “plural establishment” which would have supported multiple Christian churches). Similarly, the letter to Edward Livingston with the “religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity” language wasn’t talking about religious dissenters being fined or jailed or put in the stocks; it was talking about various cases of government support for religion–i.e., of establishment.

Madison consistently argued that non-establishment protected free exercise and individual freedom; that it protected religion from being corrupted by politics; and that it protected the civil government from being corrupted and having its authority undermined by introducing religion into politics.

[CurtC]

Pseudo-historian David Barton goes around talking to credulous evangelical audiences, telling them that the US Constitution was based on the Bible.

From an NPR story about him:

@David Barton

“You look at Article 3, Section 1, the treason clause,” he told James Robison on Trinity Broadcast Network. “Direct quote out of the Bible. You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim. I mean, it drives the secularists nuts because the Bible’s all over it! Now we as Christians don’t tend to recognize that. We think it’s a secular document; we’ve bought into their lies. It’s not.”

[jtur88]

Assuming that Christian theologians have any idea of what divine inspiration might entail, it is remarkable that not a single one of the Ten Commandments is addressed by language in the Constitution. And only “not kill” and “not steal” have ever been codified into civil or criminal criminal law that has been ruled constitutionally supported. Turns out they were already against the law in every jurisdiction on earth long before the Founding Fathers, so do not carry much weight in the argument that the Founders were of uniquely divine inspiration.

[dreamregent]

@TSBG

Here’s a sample based on a very fast Google search. I tried to read it and got bored and confused. It seems to mostly assume the answer. That’s why I was hoping others could explain without the blah-blah.

I will try to minimize the “blah-blah” and focus on primary sources. First, we have the link you provided:

@TSBG

http://freedomoutpost.com/american-government-divinely-inspired-bible/

Now, a couple of passages from it:

But it is not necessary for us to dangerously tamper with the Constitution our founders penned by inspiration of prayer and their extensive knowledge of Biblical truth.

Thus the source of the enumerated powers of government listed in our Constitution, and the broad scope of unalienable rights listed in, but not limited to, the Bill of Rights, was of God, not of men.

The question here is not whether the men who wrote the Constitution were men of faith. Rather, this boils down to a dispute over whether our founders sought divine intervention in the form of inspiration via prayer and whether they thought God and/or the bible was the source of Constitutional rights. Notions such as these are just not supportable by the available evidence. These ideas have long been supported by an account of the convention written by a man named William Steele in 1825. This matter revolves around a real kerfuffle that arose in the convention which did, in fact, prompt Benjamin Franklin to appeal for a call to prayer in order to help inspire the delegates to find a compromise for an impasse relating to the composition of the U.S. Senate. William Steele was not present at the convention but he claimed that, 10 years prior to writing (Farrand 3: 473), a story describing this event was related to him by “General” Jonathan Dayton, an actual convention delegate & signatory to the Constitution. The problem is that William Steele’s account directly contradicts the contemporary records made during the convention and, in particular, Benjamin Franklin’s personal record of the event which was written in his own hand. Here is the relevant excerpt from Steele’s account (Farrand 3: 471-472):

The doctor [i.e. Benjamin Franklin] continued: “Before I sit down, Mr. President, I will suggest another matter; and I am really surprised that it has not been proposed by some other member at an earlier period of our deliberations. I will suggest, Mr. President, the propriety of nominating and appointing, before we separate, a chaplain to this Convention, whose duty it shall be uniformly to assemble with us, and introduce the business of each day by an address to the Creator of the universe, and the Governor of all nations, beseeching Him to preside in our council, enlighten our minds with a portion of heavenly wisdom, influence our hearts with a love of truth and justice, and crown our labors with complete and abundant success!”

The doctor sat down, and never (said Gen. D.) did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington, at the close of this address! Nor were the members of the Convention, generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman senate! A silent admiration superseded, for a moment, the expression of that assent and approbation which was strongly marked on almost every countenance; I say almost, for one man was found in the Convention, Mr. H—, from —, who rose and said, with regard to the first motion of the honorable gentleman, for an adjournment, he would yield his assent; but he protested against the second motion, for the appointment of a chaplain. He then commenced a high-strained eulogium on the assemblage of wisdom, talent, and experience, which the Convention embraced; declared the high sense he entertained of the honor which his constituents had conferred upon him, in making him a member of that respectable body; said he was confidently of opinion that they were competent to transact the business which had been entrusted to their care — that they were equal to every exigence which might occur; and concluded by saying, that therefore he did not see the necessity of calling in foreign aid!

Washington fixed his eye upon the speaker, with a mixture of surprise and indignation, while he uttered this impertinent and impious speech, and then looked around to ascertain in what manner it affected others. They did not leave him a moment to doubt; no one deigned to reply, or take the smallest notice of the speaker, but the motion for appointing a chaplain was instantly seconded and carried; whether under the silent disapprobation of Mr. H—, or his solitary negative, I do not recollect. The motion for an adjournment was then put and carried unanimously, and the Convention adjourned accordingly.

