| It is vital to distinguish ends
and means. There may be bad ways to
promote Christianity. It may be that no
government action to promote religion can ever
be good. But government action which promotes
anti-Christian thought and/or action is
completely contrary to the original intent of
America's Founding Fathers. More here. |
|
|
There can be no doubt that the
Founding Fathers endorsed Christianity over atheism. They also
believed that good government would promote
religion, not atheism.
Soon after President George W. Bush took office, he held a
press conference, and the following exchange took place:
| Q Mr. President, why do you refuse to respect the wall between
the church and state? And you know that the mixing of religion and
government for centuries has led to slaughter. I mean, the very
fact that our country has stood in good stead by having the
separation -- why do you break it down?
THE PRESIDENT: Helen, I strongly respect the separation of
church and state --
Q Well, you wouldn't have a religious office in the White House
if you did.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't get to finish my answer, in all due
respect. I believe that so long as there's a secular alternative
available, we ought to allow individuals who are helping to be
able to choose a program that may be run by a faith-based program
-- or will be run by a faith-based program.
I understand full well that some of the most compassionate
missions of help and aid come out of faith-based programs. And I
strongly support the faith-based initiative that we're proposing,
because I don't believe it violates the line between the
separation of church and state, and I believe it's going to make
America a better place.
Q Well, you are a secular official.
THE PRESIDENT: I agree, I am a secular official.
Q And not a missionary. |
The Constitution did not require George Washington to put his hand on
a Bible when he swore his oath of office, nor did it require him to add
the words, "so help me, God." But he did these things anyway,
and every President after him has done the same. In doing so, these
Presidents not only endorse Christianity, they
become "missionaries" in a sense. They are actively promoting
Christianity.
This goes back to the original founding purposes of government in
America. Those who settled on these shores believed that God commanded
men to form governments to ensure social order. The creation of civil
governments was a religious act. It was an
article of faith. The human institution of "Government"
was "under God," with a duty to promote Christianity. Here are
the words of a few Founding Fathers:
John Witherspoon:
- [T]o promote true religion is
the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous
and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the substance
of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to
do. . . . The magistrate (or ruling party of any society) ought to
encourage piety . . . [and] make it an object of public esteem.
-
Witherspoon, Works, (1815)
vol VII, pp. 118-119, "Jurisprudence," Lecture XIV.
- Those who are vested with civil authority ought . . . to promote
religion and good morals
among all under their government.
-
Op. cit., Vol. IV, p.
265, from his "Sermon Delivered at Public Thanksgiving After
Peace."
Oliver Ellsworth:
- [T]he primary objects of government, are peace, order, and
prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects,
particularly in a republican government, good
morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of
good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision
and support and among these . . . religious institutions are
eminently useful and important.
-
Oliver Ellsworth, Chief Justice,
U.S. Supreme Court
The Connecticut Courant (Hartford), June 7, 1802, p. 3,
from
"A Report of the Committee . . . to the General Assembly of
the State of Connecticut" by Oliver Ellsworth.
Notice the similarity of his thoughts with those of the
Northwest Ordinance:
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being
necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and
the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
John Hancock:
- Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the
order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to
you every measure for their support and encouragement.
. . . [N]ot only the freedom but the very existence of the
republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of
religion.
-
Independent Chronicle
(Boston), November 2, 1780, last page.
See also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book
(Boston: Lee & Shepherd, 1898), p. 269.
Abraham Baldwin:
- When the minds of the people in general are viciously disposed
and unprincipled, and their conduct disorderly, a free government
will be attended with greater confusions and evils more horrid
than the wild, uncultivated state of nature. It can only be happy
when the public principle and opinions are properly directed and
their manners regulated. This is an influence beyond the reach of
laws and punishments and can be claimed only by religion
and education. It should therefore be among the first
objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage
and support the principles of religion and
morality.
-
Chas. C. Jones, Biographical
Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental
Congress,
(Boston & NY: Houghton, Miflin and Co., 1891) pp. 6-7
Henry Laurens:
- I had the honor of being one among many who framed that
Constitution. . . . In order effectually to accomplish these great
ends, it is incumbent upon us to begin wisely and to proceed in
the fear of God; and it is especially the duty of those who bear
rule to promote and encourage piety [religion]
and virtue and to discourage every degree of vice and immorality.
