Former Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who was the commander of American special ops command and is now a vice president of the Family Research Council, gave a talk at the church of con man Rick Joyner last weekend and told them that the Constitution is based entirely on the Bible and that all the founding fathers were Christians.
Boykin declared that “no matter what the revisionist historians try to say,” the Founding Fathers were all Christians who established “a nation that was based on biblical principles,” insisting that “our whole legal system … came from the Bible.”
Holding up a Bible and a copy of the Constitution, Boykin proclaimed that “they go together” because the Constitution was derived directly from the Bible and so it is the responsibility of Christians to preserve religious freedom in the face of mounting oppression.
“There are elements in our society today that want us to do exactly what Hitler told the church in Germany to do,” he said, “and that is to accept freedom of worship instead of what our Founding Fathers gave us … Hitler said, ‘You can worship, but keep it in the church because I’ll crush you if you don’t.’ Keep it in the church, don’t bring it in the public square, and that is exactly what they want us to accept today.”
Isn’t it weird how none of the Founding Fathers bothered to say that the constitution was based on the Bible? The Federalist Papers were written to explain and defend the new Constitution to urge people to ratify and accept it, and the audience was overwhelmingly Christian. If they could have pointed to the Bible as a source for various provisions in the Constitution, it would have been extremely persuasive to voters. It isn’t mentioned a single time. They do mention other sources, mostly Greek, Roman and European philosophers like Locke, Sidney, Montesquieu and others. No mention of the Bible.Nor was it cited elsewhere in defense of the Constitution during the ratification debates. It was, however, cited by anti-Federalists speaking against the adoption of the Constitution. Donald Lutz, in his landmark study of public documents from that time that is so often lied about by people like Boykin and David Barton, noted that in the study, speaking specifically of 1787 and 1788, when the ratification debates were taking place:
“The Bible’s prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of government, but the Federalists’ inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant.”
When people make this argument, I always challenge them to do one simple thing: Point to specific provisions of the Constitution and then show me the analog in the Bible. The one they usually attempt is actually the exact opposite. Barton likes to claim that Isaiah 33:22 is the source of the idea of separation of powers:
But that’s the exact opposite of a separation of powers, it’s the consolidation of powers in one hand — the hand of a hypothetical deity. How any person with an IQ over that of a turnip could view such an argument as anything but laughable is beyond me.