The three days of recess were spent in the manner advised by Doctor Franklin; the opposite parties mixed with each other, and a free and frank interchange of sentiments took place. On the fourth day we assembled again, and if great additional light had not been thrown on the subject, every unfriendly feeling had been expelled; and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated, which promised, at least, a calm and dispassionate reconsideration of the subject.

As soon as the chaplain had closed his prayer, and the minutes of the last sitting were read, all eyes were turned to the doctor. He rose, and in a few words stated, that during the recess he had listened attentively to all the arguments pro and con, which had been urged by both sides of the house; that he had himself said much, and thought more on the subject; he saw difficulties and objections, which might be urged by individual states, against every scheme which had been proposed; and he was now, more than ever, convinced that the constitution which they were about to form, in order to be just and equal, must be formed on the basis of compromise and mutual concession. With such views and feelings, he would now move a reconsideration of the vote last taken on the organization of the Senate. The motion was seconded, the vote carried, the former vote rescinded, and by a successive motion and resolution, the Senate was organized on the present plan.

So, we have a set of purported “facts” in this account–
[ol]
[li]Benjamin Franklin suggested the convention seek divine intervention by:[/li][LIST=a]
[li]Appointing a chaplain[/li][li]Have the chaplain address the “Creator of the universe” each day[/li][li]Hope to receive enlightenment “with a portion of heavenly wisdom”[/li][/ol]
[li]Almost all members of the convention were thrilled by this suggestion[/li][li]Only one person, Mr. H—, objected but his objections were completely ignored[/li][li]Franklin’s motion was immediately seconded and passed[/li][li]After several days of reflection and the addition of prayers to the convention, the delegates were able to compromise over the impasse[/li][li]Presumably, the prayers helped out over the rest of the convention as well[/li][/LIST]

Before proceeding to the convention records themselves, I will cite other post-convention writings which speak on this matter–

A convention delegate and signatory to the Constitution, William Few, mentioned this in his autobiography. The manuscript was unpublished in his lifetime but was later printed in The Magazine of American History (Farrand 3: 423):

After about three weeks deliberation and debating, the Convention had serious thoughts of adjourning without doing anything. All human efforts seemed to fail. Doctor Franklin proposed to appoint a chaplain and implore Divine assistance, but his motion did not prevail. It was an awful and critical moment.

A historian named Jared Sparks wrote of this in his journal. He received this information second-hand from James Madison, with whom he had visited. The entry is dated April 19th, 1830 (Farrand 3: 479):

No chaplain was chosen for the convention at any period of its session, although Dr. Franklin proposed one, as has been reported, after the convention had been some time sitting.

James Madison wrote of this in a letter to Jared Sparks dated April 8, 1831. In this letter, Madison also mentions the account of William Steele, though not by name, which had been published in the National Intelligencer (Farrand 3: 499-500):

The anecdote you mention may not be without a foundation, but not in the extent supposed. It is certain, that the return of Mr Morris to the Convention was at a critical stage of its proceedings. The knot, felt as the Gordian one, was the question between the larger and the smaller States, on the rule of voting in the senatorial branch of the legislature; the latter claiming, the former opposing, the rule of equality. Great zeal and pertinacity had been shown on both sides, and an equal division of votes on the question had been reiterated and prolonged, till it had become not only distress ing, but seriously alarming. It was during that period of gloom, that Dr. Franklin made the proposition for a religious service in the Convention, an account of which was so erroneously given, with every semblance of authenticity, through the National Intelligencer, several years ago.

Madison again mentioned this in a letter to Thomas Grimke dated January 6, 1834. He mentions Steele’s account in this letter as well (Farrand 3: 531):

You wish to be informed of the errors in your pamphlet alluded to in my last. The first related to the proposition of Doctor Franklin in favor of a religious service in the Federal Convention. The proposition was received & treated with the respect due to it; but the lapse of time which had preceded, with considerations growing out of it, had the effect of limiting what was done, to a reference of the proposition to a highly respectable Committee. This issue of it may be traced in the printed Journal. The Quaker usage, never discontinued in the State & the place where the Convention held its sittings, might not have been without an influence as might also, the discord of religious opinions within the Convention, as well as among the Clergy of the Spot. The error into which you had fallen may have been confirmed by a communication in the National Intelligencer some years ago, said to have been received through a respectable channel from a member of the Convention. That the communication was erroneous is certain; whether from misapprehension or misrecollection, uncertain.