-
Laurens, Papers vol. XI, p.
200, in a letter to Oliver Hart and Elharan Winchester on March
30, 1776
Finally, John Jay:
- [It is] the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to
countenance and encourage virtue and religion.
-
Speeches of the . . . Governors
. . . of New York, p. 66 Governor Jay on Nov. 4, 1800
Some Secularists have argued that these references to
"religion" are vague and can accommodate even secularism. This
is nonsense. In the context of the day, these references were to
Christianity. Read
more here.
James Madison is known as the "Father of the Constitution."
In one of his most famous works, he laid down a principle which should
be followed by every Congressman: don't vote for any bill that is
inconsistent with or does not promote the principles of Christianity.
Madison said every legislator should vote against any bill if
the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of
Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought
to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.
Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the
number still remaining under the dominion of false
Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of
the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages
those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into
the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations
who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey
it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to
the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and
unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence,
against the encroachments of error.
Memorial and
Remonstrance, 1785
Here is some background. We forget that America existed 200 years
before the present Constitution. Our current constitution was never
intended to create a secular (atheistic) America. Nor was the
"Articles of Confederation" a few years earlier. The
Constitution of 1787 was simply the latest attempt to fulfill America's
purposes. Here are those purposes:
The Government must propagate the Christian religion.
VIRGINIA
CHARTER, 1606: [Issued by King James I] "To make
Habitation . . . and to deduce a colony of sundry of our People into
that part of America commonly called Virginia . . . in propagating of
Christian religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness . . . [to]
bring . . . a settled and quiet Government."[13]
The only thing more offensive to the ACLU than saying non-Christians
"live in Darkness" is for the government to say it. But
we all need to say this, to encourage one another to move from lies to
the Truth. If we assume a public office, that should not stop us from
making Christian exhortations; it should be the more reason to do so.
The Government must foster true Christian worship
VIRGINIA
CHARTER, 1609: "Because the principal Effect
which we can desire or expect of the Action, is the Conversion . . .
of the people in those Parts unto the true Worship of God and
Christian Religion."[14]
Governments in the New World were created by evangelists - as
instruments for the evangelization of the world.
The Government must act in the Name of God.
MAYFLOWER
COMPACT, 1620: "In the name of God, Amen, We
whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread
sovereign lord King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain,
France, and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, etc., having
undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian
Faith and the honor of our king and country, a Voyage to plant the
first colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; do by the presents,
solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another, covenant
and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our
better ordering and preservation and Furtherance of other Ends
aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute and frame such
just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from
time to time, as shall be thought most [suitable] and convenient for
the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due
submission and obedience."[15]
You
will not find these words or this history in any public
school textbook. "Recently public schools were barred from showing
a film about the settlement of Jamestown, because the film depicted the
erection of a cross at the settlement [despite the fact that] according
to historical facts, a cross was erected at the Jamestown
settlement."[16]
The Government must covenant with Christ.
JOHN WINTHROP, c. 1628: "Wee are a Company professing our
selues fellow members of Christ . . . knitt together by this bond of
loue . . . Wee are entered into Covenant with him for this worke."
"For wee must consider that wee shall be as a Citty vpon a
Hill, the eies of all people are vppon vs; soe that if wee shall deale
falsely with our god in this worke [colonization] wee haue vndertaken
and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from vs, wee shall be
made a story and a by-word through the world."[17]
The Biblical references are Matthew 5:13-16 ("City on a
Hill") and Deuteronomy 28:37 ("made a by-word").
The Government has demolished the City of God and is building the city
of man. Tragically, America is now "the great Satan," a
"by-word through the world."
The goal of Government must be the Christian
faith.
MASSACHUSETTS CHARTER, 1629: "Our said People. . . may be soe
religiously, peaceablie, and civilly governed, as their good Life and
orderlie Conversacon maie wynn and incite the Natives of [that]
Country, to the Knowledge and Obedience of the onlie true god and
Sauior of Mankinde, and the Christian fayth, which in our Royall
Intencon . . . is the principall Ende of this Plantacon."[18]
The purpose of the government was to increase Christian obedience.
