Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Christmas is in the Constitution

Written by:

Published on: December 23, 2016

All the hysterical bloviating and bleating we hear from the ACLU this time of year about whether school choirs can sing “Silent Night” is just gas, sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

The bigots and bullies of secular fundamentalism will yammer on about the separation of church and state, and the horrors of recognizing Christmas in public settings, as if democracy itself will fall if anybody so much as mentions the name of the Prince of Peace let alone sings a song or two in his honor.

Well, they can save their breath, for Christmas is clearly, flatly, unequivocally and unambiguously constitutional.

In fact, Christmas itself is in the Constitution.

This is not even a matter for debate, for the Framers themselves dated this document, one of the two most important political documents in human history (along with the Declaration of Independence) from the very first Christmas. You could look it up.

In fact, I’ll look it up for you. Here’s how the Framers concluded:

“…done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names…” (Emphasis mine.)

By dating the foundational document of the greatest nation in history to the birth of Jesus Christ, the Founders essentially celebrated Christmas as they signed their names. Since the Declaration was also dated from the first Christmas, you can even say that the two most important political documents in history are in the nature of Christmas cards from the Founders to us.

It’s worth noting how deliberate and how majestic this all is. Jesus is referred to as “Lord.” They were acknowledging Jesus Christ as the true and rightful sovereign of this fledgling nation.

And they did not identify Jesus as “the” Lord, but rather as “our” Lord, each signer acknowledging his own submission to him as master over his own life. And since they were acting on behalf of the whole American people, the Founders in essence were entering into a covenant with Jesus Christ as our rightful lord and liege.

Some will say, “You can’t attach any significance to that. That’s the way they dated everything in those days.” This just makes the case much worse for secularists, because it is an explicit admission that the advent of Jesus Christ was so widely accepted as the dividing line of human history that every document without hesitation or question was dated from the year of his birth.

There was a time when claiming that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the reverse was a controversial, world-view transforming declaration. Now we all accept that routinely. The very lack of controversy is an evidence of how widespread it is now to accept what was once a radical breakthrough and a giant leap forward.

The very ordinariness of dating the document to the birth of Christ, the utter lack of any controversy over including Christ in the Constitution, is the most compelling evidence of all that the Founders saw him as the pivotal figure in all history.

For this reason, we can’t commemorate the Constitution without at the same time commemorating the Nativity. And every time we do something as mundane as sign a check we bear silent witness to the influence of the God-man in history. Civilization is divided into two epochs, the era before his incarnation and the era after. Jesus himself is the center point of human history.

But we must note that this dating may not, in fact, be as routine as our secularist friends want us to think. For the Founders did not just date the Constitution from the birth of Christ but also from the birth of the nation: “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.”

This quite obviously was a dating decision that was deliberate, thoughtful and intentional.

Bottom line: for the Founding Fathers, the two most important dates in all human history were the birth of Jesus Christ and the birth of the United States of America. I’m inclined to agree.

So celebrate Christmas this season content in the knowledge that Christmas is not only perfectly constitutional, it is IN the Constitution itself and will be until the end of time. Merry Christmas, everybody, from me and every signer of the Constitution of the United States.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

Sign-up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

  • Web Watchers

    This makes too much sense.

  • iprazhm

    Love this article! Thank you so much!

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    “…Christians are desperate to make the Constitution a Christian document. For example, consider how much Archie Jones read into the phrase “in the Year of our Lord,” which dated the signatures of the thirty-nine state delegates and the Convention secretary:

    ‘…the plain implications of the reference [“in the year of our Lord”] are the same as those of the similar references in the Articles of Confederation (or anywhere else!): The Bible is true. Christ is the Savior. Christ, risen from the grave, ascended into heaven, and seated at the right hand of God the Father, is also the Lord, the sovereign Ruler of heaven and earth. The people of these United States are under the authority of Christ, whom they collectively acknowledge to be Lord. They have a special, covenantal relationship with Him, and that relationship, premised on His providential intervention in and rule of history, involves His blessings on the nation which has faith in Him and keep His commandments, and curses on the nation which collectively turns from faith in Him and so violates His holy laws. Hence, the nation must look to Him, and it and its civil governments must obey His laws.’3

    ‘Moreover, since Christ’s lordship is recognized in the Constitution, the American nation has a covenantal relationship to him. This covenantal relationship recognizes his lordship, his providential rule over history, his providential relationship to the American civil government and people.'”4

    “If what Jones claims is true, certainly somewhere in the Convention minutes, the copious Federalists Papers, or the constitutional framers’ personal correspondence, one of them would have remarked that this was, in fact, their intent. Nothing Christian can be proven by the use of the term “in the year of our Lord” anymore than the declaration “God bless America,” declared by so many politicians today, proves their Christianity. The only thing we know unequivocally about the use of “in the year of our Lord” is that it was a means of dating. Christians who were opposed to the Constitution during the ratification debates because it failed to mention God and Christianity were not reassured by the phrase “in the year of our Lord,” and, in fact, the opposition knew better than to attempt to persuade them with such flimsy “evidence.”