Now, for the convention records. In case you’re unfamiliar with the manner of record-keeping for the convention, I will provide a brief overview. The convention met behind closed doors and the records we have are not up to today’s standards. There was a secretary named William Jackson who kept a convention journal in the form of daily minutes. Basically, he summarized the decisions that were made and ignored everything else. He generally only recorded matters where some sort of vote or action was taken. Otherwise, we have notes which were kept by various delegates. James Madison voluntarily took on a reporting role and his personal journal of the convention is the most comprehensive record which exists. He includes much in the way of speeches and a great amount of detail about how the debates unfolded, including the votes. However, various other delegates took notes of varying degree at varying times as well. The source I have cited is a documentary history which has taken all these various accounts and placed them in chronological order so that the convention journal and Madison’s journal are interspersed with the records of others if any exist for a particular day of the convention. The order of records for each day is as follows: (1) the Convention Journal, (2) Madison’s Journal, (3) any additional records for that day if they exist. The third volume of this work is composed of a set of appendices including personal correspondence of the delegates and other documents which pertain to the convention. The documents cited above come from the third volume.

Delegates began to meet on May 14, 1787 but they were unable to start the convention until May 25 due to the lack of a quorum. The event in question took place on June 28th, after the convention had already been in session for over a month. Prior to this date the records do not indicate anyone suggested appealing to a higher power. The point of contention was over whether the Senate would be composed of equal or proportional representation among the states. Small states wanted equal representation and large states wanted proportional representation. The Convention Journal contains no record of Franklin’s appeal for prayers (Farrand 1: 444). As no action was taken by the convention, not even a vote on the motion, we would not expect to see a mention of it in the Convention Journal. Next, we have Benjamin Franklin’s speech along with its associated dialogue as recorded in James Madison’s journal (Farrand 1: 450-452):

[beginning with the speech of Benjamin Franklin…]
Mr. President[,]

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other — our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. —Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service —

Mr. Sh[e]rman seconded the motion.

Mr. Hamilton & several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, 1. bring on it some disagreeable animadversions. & 2. lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissentions within the convention, had suggested this measure. It was answered by Docr. F.[,] Mr. Sherman & others, that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission — that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within, would at least be as likely to do good as ill.

Mr. Williamson, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.

Mr. Randolph proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to ye. measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence, — & thenceforward prayers be used in ye Convention every morning. Dr. Frankn. 2ded. this motion After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourng. the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion.

Robert Yates, a convention delegate who permanently left the convention on July 10, also recorded the event in his journal (Farrand 1: 457-458):

Governor Franklin read some remarks, acknowledging the difficulties of the present subject. Neither ancient or modern history, (said Gov. Franklin,) can give us light. As a sparrow does not fall without Divine permission, can we suppose that governments can be erected without his will? We shall, I am afraid, be disgraced through little party views. I move that we have prayers every morning.

A couple of other delegates took notes that day but mentioned nothing about this.

Finally, the Library of Congress has Benjamin Franklin’s handwritten copy of the speech he gave in the convention. The final page of which contains a note at the bottom which states:

The Convention, except three or four Persons, thought Prayers unnecessary.

The records do not reveal any further suggestions of appealing to the supernatural. The “rights of the people” are discussed repeatedly throughout the records. There is all sorts of discussion using examples from ancient and contemporary governments in Europe but nothing that would lead us to believe the delegates relied on anything except their own logical reasoning and common sense in drafting the Constitution. It just doesn’t appear that anyone in the convention ever said we should have X because God or the bible tells us we should have it and the one time the discussion went in that direction, it was summarily shot down.

Work Cited:

Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. 3 Vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911. Print.

[commasense]

@CurtC

Pseudo-historian David Barton goes around talking to credulous evangelical audiences, telling them that the US Constitution was based on the Bible.

From an NPR story about him:

Originally Posted by David Barton
“You look at Article 3, Section 1, the treason clause,” he told James Robison on Trinity Broadcast Network. “Direct quote out of the Bible. You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim. I mean, it drives the secularists nuts because the Bible’s all over it! Now we as Christians don’t tend to recognize that. We think it’s a secular document; we’ve bought into their lies. It’s not.”

In case anyone was wondering, here are qualifications for President from Article 2:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Here is the KJV version of Deut. 17:15:

Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

Mr. Barton has an unusual definition of “verbatim.” Apparently, he thinks it means “shares two words – ‘the’ and ‘shall’ – in common.”

[fiddlesticks]

Pocket constitutions have shot up the Amazon’s sales charts after the Khizr Khan speech at the DNC. However, the top selling edition is one from the National Center for Constitutional Studies, which happens to be a fringe Mormon group who is a favorite of Glenn Beck and the Bundy family.

Ultra-Right Annotated Edition of Pocket Constitution Tops Amazon Charts After...

[John_Bredin]

This group seems to believe the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are divinely-inspired documents.

[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
The “I AM” Activity calls itself Christian, because Jesus is considered to be one of the more important Ascended Masters. It also refers to itself as patriotic because Ascended Master St. Germain is believed to have inspired and guided the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
[/QUOTE]

I know of them only because they have a display in the windows of their building on Washington St. in Chicago and one part of the display discusses the inspired nature of the Constitution.