Today government encourages disobedience. There is no neutrality.
The Government must extend the Christian religion.
MARYLAND CHARTER, 1632: [Issued by King Charles
to Lord Baltimore] "Our well beloved and right trusty subject
Coecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore . . . being animated with a
laudable, and pious Zeal for extending the Christian Religion . . .
hath humbly besought Leave of Us that he may transport . . . a
numerous Colony of the English Nation, to a certain Region . . .
having no Knowledge of the Divine Being."[19]
Governments were established to spread the Faith.
NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION, 1643: [Composed of
Mass., Conn., New Plymouth, and New Haven] "We all came into
these parts of America, with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance
the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ."[20]
The Government must advance the Gospel.
WILLIAM BRADFORD, 1647: [Referring to original
Pilgrim intents] "[A] great hope & inward zeall they had of
laying some good foundation, or at least to make some way therunto,
for ye propagating & advancing ye gospell of ye kingdom of
Christ in those remote parts of ye world."[21]
There is no job, vocation, or calling in which it is inappropriate to
advance the Gospel. Our faith on Sunday should not be separated from our
life on Monday-Friday.
Soon after settling, the Puritans began building great universities
to educate young men who would propagate the Gospel; universities such
as Harvard. University students were required to do the following:
Universities must propagate the Christian religion.
HARVARD STUDENT PAMPHLET,[22]
c. 1635: "2. Let every Student be plainly instructed, and
earnestly pressed to consider well the maine end of his life and
studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life,
Joh.17.3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only
foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning.
And seeing the Lord only giveth wisedome, Let every one seriously set
himselfe by prayer in secret to seeke it of him. Prov 2,3.
3. Every one shall so exercise himselfe in reading
the Scriptures twice a day, that he shall be ready to give such an
account of his proficiency therein."[23]
The Purpose of Government and
the "Separation of Church and State"
The Founders of this nation did not believe in the ACLU doctrine of
"Separation of Church and State." Both Church and State were
under the obligation to propagate the Christian Faith, using different
methods. The Constitution of 1787 was ratified on the assurance that the
Federal Government would have no power to destroy the long-established
Christian traditions of the various states. It was universally
understood that the governments would be subservient to God, and would
implement God's Law.
I make this bold declaration: If there is some reason why the State
cannot advance the Christian Faith, then it should be abolished
entirely. The Founders of this country believed that it could and
should.
NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNMENT, 1639: "Considering
with ourselves the holy Will of God and our own Necessity that we
should not live without wholesome Lawes and Civil Government among us
of which we are altogether destitute; do in the name of Christ and in
the Sight of God combine ourselves together to erect and set up among
us such Government as shall be to our best discerning agreeable to the
Will of God."[24]
The Bible (including the Old Testament) Must be the Standard for
Civil Government
The example of New England is striking. The Statute
Books of the Government were annotated with Biblical references to show
that the laws of the State conformed to the Laws of God:[25]
NEW HAVEN COLONY LAW, 1644: "The judicial
laws of God as they were delivered by Moses . . . [are to] be a rule
to all the courts in this jurisdiction."[26]
Those who established governments in the New World were
NORTH CAROLINA CHARTER, 1662 (QUAKER):
"Excited with a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of
the Christian faith . . . in the parts of America not yet cultivated
or planted, and only inhabited by . . . people, who have no knowledge
of Almighty God."[27]
RHODE ISLAND CHARTER, 1663: [Granted by King Charles II]
"That they pursuing with peace and loyal mindes, their sober,
serious and religious intentions . . . in the holy Christian faith . .
. a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be maintained
grounded upon gospel principles."[28]
The Biblical vision for society is not understood in
our day because people in our day are utterly unfamiliar with this
passionate desire to establish all human action - including civil
governments - on "gospel principles." Today there is a notion
- as pervasive as it is heretical - that the "gospel" has
nothing to do with Godly, law-abiding behavior.[29]
NEW JERSEY SEAL, 1665: "Righteousness exalteth a nation."
