The Articles of Confederation, the original constitution of the USA, refer to Jesus Christ as “our Lord”, testifies of the sovereignty of God, and assumed the states sending delegates to Congress would generally apply Christian religious test oaths of the delegates sent. It also left most power to the states, which generally applied Christian religious test oaths of their officers. In contrast, the illegally usurping Federal Constitution forbade Christian religious test oaths at the Federal Government level (which in practical terms really had the ultimate political, economic and military power under the Federal model), ultimately did at all levels of government with the 14th Amendment, and there is no recognition of Jesus Christ as Lord or God’s sovereignty in it.* This is why I assert the Articles of Confederation is a Christian constitution and the Federal Constitution is a secular humanist constitution. The former created a nation after the model of Old Testament Israel when it was a republic, and the latter created a nation after a humanistic model. There is a huge religious divide between these two constitutions. And it is not just an accident of history that the USA is a modern Babel; it is a predictable result of adopting the Federal Constitution.
Sadly, most American Christians have failed to realize what James Madison, the father of the Federal Constitution, knew very well. “The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” (Luke 16:8) I am not asserting James Madison realized a nation based in humanism would end up where the USA is today (because he rejected the Biblical doctrine of fallen man’s total depravity, he thought man could do better than where the USA has morally plunged), but I am asserting he knew he was trying to establish a nation based on secular humanism rather than the Biblical Christianity he had rejected.
Although James Madison was quiet regarding his religious faith and its relation to the national constitution, yet there is evidence to draw various concerning conclusions. Consider what historian James Hutson writes in his article on James Madison:
“Consider in this respect three statements made by Madison in 1787. In a memorandum, called “Vices of the Political System,” which Madison composed in the spring of 1787 to guide his thinking about the forthcoming federal constitutional convention, he speculated about ways to prevent the injustices that seemed to disfigure republican governments. Could religion, Madison asked himself, “be a sufficient restraint? It is not pretended to be such on men individually considered. Will its effects be greater on them considered in an aggregate view? quite the reverse.” Madison repeated these views in a speech in the Federal Convention on June 6, 1787, adding that not only was “little to be expected” from religion in a positive way but that it might become “a motive to persecution and oppression.” He aired them for a third time in Federalist 10, published November 22, 1787. In that famous essay Madison inquired how “the public good, and private rights,” might be secured against tyrannical majorities. “We well know,” he answered, “that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals and lose their efficiency in proportion to the number combined together.” These are extraordinary statements, betraying a pessimism about the social value of religion so extreme that they separate Madison from all other Founders, Jefferson included.”
Historian Gordon Dakota Arnold has written an insightful article entitled “James Madison’s Radical Aversion to Christian Politics in America”. Here are some excerpts:
“Because he believed that religion is essentially a passion that causes rather than discourages faction, Madison also contended that it needed to be pacified for liberty to be preserved. The primary method of solving the political problem of Christianity was to encourage religious diversity and foster disunity. As Madison’s friend, neighbor, and first biographer William Cabell Rives reported, the President was fond of quoting Voltaire’s maxim that “if one religion only were allowed in England, the government would possibly be arbitrary; if there were but two, the people would cut each other’s throats; but, as there are such a multitude, they all live happy and in peace.”30 And Madison himself left no doubt that these were exactly his sentiments. He spoke in Federalist no. 51 of how the “multiplicity of sects” was the only security for the preservation of “religious rights.”31 In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Madison celebrated the fact that the “mutual hatred” of Virginia’s Christian denominations “has been much inflamed.”32 He added: “I am far from being sorry for it, as a coalition between them could alone endanger our religious rights.”33 Where the Apostle Paul spoke of the need for harmony, unity, and love within the body of Christ, Madison preferred that the church be characterized by disarray, discord, and faction. Only then would Christianity fail to mobilize itself as a political force, and only then would the natural rights of individuals be safe from a majority faction…
It is therefore unsurprising that in his 1783 “Memorial and Remonstrance,” Madison anticipates a society defined by mass immigration and the steady erosion of America’s Christian hegemony. America must become an “Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion.”35 By privileging Christianity over and against other religions, Patrick Henry’s proposal to designate public funds to support Christian education will deter individuals from other faith traditions from emigrating to the country. No one religious group, Christian or otherwise, can be allowed to dominate the public discourse of American politics, and to that end, legislators have a duty to break down the grip that Christians have over the culture by encouraging the emigration of peoples from diverse religious backgrounds.”
This is the unmistakable design of the Federal Constitution he fathered: a secular humanist empire of people groups according to the model of Babel. James Madison, who has correctly been described as an anti-Christian nationalist, was not a two-bit player in the Federal Constitution. No, he has aptly been titled the “father of the constitution”. He purposefully designed a constitution to impede Christian establishment, because he distrusted Biblical Christianity, especially its influence in the political realm. And so we read this in the Britannica article on the biography of James Madison:
“Reentering the [Virginia](https://www.britannica.com/place/Virginia-state) legislature in 1784, Madison defeated [Patrick Henry](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Patrick-Henry)’s bill to give financial support to “teachers of the Christian religion.” To avoid the political effect of his extreme [nationalism](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism), he persuaded the states-rights advocate [John Tyler](https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Tyler) to sponsor the calling of the [Annapolis Convention](https://www.britannica.com/event/Annapolis-Convention) of 1786, which, aided by [Madison’s](https://www.britannica.com/place/Madison-Wisconsin) influence, produced the [Constitutional Convention](https://www.britannica.com/event/Constitutional-Convention) of 1787. There his [Virginia, or large-state, Plan](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Virginia-plan), put forward through Governor [Edmund Randolph](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edmund-Jennings-Randolph), furnished the basic framework and guiding principles of the [Constitution](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Constitution-of-the-United-States-of-America), earning him the title of father of the [Constitution](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Constitution-ship).”
There were even Christians at the time who saw through the wickedness of what transpired with the Federal Constitution, as noted in a quote from this article:
“The Constitution’s lack of biblical and Christian language, rationales and purposes was quite evident to “Christian Americanists” of the Founder’s era. The Constitution and the Constitutional Convention were criticized for this lack. Timothy Dwight, orthodox Christian president of Yale University, wrote: “The Nation has offended Providence. We formed our Constitutional without any acknowledgement of God; without any recognition of His mercies to us as a people, of His government, or even of His existence. The Convention, by with it was formed, never asked, even once, His direction, or His blessings, upon their labors. Thus we commenced our national existence under the present system, without God.”
I fail to see any way we Americans can truly repent of our national sin that has led to establishment of this modern Babel without coming to terms that our Federal Constitution was wrong and that we need to return to our original Christian national covenant, the Articles of Confederation.
*The phrase “year of our Lord” was not in the Federal Constitution agreed upon in convention or ratified by most of the states, as documented here.