    “Even if each and every one of the signatories would have agreed with Jones, their rejection and replacement of Yahweh’s laws with their own traditions eradicated any Christian implications. The phrase “in the year of our Lord” does not make the Constitution a Christian document, nor does it exonerate the framers of the sedition and treason against Yahweh found throughout the document. What proves the Constitution is not a Christian but a secular, humanistic contract are its “laws,” not its terminology.

    “The test of lordship is not found in mere words, but instead in doing the will (the law – Psalm 40:8) of the Heavenly Father and fulfilling the words of His Son:

    ‘And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.’ (Luke 6:46-49)5….”

    For more, see online Chapter 10 “Article 7: More of the Same” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 10.

    Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

  • gregory alan johnson

    Massive drivel for folks whose eyes are desperate for “tickling”. Anyone in agreement with this article shows their ignorance about the history of dating docs and where that derives.

  • Grundune

    That’s funny, I don’t know of anyone who wants to make the Constitution a Christian document. What’s more funny, is nobody knows how to make any document, Christian.

    Is this another one of your false flag operations? Any one who follows you, knows that your real agenda is to have the U.S. Constitution abolished so a Christian dictator can be installed.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    Grundune is a Mormon who rejects the Christ of the Bible and the Word of God (Psalm 19:7-11; John 1:1-3, 14; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 John 1:7-11; etc.) and whose “Doctrine and Covenants” demand he defend the Constitution as divinely inspired (D&C 101:80, etc.), much the same as the Book of Mormon. He knows if the Constitution is exposed for the biblically seditious document it is, that the entire Mormon house of cards comes tumbling
    down.

    He also rejects that Christ is our (only) King now, despite a plethora of New Testament passages that proves otherwise. See blog article “The Kingdom is Not of the Word but in the World.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our blog and click on top article.

    Tragically, many Christians are more inclined to follow “Doctrine and Covenants” than they are the Bible when it comes to the Constitution.

  • Grundune

    Warning: Ted R. Weiland is an anti-American activist recruiting for his campaign to abolish the U.S. Constitution.

    He is irritated by anyone who exposes him. He also knows nothing of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. For the truth about Mormons see mormon. org.

  • Bodey047

    In order for one to accept the Book of Mormon as true, and on equal
    footing with the Bible, a great many things have to be overlooked, not
    the least of which is the author of the Book himself (Joseph Smith, NOT
    God). Say (and believe) what you like, the evidence is abundant and
    clear that Smith was a con man. Research it for yourself; the records
    exist, and are reliable, factual, and irrefutable.

  • David Hodges

    The Constitution says the worship of any god is allowed, and is the supreme law of the land. The Bible says, “No other gods.” Grundune can’t see where the two documents, authored by different (G,g)ods, are in conflict.

  • Grundune

    Not quite, Dave. The Constitution does not say the worship of any god is allowed. It says that Congress cannot establish a religion or prevent the exercise thereof. The Constitution is declaring that it has no jurisdiction in the matter of religion. It even stated that it is the supreme law of the land in temporal matters only when it referenced the state courts.

    Since the U.S. Constitution claims no jurisdiction in religious matters, we are free to keep all of God’s commandments. God will judge us for our obedience to His commandments. We cannot blame our disobedience on the U.S. Constitution.

  • Grundune

    In order for one to discover that the Book of Mormon is true, one has to first read it.

  • Bodey047

    And here we go with the broken record. Your logic is just as flawed as the last time you “cut and pasted” this little nugget of fallacy.

  • Grundune

    I haven’t forgotten that you accused me of lying, but you can’t produce one lie. That goes to your credibility. Why should anyone ever believe you again?

  • Grundune

    Can’t defend your points, so you attack the individual. Sounds like Weiland.

  • Bodey047

    When you begin to justify your position and provide evidence that anyone’s opinion, including Weiland’s, is nothing more than a man expressing his opinion as is his right granted by the very Constitution you claim to protect; I will be all too glad to remind you of all your lies over the past several years. Oh, and remind you of the biographical facts of your founding false prophets life.

    Oh, wait I just gave you clear evidence of one of your lies. Nowhere in the law does it state that advocating for the abolition of the Constitution rises to the level of sedition. Yet, you have claimed multiple times that Weiland is guilty of that very thing. Weiland may be misguided, but he is not a traitor.

    You have lied, ergo you are a liar.

  • Grundune

    Working to amend the Constitution is provided for in the document itself and is the proper way to change it, however, seeking to abolish it for whatever reason is treason. Too many Americans have sacrificed their lives defending the Constitution for me to let you get away with that bit of ignorance.

    I think this conversation has been way over your head for some time and I’ve wasted enough time trying to educate you. Continue to be mystified by words like proof, evidence, truth, patriotism, premise, conclusion, et cetera.

    If you ever want to discuss something intelligently, work at becoming intelligent first.

  • Bodey047

    Treason according to whom? You? Please point to the federal statute which states that completely changing our form of government is treason.

    You can’t because it isn’t.

    I would love for you to disappear. I would love for you to stop trolling the internet. It is not the first time you have said you would stop responding. I have a feeling that it won’t be the last. You can’t help yourself. It is as if you have nothing better to do.

Send this to a friend