- Prov. 14:34
PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNMENT, 1682: " . . . Make
and establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian and
civil liberty, in all opposition to all unchristian . . .
practices."[30]
PENNSYLVANIA'S FIRST LEGISLATIVE ACT, 1682:
"Whereas the glory of Almighty God and the good of Mankind, is
the reason and end of government, and therefore, government in itself
is a venerable Ordinance of God, therefore, it is the purpose of civil
government to establish such laws as shall best preserve true
Christian and Civil Liberty, in opposition to all Unchristian,
Licentious, and unjust practices, (Whereby God may have his due, and
Caesar his due, and the people their due), from tyranny and oppression
. . . ."[31]
The power of the civil government is awesome. That power will either
be used to cultivate the Christian religion, or it will be used to
destroy it and harvest the fruits of violence, theft, and misery. Then,
the former; today, the latter.
WILLIAM PENN, 1682: [Civil government]
"'seems to me to be a part of religion itself . . . a thing
sacred in its institutions and ends.'"[32]
The Founders publicly declared that they were concerned with
establishing the Christian religion, because only thereby could a
republic be established. Even those who are said to be
"deists" or "atheists" were non-Christian only in
private. Their public acts (which legally define the character of
their legislation) were Christian.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: [while emissary to France]
"Bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a
comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that
serious religion, under its various denominations, is
not only tolerated, but respected and practised. Atheism is
unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to
a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by
meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel."[33]
The Founders of this nation attempted to carve out a Gospel Garden
out of a pagan wilderness. Two hundred years of flourishing charity,
education, agriculture, science, and Calvinistic gospel preaching would
rise up and totally denounce the view that Civil Government is supposed
to be neutral or secular.
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1776: [May 16, anticipating
full-scale war with Britain] "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."[34]
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1777: [Calling for a day of thanksgiving
and prayer for the victory at Saratoga] "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.'"[35]
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1780: [Concerning the
discovery of Benedict Arnold as a traitor] "It is therefore
recommended to the several states . . . a day of public thanksgiving
and prayer . . . to offer our fervent supplications to the God of
grace . . . to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread over all
the earth."[36]
JOHN HANCOCK, 1783: [Massachusetts governor,
proclaiming a day of thanksgiving for the war's end] "I do by and
with the Advice of the Council appoint [11 Dec. 1783] to be
religiously observed as a Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer, that all the
People may then assemble to celebrate . . . that he hath been pleased
to continue to us the Light of the blessed Gospel; . . . That we also
offer up fervent Supplications . . . to cause pure Religion and Virtue
to flourish . . . and to fill the World with his glory."[37]
GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1783: [End of the war, to all
state governors] "I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would
have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection
. . . that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do
justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity,
humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics
of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble
imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a
happy nation."[38]
U.S. SUPREME COURT, [48] 1892:
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and
embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that
it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our
civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian."[39]
U.S. SUPREME COURT, 1890: "The term 'religion' has reference
to one's view of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations
they impose for reverence for his being and character, and of
obedience to his will. It is often confused with the cultus or form of
worship of a particular sect, but it is distinguishable from the
latter . . . . It was never intended or supposed that the [first]
amendment could be invoked as a protection against the legislation for
the punishment of acts inimicable to the peace, good order and morals
of society . . . . However free the exercise of
religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the
country passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent
as properly the subjects of punitive legislation . . . . Probably
never in the history of this country has it been seriously contended
that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized
by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as
proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order
that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried
out without hindrance."[40]
But if we don't have the "Separation of Church and State,"
won't we lose our liberties?
No nation has the liberty to repudiate God's Law. Can we be free if
Christianity is separated from public life, and criminals, perverts, and
dictators, free from Christian absolutes, keep us locked in our tiny
homes? Those who don't like life in a Christian nation are invited to
try Islamic Iraq or Atheistic Communist countries.
ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, FRENCH HISTORIAN: "The Americans
combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in
their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one
without the other . . . In the United States, if a
political character attacks a sect [denomination], this may not
prevent even the partisans of that very sect, from supporting him; but
if he attacks all the sects together [Christianity], every one
abandons him and he remains alone."[41]
NOAH WEBSTER, 1828: "In my view, the 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 to my mind than that the Christian religion must
be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and
privileges of a free people."[42]
JOHN ADAMS, August 28, 1811: "Religion and
virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all
free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in
all the combinations of human society."[43]
JOHN WITHERSPOON: " . . . he is the best friend to American
liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and
undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the
greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.
Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not [would not hesitate]
to call him an enemy to his country."[44]
MARYLAND SUPREME COURT, 1799: "Religion is of general and
public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace
and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By
our form of government, the Christian religion is the established
religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed
upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in
their religious liberty.[45]
JAMES MADISON: "We have staked the whole future of the
American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We
have staked the future . . . upon the capacity of each and all of us
to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves,
according to the Ten Commandments of God."[46]
The Puritans who founded this land defended Christian Theocracy and
established Theocratic (God-honoring) systems of civil government. The
idea that civil governments should allow God to rule (Theo-cracy) human
society was ubiquitous. If Gary North is right and a Secular Humanist
conspiracy attempted to overthrow this Christian consensus through
Article VI of the Constitution, the First Amendment of the Constitution
attempted to keep that from happening.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOSEPH STORY on the First Amendment: "We
are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious
establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and
especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence,
than the framers of the Constitution) . . . Probably at the time of
the adoption of the Constitution, and of the first amendment to it . .
. . the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that
Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as
was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the
freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and
to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference,
would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal
indignation . . . The real object of the amendment
was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or
Judaism, or infidelity [secularism], by prostrating
Christianity; but exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to
prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to
a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."[47]
All of these voices are summed up in the Opinion of the U.S. Supreme
Court in the case of Holy
Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892) There is no other legitimate purpose
for any human action than the advancement of the Kingdom of God.
Patriotism (advancing the interests of a political coalition) is wrong;
Humanism (advancing your own personal interests) is wrong; Satanism
(advancing demonic interests) is wrong. Since all action runs to some
purpose, if the purpose is not the building of God's Kingdom, then it is
to build a rival Kingdom. There is no neutrality. The State cannot be
impartial and non-religious.
If America's Founders were correct in believing that government
should not promote secularism, and should not avoid favoring
Christianity over atheism (or any other non-Christian religion), it can
still be debated how the State should go about doing this.
Kevin Craig believes taxation is immoral.
It is the initiation of force against someone to confiscate their wealth
because you were unable to persuade that person to donate the money
voluntarily, or trade for something of greater value to the contributor.
It is therefore self-contradictory to try to promote religion (the end)
using means which are contrary to that end. Encouraging or
engaging in theft undercuts true religion. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is
unChristian.
America's Founding Fathers were sensitive to this, although they
hadn't formulated their moral instincts in a consistent political theory
or implemented them in a consistent political program. They frequently
opposed the use of taxation to promote religion, and this opposition has
been exploited by modern day atheists and supporters of the
myth of "separation of church and state" to suggest that
the Founding Fathers were against religion and favored
secularism. They did not. They opposed "taxation without
representation." Taxing Baptists to support Presbyterians is
non-representative.
If we think and act consistent with the moral instincts of America's
Founding Fathers, we will rely less and less on the machinery of
government to promote religion -- indeed to promote anything at all.
NOTES
13. Historical Collections: Consisting of State
Papers and other Authentic Documents: Intended as Materials for an
History of the United States of America, Ebenezer Hazard, ed.
Philadelphia: T.Dobson, 1792, Vol. 1, p. 50-51; cited in Barton, p. 84.
[Return to text]
14. Historical Collections: Consisting of State
Papers and other Authentic Documents: Intended as Materials for an
History of the United States of America, Ebenezer Hazard, ed.
Philadelphia: T.Dobson, 1792, Vol. 1, pp. 50-51; cited in Barton, p. 85.
[Return to text]
15. God and Government, Gary Demar, Vol. 1;
see also Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457, 466
(1892); cited in Barton, p. 85. [Return to text]
16. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the
Constitution, p. 406. [Return to text]
17. Democracy, Liberty, and Property: Readings
in the American Political Tradition p. 20 (F. Coker, ed.,
1942)(cited in Barton, Myth of Separation, pp. 85-86). [Return
to text]
18. Cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Church
of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457, 466 (1892), see also
Norman L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure: An Evaluation of Contemporary
Humanism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983) p. 119; cited in
Barton, p. 85. [Return to text]
19. Henry S. Commager, ed., Documents of
American History, (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1948), p. 21; cited
in Barton, p. 86. [Return to text]
20. Documentary Source Book of American History,
1606-1889, Wm McDonald, ed. NY: Macmillian, 1909, p. 32; cited in
Barton, p. 88. [Return to text]
21. Wm Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation,
Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1856, p. 24; cited in Barton, p. 86.
[Return to text]
22. Rules for the Students, established by the
University Administration. [Return to text]
23. Peter Mode, Sourcebook and Bibliographical
Guide for American Church History, Menasha, WI: George Banta Pub.
Co., 1921, p. 74-75; cited in Barton, p. 91. In 1796, according to David
Barton, any Harvard student who doubted the inspiration of Scripture was
to be expelled. [Return to text]
24. Cited in David Barton, The Myth of
Separation, p. 88. [Return to text]
25. John Cotton, "An Abstract of the Laws of
New England, as they are Now Established, Printed in London in 1641,
Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society (1798); reprint
of 1835 in 2 The" Journal of Christian Reconstruction 117
(No. 2; Winter, 1975-76, "Symposium on Biblical Law"). [Return
to text]
26. Russ Walton, Biblical Principles of
Importance to Godly Christians, NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1984,
p. 356; Barton, p. 88. [Return to text]
27. North Carolina History, Hugh Talmage
Lefler, ed., Chapel Hill: Univ. of NC Press, 1934, 1956, p. 16; cited in
Barton, p. 86. [Return to text]
28. David Barton, The Myth of Separation, p.
87. [Return to text]
29. The best antidote to this poisonous notion is
Greg Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 2nd ed., 1984. This book is
must-reading for Christians who want to stem the tide of
government-sponsored paganism and immorality. [Return
to text]
30. Peter Mode, Sourcebook and Bibliographical
Guide for American Church History, Menasha, WI: George Banta Pub.
Co., 1921, p. 163; cited in Barton, p. 89. [Return
to text]
31. Charter to William Penn, and Duke of Yorke's
Book of Laws (Harrisburg, PA: 1879). The Preamble and Chapter I of
the Great Law can be found in, Remember William Penn: 1644-1944;
(Harrisburg, PA: The William Penn Tercentenary Committee, 1944), pp.
85-86; cited in America's Christian History: The Untold Story, by
Gary DeMar (Atlanta, GA. American Vision 1995), p. 77. [Return
to text]
32. (B.F. Morris, The Christian Life and
Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States
(Philadelphia, PA: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 83; cited from America's
Christian History: The Untold Story, by Gary DeMar (Atlanta, GA:
American Vision 1995), p. 77. [Return to text]
33. Benjamin Franklin, Works of the Late Doctor
Benjamin Franklin Consisting of His Life, Written by Himself, Together
with Essays, Humorous, Moral & Literary, Chiefly in the Manner of
the Spectator, Richard Price, Ed., Dublin: P. Wogan, P. Byrne, J.
Moore, and W. Jones, 1793, p. 289; cited in Barton, p. 100. The evidence
seems to indicate that Franklin was an adulterous hypocrite. But a
hypocrite is better than an open atheist. In his pride, Franklin felt
that he was intelligent enough to doubt the truth of Christianity in
private while pragmatic enough to follow its morality in public in order
to safeguard the stability of the Republic. Lesser minds would be
corrupted by atheism, he believed. See generally Cecil B. Currey,
"The Franklin Legend," Journal of Christian Reconstruction
- Symposium on Christianity and the American Revolution,
III:1:120-151 (Summer, 1976). Compare the remarks of J. Stevens, below,
note 85.
[Return to text]
34. Journals of the Continental Congress at
Vol 2, 1775, p. 192; cited in Barton, p. 103. [Return
to text]
35. Journals of the Continental Congress at
Vol 18, p. 950; cited in Barton, p. 105. [Return to
text]
36. Journals of the Continental Congress at
Vol.18, pp. 950-951; cited in Barton, p. 106. [Return
to text]
37. Proclamation of John Hancock from Boston,
November 8, 1783, from an original in the Evans collection, #18025, by
the American Antiquarian Soc., cited in Barton, p. 107. [Return
to text]
38. George Washington, The Writings of
Washington, Jared Sparks, ed. Boston: American Stationers' Co.,
1838, Vol 18, p. 452, cited in Barton, p. 99. [Return
to text]
39. [see note 48] Church
of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892); cited by
Barton, America's Godly Heritage, pp. 10-11. [Return
to text]
40. Davis v. Beason, 133
U.S. 333, 341-42 (1890); as quoted in John W. Whitehead, The
Second American Revolution, David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1982, pg.
221-3. [Return to text]
41. The Republic of the United States of America
and Its Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, Henry Reeves,
trans., pp. 334-335, Garden City, NY: AS Barnes & Co., 1851, Vol. I,
p.335; cited in Barton, p. 32. [Return to text]
42. American Dictionary of the English Language,
1828. [Return to text]
43. Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of
John Adams-Second President of the United States (Boston: Little,
Brown, & Co., 1854), Vol. IX, p. 636. David Barton, The Myth of
Separation (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 1991), p. 123; America's
God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations by William J. Federer
(Coppell, TX: FAME Publishing Co. 1994), p. 12. [Return
to text]
44. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Rev. John
Witherspoon (Philadelphia: Wm Woodard, 1802) Vol 3, p. 46; cited in
Barton, p. 118. Witherspoon was undoubtedly one of the most influential
educators of his day. His students at Princeton University included one
President, one Vice President, three Supreme Court Justices, 10 Cabinet
members, 12 Governors, 60 Congressmen (21 Senators; 39 Representatives)
plus scores of state officials and members of the Constitutional
Convention. See Barton, pp. 92-93. [Return
to text]
45. Runkel v. Winemiller, 4 Harris and
McHenry 276, 288 (Sup. Ct. Md. 1799); cited in Barton, p. 64. [Return
to text]
46. cited in The Myth of Separation, David
Barton, p. 155, Wallbuilders: Aledo, TX 76005. (Although widely quoted
in the last 100 years, Barton doubts the authenticity of this quotation.
Click here
for discussion.) [Return to text]
47. Commentaries on the Constitution of the
United States, 2:593-95; cited in The Second American Revolution,
pg. 96, John W. Whitehead, 1982, David C. Cook Publishing Co. Also cited
in The Myth of Separation, David Barton, p.32, Wallbuilders:
Aledo, TX 76005 (references overlap). [Return to
text]
48. Misattributed to U.S. Supreme Court in Myth
of Separation, corrected a couple of years later in Original
Intent. Actual source:
Richmond v. Moore, Illinois Supreme
Court, 1883
Barton's explanation: This quotation appeared in
many modern works, each attributing the wording to the U. S. Supreme
Court's 1892 decision in the Holy Trinity case. After researching
and being unable to locate this quote in that case, we concluded that it
was probably was a cut-and-paste typographical error, for several of the
phrases do appear in that case,10
but not in the exact wording given above; we therefore at that time
recommended that this quote not be used. Now, however, after more than a
decade of searching, we have located and confirmed the original source
for this quote: it appears not in an 1892 U. S. Supreme Court case 11
but rather in an 1883 Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Richmond v.
Moore. 12 While we previously
recommended against using this quote, it is now authenticated and can be
cited, providing that it is attributed to the proper source.
10. For example, "These, and
many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial
declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian
nation." Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States; 143 U.
S. 457, 471 (1892). (return to text)
11. Justice David J. Brewer, author
of the 1892 Holy Trinity opinion, also wrote a book in 1905
called The United States: A Christian Nation. Brewer opened
his work with these words: "We classify nations in various ways.
As, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another
an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is
an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallic, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a
Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others
are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is
classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally
declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. But in what sense
can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity
is the established religion or that the people are in any manner
compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically
provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof." Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its
citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all
religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people
profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the
sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office
or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition
either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal
organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we
constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation-in fact, as the
leading Christian nation of the world." David J. Brewer, The
United States A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston
Company, 1905), pp. 11-12. (return to text)
12. Richmond v. Moore, 107
Ill. 429, 1883 WL 10319 (Ill.), 47 Am.Rep. 445 (Ill. 1883). [Return
to text]